I think that Erin Pizzey's argument back then, whatever she may believe or do today, is one example of a valid criticism of how radical feminism approaches domestic violence. And if you look closely at the mess we're in today, it's inescapable that radical feminism has contributed to getting us here.
It was in many ways a blunt instrument, many of its ideas unsuited to being implemented, but vital in highlighting serious issues women were facing. It was black and white in its approach to a number of issues, including domestic violence, while Erin Pizzey was looking at the many shades of grey inbetween.
Right now, I think we cannot afford to go all radfem, we have to be much more nuanced and careful. For whatever reason, second wavers didn't spend much time on NAMALT and yet we do. In my view they used class-based analysis in a different way from us - we use it for a particular purpose (in safeguarding or to address the effects of historic discrimination), and from my reading second wave feminists applied the technique in a much more general way.
I do wonder if we're going to end up with a more pragmatic, less dogmatic feminism because otherwise we cannot effectively address the doctrine of gender identity and its political implications for the rights of women and girls. We have to focus on the practical consequences of the doctrine, and we need evidence to counter a lot of the claims coming from the other side. It's not enough for us to simply assert something, we need to be able to show it's true. I don't believe that that is a bad thing for feminism as a whole.