Tuesday 18 November 2008

Incidentally, sex fans

Last night I ran this blog through the GenderAnalyser, which I found out about here. Given that, at the time, most of the blog was taken up with Mitchell-Hedges talking about killing sharks, I was surprised to find that it was only 91% male. After today's post, the statistic has been maintained. Can it really be true that I am as male as Mitchell-Hedges? Or that Mitchell-Hedges was only 91% male? My faith in science is battered.

2 comments:

John Finnemore said...

Here's my explanation.

1) M-H is of course 100% male, but your small sample of prose is so potently feminine you bring the joint score down to 91%.

2) Next day, you add still more girlish simperings, but in the meantime, the makers of the gender-definer have found your new blog, and noted that amongst the blithering about posies, kitties and doilies, it contains prose more manly than they thought possible. Accordingly, they recalibrate their scale. M-H, naturally, still scores 100%, and his increased fire-power neatly balances out your increased volume, leaving the team still on 91%.

Simple.

Robert Hudson said...

The solution. Another day of kittens and I am down to 76%, even though I tried to smokescreen by writing about sport.