You’re Not Pregnant? I Don’t Believe You
It’s impossible to know which gender is the fatter. Mostly because women are so good at concealing additional bulk.
No, of course I’m joking. That’s not true at all. A large woman trying to cover herself up always ends up looking like a couch with one of those old lady doilies thrown on the top. Is that a big fat couch over there? I didn’t notice because of that dainty little scrap of lace on top.
Loss of a dozen Man Points for using the word ‘dainty’ I know, but my point is that in the case of weight, there’s no way to know if men are better than women at not becoming fat, or if men are better than women at being fat. Let me explain.
Scientists have never been able to agree on what is considered “overweight” for women. For men it’s a body mass index of 25%. Period. And we men have to deal with that. But for women, there’s all kinds of shit involved. What a surprise right? A simple process of determining a status of “overweight” and there’s all kinds of bullshit involved. Is it a BMI of 30%, 33%, 35%? No one knows. What nutritional scientist do know, however, is that if they ever reach a verdict, they will all be immediately kicked in the nuts by a billion angry, sensual women.
I say we just adopt woman-kind’s scale for itself. From now on, an overweight woman is one with a body mass index of over 75%. As a man, that’s how you have to fix problems with women sometimes. You gather all the evidence, you make logical conclusions out of it, and then you throw it right the fuck out the window, start signing checks, and believing there’s a Santa Clause. That’s not surrendering or getting beaten; it’s called having better fucking things to do with my time.
So men are fatter than women on average. Bit fucking deal. With all the practice, that means men are also better than women at being fat. Think about it. Does anyone even notice when a man is hugely fat? Men certainly don’t give a shit — and women give less of a shit. Jack Black gets laid all the time I bet — and that fucker is enormous.
The greatest men in history have been larger than life — the richest also. The most powerful warlords in the world? Oh you better believe they were big fat, fat guys. That’s because as a man, being fat is like a source of extra man power. It’s like driving an awesomely powerful car or wearing a giant watch or a man ring. It’s a multiplier.
I think I can sum it up with one craptastic line: Big is Beautiful.
I’ve heard that out loud probably twice in my life — both times from a woman, and each time I threw up immediately. Curvaceous, sensual, comfortable — it’s all the same shit. It means one large broad with a chip on her shoulder the size of the chocolate chip in her wildest fantasies. But what about jolly or party animal? Those mean fat too, but they’re not the same at all.
See, when a man is fat, he just gets a hell of a lot funnier. It might work the same way for women, but no one would know because funnier times not funny at all is still zero funny. Men are like eye doctors — and also a little bit like used car salesmen.
“Don’t want a fat guy? How about a funny guy? Maybe a snappy dresser or a guy with a beard? Better here or here? How about now? What do I have to do to get you with a fat guy today?”
Women, however, take their inadequacies and shove them right down your throat until you think you’re choking on sugar sweet bullshit. All women should take a lesson from Kirstie Alley who said it best on Oprah.
“I looked in the mirror one day and said, who would want to have sex with that?”
Or something like that, I don’t remember exactly what. That was her point though. And for her public baby steps, Kirstie Alley is this month’s MenAreBetterThanWomen.com’s Honorary Man of the Month. Cheers, you great big tub.
Related Articles:
March 11th, 2006 at 2:28 am - IP Man-Hash: 3b440d3c156ea
It certainly did. You know it’s funny how many women use Steve as their psuedonym. Hence Vagina Steve.
-Dick
March 11th, 2006 at 9:36 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Actually, from the way Supergirl writes, I have no trouble believing she is what she says she is, though her education could include anything from high-school physics to a PhD.
Fair enough on both.
Depends on mood. I comment a lot here (including socially), and sometimes my sense of humor can be a touch dry… as Big Al notes. Personally, I thought puppies and kittens was a nice touch, as was the reference to “sharp relief”
I’ll treasure it. Especially coming from someone named “Supergirl”.
-wolfe
March 11th, 2006 at 10:17 am - IP Man-Hash: 3b440d3c156ea
A woman with a PhD. That’s like a cup holder on a broken violin.
