Dear Martin,

Just got in from night out, so a bit drunk. Please excuse the consequent extra typos and loss of coherency. I'd imagine that spending all that time working on your site is pretty much heaven for you. Although 18 hrs a day sounds a bit cross-eyed-making. #eeeeee

How many children do you have?

Hm, not sure about a title for the page. After I've had a look at what you've done, if I'm inspired, I'll get back to you.

On the subject of pictures, I'll see what I can do. A friend took a couple of photos of me tonight, using a digital camera, so maybe they might be some use. Again, I'm very ignorant of the possibilities,so I'll speak to him and see what he says.

Biographical details:

I'm 22, currently doing an engineering degree at Oxford, from a tiny village in darkest Cheshire, and desperately seeking employment for next year. I'm happily unsingle with a soon-to-be lawyer called Neal, and (as you know) my top recommended reading is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett.

That is another difference between men and women, women are jealous of attention, men are only really jealous of actual penetrative sex. Bill would have done better if he could have told Hillary that he did not have an affair with that woman... Just a meaningless sex game. But he thought like a man, as long as he didn't penetrate he wasn't being unfaithful. Which sex is right? Both, by their own standards

I think women see being unfaithful on an emotional level. If a man makes an emotional connection with another woman, looks at her a certain way, etc., then that counts as unfaithful to women. It's the intention that's important, not the actual act. I think the female rationale is that whilst the husband was having this deep and meaningful moment with the 'other woman', he can't have been thinking about his wife. And he should always be thinking about his wife.

The different sexes draw the line at different levels. But the male perspective seems to be that so long as he doesn't actually go through with his desires, then flirting or whatever is okay. I think either perspective is okay, so long as the line, whichever line it is, isn't crossed. And the closer you get to it, or the further along it is in the first place, maybe the harder it gets to be 'good'.

Right, need my bed now, I think.

Kate

Oh, my name in print. What a buzz!! Excuse me. I told you I was drunk. Yes, I like all that, thank you for the odd bits of tinkering you have done that make me look more professional. I think the way you have put in the contact bit is cool too. I'm being a sycophant, and I know you don't like that, so I really will go to bed.

How did your day of geekdom go? Sounds truly terrifying. You should develop a good outdoors counter-hobby, like rock-climbing or something, so you don't get prisoners' pallor.

I didn't know what serifs were, had to check with the boyfriend. Looks like the kind of font Americans would favour. I use times new roman, when I want to look officious, but I think Arial is a bit friendlier.

They are good names, but like you say, they're very 1990s. Funny. When I was at primary school, and secondary, virtually all my friends were called either Catherine, or Kathryn, or Kate. Maybe by the time I'm naming my kids, things like Ethel and Arthur will be the height of fashion again. At university, there is a glut of Andrews, so we have things like handy andy to distinguish them.

I'm desperate to read some more Dawkins. Most of my friends here are biologists, so I used to raid their bookshelves for good reading matter. I was allowed to read about half of The Blind Watchmaker before it got stolen back off me. Dawkins is a lecturer at the biology department here, and he was rather prone to self-recommendation when it came to reading lists, so they all had plenty of his stuff.

I went into a couple of good second hand bookshops the other day, but there wasn't anything of his. I did pick up a couple by Stephen Jay Gould - is he any good? I have a feeling that Dennett wasn't particularly complementary about him. I'll also start keeping my eye out for some Pinker.

Male mind/female mind.

Tricky one. I'm not sure that these supposedly male and female ways of thinking aren't just stereotypes that we all subscribe to. Like the 'male' tendency to suppress emotion, to therefore be less forthcoming about emotional topics. And on the other side, women's intuition, and the 'female' tendency to be more controlled by emotion. Surely these things can't be put down to anything other than social conditioning. But there again, maybe if this conditioning is what causes these things, it's there for a reason anyway. When the father tells his son not to cry when he cuts his knee, is it because the father knows his son won't attract a mate later in life by being a cry-baby, and will therefore be less likely to pass on his genes? Likewise, the unconscious coaching in being gentle, sweet and innocent that the daughter receives early on in life, is this to later attract the attention of a nice, butch, protective mate? It's all very well the new-age man thing, but men do have to be masculine in order to be sexy. And like you say, the independent, 90's woman needs to have a soft underside if she's to have sex appeal.

