Log in

View Full Version : opinion of strip club regulars



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

yoda57us
11-02-2009, 10:17 AM
You have no effect on me on this site as this site means nothing. Nor does your type have an effect in the clubs I frequent as we probably go to different types of clubs. New Jersey has one or two clubs for your type and 100 for my type. Of course some clubs cater to both types perhaps the same dancer caters to both types.

I'm not looking to have an "effect" on you Earl. I just like poking holes in BS...I'm not here for you, I'm here to have fun. It's all about me!

You seem awfully hung up on 'types" Earl. We are all just guys in strip clubs with money to spend...on some levels, not many, you and I are the same...a though that both amuses and disgusts me...

rockie
11-02-2009, 02:48 PM
Earl: As someone who has occasionally been entertained by some of your posts. What is your agenda? I'm not challenging you, or busting your chops, but I'm amused that Yoda could have that effect on you in SW under the persona that you have built (post by post).

Earl_the_Pearl
11-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Earl: As someone who has occasionally been entertained by some of your posts. What is your agenda? I'm not challenging you, or busting your chops, but I'm amused that Yoda could have that effect on you in SW under the persona that you have built (post by post).

I didn't get any candy last night. :'(

OMG yesterday wasn't Halloween, no wonder I didn't get any candy and they released the hounds. Today isn't Election Day ether; :noidea: I shouldn't have forced the door open. Oh well the town jail is in the court house so I'll be first here tomorrow.

KiwiStrawberry Splenda
11-02-2009, 07:00 PM
To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen a single post on this forum by a PL claiming to rip off a stripper. On the contrary, I have seen countless proud posts from strippers on this forum where they have taken advantage of an emotionally impaired PL.

You ladies are sending out a consistent and methodical message and I am simply acknowledging it. You tell me, whose fault this is.

No one is going to admit to that, especially on a stripper support forum. However, it happens, ALL THE TIME IN REAL LIFE IN THE STRIP CLUB WHERE WE GO TO WORK.

Has anyone ever told you that the internet is not real life?

w/e, you can be really this dense, can you? At least Earl is having a laugh about the entire thing, I fear you actually believe what you're typing.

lestat1
11-03-2009, 09:18 PM
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1866972&postcount=56

Cyril
11-04-2009, 07:15 PM
No one is going to admit to that, especially on a stripper support forum. However, it happens, ALL THE TIME IN REAL LIFE IN THE STRIP CLUB WHERE WE GO TO WORK.

Has anyone ever told you that the internet is not real life?

w/e, you can be really this dense, can you? At least Earl is having a laugh about the entire thing, I fear you actually believe what you're typing.

Of course, I believe in what I type. My feelings have been hurt. I came to this site with a great hope of becoming friends with a stripper but now I am not sure I want to be friends with a stripper.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-04-2009, 07:21 PM
Of course, I believe in what I type. My feelings have been hurt. I came to this site with a great hope of becoming friends with a stripper but now I am not sure I want to be friends with a stripper.
This is the perfect time to become friends with a dancer a few days after the first of the month.

Cyril
11-04-2009, 07:24 PM
This is the perfect time to become friends with a dancer a few days after the first of the month.

Why is that? Why do they become more friendly during the first week of the month?

mediocrity
11-04-2009, 07:25 PM
^^ He is implying because that is when they become desperate for bill money.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-04-2009, 07:32 PM
^^ He is implying because that is when they become desperate for bill money.
Beauty and brains; its been the ruin of many a poor boy and g-d I know I'm one.

Cyril
11-04-2009, 08:27 PM
Beauty and brains; its been the ruin of many a poor boy and g-d I know I'm one.

More on beauty:

A woman who knows she is beautiful is a very dangerous woman. :D

Earl_the_Pearl
11-04-2009, 09:15 PM
More on beauty:

A woman who knows she is beautiful is a very dangerous woman. :D
Especially to the man who makes her his wife.



