This could be interesting

Nah, that law is hunting with dogs. Hunting with foxes with squirrels is
OK.

 

Psycho squirrel? Qu'est que c'est?
Fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run away.

 

<coffee exits mouth at high velocity>

New keyboard, please!!
--

Cheers!
Fr Jack
96 Tiger.
FRJACKUKRM AT GMAIL DOT COM

 

We didn't: you miss my point. I was suggesting that the attitude of most
male bridge players is different to that of most female players.

You specifically suggested that women like a spot of gambling.

This started off discussing mens vs womens hobbies, so not unreasonably I
tried to distinguish between the way men and women approach their hobbies.
I think that if there is a difference betweeen a hobby and a mere
interest/passtime then it has to be in part in that approach.

Just because you can gamble on a game, doesn't make it a gambling game.
You could bet on snakes and ladders if you want.

That's true to a point. You *can* play poker for matches, but generally
it doesn't work. In a tournament environment I can see that it's
possible, because you can rely on the players taking the game seriously.
What you're really doing is substituting for real money another currency,
in which the players are also interested. (Honor, pride, "kudos".)

<puzzled>
The points determine who wins.
</p>

That's normal rubber
bridge, though. At most clubs you'd be playing duplicate or teams of some
sort, which have different scoring systems and are ultimately much more
satisfying.

One might feel that bridge is pointless in itself, and only money adds
interest to it, but betting is not an integral part of the game, unlike
poker and backgammon.

 

From 20s upwards.

I'm wondering now just how to define a hobby, as opposed to a passtime, or
even if there is a useful, generic difference.

The only thing I can think of which covers everything is an obsessive
quality - something which would tend to make them a male preserve.

 

I agree with that.

I think they/we do, but not very competitely. My Mum likes to bet on a
couple of horseraces a year; I like the occasional gamble on
backgammon. This to me is a 'spot of gambling', but I'd agree with
anyone who said it could not be taken seriously.

OK, seems fair.

True. It does make for a different style of game, though that's by the
by, since you can't 'take the money and run' at any point but must
stay for the longhaul.

OK. So it looks like we are actually not that far apart after all. We
have different definitions of gambling, hobbies and interests and we
have different outlooks on all of these, but we can see where the
other is coming from - yes?


--
Marina Mayes - Reading, UK. To email me remove XX from my address
SR250 - on the road again. BOTAFOT12, BOD#2, BOTAFOS#2
KotLBOD#s, KotLBOTAFOS#s,IMC#2, Tart#10-19, SR#3
Original Sinergy - wicked T-shirts for a wicked world: www.originalsinergy.com
I never give in to fear or blackmail; I always give in to temptation.
www.pericles.demon.co.uk
"You're a national treasure" - porl, 18.1.03

 

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:13:43 +0000, marina wrote:

Well, we seem to have reached some understanding of what we're each
talking about but we're not really a lot further along in the exploration
of hobbies and gender, except to realise that we need to talk in *very*
general terms, and that you're a mannish freak.

 

I think that's correct, although that obsessive quality also leads men to
do a lot more research on their hobbies: reading lots of books in
particular. If I consider women I know who are interested in sports, few
of them spend a lot of time on the sports forums on the internet or read
books on the sport, (other than the occaisional celebrity (auto)biography).


Something else occurred to me this morning...

If you look back a few generations, people generally didn't have hobbies
because they had little free time. Men would be out working all day;
women would be working in the home all day and more.

As technological developments started to make things easier for the
housewife, she might find a bit of free time. Rather than a pure leisure
activity she'd engage in either something improving - reading the bible or
some such - or productive: the "typical" women's crafts. These latter
would be of immediate benefit to the household, or might be sold at
markets. (This is the origin of the WI Market, giving housewives a little
independent income.)

Men, by contrast, had no need of an independent source of income as they
already had one: they'd have initial control of the money so if they
wanted a few shillings for beer, they could take it even if they
subsequently handed over the rest of their wages to their wife. So
although they too might go for "improving" passtimes they might also
indulge themselves in the sybaritic delights of fishing or collecting
fossils.

 

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:54:56 +0000, Halla

Oh ye of little faith, told you I'd get there..

I've given up. No sooner do I work out what one bit is then another
bit goes wrong and I forget what I learnt about the first bit.

Hand holding while you're doing it helps. Blow jobs are quicker.

That ear thing still going on?

And that depends on bike as well as rider. I'm improving every time I
go out (and I am so fucked off with this chest infection as it has
been gorgeous weather here and I'm too wobbly to go out) but if he was
going even half way towards flat out I wouldn't stand a chance of
keeping up.

snip golf and falons (hey that might just work...)

 

<makes rude gestures>

 

Prrp to you then.

