Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Is she is or is she ain't mah girlie?

I had a couple of odd/interesting/enlightening moments yesterday that I'd like to share with you, in the spirit of semi-full disclosure of my life:

1) While on the phone with a friend yesterday morning, I thought I heard them call me a "gay woman." My response to the hint that I'd make a great gay woman was a touch more vehement than my conversational partner expected. It should be stated here that I am in NO WAY dissing gay women, no way, it's simply that I'm not inclined to view my sistren with anything near to homosexual thoughts and so was surprised to be classified as perhaps a good candidate for induction into the school of Sappho.

Well, OK, there was that ONE time, with an English major, and we were both drunk and also a little tiny bit high, and it was 4 a.m., and she was really cute with her curly red hair and brown eyes, but even though the thought "gee I'd like to kiss her" rushed through my head I didn't do anything about it, and that's as close as I ever got to any girl-on-girl action. I know, I know, I'm sure I have no idea what I'm missing. I would have made a terrible sorority girl for many reasons, and the reluctance to engage in post-pillow fight pillow TALK is just one of them.

Turns out that I'd misheard the pseudo-categorization, and that my friend said "you'd make a great CAVE woman."

I'd have to agree, I'd make a
TERRIFIC cave woman. I could sleep late and grunt and scratch and pass gas and not comb my hair and throw on any old piece of bear or deerskin to cover my hairy butt and be out the door in 1 minute or less, without even brushing my teeth or caring that my armpits weren't april-fresh. Being a cavewoman is a retirement goal, I'm thinkin'.

2) My buddy Q took the liberty of passing yesterday's post through a "genderizer." What's a genderizer, you might ask? It's an algorhithm that evaluates the number of times commonly used words appear in a written sample and sorts them into "masculine" and "feminine" categories.

Three guesses into which category my writing falls, and the first two don't count.

That's right - significantly MALE.


I'm trying to NOT be troubled by this, but lord LORD do I want to believe that because yesterday's post was such a strongly worded and obviously sarcastic bit of output, my regular stuff would maybe NOT score so high on the testosterone chart. However, being as how I know through the magic of science and a former issue with my endrocrines that I seem to have a rather high level of testosterone for a woman anyhow, maybe being ID'ed through my writing as a man is some kind of signal to me to rethink who I really am.

Therefore, tomorrow's post will be about bunnies and unicorns and fashion and cute boys. Gotta swing the pendulum back SOMEHOW.

Now I'm off to find some beef jerky and a pigeon to punt. Y'all have yourselves a nice day.

(FYI - this post is just barely in the female camp, according to the genderizer. Phewf!)

No comments: