>er previous opaque style was grounded neither through inability to
>write clearly nor the demands of the subject (which might be the
>explanation in, say, the works of Hegel or Whitehead) but deliberately
>chosen to conceal the lack of content.
No, there's plenty of content in her classics - sexuality as performance, the bogosity of many biological notions of sex, the importance of subjection in the creation of the subject, etc. You may not like it, but there's lots of there there.
Doug