-Dick
March 11th, 2006 at 11:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 1638e7564cdc7
Actually I do have trouble with her claim. But for sake of argument, let’s assume she actually is a physist. Meaning her primary source of income is from active work as a physist. Most professionals do not wear their qualifications on their sleeve. Especially for a simple argument like BMI vs fat%. In that case, any mathemetician would
simply let the formula speak for itself. Playing the professional card is one for establishing ethos when explaining basic assumptions takes too long and would distract from the point. In this case there is no assumption to be made, the profession card was simply gratuitous.
Why, then would she state such a thing? Either it is untrue and it was inserted to add gravitas to minor point or it is a true statement. If true, why? Probably because she is proud of such an accomplishment in a male dominated field, hence the moniker. A man who is employed as a physist is simply joe the over educated mechanic who gets to blow stuff up on occasion. A woman who is employed as a physist is ‘Supergirl.’ Thereby proving the point that men are better than women. (note the logical assumptions, I’m sure you can figure them out)
March 11th, 2006 at 12:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3b440d3c156ea
Biff I think I covered that excellent man-conclusion in The Ubermensch.
-Dick
March 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pm - IP Man-Hash: fe7a06f831651
That was pretty astute, wolfe. You play fair, and I appreciate that.
And while I feel no particular need to pinpoint exactly where in that vast spectrum I lie, I’m almost tempted to take biff’s bait and supply unnecessary details about my profession/life as a physist (sic). But I won’t, because I’m sure nobody cares.
I call myself Supergirl only because whenever I’m required to sign my name, I scrawl out the words ’supergirl’. Yes, it’s the dumb sort of thing us females do to keep ourselves amused.
Like I’ve said before, I come here neither to praise my sex nor to bury it. I just come here because it’s another one of those things I do to amuse myself.
March 11th, 2006 at 3:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
A quite reasonable analysis, Biff. For my part, here’s why I think slightly differently. (Supergirl herself can skip this since it’s serious and has little to do with mabtw — or she can read it and comment as she wills)
Her first comment where she simply cursed Dick out? Yeah, kind of rude and dumb, but she spelled properly and was grammatically correct. That’s fairly rare for those who come here to foam at the mouth and curse. Or, contrast her writing with Stephanie… I mean Steve. There’s a bubbly emotionalism present in Steve’s writing that isn’t in SG’s.
Following up on writing style, her subsequent comments are fairly flatly written, with sound grammar. In this day and age this makes her reasonably intelligent, well educated, or both. The very flatness of the writing style, the elegant but unusual word choice — e.g. “vast spectrum I lie” — phrases like that are very reminiscent of the writing of a literate science or engineering student.
The progression, from a throwaway cursing attack comment from someone who might never return, to a slightly more thoughtfully written response to me, to several normal relatively logical posts.
Her writing doesn’t resemble that of a med student, or a lawyer, or an arts/social sciences type. Impossible to tell for sure on such a small sample of course.
Her choice of (relative) humidity was a very interesting one. It’s unlikely a non-science type would have picked that. It’s a sort of orthogonal progression, but a somewhat logical parallel from BMI etc.
The fact that she picked up on the BMI/body fat percentage issue in the first place. Most people, unless they are physical trainers, financial or accounting types, or engineering or scientific types would have glazed their way through most of those numbers and been untroubled by the inconsistencies. After all, only one or two others have pointed that out to Dick. (though I suspect more of us saw it but didn’t feel it worth commenting on).
Does she earn her living as a physicist? I don’t know. I’d viewed her more as a student (though postgrad or beyond). Certainly, her writing is consistent with her claim, and she’s not making extravagant claims (yet) either. Unlike our previous friend the “doctor”, there are no Appeal to Authority fallacies here (yet).
I’m happy waiting and seeing.
