Gender

[flexibeast]

According to the Gender Genie, this blog entry of mine (the most recent to contain only my own writing) suggests that i'm female (Female Score: 996, Male Score: 699). Which is interesting, because several people have told me that they get that impression from my writing, despite me feeling that i probably sound male (and even though i don't make any particular effort to 'gender' my writing either way). But in any case, i haven't yet had a look at the theory underlying this little gadget, so i'm yet not putting much store in it beyond thinking "Heh". :-)
 

Comments

[not-in-denial.livejournal.com]

An assortment of my writing makes the gender genie very confused. My scores are always close and it swaps male/female regularly depending on each entry.

This is fun!

(Interestingly, this entry (http://not-in-denial.livejournal.com/624375.html) gendered me as male.)

[catsnstuff.livejournal.com]

I would have picked your writing as female. Not sure why - the genie seems to put a lot of emphasis on whether you talk about people or things, which I think would work with your writing. But as well as that, perhaps your use of "i" to refer to yourself (as opposed to "I") might be a factor. Although the only other person I can think of that does that is male.

The genie tells me my writing is male, which is what I used to get a lot on internet chat. Interestingly, looking back, I can see how I "softened" my writing with smileys, *grin*s, and more playful round-about language. I remember from psych that similar things are in the way people talk and stand as well. I'm trying to get over that now, being irritated at the way that indecisiveness/niceness/general submissiveness was equated with female ness. I've also been told too many times that I think in a "masculine" way when I'm confident at what I'm good at, especially in a magical context, and am now deliberately refusing that interpretation as limiting and annoying, not a challenge to my comfortableness as female.

Hi, btw - I've friended you because you friended me, and some of your posts concern things that interest me. Um, I'm assuming our connection is that lioness338 posted the ad for pagan_articles in one of your mutual lj-communities?

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

I appear to be very very male on the basis of my most recent writings. :)

Female Score: 312
Male Score: 889

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Yes, well, you're obviously confused, you not being monosexual and all. ;-)

Interesting indeed how that particular entry marked you as male - what sort of words did it mark as 'masculine'?

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Well, but since you're good at maths, you must be male in any case. ;-)

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Not sure why - the genie seems to put a lot of emphasis on whether you talk about people or things, which I think would work with your writing.

Hmm, okay . . . . perhaps if it analysed the entirety of my blog, which includes various bits of IT-related commentary, i might come out as more male . . . .

perhaps your use of "i" to refer to yourself (as opposed to "I") might be a factor.

*nod* Interesting thought; but i went and checked, and as far as i can tell, it didn't mark my uses of "i" in the piece i submitted.

The genie tells me my writing is male, which is what I used to get a lot on internet chat. Interestingly, looking back, I can see how I "softened" my writing with smileys, *grin*s, and more playful round-about language.

So has that changed people's assumptions about your gender on net chat?

I'm trying to get over that now, being irritated at the way that indecisiveness/niceness/general submissiveness was equated with female ness.

*nod* Personally, i put a lot of caveats in my writing because experience has taught me to do so in order to avoid unnecessary debates / arguments / flamefests. It's so easy, particularly when one has never met someone in person, to accidentally misunderstand what that person is trying to communicate in writing; and it frustrates me that there are still so many people who think that the only way what they write could possibly be misunderstood is if their readers are willfully attempting to do so. Never mind differences in idiolect and dialect, which are often derived from differences in locality / class / gender / sexual orienation / politics / spiritual beliefs / etc. :-P So yeah, i often try to write in such a way as to allow "wiggle room" for other perspectives; and on the basis of the stereotype you refer to, this might mean that i then come across as more 'female'.

I've also been told too many times that I think in a "masculine" way when I'm confident at what I'm good at, especially in a magical context, and am now deliberately refusing that interpretation as limiting and annoying

Interesting. Sometimes i wonder if the problem isn't so much the underlying idea - that there are certain traits which tend to be found more in one gender than the other, whether due to nature or nurture or some combination of both - but that we gender those traits so strongly. That is, do you think it would make any difference if we talked of, say, 'fooish' traits and 'barish' traits rather than so-called 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits?

Hi, btw - I've friended you because you friended me, and some of your posts concern things that interest me. Um, I'm assuming our connection is that lioness338 posted the ad for pagan_articles in one of your mutual lj-communities?

Hm, i seem to remember that you friended me first? Certainly i don't remember coming across lioness338 or the pagan_articles ad . . . . But in any case, Hello also, and welcome to my LJ. :-)

[catsnstuff.livejournal.com]

Nope, you definitely friended me first, a few months ago, and about the time my friend advertised my pagan community on a bunch of channels (although we're both on nonfluffypagans and nonfluffymagic as well). I've friended you within the past week or so. Hopefully that won't seem rude!

The "i" vs "I" I was thinking of in terms of trying to explain my own impressions, not the genie, and was getting these from a general scan of your writing. The genie seems to work only on the basis of frequency of certain words, not frequency of smileys, passive sentences or the rest of the things I mentioned that I did in order to make myself seem more female online. And yes, I think the use of these things did change people's assumptions as to my gender, although this is probably combined with me signing my e-mails with my actual name and eschewing the whole going-by-the-internet-name thing. It also changed other assumptions people made, also, and I'm now experimenting with these in a more deliberate manner - it changed how seriously my ideas were taken, whether they would be welcomed as interesting or resisted as being too critical, etc.

Sometimes i wonder if the problem isn't so much the underlying idea - that there are certain traits which tend to be found more in one gender than the other, whether due to nature or nurture or some combination of both - but that we gender those traits so strongly.

That sounds about right. This isn't something I've really had to think about much before, and I recognise that people who challenge gender in a more day-to-day basis will have more lived-in insights about such things, but is becoming increasingly salient. I'm currently trying to work out how to then change from a previously reactionary stance to one that is a bit more responsible. Of course, many others have no doubt had many other thoughts on this kind of thing beforehand, and that's the next step, I guess.

For a while all ideas of "polarity" as used in popular Pagan vernacular annoyed me. People saying "oh but women have masculine traits in them, and vice versa" seemed equally as limiting through this process of naming things as "masculine" or "feminine". People always say "oh, but we don't mean it in a literal way" when they're thinking about such things philisophically, but these aspects seem to creep into the daily thoughtless use of such concepts, the unspoken implications of them - these concepts of "male" and "female" seem far too powerful to just use as a convenient shorthand for the various other concepts that are associated with them. "Fooish" and "barish" would certainly change things!

The next step, for me, is realising that such ideas do have a bit of power, and could perhaps even be used sometimes in a responsible manner. Hrm.

[catsnstuff.livejournal.com]

*grin* And of course, here's the whole leaping onto your Live-Journal with what could very easily be construed as a lot of self-indulgent semi-philosophical wank. Apologies! *grin*

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

It uses very primitive statistical analysis marking certain words as "masculine" and others as "feminine". Much of it based on traditional stereotypes rather than on analysis. Still, a cute little gadget.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Nope, you definitely friended me first, a few months ago

Oh, okay.

we're both on nonfluffypagans and nonfluffymagic as well

*nod* i suspect i friended you because you said something i liked in one of those comms. :-)

I've friended you within the past week or so. Hopefully that won't seem rude!

Not at all!

The "i" vs "I" I was thinking of in terms of trying to explain my own impressions, not the genie

Ah, sorry - thanks for the clarification.

And yes, I think the use of these things did change people's assumptions as to my gender, although this is probably combined with me signing my e-mails with my actual name and eschewing the whole going-by-the-internet-name thing.

*nod*

it changed how seriously my ideas were taken, whether they would be welcomed as interesting or resisted as being too critical, etc.

*sad nod* i observe this happening far too often. :-((

I'm currently trying to work out how to then change from a previously reactionary stance to one that is a bit more responsible.

Sorry, how was your previous stance reactionary?

People always say "oh, but we don't mean it in a literal way" when they're thinking about such things philisophically, but these aspects seem to creep into the daily thoughtless use of such concepts, the unspoken implications of them - these concepts of "male" and "female" seem far too powerful to just use as a convenient shorthand for the various other concepts that are associated with them.

*nod* Agreed, very much so!

"Fooish" and "barish" would certainly change things!

Heh. :-)

The next step, for me, is realising that such ideas do have a bit of power, and could perhaps even be used sometimes in a responsible manner. Hrm.

*nod* i suspect that pretty much any powerful tool can be used in both constructive and destructive ways; but it can be tricky to know when one is doing which. :-)

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* No, no apologies necessary - i always enjoy reading civilised and thoughtful commentary on subjects that interest me, and to me, your comments fit that category. :-)

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Hmm, so they weren't drawing on actual usage patterns then? (i haven't had a chance to look into the gadget's underpinnings yet.) If that's the case, then it's rather dodgy indeed . . . .

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Not so far as I'm aware last I checked. It does have a "was I right?" clicky, but so far as I can tell it doesn't use that information to construct different corpora to learn better over time.