A pretty women makes her husband look small
it very often causes a system fall
As soon as he marrys her then she starts
looking for things that will break his heart
but if you make an ugly women your wife
you'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly women will put peals on that
and she'll always give you a piece of that.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000009JL.jpg

Cyril
11-04-2009, 09:28 PM
More on beauty:

“Beauty is worse than wine; it intoxicates both the holder and the beholder.”

- Aldous Huxley

worldfamoustoddyepthatguy
11-04-2009, 09:41 PM
These are terrible attitudes. If YOU know your woman is beautiful she can be dangerous. That is if you only know her for her surface beauty. If she is your woman then you know she is your woman and you know her for all of her beautiful and ugly parts that help you have the balance to help.

The above attitude basically says that you think a physically beautiful woman is ugly for her strength and you want a physically ugly woman whom you can control. That ain't a quote about guys who have loved beautiful women, that is about guys whose opinion on beauty was related to the unattainable aspect of physical beauty and how you don't want her for anything else.

If she is physically beautiful why would you be afraid of letting her be involved in every part of your life and you to be also be involved in every part of her life. At that point your relationship includes much more emotional and psychological aspects that although you still have that lust for each other based on physical attraction, it can be based on so many other things that physical beauty may or may not be your best foot forward or her best foot forward giving you no reason to be concerned that her beauty is the reason why she will probably leave you for what YOU lack in mind.

Cyril
11-04-2009, 09:45 PM
These are terrible attitudes. If YOU know your woman is beautiful she can be dangerous. That is if you only know her for her surface beauty. If she is your woman then you know she is your woman and you know her for all of her beautiful and ugly parts that help you have the balance to help.

The above attitude basically says that you think a physically beautiful woman is ugly for her strength and you want a physically ugly woman whom you can control. That ain't a quote about guys who have loved beautiful women, that is about guys whose opinion on beauty was related to the unattainable aspect of physical beauty and how you don't want her for anything else.

If she is physically beautiful why would you be afraid of letting her be involved in every part of your life and you to be also be involved in every part of her life. At that point your relationship includes much more emotional and psychological aspects that although you still have that lust for each other based on physical attraction, it can be based on so many other things that physical beauty may or may not be your best foot forward or her best foot forward giving you no reason to be concerned that her beauty is the reason why she will probably leave you for what YOU lack in mind.

Your name is so long that it is destroying the page format. I think your name should be trimmed down.

chris91
11-04-2009, 10:23 PM
Of course, I believe in what I type. My feelings have been hurt. I came to this site with a great hope of becoming friends with a stripper but now I am not sure I want to be friends with a stripper.

:'( I felt the same way when I found out that all rock musicians aren't exciting, dynamic, romantic men with huge cocks. Of course, I was like 15 when I figured that out. I got over it, and you will too. It's called growing up.

Jessie_tinydancer
11-05-2009, 09:58 AM
Of course, I believe in what I type. My feelings have been hurt. I came to this site with a great hope of becoming friends with a stripper but now I am not sure I want to be friends with a stripper.

Lol why would you want to be friends with a stripper? Most of us don't even want to be friends with each other. (sorry girls but ya know it's true).

Oh and in regards to the beautiful woman stuff (too lazy to use mquote cause I'm on my iPhone) ya I hate to say I'm always attracted to guys a little less attractive and a little less intellegent then me. I like to have the upper hand... I'm a terrible bitch haha!

Earl_the_Pearl
11-05-2009, 10:08 PM
These are terrible attitudes. If YOU know your woman is beautiful she can be dangerous.
It is not so much her but every man will want to put his sperm into her.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-05-2009, 10:11 PM
I like to have the upper hand... I'm a terrible bitch haha!
Yes, yes thank you for your candor.

Golden_Rule
11-06-2009, 01:16 AM
I know a guy who just loves to spend money at strip clubs. He has tons of money and likes to spend thousands on a pretty regular basis. I think he spends the money amongst a few different girls who are sort of his favorite. Supposedly just likes to go to the club, enjoy the girls and drink himself to oblivion.

