I think, for me, the thing that matters hinge on is how simplistic or nuanced the tale is supposed to be.
I think I said previously that I struggle to be at all reasonable about it - I care too much. I very instinctively want to defend Clare, even though in many respects she's hard to defend. But I think she is more than caricature, and therefore the more damning critiques I've read of ROW don't completely compel me any more (as they did before I'd actually read it). I certainly don't think she's the baddie when Elspeth is crowing to her at the end (I forget the line, although it sort of sticks with me as the pinnacle of the ending - it's something like "you'll die alone in the end"). In fact, in that particular instance, Elspeth is very clearly the baddie: which raises the question - is she in fact the malevolent, meddling fool all along? Probably in fairness she, too, is more nuanced than that - certainly she appears to be motivated by Alwynne's interests, as she perceives them at any rate. Whereas Clare is certainly not at all concerned with Alwynne's interests. I am not much concerned with Alwynne, full stop, although I would wish for her a happier ending than I feel she's likely to get with drippy old drippy git. That is a romance straight out of the CS, as far as I recall - I am still re-reading, but from memory I think it's another of those curious ones where we don't actually hear anything from the woman's perspective about why this man might be attractive, much like Len and Reg, Hilary and Dr Graves, which always jars for me.
Separate from all that is the hobby-horse of co-education as better and healthier than single sex schooling. And perhaps that's the bit that mattered to Dane, and the story about Louise/Clare/Alwynne/Elspeth&Roger is only a little something contrived to illustrate the negative effects of the closed single-sex environment and the lengths one must go to to escape from it, and how important it is that we repeal this state of affairs at once before all our daughters become Louises (or, worse, Clares). But that also reeks of misogyny I think - even in its historical context - and from what I've read about Dane, I don't think that quite fits. You can be strongly in favour of co-ed as psychologically healthier, and strongly opposed to single-sex education on the same grounds, without the ghoulish vision of women inevitably destroying each other.
... Of course you could decide that authorial intent is irrelevant and you're going to claim a subverted reading regardless. Which is fine. But - given the historical context etc - I can't help feeling very exercised about the intent.
... I never was any good at delicately warming up the subject before jumping right in at the deep end. 