The Man Scale is an entirely arbitrary and subjective scale used to measure the masculinity of an object or a person. The man scale can be compared to the Beaufort Scale as it is based on observation as opposed to any particular formula.
Derivation, Formulation and first usage of the Man Scale
The man scale was officially first used on the 29.1.09 at approximately 8:15AM. However, the calculations governing usage of the man scale may have actually been completed much earlier. Sources differ as to the exact time but the general consensus is somewhere between 8:14AM and 8:14.30AM. The men credited with inventing the man scale are Christopher Rosser, Thomas Gerrish and Oliver Levett, further mathematicians currently residing inside the United Kingdom. The scale was actually formulated to provide a comparison between Engineers and Thespians however the potential of the man scale as a universal measure of masculinity was soon apparent and it found its way into common usage rapidly thereafter.
The formula for calculating the masculinity of a person or object is of course incredibly complicated. Christopher Rosser did attempt to create a standard formula that would allow the calculation to be carried out repeatably however he was unsuccessful, due to facts stated by Mr Gerrish, such as it's need to be a logarithmic scale and the need of deep voices when reffering to said scale. After careful consideration Rosser and Gerrish decided that in fact there were two key aspects regarding the creation of a mathematical formula that render the entire process futile:
- A scale that aims to describe the masculinity of an object or person must include a truly mind-boggling number of variables. Factors relating to physical appearance are of course incredibly important but the formula must also include actions and the subsequent consequences as well as the perception of these by peers and authority figures. This variable list would invariably run into the millions and therefore makes any sort of calculation impractical without the aid of a server farm. This hasn't stopped Oliver Levett from trying, however 19GHz cpu clock speeds were considered too unstable for all but the most specialist of situations. Currently Oliver Levett is working on an algorithm designed to make wild assumptions incredibly rapidly with no regard for public safety. It is hoped that this algorithm may make it possible for a computer to caluculate lan values by simply assuming many (99.9%) of the variables.
- A mathematical formula should in essence allow a calculation to be performed repeatably by different parties and yet still achieve the same, or at least a comparable result. Unfortunately with the man scale this proves impossible. Many of the variables to be considered are purely subjective in nature and can easily vary as fashions and styles change. For example looking back it is clear that 70's flares are not particularly masculine as they are now worn predominately by women however the same observation carried out when flares were in fashion would certainly find them cool and most probably acceptable masculine dress. This problem can be solved by introducing variables related to fashion but as these are also purely subjective the problem is almost impossible to solve. Of course, caring about such things incurs incredible negative man points, such that the culprit is rendered unworthy of reading the scale until he has achieved 100 points of combined lan value. However, not being able to look at the scale means that the person in question does not know how or when they have gained these points, thus ceasing to be a man for the rest of eternity.
- Style and fashion are two separate entities, if one cannot tell them apart, one should seek support from a man with a high lan value, or if they are in real trouble, one of the creators.
Usage of the man scale
The man scale is an incredibly important tool in our modern society when the boundaries between the masculine and the feminine are blurring however correct usage is essential. Below is a table of objects and people and there corresponding values on the man scale. N.B. These are of course only advisory as the man scale is a purely subjective scale. A pink harley davidson for example would not have the same value as shown in the table as its colour greatly reduces its masculinity.
|Object||Rating on Man Scale|
|stage crew||5.8x1014 (only if the sacred rites of Gaffa and man scale are upheld at all times)|
|Doing a -ve man point activity for a bet||swap sign -ve becomes +ve|
|Eb Bass Player||30-35|
|Calculating the Volume of Hypercubes Mentally||25-30|
|Sarcasm and Irony in combination with dry wit||80|
|Windows Mobile Powered Device||26+|
|User of above||26 - 30|
|Integrating for fun||27+|
|A Level Physics||4|
|Object||Rating on Man Scale|
|The silent treatment||-18-22|
|Eating a salad instead of man food||-28-32|
|Asking for directions||-33|
|Attending a netball match#||-35-37|
|Diets of any kind||-48-52|
|Spending more than 5min choosing an outfit||-49-55|
|Striking a female†||-67+|
|Calling an AAA van or the like due to a puncture||-70-74|
|Calling an AAA van or the like.||-75-79|
|Hysteria of any kind||-80|
|Allowing a considered debate to become personal||-81-83|
#Acceptable if you think you have a shot with one of the players otherwise NEGATIVE MAN POINTS
† Unless it is consensual, in this case it is often not called hitting (this action gives MASSIVE POSITIVE MAN POINTS)
‡Unless its for items that have +ve man points
Calculation and correct nomenclature
The man scale is not as simple as the table above suggests. If the object is considered to be twice as manly as a man it would appear logical to give it a man scale value of 2 in fact the scale value acts as a power of the base 'man'. E.g. If Θ is the value on the man scale then the object in question has a masculinity of manΘ. For example an orange has a value on the man scale of man17.