What sort of opinion would most girls have of a guy like that? i.e mainly a guy who isa regular and spends a bunch of cash every time he is there. Is there a bad opinion for spending too much time at the club? Do you think it is weird that he shows up every week or more spending a chunk every time? Do you like a guy like that or secretly think he should find a better way to spend his time even though you like the money he spends?

If he obviously has the money more power to him.

Though I wouldn't blame his kids if they tried to straight jacket him through the courts when they find out he's getting blasted regularly and spending their inheritance at strip-clubs [wouldn't be the first time that were the grounds for a competency hearing].

mvivian
11-06-2009, 02:36 AM
Lol why would you want to be friends with a stripper? Most of us don't even want to be friends with each other. (sorry girls but ya know it's true).
Seriously. Guys always talk about how they want to meet up OTC, but they really, really don't.

They don't want to see my in w/o my makeup, in my sneaks, my hair pulled back, and scrubbing my sink and bitching about all the dog hair in the house.
And that doesn't even go into the issues that Jessie_tiny dancer was alluding to.

Strip club sell an illusion, a mirage. If some guy would rather buy a mirage then spend his money on other escapes (TV, movies, sports/athletics, travel) so what.
Can we change the subject now? I think this horse is dead.

W/r/t the power discussion, sure beautiful women may have power, but last time I checked, we still live in a patriarchy and men still implicitly have more power based solely on what lies between their legs, not their ears. A beautiful woman also may have more "power" than a non-beauty, but her "power" is based on the standard desires of the ruling class, i.e. the menfolks. Her power is not an either/or situation like being born a male, but is based on the judgments of others.
And falling in love involves vulnerability, which has power implications. I pity the fool that chooses a mate based more on protecting their position of power than on compatibility and love.

But what the fuck do I know about love?

Phil-W
11-06-2009, 03:47 AM
Seriously. Guys always talk about how they want to meet up OTC, but they really, really don't.

They really really do - but that's just because they don't know it's an illusion. And because 99% of guys who go into a SC never see a dancer OTC, they go in believing in the illusion - and go on asking for OTC dates.


They don't want to see my in w/o my makeup, in my sneaks, my hair pulled back, and scrubbing my sink and bitching about all the dog hair in the house.

Done all the above (apart from the dog hair). I prefer the out of work version because its *real*. I seriously wonder how guys buy into many of the "stripper persona's" that dancers use when working - but they do. Must be our 'little brains' at work.


And that doesn't even go into the issues that Jessie_tiny dancer was alluding to.


Oh and in regards to the beautiful woman stuff. I hate to say I'm always attracted to guys a little less attractive and a little less intelligent then me. I like to have the upper hand... I'm a terrible bitch haha!

Well, judging by the photos you posted in PP, you win hands down on the attractiveness stakes. An I iz relly not too clevver.

Do I get a date? }:D


W/r/t the power discussion, sure beautiful women may have power, but last time I checked, we still live in a patriarchy and men still implicitly have more power based solely on what lies between their legs, not their ears. A beautiful woman also may have more "power" than a non-beauty, but her "power" is based on the standard desires of the ruling class, i.e. the menfolks. Her power is not an either/or situation like being born a male, but is based on the judgments of others.

A long debate, but I believe men have more power because we are more goal orientated than women. We are more single minded than women in our drive to the top, and hence tend to succeed more. (Did you know 95% of the world's technical experts are men for this reason).

I'm not saying its good or desirable for men to dominate the 'top of the pile', but we are genetically programmed to do so. (The roots of this lies in our development as hunter-gatherers when men and women developed different skill sets).

Men do not explicitly have more power because of "what lies between their legs", but because of their greater degree of goal orientation, they tend to earn better than women (not getting into the rights and wrongs of that) and that greater 'purchasing power' creates the 'patriarchy'.


