The author repeatedly writes attacks against feminists, but dresses them up as other topics of interest. This article is framed as a defense of Aziz Ansari from

The author repeatedly writes attacks against feminists, but dresses them up as other topics of interest. This article is framed as a defense of Aziz Ansari from the perspective of an aging female baby-boomer detatched from the younger generation. But its core is a laudation of the sexist environment responsible for creating strong women familiar with saying "No" to sexual pressure, and a jumble of insults vilifying various feminists. As another example, she did the same thing in 2004 with a piece ostensibly about nannies. Ms. Magazine has a thorough criticism of the piece and of the author, "A little reporting would have gone a long way to help Flanagan’s argument that nannies are suffering at the hands of feminists. But there wasn’t much there. ... Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in an email discussion with Flanagan and the writer Sara Mosle in Slate magazine, 'if [Flanagan’s] piece was about how employers should pay their nannies' Social Security taxes, then my reading skills are in serious decline.'" http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp Two months ago Flannigan wrote, "In the America of earlier generations, one thing that silenced women who wanted to report unwanted sexual acts was how important it was not to damage a man’s career, his reputation, his family. Was one unpleasant event really enough to cause so much trouble to a respected member of the community, to a breadwinner?" but that was in order to take a jab at feminist Al Franken. Today she presents the other side, "Aziz Ansari was a man whom many people admired and whose work, although very well paid, also performed a social good. ... a man who didn’t deserve it." That kind of selective logic is confusing until it's understood that the only consistency in her writing are the attacks against feminism.