This review is kind of funny - it's like, "look how prescient and correct Arendt was about the Nazis. But then she was wrong about desegregation. Also her one-time lover Heidegger was a total Nazi! Hannah Arendt was a philosopher, but also a complicated and flawed person!" Anyone read the book, "The Free World: Art and Thought in the Cold War"? It's an interesting sort of de-mythologization of 20th century American culture, where these intellectual and cultural giants of that time are argued to have not really _defined_ the thought of that time, but rather were elevated and canonized according to the needs of Cold War politics.
Of course it's not a surprise that Arendt got some stuff wrong! She was a Kantian, and Kantian ethics which stands out as a facially absurd theory, even in the already ridiculous field of philosophical ethics. The reviewer here sort of argues that she managed to liberate herself from the "grand systems" and tidy, comforting rationalizations of philosophy, instead bringing a messy, incoherent humanity to the philosophical enterprise. I can't help but shake my head at that representation of a Kantian, who thought all our moral duties were fricking a priori! Not to mention that this is all represented as feminist, when her whole idea that "just as for Kant, feelings could get in the way of proper moral judgement" still reeks of philosophy's delusional male chauvinism.
I admit I'm a weirdo and bring a very specific, partisan, and generally confused perspective to this matter. But I think something like Carol Gilligan's "ethics of care" (which came well after Arendt) is such a more powerful and relevant feminist critique of the grand systems of philosophical ethics.