And falling in love involves vulnerability, which has power implications.

On both sides. If I fall in love with someone, I have a deep emotional involvement. That means she has to power to hurt me inside and I her. The knife cuts both ways...

Phil.

xdamage
11-06-2009, 07:28 AM
A long debate, but I believe men have more power because we are more goal orientated than women. We are more single minded than women in our drive to the top, and hence tend to succeed more. (Did you know 95% of the world's technical experts are men for this reason).

I'm not saying its good or desirable for men to dominate the 'top of the pile', but we are genetically programmed to do so. (The roots of this lies in our development as hunter-gatherers when men and women developed different skill sets).

Don't know exactly why, but we men do statistically seem to cover broader extremes.

Also people mostly only remember the .001% of the few and the famous people they see on TV or read about, but forget the billions of men who barely register on any radar. Likewise 99.9999% of us will make 0 contribution to science or math; a few rare individuals are all we remember, and even of those, only a tiny fraction ever stand out as truly special. But those few do tend to be males for whatever reasons. Maybe they steal the females work, or maybe those are just the odds of being an extreme.

Likewise it is easy to overlook that we're statistically more then 10x (more actually) as likely to end up in prision, immeasurably more to be required to fight in wars, 3-4x as likely world wide to end up succeeding at suicide, far more likely to die early of "stress" induced illness, and that if you asked men for their own perception of their lives their reports are not appreciably more wonderous then females. Those are the negative ends of the extremes of being male.

But that's us people, we tend to notice the extremes and confuse it with the far more common reality in the middle. One successful William Gates can paint mental images of Billionaires Males everywhere. Yet if a woman ever actually could re-roll the dice and be born as a man, chances are in her new role she'd find in her new body, her new brain, her new life, no great new joy. It would just be different and she'd still be in competition with all other males for jobs, trying to obtain female approval, and have different social expectations to cope with.

It does seem that we humans still tend to act a lot like primates (though nobody blames primate behavior on social training). The child bearers tend to be the child rearers, and the bigger stronger aggressive males tend to have less involvement with their offspring, preferring to go off to hunt, gather, and fight sometimes. They travel more. Get involved in glorious (and brutal) battles. They get first dibs at the catch.

If you look at primates, the male role certainly seems more glamorous I suppose, if one is a victor. It sucks more if one is a loser. The beta males don't seem to be excessively happy being so and the odds are you'll be a beta male. Extremes again.

We humans tend to pick and choose our memories of history to include only the parts we want to remember. I'm doing somewhat the same even now with my pseudo-condensed version above.

;)

Earl_the_Pearl
11-06-2009, 04:08 PM
Seriously. Guys always talk about how they want to meet up OTC, but they really, really don't.

They don't want to see my in w/o my makeup, in my sneaks, my hair pulled back,
With my avocation as a driver I get to see the transformation take place. Dancers are always running late and use the drive time to apply the paints and powders. The nail polish gets me the most I have to open my window a bit or I get dizzy.


I know what some look like in the morning and I have no problem with that.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17/earlcamembert/Ihitit.jpg

lopaw
11-06-2009, 09:32 PM
The fact that the average man is typically larger and therefore stronger than the average woman is the real reason behind patriarchy. As long as one person can physically dominate another, they will become the decision makers. In the face of physical violence (or threats of it), most smaller people (women) will back down. The larger people get to make all the rules, and the smaller people can't fight it. And guess who most of those rules favor? Uh huh.

Society 101 ;)

Earl_the_Pearl
11-06-2009, 10:33 PM
The fact that the average man is typically larger and therefore stronger than the average woman is the real reason behind patriarchy. As long as one person can physically dominate another, they will become the decision makers.
I was bigger and stronger than my ex but she got three armed men to remove me form house. So yes she physically dominated me and made the decision. Well her lawyer instructed her in how to work the lesbian controlled family court. Wow I guess lesbians are bigger and stronger.

