Just a couple of thoughts, not sure how relevant but I am stuck in bed with a bad back, so I will put them down anyway:
In The Tyranny of Structurelessness, is explored this phenomenon of a sort of delusion of structurelessness, because informal structures will naturally form along friendship lines. It’s unintended but inevitable.
I think that's true, but also that we should be clear that it is not just "lines of friendship" which seems unintentional and only accidentally harmful. This kind of formlessness also allows for informal hierarchies to emerge along the lines of power, and sometimes even bare, aggressive power. With groups of women that's not typically violence, but the idea among some feminists that women don't have a will to power is completely naive. They assert it in different ways, but it can be deeply destructive and sociopathic, at its worst. Where there are no controlled hierarchies any individual who is able to assert power through means not embedded in the supposed even playing field has almost complete freedom to use those means. That could be things like social capital (which may look quite different than we expect in an group that believes itself to be egalitarian), money, education, but very often it can be intelligence, personality, and other intangibles.
Non-hierarchical can be very close to anarchic, which just comes down to the strongest holding power.
The other thing I'd comment on is the idea of patriarchal, imposed beauty standards. I think there are a lot of issues with how female beauty operates in our culture - it's highly sexualized and energy-intensive. In ways that aren't good for women, but neither are they really good for society as a whole.
But the idea that it is some kind of social imposition that women want to look attractive to men, is, I think, complete bollocks. Women want to look attractive to men because of the biological imperative, the same reason men want to be attractive to women. We are primed to want to screw, and that involved sexual attraction which runs along slightly different lines for men and women. There is no scenario where that will go away for men and women as a whole, and there is no scenario where that urge won't be culturally mediated, because we are cultural animals. And because we are sexed, and sex is about difference, we will not see a scenario where the cultural markers for attractiveness for women and men will be identical.
If feminism thought it could just remove that kind of desire from women, or exclude any women who is moved by that, it would always be very limited, and would always be felt by many women as somewhat oppressive, which would make them either a little mad, or to feel guilty.
I do get the sense that this is something JB just doesn't get, because she really believes at some level that women should just not be interested in men. I don't know that I believe she is really a political lesbian, in the sense that she ever would have been interested in being attractive to men at a biological, I want to screw, kind of level, or even, I want to be in love, kind of way. But it's not wrong, or anti-woman, that women are often, usually, wanting male sexual partners. It's not some kind of social construct.