I've sarcastically and seriously interacted with a variety of ideas Matthew Lee Anderson has presented over the years, sarcastically on politics and very seriously, even earnestly with his review of a certain book. Anderson weighs in at some length for him (though great length for him might be average length for me on a roll). I'm linking to his post because he doesn't just review Evans' book but points out that Evans, though he may differ with her on a few important points, has raised a number of issues that evangelicals and complementarians have dropped the ball on.
Here's a brief excerpt:
She didn’t set out on her journey attempting to find out what her intellectual foes thought, or why they thought it. She set out from the conclusion that they were wrong and then read their texts accordingly. I mean, after she notes that Proverbs 31 is recorded by King Lemuel “as an oracle his mother taught him,” she comments that this “totally upset my plan to cast the Proverbs 31 woman as an unrealistic archetype of the misogynistic imagination.” That may be sarcasm, and I might have missed it. I was born in Canada, which means I don’t do sarcasm. But it sure seems like she set out on her reading with her conclusions predetermined, which isn’t exactly modeling the sort of hermeneutical sympathy that we might admire.
There's a lot I could write about this that has nothing to do with Evans as such and a lot to do with how Christian bloggers and speakers use sarcasm as a crutch but I will probably save that for some other time.