what do we get out of poker? (long but I would appreciate responses)

[CrisBrown]

Hiya LetsRock,

I agree that there is some hard-wiring, as well as eons of socialization involved here. On the other hand, that's one of the reasons we have a cerebrum and not simply a medulla: so we can monitor our baser impulses and adapt to changing situations.

If you want a guys-only poker night where you can sit around in undershirts with large cigars and noisily expel gasses born of beer and nachos, that's fine. Women have hen parties, after all.

But don't expect a public cardroom (B&M or internet), or a workplace, or a golf course to be that place.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Kurn,

Thanks. You're a gentleklingon. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Cris

[Kenshin]

Most men (myself included) find it difficult to distinguish between the social atmosphere in which "women are women" and the one in which "women are people". For instance, I believe men should not sexualize their conception of female co-workers. However, if a woman expresses interest in a male co-worker, the man can respond accordingly. The work space changes from a place of sexual neutrality into one of a more traditonal relationship.

[LetsRock]

I agree with you Cris. Public places should be completely void of any discriminatory behavior, intentional or otherwise. I don't intentionally behave in a way that will alienate anybody, and I would guess that most people don't either. I would have to be completely ignorant to believe that never behave in a way that makes someone uncomfortable, but I never (well rarely [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) do it on purpose and usually appologize if I become aware of the situation where I do.

Some of us just haven't evolved enough yet to know that our behavior (intentionally or otherwise) is considered unacceptable by most people. Evolution takes a long, long time.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
Most men (myself included) find it difficult to distinguish between the social atmosphere in which "women are women" and the one in which "women are people".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this to the point of "first impression". Mens "first impression" of women likely tends to be of a sexual nature. This is just basic instinct. I think that most men can get past this (I think I can anyway - I guess I shouldn't try to be the spokesman for all men) and interact with them on their basis of professionalism and personality. I can not think of any instance where my opinion of someone was raised or lowered by their attractiveness after getting to know them.

I've found it to quite the opposite actually: they become more or less attractive as I find out who they are.

[mosch]

One of the regular substitutes in my regular foursome is a woman who I made friends with while at the pub one night. She's there to enjoy golfing, winning the sidebets and buying the celebratory round of drinks when she wins the match. She usually wins the match.

One of the strongest players in my home game is a woman who came one night as a friend of a friend and has been welcomed by everybody ever since. She plays well, has fun, and is the only person there who gets as distracted by a good hockey game as I do. She's beautiful, but it's irrelevant, she's just another fun person to have around on poker night.

I don't really care whether the person who takes the seat next to me is male, female or eunuch. I just want to play poker with people who aren't annoying, smelly or rude. I don't think that makes me particularly unique.

[Kinli]

I enjoyed your social theorizing,LetsRock. Thanks for sharing. As a former anthropology and archaeology student, I'd like to add a few observations.

Not all societies (past or present) have endured the social inequality of European and Asian societies. A great many Native American cultures, for example, saw no social inequality in sex-oriented roles.

But be that as it may, even the most preliterate tribes have a "men's hut" and a "woman's hut." These were places for the sexes to congregate socially apart from one another because of behavioral differences, and differences in interests.

Today, by removing all the "men's huts" and saying women are allowed to enter, we've created an uncomfortable social setting for men, whose last bastions of retreat have been invaded.

So instead of seeing the long accepted tradition of behaving differently in mixed company, we're seeing men trying to hang onto the men's hut mentality in mixed company, sometimes being quite belligerent about it.

I can sympathize, but we still need to cling to "special behavior in mixed company," men and women both.

Kinli

[James Boston]

I must be playing in the wrong cardrooms. I've never seen a woman playing poker that made me think anything sexual. As for the women I have played with, they were just poker players to me, like everyone else at the table. If I think I can beat a game, I play in it, regarless of the presence or lack of Y chromosomes. My arrogance doesn't discriminate.

[bigpooch]

Unfortunately, many players play poker to feed an addiction
or compulsion psychologically. It's gambling to them and
many of the players are simply gamblers! How would any
rational person explain losers at casinos or poker sites
playing week after week despite losing month after month?
To deny this would be to deny the reality of the world we
live in.

Poker is also a form of escapism from reality. From my own
personal experience, it was a good way to escape from more
productive activities and thankfully I was blessed to do
just about anything analytically well. It's true of other
games too, like chess and bridge; at times, I've immersed
myself in these games in the past and admittedly, it's quite
enjoyable to escape into another world if only for a few
weeks at a time! The real world is ugly, irrational, and
full of nonsensical events and problems that are unsolvable
despite our "technological progress". In the idealized
microcosm such as online poker, there are convenient layers
placed between the participants: players can hide behind
handle names and play any way they please as long as they
have chips to play with! Even if they are berated online,
would you think players are worried about other players
finding out their IP?

Poker can also be competition (not as extreme as warfare) as
evidenced by the really successful: they are all very
competitive and zealous to win. It's also a hobby that
people can slowly get better at (such as golf) that they can
use as a platform to socialize. Just like many other games,
it's also equitable to the participants not like the real
world where knowing who is often more important than knowing
what. Cards, if they are dealt randomly, don't care if you
are Colored, Jewish, the Queen of England , Bill Gates or
a rocket scientist. Also, on any given day, all but the
truly hopeless can actually win!

I don't want to minimize the social aspects of playing, but
the current zeitgeist suggests that a lot of poker in the
future will be online where the only interaction is through
that insidious chat box and often, the exchanges aren't very
complimentary besides the "nh"'s and the "ty"'s. Hopefully,
the stigma associated with poker in the past will all but
disappear with the arrival of the WPT on television and even
the notorious "Celebrity Poker"!

I wouldn't consider suggesting the poker playing community
as a fraternity: I would find it quite difficult to relate
to the "typical" player and wouldn't really want to delve
too deeply into a "loser's" kind of mentality and how they
were conditioned to think that way (it's too scary!). On
the other hand, a forum like 2+2 distinguishes itself as a
group of people that are trying to better themselves, albeit
in the limited activity of playing poker. In addition,
there are many insightful posts and some that are really
worth responding to. That simply means that some people
that post here do have something of valuable to say;
therefore, just finding some of these nuggets make it that
much more worthwhile on 2+2!