--
Marina Mayes - Reading, UK. To email me remove XX from my address
SR250 - on the road again. BOTAFOT12, BOD#2, BOTAFOS#2
KotLBOD#s, KotLBOTAFOS#s,IMC#2, Tart#10-19, SR#3
Original Sinergy - wicked T-shirts for a wicked world: www.originalsinergy.com
I never give in to fear or blackmail; I always give in to temptation.
www.pericles.demon.co.uk
"You're a national treasure" - porl, 18.1.03

 

Women who had the time often read novels - penny libraries and the
like - but, on the whole, I'd agree with you.

Don't forget the great autodidact movement of the 19C - reading rooms
helped here as well as the drive to self-improve so as to move up the
ladder. So a lot of men had the 'hobby' of education. Note I'm not
disagreeing with you.

--
Marina Mayes - Reading, UK. To email me remove XX from my address
SR250 - on the road again. BOTAFOT12, BOD#2, BOTAFOS#2
KotLBOD#s, KotLBOTAFOS#s,IMC#2, Tart#10-19, SR#3
Original Sinergy - wicked T-shirts for a wicked world: www.originalsinergy.com
I never give in to fear or blackmail; I always give in to temptation.
www.pericles.demon.co.uk
"You're a national treasure" - porl, 18.1.03

 

There's no way any two people are going to be exactly equally fast.[1]
It's an unattainable goal and not really worth worrying about. Either
agree meeting points and ride seperately, or both go at the slower
rider's pace: it's not that much of a hardship.

It makes sense to become a bit faster if you can (and are comfortable with
it) so that your companion(s) don't have to slow down too much. Having a
powerful bike would help, too, so that one can catch up on the easy bits.

There's more to it than ability and the bike. One also has to consider
speed limits: whether and by how much one is prepared to break them.
Similarly in traffic willingness to overtake can make a big difference.

[1] Possibly if they're both very good, on similar bikes the difference
might not be very great, given all the random factors on the road.

 

Oh I don't.

I certainly wont be doing any ukrm rideouts (except as pillion) until
I have a lot more experience.

There's time for that. I'll never have anything really big simply
because of the height and weight.

It takes a little while to realise that you have a level of
acceleration that simply isn't there in the car.

A bit like the 'if I could split in two and go different routes but
both of me have to stop for lights etc at same time which one would
get home first' thought thing.

 

Depends what you're fixing - quicker than something complicated,
longer than changing a spark plug - unless you're Nigel Eaton (thinks
about that, lets it stand)

<whatshisface mode>
You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

urk. Spirit level on a necklace?

 

Actually, these are usually pretty good: no-one is expected to keep up.
People stop periodically to let the slower riders catch up. I think it's
partly because we are, of course, a superior breed to the rest of the
country's bikers, and because we're a very diverse bunch with people of
widely different abilities and very diferent machines.

You're not that small, and sports bikes in particualr keep getting smaller
and lighter. Confidence, I'm told, is the main thing. No reason to get a
bigger bike if you don't want one but equally no reason not to if you do.

Yep. One set of lights being against you, or a bunch of oncoming traffic
at the wrong time can make quite a difference on a shortish ride.

 

I recall an old, married, driver (whilst I was at Waterloo in the
eighties) who proudly proclaimed he'd bought his house.

This in itself is not that unusual but he'd been under the impression
they'd been paying rent for the last twenty years.

 

I've been laid up since late November with similar problems.
The doctor diagnosed it as labyrinthitis. It's an inner ear problem,
but no physical signs, when the doc takes a look. Usually occurs after
a virus. Can take *ages* to clear. The doc just gave me another 2
weeks, about 20 minutes ago. There are no easy fixes, other than
tablets to mask the symptoms, however, I've still been advised not to
drive, etc.
--

Cheers!
Fr Jack
96 Tiger.
FRJACKUKRM AT GMAIL DOT COM

 

Verdigris says...
The usual is that we take it in turns to lead and follow. If I want
to play then I'll hang back for a while, then go a bit quicker to
catch up. Or **** off in to the distance then stop and wait. Having
said that, if I want to go quickly I tend to go out by myself or
take herself on pillion.

'swot I said.

 

I was thinking of spectators, not players. The women I know who actually
play sports seem to view it as a pleasant way of getting exercise, so
they're not really interested in it in a fanatical way, either.

Hm. Not sure. There wouldn't have been many women running a sizeable
household, with servants. Although I guess it wouldn't have been a lot
different to be in charge of a household with loads of daughters and
neices and suchlike.

In the monied classes things varied quite a lot over the ages. At some
times, women would have been closely involved in their husbands' business
affairs. At other times, they would have been rather more ornamental.

Of course, some of you manage to be both useful and ornamental.

It's not really about avoiding people - I used to go fishing but nearly
always with friends - but for the most part it's not about food. If you
want to catch fish to eat there are more efficient ways than a rod and
line.