Here is what seems relevant to the purpose of Genderberg: near the end, Firestone writes:
I would like to conclude from all this, that contrary to what most historians would have us believe, women’s rights were never won. The Women’s Rights Movement did not fold because it accomplished its objectives, but because it was essentially defeated and mischannelled. SEEMING freedoms appear to have been won.
The first of those seeming freedoms is the sexual one:
Though its true that women wear shorter skirts than they used to, I would suggest that this happened not so much in their interest as because MEN preferred it that way. After all, girls are still sent home from high school in winter for wearing pants to keep their legs warm. Miniskirts are impractical, requiring constant attention to ones sitting posture, constant emphasis on ones sexual nature. High heels, girdles, garter belts, nylons and all the other trappings of the chic modern woman may appear more natural, but in fact are almost as uncomfortable as the corsets and bustles were. For though women may strive for a ‘natural’ look, they do indeed strive. Girls today are as concerned about ‘image’ as ever. And they are still sexual objects. Only the styles have changed.
As for sex itself, I would argue that any changes were as a result of male interests and not female. Any benefits for women were accidental. A relaxing of the mores concerning female sexual behavior was to HIS advantage; there was a greater sexual supply at a lower or nonexistent cost. But his attitudes haven’t changed much since the good old Professional Whore days.
This was published in 1968, but I really think it still stands true thirty-eight years later. Is this a pity? Sure. Depressing for people who wanted and still want this to change? Of course. But it means younger generations have many things to fight for and to battle against. Firestone's observation was a first step, aknowledging how little has been done, how much there is left to do for the future. It goes on, 'cause it has to.