To equate femininity and hysteria as an excess within patriarchy

1. Does "to equate femininity and hysteria as an excess within patriarchy" mean "equate femininity with hysteria and to suppose both of them as an excess within patriarchy"?

2. Does "excess" in this context mean "indulgence and ultraism in patriarchy"?

3. Does "is problematic" mean "will cause problems and troubles and will have negative consequences"?

4. Does "pokes holes in the law (of the father)" mean "questions the dominance of patriarchy"?

5. Does the pink section want to say "given 1. the propensity of female bodies to be subjected to the voyeuristic phallocentric gaze, as well as and 2. ... "? I mean, does "as well as" go back to "given" to provide two reasons for the danger of such a tendency?

6. Does "the conflation of femininity with hyperbolic bodily display in media and advertising." mean "given that this tendency will cause the conflation of femininity with ..." or "given that there currently exists a conflation between femininity and..."?

Context:

Although the tendency to equate femininity and hysteria as an excess within patriarchy is problematic, these approaches, taken for example in the essay ‘The Laugh of the Medusa’ by playwright and essayist Hélène Cixous and, in a somewhat less celebratory way, in Luce Irigaray’s critique of psychoanalysis, Speculum of the Other Woman, nonetheless recuperated hysteria as a subversive resistance to phallocentric logic, as a position that pokes holes in the law (of the father). As a visual artist, Kelly cautions against the representation of this excess, as it presents the woman in purely bodily terms, a tendency which can be dangerous given the propensity of female bodies to be subjected to the voyeuristic phallocentric gaze, as well as the conflation of femininity with hyperbolic bodily display in media and advertising. Kelly’s ‘scripto-visual’ method interrogates bodily presence (Art and Psychoanalysis by Maria Walsh).