While I agree that all the characters are pretty one-dimensional to the point of being stereotypes/ archetypes, and that it would have ultimately been a more progressive choice to have Mae be a stronger character and not so easily pliable, I don't necessarily think the novel is anti-feminist just because Mae happens to be a woman and a tool simultaneously. (I do, however, feel the writing about sex was anti-feminist; despite Mae exercising her sexual agency, the descriptions were atrocious--ew--Eggers really needs to rethink writing about heterosexual sex from a ciswoman perspective--she longs to sit on his head?!?! try again.) Mae is easily manipulated and it's annoying that Eggers made the choice to make her a woman. 
 It seems that the most interesting and strongest character in the entire novel is The Circle itself. The international association for cultic studies has a great article on characteristics of cultic groups by Michael D Langone. I'd argue the Circle has the following characteristics, as quoted in the article: 
 "-The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. 
 -Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. 
 -The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry--or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth). 
 -The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar--or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). 
 -The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. 
 -The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations). 
 -The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before they joined the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities). 
 -The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. 
 -Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and to radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before they joined the group. 
 -The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. 
 -The group is preoccupied with making money. 
 -Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. 
 -Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. 
 -The most loyal members (the "true believers") feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group." 
 So while I agree that this was not a great novel, it was certainly an entertaining novel, and I got the most out of it when I read it as a case study in cults. It definitely wasn't any sort of epic literary achievement, but once I gave up wanting that, I was content to treat it as an analysis of a cult. But it would have been nice to get more fiction, less polemic, hence 3 stars.