It's a bit strange to see a book's core thesis misstated in a generally positive review, but what else is one to make of this from Wendy Shalit reviewing Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs in The Wall Street Journal:

How did this happen? Why did feminism sell its soul to the sexual-liberation movement in the first place? After all, the original feminists were fighting to be taken seriously. Hugh Hefner, by contrast, said that his ideal girl "resembles a bunny . . . vivacious, jumping--sexy." There seems to be a contradiction here.

Ms. Levy's answer is that, after a brief and failed fight against pornography, feminism joined forces with Hef & Co. to fight for abortion rights. This is a plausible explanation, as far as it goes. Abortion has indeed assumed a primary importance in both feminist "rights" thinking and in the whole culture of soft-core libertinism: Mr. Hefner is a big fan of abortion, for obvious reasons.

That's not what the book says at all. I can't think of a better way to capture this than with some fairly extensive quotations (reliance on such blogospheric techniques seems to be hampering my ability to write proper book reviews, but this is a blog) which you'll find below:

Roe and the legalization of the birth control pill -- both of which were crucial to feminists -- were both helped by funding from Hefner. In 1970, the Playboy Foundation hired a consultant named Cyril Means, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, to file amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs in two abortion cases: Doe v. Bolton in Georgia and Roe v. Wade in Texas. Both cases ultimately went before the U.S. Supreme Cort and were, for all practical purposes, consolidated when the ruling was handed down in Roe.

The Playboy Foundation also gave grant money to NOW's Legal Defense and Education Fund and supported the ERA; Hefner personally hosted a fundraiser for it at the Playboy Mansion. "I was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism!" Hefner has said. A mutual friend even tried to set him up on a date with Gloria Steinem before the became famous. (It didn't work out.) [pages 55-56]

In the late seventies, a prominent splinter group of activists, including [Susan] Brownmiller, Gloria Steinem, Shere Hite, Robin Moran, the poet Adrienne Rich, and the writers Grace Paley and Audre Lorde, turned their attention to fighting pornograpy. [page 60]

Rifts deepened in 1983, when Catharine MacKinnon, a radical feminist legal scholar at the University of Minnesota, and Andrew Dworkin, a visiting professor with a fondness for overalls who has authored the controversial books Woman Hating (1974) and Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981), drafted a city ordinance positioning porn as a civil rights violation against women. Their ordinance was twice vetoed by the mayor of Minneapolis, but Dworkin and MacKinnon were subsequently summoned by the city council of Indianapolis, Indiana, which was eager to rid their city of smut and wanted the antiporn feminists' help. [pages 63-64]

Long story short, the "brief and failed fight against pornography" was after not before "feminism joined forces with Hef & Co. to fight for abortion rights." That aside, both Levy and Shalit (in different ways) seem to me to be overly impressed with the alleged irony that feminists had and have some overlap of interest with people and movements that, fundamentally, are anti-feminist. But how weird is that, really? Not very. People work together on some stuff and disagree on other stuff -- it's pretty banal. Back to the point, to simultaneously misstate a book's thesis and some very uncontroversial chronological matters strikes me as pretty bad work.