I have smart friends, which enriches my life enormously. For example, the other day a smart friend of mine -- a brilliant professor, actually, with a scholarly bent toward all manner of subjects, including gender studies -- happened across my recent blog entry on "lobster feminism." After reading my quote from the Boston Globe Magazine, in which I claimed to be a lobster feminist (see Lobster Feminism, below), he dashed off this quick e-mail:

"Lobster feminism? Among homo sapiens it would be called, er, phallocentrism."

I was pretty sure I knew what he meant, but I had to check the dictionary just to be sure. I was disappointed; the definition was less graphic than I'd guessed. "Phallocentric" means, simply, "centered on or emphasizing the masculine point of view."

Hoping to up the ante, I fired off a response:

"Actually, it would be double phallocentrism, since lobsters have two penises."

Then I decided I ought to explain why I still thought I could be considered a lobster feminist. I continued:

"The key here is to recognize, as explained in such wonderful detail in my book, that females control the power in the mating relationship -- they choose their males, which have no say in whether or not they receive courtship overtures. I just want female lobsters to have the best phalluses available for the purposes of actualizing their power."

A few minutes later came the good professor's reply:

"I understand."

Later he admitted that "I understand" was a phrase he never seemed to be able to use without irony.

Isn't that how it always is with academics -- irony, irony, irony? They can never take anything at face value.

Okay, fine, so maybe I am a closet lobster phallocentrist. I miss Bubba.

Comments? E-mail me.