Phil-W
11-07-2009, 03:05 AM
The fact that the average man is typically larger and therefore stronger than the average woman is the real reason behind patriarchy. As long as one person can physically dominate another, they will become the decision makers. In the face of physical violence (or threats of it), most smaller people (women) will back down.

I'ver never hit a woman in my life, and I've probably only been angry enough to shout at one 4 - 5 times.

And having an old fashioned belief in male courtesy I will fall in with a woman's wishes unless there is a reason not to. I've found if you don't say 'no' very often, you get listened to when you do.

So (in my case at least) the above theory falls down....

Phil.

Jessie_tinydancer
11-07-2009, 04:51 AM
I'ver never hit a woman in my life, and I've probably only been angry enough to shout at one 4 - 5 times.

And having an old fashioned belief in male courtesy I will fall in with a woman's wishes unless there is a reason not to. I've found if you don't say 'no' very often, you get listened to when you do.

So (in my case at least) the above theory falls down....

Phil.

I think my husband has the same theory... he is also a regular user/practicer of the saying "Happy wife, happy life" LOL and he is bigger than me... although not a huge guy.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-07-2009, 05:29 PM
The fact that the average man is typically larger and therefore stronger than the average woman is the real reason behind patriarchy. As long as one person can physically dominate another, they will become the decision makers. In the face of physical violence (or threats of it), most smaller people (women) will back down. The larger people get to make all the rules, and the smaller people can't fight it. And guess who most of those rules favor? Uh huh.

Society 101 ;)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/cri....tortures.ktvk (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/08/21/az.woman.tortures.ktvk)

lopaw
11-07-2009, 06:50 PM
Wow I guess lesbians are bigger and stronger.


'Bout time you realized that.
Don't fuck with us, pal.
}:D

audrey_k
11-08-2009, 12:28 PM
I think he needs to start holding "STRIP CLUB CUSTOMER ETIQUETTE AND PRACTICE 101" seminars.

laurcon
11-08-2009, 02:40 PM
Oh mighty Yoda; you know all. How much did you spend on hustlers and how much pussy did you get?

You have admitted to me that you don't read Hustle Hut because you can't handle the truth. Whatever floats your boat.

You are to me what an extra dancer is to the so called clean dancers. You fuck up my agenda.


You have no effect on me on this site as this site means nothing. Nor does your type have an effect in the clubs I frequent as we probably go to different types of clubs. New Jersey has one or two clubs for your type and 100 for my type. Of course some clubs cater to both types perhaps the same dancer caters to both types.

so which is it? does he fuck up your agenda or have no effect on you?

laurcon
11-08-2009, 03:00 PM
A long debate, but I believe men have more power because we are more goal orientated than women. We are more single minded than women in our drive to the top, and hence tend to succeed more. (Did you know 95% of the world's technical experts are men for this reason).

I'm not saying its good or desirable for men to dominate the 'top of the pile', but we are genetically programmed to do so. (The roots of this lies in our development as hunter-gatherers when men and women developed different skill sets).

Men do not explicitly have more power because of "what lies between their legs", but because of their greater degree of goal orientation, they tend to earn better than women (not getting into the rights and wrongs of that) and that greater 'purchasing power' creates the 'patriarchy'.


that's not it at all. women (as an amalgamated whole) are very goal oriented. their goals are just usually to have and raise children. men earn more than women because they don't have to drop out of the labor force to have children, and therefore have more experience on average. also companies can invest more in human capital for males because the chances are less that they will leave due to family concerns. please don't think you guys are better at doing something once you put your mind to it. men are motivated to succeed financially or socially mostly to attract high-quality women. women are motivated to be beautiful and pleasing in order to attract a successful man that can take care of her while she cannot work due to pregnancy and child-rearing. in the most general sense, certainly not everyone!!

