I note that a small publisher has recently re-published the book -
with several laudatory short essays.  But it seems to me that there is
very little attention paid to Dinnerstein and the book.  Every now and
then I hear that someone has gotten interested in her pretty unique
subject, but I don't see anything appear.

So, Q: Could you give me a summary of where Dorothy Dinnerstein and
this book stand in the current intellectual's  merit pool, and
summarize the main objections to her thought that appear most often? 
Please note that I am not  interested in her academic research or
writing as a professor at Rutgers.

Regarding "the main objections to her thought that appear most often,"
this work is considered a classic in its field, and there seem to be
few "objections" online. Quite the contrary:

In a page on researching feminist literary criticism, the New York
Public Library lists "The Mermaid and the Minotaur" among "Primary
Sources on Feminist Theory."

http://www.nypl.org/branch/central_units/mm/ll/feminist.html 

This article refers to the book as a "brilliant treatise."

http://www.voiceofwomen.com/articles/daddyart.html

And here "The Mermaid and the Minotaur" is described as an "elegantly
complex essay."

http://www.sfu.ca/~psimpson/kohutppr2.htm

While those who are opposed on principle to feminist theory would
probably object to much of what Dinnerstein says, she seems to have
few critics.

I appreciate your comment.  But <s>, even though many, perhaps most,
people who still take account of her do give her credit, sometimes a
lot, there are a number of people in feminist circles who actively
oppose her, and I've been supposing those people and groups account
for much of her current lack of notice.  That, and the difficulty of
her thought (both the expression of it as well as the content).  She
is considered, I think, "hard to take" by many men *and* women
intellectuals, which is partly why I asked my question.

I think at least one of the groups of people who object Dinnerstein's
thinking believe that if she were generally on track, she would remove
a lot of the support for feminists who believe that women are in a
permanent "vulnerable" condition (even noting here the difficult work
"victims"), at least until men are re-educated to new patterns of
non-violence, or at least a lot less of it.  Dinnerstein says, you may
know, that if some major changes were made in the "arrangements" of
society, women and men could and should be considerably more "equal".

Hmmmmm.   Probably should have written this, more carefully, offline
and then pasted in.  Hope some of what I'm trying to say gets across
here!

Thanks also for your leads.  I'll go look at them.

There seems to be a commentary 

<a href="http://cgi.educities.edu.tw/yinbin/cgi-bin/fifi.cgi?action=view&disppage=1&no=25>HERE</a>

that traces some of the 'discontents' some intellectuals have had with
Dinnerstein's thesis. The commentary appears to be on work by Adrienne
Rich, who advocates for a theoretical system that explicitly
acknowledges and validates lesbian experience, as against the main
thrust of Dinnerstein and others, which is to account for and improve
the relations that make reproduction and child-rearing (as essential
components of civilization) possible.