She came across to me as something of a privileged dilettante, though the main points that stick with me are her support for the French law to ban the burqa and her opposition to anything that puts "motherhood" ahead of a woman's right to self-accualization.
Right, but I felt like the article kind of jumped around rather than making a cohesive point or flowing in some logical direction. She opposes anything that puts "nature" ahead of women's advancement! Oh, and she's privileged and has had a cushy life! Oh, and she wants to ban the burqa! Oh, and here's what some American feminist has to say about her! Oh, and she doesn't really like to socialize, but does occasionally! Oh, and here's how her husband liked writing with her! Oh, and here's what she has studied about the 18th century! Oh, and this is her favorite philosopher!
I would have chosen one thing to focus on -- my choice would be the first, the nature vs. women's advancement, which I personally find fascinating -- and delved into that. Most of the other stuff would be mentioned only in passing or omitted altogether.