Therefore we can use laws of logarithms to calculate the man scale of an object or event. To find the man scale value we must take the log of the event to the base man like so ?=logman(event). An accomplice of Mr Rosser, namely Dr Lovering noted that as loge has been shortened to ln, logman could be shortened to lan. Thus when finding the value for an object on the man scale one must "lan" it.
E.g. "I'm sure if I were to lan you in that pink sweater the value would be very negative". It is important not to confuse this with the abbreviation of Local Area Network however using lan in the correct context should prevent misinterpretation.
As lan is a logarithmic function it therefore follows that masculinity can never be =< 0. This is an important feature of the man scale and it is important to consider this when talking about the product of a lan. In general lan values are quoted instead of absolute masculinity values and follow the form listed in the tables above. It is convention that to find the absolute masculinity value one would have to take man to the power of the lan value stated. However in practice this is rarely useful as the man scale is purely subjective.
The Gerrish Paradox
It was decided soon after the creation of the man scale to impose a restriction on the people who are legally allowed to read and use the scale. The threshold was set at 2 man points. In laymans terms it was decided that a person must achieve 2 man points before they are allowed to read the man scale and award lan values and subsequently man points. Soon after Thomas Gerrish hypothesised that due to this restriction there was a possibility that a paradox could be created. Such a paradox Gerrish theorised would prevent someone below the threshold of man points ever being able to use the scale however much they attempted to redeem themselves through manly actions. The sequence of events would unfold as such.
- Man drops below 2 man point threshold
- Man is unable to read man scale
- Man attempts to gain man points however being unable to read the scale man can never know when/if he has exceeded man point threshold
- Man is never able to read man scale
- Man's masculinity is DOOMED!!!
Startled at his discovery Gerrish began an arduous mathematical proof in the hope that he was somehow mistaken, however after 11 hours of solid integration, differentiation, rationalisation and gratuitous use of the modulo operator he was no closer to a conclusive proof. After consulting with Christopher Rosser and Oliver Levett it was decided that the only viable method of solving the equation short of rationalising pi was to use Levett's as yet untested formula for making wild assumptions at near the speed of heat in conjunction with a windows mobile powered phone overclocked to 22.4GHz using a LN2 phase change composite heatsink. To contol expansion the heatsink was hand crafted from an amalgam of diamond, lead, tin and toffee (chosen for its high specific heat capacity). After running for 15 hours straight the algorithm returned a simplified form 7=6. In mathematical circles this is widely accepted as proof that an equation is insoluble. Thusly the Gerrish Paradox is now prooven and stands as a warning to all who would abuse the man scale.
One might argue that these three did not prove the paradox correctly, but as they have an infinite lan value (see Gerrish's laws of the lan(d)) and they created this algorith which makes the formula of fluid dynamics look like asking what the value of x is, given x=3, one should note that by saying this their lan value has dropped below 100 and are subject to the Gerrish Paradox, as stated by Gerrish's laws of lan.
Invoking the Gerrish paradox is a right held exclusively by the creators of the scale and has only ever been invoked once, against the moderators who deleeted the man scale page from wikipedia. After that event the creators swore never again to invoke the Gerrish Paradox unless the most dire need arose or as a punishment for the most unrepentent misuser of the man scale.
- it should be noted that Thomas Gerrish occasionally uses Levett formula mentally in sudden outbursts of crazy mathematics, but is an uncontrolled event when he has no ability to restrain the ensuing defacement of the nearest whiteboard.
The Levett Conjecture
It is a self-evident fact that Gerrish is wrong in maths however, the Gerrish paradox is true. This is contradictory in most cases. The Levett Conjecture states that as this is the case the Gerrish paradox is made to be doubly paradoxical, making it give Gerrish an even greater combined lan value for doing so, and also doubly (on the lan scale) difficult to escape. This gives it a rating of difficulty on the difficulty scale of 2, 0 being done by accident, 1 being impossible, yet another paradox. At this point you may understand what is happening. You may however not. This conjecture repeats until the impossibility factor is infinity and Gerrishs lan value is also infinity, which it was anyway after creating the scale.* Since the Levett Conjecture was first discussed (whilst integrating x^i-lan(x)), Levett has been striving for a disproof of the conjecture, as the infinite increase of a value which doesn't actually exist is in theory impossible.Critics however have been quick to disproove ANY sort of man scale. It has been laughed at by many. Many have come with the equation: creating a man scale= trying to be manly and ending up gay. They are however, wrong, and have induced the Gerrish paradox on themselves.
