Doug puts a lot of store by a conversation some years ago, but I'm guessing hasn't read either 'The Morning After' (my notes from 1994 read 'brilliantly written'), or 'Last night in paradise'. So Roiphe didn't know that Gloria Steinem had dealings with the CIA. (Lots of Frankfurt school fans don't know that the Marcuse was a member of the OSS, or that the CIA fiananced the relocation of the school in west Germany.) So what. So she called herself an 'anti-feminist' - it's hardly an unknown rhetorical trope: 'I am not a Marxist' (Marx), 'The revolution in the revolution' (Dialectic of Revolution conference 1967), 'Against the current' Al Richardson. Everybody has a bad night now and then - you should read Roiphe, she really is very good.
More to the point, her books are about sexual harrassment (the issue under discussion) and adopt the standpoint of defending women's independence. Eminently qualified to comment you might say - more so even than Doug H, Paul C, John L and James H, perhaps?
What about Camille Paglia? John Lacny doesn't like her books. I did flick through Sexual Personae some years back, and certainly its a work of literary criticism rather than social science, and one that makes some big imaginative leaps. But its certainly spirited and witty. Criticism would be poorer without it.
But Paglia has been in academia for some time, and is a former student of Harold Bloom's so her qualification to comment seems reasonable enough.
But of course the only reason that anyone is pouring scorn on credentials is because of the arguments being put. What offends everyone about Camille Paglia and Katie Roiphe is that they are both women who object to the caricature of predatory men and delicate women. Plainly premissing a movement on gender is no guarantee of agreement about what the problems are.