I think it's strong in one respect: it alleges somewhat convincingly that the book is based on appallingly scant evidence. On unpublished paper by the author,

I think it's strong in one respect: it alleges somewhat convincingly that the book is based on appallingly scant evidence. On unpublished paper by the author, two maybe-reviewed papers also by the author, and one anecdote (whence the title). And the rebuttal does provide evidence that the author's studies, if not wrong, are probably not applicable to the question. And notes that WDA even ignores half of what her own papers showed. If true, this is pretty damning, in that it reduces the entire book to "I think this is what is going on. Here's a totally-vague plan of action that focuses on this one dimension." If true, we shouldn't be citing the book in conversations about what reality looks like. All in all, I think the part of the rebuttal that said 'the science in the book was shoddy' was relatively strong. This perhaps-useful rebuttal is, I agree, buried in a largely-unrelated rant about what the rebuttal-author wishes every discussion of feminism (or privilege in general) was about. As you say, third-wave feminism talking points. Whether they're interesting or not, they're not what the book is about. Sorry, jstrecker, you don't get to dictate the content of all conversation. (To give the ranter eir due, I think ranting about privilege -- the subject of the rant -- is largely correct, and deserves more of us thinking about it more often. I'm not sure the tactics of the crazy-street-preacher are the most effective ones, though.)