August 8, 2008

"Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 9%/Likelihood of you being MALE is 91%."

Okay, thanks for the info.

Via Instapundit, who's much more likely to be female than I am (50%), via Megan McArdle, who's practically all female (99%).

ADDE: The websites I read that are really masculinizing me are Drudge (2.08 male/female ratio), PGA Tour (also 2.08 — they don't know I have a family member on the tour), Real Clear Politics (1.82), and Rush Limbaugh (1.99). I read a lot of things that are very close to 1. The only really feminizing thing that got counted is Television Without Pity (0.32).

26 comments:

Doyle said...

Where's my John Edwards coverage?

Bob said...

So, um, could a man who makes love to you qualify as being gay?

Ron said...

I came out 98%Male...

The Drill SGT said...

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 25%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 75%

You think you'd get more credit for porn sites.

Must be that link to epicurious that is pumpin in the estrogen

Pal2Pal said...

I posted my results a couple of weeks ago om Pal2Pal and I did worse than you Ann. 95% male, 5% female. And here I am, a ruffles and pink kind of gal. My male status comes mostly from all the tech sites I frequent, followed by political sites. I guess they don't expect women to have blogs that need programming or that we aren't interested in open source technology, etc.

Jeremy said...

time.gov is 2.08 and snopes is .74 - that's much more interesting than the likelihood of any individual user.

johngalt47 said...

With that pair of hooters showing on your site, how could anyone think you're male? Oh, sorry, that's Pam Anderson.

Anyway your eye for composition with a camera definitely indicates female. (And I love your smile.)

Bruce Hayden said...

I am surprised that the time.gov site is only 2.08. I would have thought it would be higher - except maybe a bunch of us guys are going straight to time.nist-x.gov via NTP (ok, those of you on the East coast may prefer the Naval Observatory to NIST in Boulder).

I assume that all you OC types synchronize all your computers at least once a day to standard time? Of course you do.

Ann Althouse said...

the drill sgt said..."You think you'd get more credit for porn sites."

That prompts me to say that I have never gone to a porn site.

jdeeripper said...

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 9%/Likelihood of you being MALE is 91%

And yet your television viewing habits skew back toward overwhelmingly female, or gay guy.

American Idol, Project Runway, what else?

You are a man on the computer and a woman watching TV.

Plus you're a blogger, very male. Chicks email links to articles about food, health, relationships and celebs.

And you argue like a guy, always on the attack, hunting for lameness and weakness in your opponent.

Cruel neutrality = very masculine.

Falling in love with a candidate = very feminine.

You are a mix. You look like 100% girl but you have masculine mental tendencies, even your interest in photography and architecture is more masculine than typical female interests.

That combination of traits might be why you seem to have drawn some gay male readers into your vortex and why teenybopper feminists are hostile to you.

I didn't take the test I already know I'm 100% He-man.

The only thing that could knock off a few percentage points would be if I took that silly test.

Randy said...

There are about 40 different websites listed in my browser history, and only one or two of them are not widely known, but the program only recognized 5 of them.

blake said...

I've taken some of those male/female tests in psych classes and almost always come out about 50/50.

This put me at 95% male and 5% female when I saw it on Insty yesterday. (The 5% seemed to be from the food network.)

So I bounced from BHG to Redbook and dropped it down to 87%. (I don't feel any less male...)

Isn't that old school, though? When I think "female", I think ladies' magazines. I couldn't immediately think of any female-centric Internet destination.

al said...

I assume that all you OC types synchronize all your computers at least once a day to standard time? Of course you do.

Just configure NTP and find something else to obsess over. :)

The Drill SGT said...

Ann said...the drill sgt said..."You think you'd get more credit for porn sites

no porn sites

Site Male-Female Ratio
southwest.com 0.77
drudgereport.com 2.08
united.com 0.8
epa.gov 0.92
epicurious.com 0.6
realclearpolitics.com 1.82
nationalreview.com 1.74
redroof.com 1.04

Meade said...

Am I mistaken? I thought it was mostly females who visit porn sites.

XWL said...

Speaking of porn sites, a reader of Andrew Sullivan wrote to him (sure, we're supposed to believe it wasn't from Mr. Sullivan's personal results) that it's porn sites aimed at gay men that get the highest male correlation.

Doubt the same could be said for porn sites that purport to be for women of women.

The same reader writing in to Sully mentioned that political sites skew more male than some sports sites like mlb.com (guess it's the uniforms, if politicians were young, fit and paraded around in tight pants, maybe they'd attract more female visitors to their web pages).

lurker2209 said...

I am apparently all girl. Which is weird, because I've never thought of myself as terribly girly. I don't think the app recognizes sci-fi fansites, because the female gender is definitely in the minority on most of those.

Glancing for the results, the score for Jezebel.com is 1.02. What?

Ann Althouse said...

"And yet your television viewing habits skew back toward overwhelmingly female, or gay guy. American Idol, Project Runway, what else?"

The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Meet the Press, Howard TV, Bullshit, Curb Your Enthusiasm....

Meade said...

I guess I'm a little surprised and embarrassed to discover just how one-dimensionally male my web wanderings predict me to be. And with no porn, to boot.

The one female-ish site I visit is AOL but that's only because the lady I've been seeing, someone who seems to have begun fervently dedicating herself to the overall improvement of me, keeps emailing me articles she wants me to read and have raise my consciousness - probably because she lusts for a boyfriend who is all man, sure, just less predictably so.

vbspurs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

That prompts me to say that I have never gone to a porn site.

I have. Once. To a vintage porn site...like all porn, it was odd. I can't imagine being aroused by such things, even in 1871.

blake said...

Well, Miss Virginia, if you ain't seen nothin' but the backside of a mule for the past six months, 't ain't difficult to see how refreshing a saucy wench bard would be.

vbspurs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...

Huh. It did't seem to take in account very many of my wanderings, either, based on what showed up. However, I came out at 76% likelihood male, 24% likelihood female, which is in the ballpark of what I would expect, based on results of various quizzy thingies.

I am, of course, female, though I've been mistaken online as male, often enough.

Freeman Hunt said...

I came out at 98% male. Ah well, so it goes. No wonder DTL thought I was a boy that one time.

Martin Gale said...

The flaw in this methodology for gender classification is that it implicitly assumes that males and females surf the web with equal frequency, but just visit different sites. If, for example, men generally have a larger than 50% presence on the web, then the gender classification will have a male bias. As a simplistic example, suppose the male/female surf frequency were 51/49, but that there was no further gender preference among web sites, then everyone would come up as about 40% female, 60% male, that is, prob(female)=1/(1+(51/49)^10) based on their methodology of looking at the gender breakdown of the top 10 web sites visited.