Cory Silverberg's take is the best I've seen: http://sexuality.about.com/b/2011/03/03/thoughts-on-a-campus-dildo-controversy-sexuality-power-and-privilege.htm
Getting the backpack on, I always rated Jean Grae's verse over Mos and Bleek on - of course she outshines most of the male guests on her own stuff in general. See also: Invincible, "locusts" and I love her short verse on Tree Never Grown.
Abe, I appreciate Crunchbird's comment and I think that a good move when someone raises questions about the motivation of your work is to sleep on it and then give a less defensive response that this one. If this is reporting in the sense that the story has public import, it ideally should enter a public sphere where questions about the form of the article (not just "what actually is happening") should be able to take place without a direct insult from the author coming directly afterward.
The impact of your comment to me was a) I'm not going to ask any questions of the Awl community of readers about your work because you're probably going to get offended; and b) ironically, your justification made me question the provenance of the story in a way that Crunchbird's comment didn't (especially when you use the journalistic terminology of ascribing your institution inquiries to "The Awl" rather than "I").
Anyway, good piece, important work you've been doing, but I think you might need to decide whether you are using the conventions of journalism or blogging and conduct your writing and commenting accordingly, one way or the other.
Good article. Just a minor point that seeing as Judith Butler mercilessly attacks any attempt to ground dogma in experience, she's not really a good example for the lineup of priests of dogma rehearsed here. Unless you're including the attack of dogma as dogma, in which case you end up critiquing yourself out of existence.
Also, Love's defense is just horrific, and that might be part of the reason the wolves are 13-41.
Sloan is like most white drunkard men of his ilk - he has a thing and is committed to maximizing it. It works when you find soulmates / coerce everyone around you to do the same, but it hasn't for a while. Let's be honest, his defensive schemes the last 10 years have consisted of "play hard and foul a lot and we'll make sure the crowd have our backs at home", and his whole schtick was tailored for the Reagan generation. Williams might have decided to stand up for himself a bit, but really the whole act was done.
Can we have a moratorium on books by journalists taking down other scientific (or quasi-scientific) theories because they aren't scientific enough? Also, if I was grieving I'd prefer advice from someone who looked like EKR than this author. Or perhaps more accurately, any author who would have a photo like this is obviously trying to be famous more than they are trying to resolve anyone's grief. Not to say that EKR's schema shouldn't be critiqued, but it should be from people who know what they're talking about rather than journos concerned about the negative effects on U.S. individualism.
But - as the article alludes to - it does throw up the quantitative fallacy in the social sciences, which is that qualitative decisions must be made on the nature of the problem, the dimensions to be measured and the relative weighting assigned them. In general methodological terms, this is less of an issue for well defined problems with high degrees of conceptual consensus (e.g. GDP growth). Here, I am sure that the relative weighting of "stank" will be adjusted upward significantly by future scholars in this field, and ironically this would lead to a hierarchy more in line with established conservative canons.
In the humanities, we can learn from the singular and unverifiable. So I can say that Loleatta Holloway gets my vote over Whitney, because you can do more with her (as Whitney herself did, undoubtedly) but I understand why she can't be considered in this rubric.
More like this please!