- The creators are currently working on a number greater than infinity, for more information, e-mail us.
Influence of the man scale on other areas of society
The key offshoot from the man scale is the idea of man points one can convert the lan value of any of their actions into man points. However this conversion is not at the discretion of the one receiving, or being deducted man points but rather, as with the rest of the man scale, at the discretion of the aforementioned impartial observer. Generally men aspire to earning as many man points as possible while women tend to pretend not to care whilst actually attempting to achieve negative man points.
Another offshoot of the man scale is the 'style-scale' used almost exclusively when playing chess. The style scale is again a purely subjective scale based on an impartial observer's impression of a game. Style points are gained through moves that are considered particularly brave or intelligent. For example a move which forks two high value pieces and wins material will gain style points. However, a move which weakens one's position in an inventive way is likely to earn an order of magnitude more style points. At the end of a game all the style points earned by the winner may, at his or her discretion, be added to their "lan" value.
At its simplest, a player hoping to gain a large number of style points has two options available. Firstly, they have the option to play very well and hope to earn style points through original and inventive play. By playing strongly from the outset a victory is far more likely icreasing the likelihood of being able to convert one's style points into man points. However there is another far more risky strategy. The player could choose to play very poorly at the start of the game this will then lead to a seemingly unwinnable position due to a great imbalance of material by the mid game. this poor play however will also gain an astronomical number of style points. If the player then manages to recover from this position and secure victory all style points gained during the game will be converted into man points or negative man points at the player's discretion. It should be noted that attempting this can give negative style points if the moves result in a humiliating defeat. Should the game result in a draw or remain unfished after an alloted time has elapsed it is usual for style points to be used to decide the victor. There are some situations where style points are irrelevant, the most obvious being any tournament match, however playing with style points can lead to very educational games that encourage both sides to think inventively and play to the limit of their ability. Style points can also be used to produce a style rating, in this case style points for winning a match are counted as positive and points for losing are then subtracted to give the style rating.
Gerrish's laws of the lan(d)
It is reccommended to men who want to gain a great lan value (not wanting to incurs -ve lan) to learn these universal laws of lan, such that they are able to apply them from memory, in conjuction with sample activities stated above to uphold the law of the lan, and help themselves and the world to gain much lan value. (An action which itself increases one's lan value)
- The final say on what is and is not lan goes to the scale creators, as they themselves have already gaied infinite lan from the act of creating the scale. As the scale is already created no-one else may EVER gain infinite lan.
- The Gerrish paradox holds true in every dimension (see the Levett proof for further details).
- Obsessing about the man scale actually reduces your lan value as it annoys everyone around you and probably means you have a low lan co-efficient anyway as obsessing about it means that you are deaperate to gain more lan value, hence the above. (Wanting to achive great lan is admirable, but going on about it just is not.)
- Stage crew status has to be agreed upon by the creators of the Man scale, as it is a subtle and refined art, involving many sub-clauses by which one may be removed from this elite group, or may not even have qualified to join in the first place.
Controversy Related to the Man Scale
It is vital to remember that the man scale is a scale of masculity much like the richter scale is a measure of earthquake intensity. The scale is in no way derogitary to women or men and it merely a way of expressing one's feelings about the masculinity of n action or event. For example if one was to comment that the lan value of a pink feather scarf was very low that could and in most circumsatnces should be taken as a compliment, particularly (but not exclusively) if the wearer is female. another important point in that sexuality or gender have NO bearing on the man scale whatsoever. A homosexual can still perform masculine acts and hence achieve a high lan value, similarly a woman may feel proud of achieving a high lan value for a sporting achievement but also feel proud of achieving a negative lan value for using grooming products. The man scale is provided above all as a public service and the creators Christopher Rosser and Thomas Gerrish do in no way condone the use of it as pertaining to insults and the like.
Wikipedia have made it clear that as an organisation they do not recognise the man scale as a valid system of measurement. The creators have become angered by this and have unfortunaely had to take remedial action. This has involved awarding particular moderators on wikipedia, who will remain nameless, negative lan values. These have been compulsorarily converted into negative man points placing said moderators below the threshold outlined under the derivation of man scale section forever damning their masculinity.
The creators apologise to the families of all concerned....