Saturday, January 30, 2010

Q, X, and Y

These are the letters that I have no headwords for in my index. I know, because I finished it last night.

And with that, barring anything unexpected, the book is DONE.


Totally unrelated linky goodness: my favorite new word for today is mansplainin'.

17 comments:

Digger said...

Congratulations!!!

Anonymous said...

what no queens, xylophones, or yaks??

rootlesscosmo said...

Not to mention the historically crucial events of a certain Quinquagesima Sunday.

heu mihi said...

Fantastic!!!

I'm about to start that whole process (well, indexing won't be until May), and I've bookmarked your blegs so I can see everyone's advice.

AliceAcademic said...

Congrats!

Comrade PhysioProf said...

Are you sure you're allowed to have empty letters in your index? Some dude told me there's a rule against that.

Belle said...

Congrats indeed! And mansplaining is my new word of the week. Since you're thinking words... what is the word for what leads to mansplainin'? You know, when the ears apparently disconnect from brain?

Tenured Radical said...

Congrats, Girl Scholar!

tenthmedieval said...

I don't think it would be OK for me to come up with a special neologism for being patronised by a woman. So I'm a little bit disenchanted to see the same sort of people I'd expect to think less of me for so doing happily embracing 'mansplainin' as a word. I'm just sayin'.

Susan said...

Congratulations! Indexing is a thankless task, and not very intellectually stimulating, but almost more important than the book, since many people find their way around the book through the index....

cattyinqueens said...

How awesome! That must feel amazing!

Notorious Ph.D. said...

Thanks for the congrats. And sorry to TenthMedieval that I seem to have gotten under your skin yet again. I've been the target of this particular type of gendered behavior on more than one occasion, and it's just nice to have a word for it.

dance said...

Congratulations!

tenthmedieval said...

It was not your post so much as the comments in that to which you linked. What that thread was doing on ScienceBlogs, I do not know, but you can probably imagine yourself how it reads if you're the defendant and not the plaintiff.

None of this matters, sorry. Congratulations on the index! It's a horrible job and I speak from recent experience. May all that follows be swift and trouble-free.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

I don't think it would be OK for me to come up with a special neologism for being patronised by a woman.


Yep. And it is totally 100% completely unfair for any woman to ever shut any man up by coining special neologisms, because no man has ever through the entire course of human history had a disproportionate inclination and unearned privilege as a man to shut any woman up. Therefore, we must be vigilant to the outrageous possibility that a woman might discover any nefarious mechanism--such as a charge of "mansplaining"--that could be used to shut up and/or--even more outrageously--laugh at any man.

tenthmedieval said...

Hey, laugh at me all you like—oh, you are, good—but straw-manning my complaint doesn't resolve the logical tension. I mean, is your argument here any more than "the man started it"? And, even given that you're right about that—which I think you are, if you're saying it—how does painting the opposition as idiots help overcome them, or even bring them onto your side?

I mean, I'm fine with "wow some men are idiots, and they are idiots in a gendered way without even realising it!" (except in as much as that's not very snappy). Some are! Perhaps I'm even doing it now, obviously as defined I wouldn't know if I were! But to coin a gender-based term for it makes it a gender characteristic, rather than a personal one, and makes the good guys, if such there be, idiots along with the rest. That's why I find myself annoyed by the term, and the reaction in that column that was linked to to people making an argument like the one I'm making here. I'm not meaning to attack any of the commentators here, I was just expressing disappointment at feminism-become-name-calling there.

Notorious Ph.D. said...

Hi Folks,

Okay, I'm exercising moderator's privilege and closing the comments here, because I don't want arguments spiraling out of control when I'm about to travel. But I'm going to exercise the further privilege of having the last word (or rather, three words) in my house:

1. I stand by my love of having a term to describe a heretofore unnamed behavior that I have frequently been the target of (being able to name something is the first step to combating it, after all), but reiterate that the term was never applied to all men in general, or even most men.

2. I disagree that coining a gendered term means that that term applies to all members of that sex/gender. Does the term "girly," (to take a truly egregious example) mean that all female humans are like that? I certainly hope not!

3. Feminists are not Ghandi. We are just as prone as your average human being to lash out when we get really fed up. In fact, patient suffering over our individual and collective years has gotten us where we are, and many of us are calling bullshit on the whole operation.

To sum up: if you know in your soul that it's not about you, then you're an ally, and you should be fine.