-wolfe
March 11th, 2006 at 9:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: 49c9ff889fded
I still stand by my previous post. If we take 33% of people with bs, 3% of all graduates are physicists and 12% (quick google, don’t quote me on the numbers but I am close) of those are female then 1.188/1000 of everyone you meet is a female with a degree in physics. Not real good odds. Better odds of meeting an MD or DVM.
I have got to stop posting from my phone. Sentence structure and spelling suck when you can only see a few words at a time.
March 12th, 2006 at 6:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Biff, what I find most interesting is that you have a top-down analysis and I’ve a bottom up analysis. Neither are wrong, but for the purposes of this post, I’m going to use your top-down methodology.
I was convinced you were wrong on the % of women in physics by about a factor of two (since the numbers you cite are where things were in the early 90’s IIRC). Sure enough, you were, (about 23% according to American Institute of Physics) but an factor of 2 error is not something I’ll complain about. It doesn’t fundamentally change your argument.
On the rest? Unlike the % of women in physics, I couldn’t find it in under 10s on google, so I’m not. I’m not sure about your numbers; I’d tend to say 40% of random pop at the age range likely to hit this site with some kind of degree or college education, and sure, 33% of those with BSc. Bio, Chem, Physics, geology, maths, other… Bio and geo on an upswing, Chem on a downswing, physics probably neutral. Let’s say 20% (might be slightly high).
So. 0.4*0.33*0.2*0.23 = 0.0061.
[young population assumed to hit website,%with degrees *
percent with BSc (Biff #) *
percent of BSc with physics degree (wolfe #) *
percent of women with physics degree (AIP #)]
We differ by about 6x. Big deal. Anything within an order of magnitude is good by me. Moreover, I’m incorporating a degree of selection bias in my results in the belief that people who post here and then keep posting are somewhat more likely to be educated.
In short, your numbers are not unreasonable (though, I think, low).
So we’re talking about, say, 1.2-6/1000.
Here’s where I differ from your argument slightly. It depends upon how we look at the occurence of this new poster.
There have probably been on the order of 100 people who’ve posted in this forum in the way SG has.
The chances of us not encountering a female physicist (which, judging by reading the archives to date we have not) are, overall, 0.994^100 = 0.55.
So the odds we’d encounter a female physicist by now are 45%, using my numbers. (Yes, of course, each trial is independent, and you’re quite correct that the odds of SG happening to be a female physicist, ignoring everything else, are slim. Thing is, it doesn’t make sense to ignore everything else, and she does indeed have to be SOMETHING, however improbable)
Tabula rasa, we’d expect the odds of a female physicist posting by about now to be about 1 in 2.
A perfectly reasonable analysis on your part, and I find nothing material to fault. (A factor of 1-6 in estimation is negligible (not even one order of magnitude) in a “how many golf balls can you fit in a suitcase” question such as this).
Both analyses are reasonable and correct, and you’re quite right to be skeptical. I am willing to provisionally believe based on the arguments I’ve stated. Only time will tell.
Thanks for an opportunity to stretch my rusty (and weak) stats muscles.
-wolfe
March 12th, 2006 at 6:54 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Correction: I said “Moreover, I’m incorporating a degree of selection bias in my results in the belief that people who post here and then keep posting are somewhat more likely to be educated.”
I meant “somewhat more likely to be younger [i.e., 18-44]“. If I incorporated the educated selection bias in my argument it would strengthen my numbers, but I’m not quite convinced enough to do so. I am convinced that most people posting here are in the 18-44 range.
-wolfe
March 12th, 2006 at 8:55 am - IP Man-Hash: fe7a06f831651
Obviously, only one of you is correct.
Wolfe, your logic is flawless. You both have even come up with a neat little equation a la Drake. Well, almost.
You’re using every new bit of information available to you, facilitating a good iterative method of zeroing in on the answer.
Biff, I suppose you might argue that I’m just trying to lead you both up the wrong path, by supplying (albeit, extremely subtly) little tidbits of information with the sole purpose of misleading you.
Which do you think is more likely?
I’m going to wait and watch.
March 12th, 2006 at 12:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: fa3a01f310b52
And I am not going to bother….
