Or an excuse to ascribe political motivations to a bunch of people who were, you know, indulging in the great tradition of MST3K-ing a work of literature which they found particularly rancid. (I've seen the same thing done to John Norman books (which I have read, and so do have an opinion of): when people talk about the politics therein, they become serious, even angry. When they read aloud from them at Bad Prose Parties, they get the giggles.)
As an eyewitness, I find the interpretation of the behavior of a bunch of (WISCONSIN!) con attendees as anti-feminist strained, at best. As a feminist, I think applying a feminist framework to situations where the author's gender is irrelevant to the discussion tends to make feminism look silly (and not in a hah hah feminists are so much fun we should invite them over more often sort of way), and I hate that.
(Not that feminism is irrelevant to a discussion of the Book, mind you, but it's irrelevant to a discussion of the kerfuffle.