What about success in other aspects of life then? These days, successful reproduction is not the end of the story. Maybe that is why there is this modern vogue for independent women and emotionally connected males. By learning to unlearn some of the stereotypes we are given, we have unlocked some of the extra potential of our minds. The trick is, then, to compartmentalise when you reveal your 'other half'. Whilst flirting with his secretary, or closing a deal, the male executive is wise to be influenced by the cave-man in him. Whilst putting together a really impressive Power Point presentation, he can unlock some of his female creativity. How will this make my audience feel?

Right, I feel a glut of femininity coming on - I'm going to ring up my best friend (Catherine, obviously), for that most female of things, a girly gossip.

Get some fresh air.

Kate

Stephen Jay Gould

An interesting writer but I am not sure if I agree totally with all his theories. Some of his stuff is very good, very readable. I read quite a bit of his stuff when I was desperate to stay awake. He has a good imagination for allusions and metaphor. He is good at communicating wonder, which has to be the main feature in a popular science writer.

I don't know about Dennett's attitude to him but when I think of Gould and Dawkins I am reminded of my mother's dog. Everyday another dog was lead past her gate and he snarled every time, twice a day, four times on Sunday. I think they are like that, pent up jealousy and more. They would make a good couple on Celebrity Deathmatch if it ever went highbrow (what a weird thought.)

(Sorry if I loose coherency it is the fault of Zanussi chest freezers. I sold quite a few of them because I preferred to lean in that part of the shop, there was a incentive program running that I barely knew about and I ended up winning a load of Victoria Wine vouchers... I think you can deduce the rest.)

Male and female

If anybody tells you that gender is socially conditioned just laugh at them. My own experience of having children and watching other people's children confirms the view that sex is not just something that goes on between the legs, it goes on between the ears too. My two children are as different as chalk and cheese, or Yin and Yang. But I have done my best not to reinforce the stereotypes. I cuddle my son openly and I have never told him that boys don't cry.

Richard Dawkins

He is a bit of an egotist perhaps but he is right to be so. He is brilliant and he is right. And he has a wonderful wife who I fancied like mad when I was young. (Check out Dawkins, Mrs Richard in my A to Z index.)

I was recently thinking who I would most like to visit my site. If there was a single person it would have to be Richard Dawkins. As for types of people it would have to be young, intelligent atheists. The smarter the better. Female undergraduates at Oxford would rank rather high.

Independent women.

That is a subject for another day. Ahhh, well, 17 and a half hours so far. I'll just upload this and see if anybody has bitten on the newsgroups, that should round the day off nicely.

Martin

Dear Martin,

Sorry not to have written in such a while - it was the end of term, which is always a bit hectic.

Thanks for your messages. I just spent about an hour looking at the new stuff - I like the bulletin board, and will try to come along and contribute. Also read that bit entitled 'Christian Science'. People like him/her are the kind that really get me going. How they can believe that the fact that science doesn't yet have all the answers, is a valid argument against science, and in favour of religion, I just don't know. It seems to me that people's understanding of what science is about is really poor. I suppose it is in Christianity's interest to misrepresent grossly what it is that science is doing. The number one strawman argument. Yeah, I've been reading the newsgroups.

I've also just finished reading Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable. Fantastic stuff, should be compulsory reading for everyone, everywhere. Did you see Stephen Fry on Room 101 tonight, by any chance? He put New Age living and all its associated paraphernalia into room 101, as represented by one of those Dreamcatcher things. He spoke brilliantly about how he hated all that kind of 'woolly thinking'. Man after your own heart, in that respect.

Did you see that thing in the news (low budget news, admittedly) about how some scientists have 'proven' the existence of telepathy? What do you reckon? Free-thinking claptrap, or scientific reality? I'm undecided, but from what I've read, it seems like the science was reasonable. The way I feel about a lot of this kind of supernatural stuff is that eventually it will either be disproved, or it will be incorporated into science. I saw Uri Geller speak a couple of years ago. And he bent a spoon. Really, no strings attached. But I don't think that was because he was magic, or operating outside the scope of science. Just outside the scope of known science. Or maybe just clever sleight of hand, but I don't think so... Unfortunately he somewhat shot himself in the foot credibility-wise, by attributing his powers both to God, and to aliens.

Right, going to bed.

Kate