March 13th, 2006 at 7:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Actually both Biff and I could be correct. I’ve merely said that I see nothing inconsistent in your claim and provisionally believe, subject to future developments.
I’ve nothing more to say on the matter. It’s getting a little Heisenbergian on your part, if Dick can be permit a bad physics joke.
Still, as a digression in a 6-month old post, not bad.
-wolfe
March 13th, 2006 at 12:05 pm - IP Man-Hash: cabb20507fade
Okay, I feel like a skinner project trying to do this on my phone but what the heck. Forgive my math accordingly…
Actually if we use a binomial probability where n=100, k=1,p=.003,and q=.997 than exactly one = .22, 1=.25. two T calc=.26=oneT. The poisson aaprox is meaningless as np and npq are too far appart. (thank goodness math on paper sucks). So 1/4 chance that one or more fem with bs physics happening to stumble by our little section of the web. However the smart money 24/25 says no. Simply because a fem physics type is a rare bird.
I tend toward the type one error is okay and type 2 is not. I’m a cynic like that. However it would be awesome to have one rare critter hangin’ aboot.
Imagine a female one could actually ask questions of and get real answers from. My heart goes pitter patter just to think of it. I want to believe, I really do. You know what almost had me convinced? physist(sic) That was simple, elegant, crushing in it’s logical minimal effort. But .96. I must stick with my original thought but I can be convinced.
March 13th, 2006 at 12:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Are we talking about the perfect woman now? Because I’ve got a shirt on that subject in the store.
-Dick
March 13th, 2006 at 6:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
True, Biff, but keep in mind we differ on p (and hence q). Your suggestion of 0.003 is not a bad compromise though. In any event, the binomial probability equation simplifies to the equation I cited above. Thus, for p=0.003 it would be q^n or 0.997^100, or indeed 0.74. Yep, your phone-math is sound.
“I tend toward the type one error is okay and type 2 is not. ” That’s a most succinct way of phrasing our difference. TMK. I can only say that I’m not rejecting either hypothesis… yet, though strictly speaking one could argue that could make me guilty of type 2.
“Imagine a female one could actually ask questions of and get real answers from. My heart goes pitter patter just to think of it.”
Ha! Indeed. I found her collision with Female on the forum mildly amusing.
-wolfe
March 14th, 2006 at 11:00 am - IP Man-Hash: a7b6debe20f37
Fair enough. we will just have to wait for more evidence.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 23d767b1ffcd7
Yes I did see the “no women allowed sign�, yes I know what that means. Do I care? No, not really. First off I was laughing so hard I started to cry from the things you had on this sight. SOME of it is true about SOME women. It’s the women that aren’t bull headed and don’t give a damn about what we look like, the newest nail color, or how big are boobs are the get pissed. Like that bull about men being alpha in the animal kingdom isn’t true in all cases. In a horse herd the lead mare is alpha. SHE leads the herd. The stallion follows from the back. Don’t let the cute little movies about a white stallion leading a pack of mares and foals from danger confuse you. It’s not true. And if that isn’t enough to knock down your male pride, lioness hunt in their prides. They also birth and care for the children. Males spend most of their time walking the boarders of their kingdom and fighting with neighboring males. Explain that one. But I have to agree with you on most the things you say. Yeah, most women have shit in their heads. My sister electrocuted herself, once. Ok twice. Put a cord in her mouth because as she put it “she didn’t have enough hands to get the job done�. Don’t ask. I don’t know why women won’t change their own damned tire. I do. Point is not all women are shit heads. Most but not all. Maybe it’s my dreaded female logic but my horses are my children. I adore them. But since you since you “know all� tell me this, why the hell do most women want children? I hate kids. Why the heck would you want to be fat for nine months and not be able to do a fucking thing? And if men are so great why are there more women in the world then men? And by the way men put Hitler in office.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: 614562f9015cf
Pets are not children.
75% of females in Germany voted for Hitler.
Fuck off the site.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 23d767b1ffcd7
See this is an example of men having too much time. And where the hell the hell did you find that statistic?