Earl_the_Pearl
11-08-2009, 04:01 PM
so which is it? does he fuck up your agenda or have no effect on you?
The answer is in my post. On this board who cares. As for clubs we do not go to the same type of club.

mvivian
11-08-2009, 07:59 PM
A long debate, but I believe men have more power because we are more goal orientated than women. We are more single minded than women in our drive to the top, and hence tend to succeed more. (Did you know 95% of the world's technical experts are men for this reason).
That's a mighty broad brush yer paintin' with there.

Counter to your tech expert point: More women than men earn doctorates and yet tenured professors are overwhelmingly male.
Another counter: Men who are ambitious & goal oriented are admired. Women who are ambitious are "bitches", "ball-busters", "shrewish", etc.

But, the gender/sex vs. sociopoliticaleconomic power & actualization is a horse that has been beaten by much smarter academics than I so I'll just leave it at that.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Counter to your tech expert point: More women than men earn doctorates and yet tenured professors are overwhelmingly male.

The oppressed majority.

xdamage
11-09-2009, 07:50 AM
The fact that the average man is typically larger and therefore stronger than the average woman is the real reason behind patriarchy. As long as one person can physically dominate another, they will become the decision makers. In the face of physical violence (or threats of it), most smaller people (women) will back down. The larger people get to make all the rules, and the smaller people can't fight it. And guess who most of those rules favor? Uh huh.

Society 101 ;)


I'ver never hit a woman in my life, and I've probably only been angry enough to shout at one 4 - 5 times.

And having an old fashioned belief in male courtesy I will fall in with a woman's wishes unless there is a reason not to. I've found if you don't say 'no' very often, you get listened to when you do.

So (in my case at least) the above theory falls down....

Phil.

I agree with lopaw. It is almost that simple (though I don't think quite). Phil, it is possible to shape human behavior through much social training, and you've been so trained (then again we can even train animals to suppress their aggression). You might also be a Beta male, less inclined toward violence by nature, but ...

I also believe that like the animals, we're naturally drawn toward certain roles and it requires great social effort to suppress those roles (which is the opposite of modern day thinking that we're all sweet little angels).

People say well newborns are not violent! Sure, newborns are too weak and frail to fight, but newborns are not our final form. New borns aren't inherent angels, simply not yet fully grown animals. We continue to develop and as we do I think our instincts to have sex, fight, take control, choose roles, etc. wake up, just like they do in animals. And anyone that actually has kids knows their kids rather quickly stop being little angels and their true nature, to want, need, even fight, comes out early on. We have to shape that through much social training.

But the part that I'd add to lopaw's comment is that to a degree aggression is a useful trait. It is useful for multiple reasons, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, aggression is power. What people really mean is they don't want aggression to turn against them, or to have to be consciously aware that they are being aggressive when they get ahead. But aggression that can be controlled to protects us, even help us get ahead indirectly (means we don't have to feel guilt over it) is a survival tactic that is very effective and works great. Increased size, strength, aggressive nature, all our part of our male nature and I think have evolved that way because overall, it is what worked.

FWIW though just as we blame men for creating the laws in favor of them, then we should also blame them for creating and enforcing laws that curb their own human tendencies to be aggressive. If we're going to blame all that went wrong on them, then we should also blame much of what went right, including the development of democracy, and what lead up to the freedoms we enjoy today.

But a hard concept for people to accept is this... say you hide someone's true form with plastic surgery. They might look beautiful, but if they have children, chances are their flaws will still be passed on to the off spring. In a way that is worrisome because the natural filter that would have slowed the progression of physical flaws has been suppressed by medicine, makeup, surgery. No one person matters, but in total it may be a concern that physical flaws will multiply in the gene pool.

Likewise the same is true of our human nature, our innate personalities. If you train aggressive tigers to behave, and then cross breed them, you'll still likely going to end up with aggressive tigers. Maybe even more aggressive in total over time. They might even result in more trainable offspring, but the aggression will require that much more training to keep it suppressed.

Point? None other then male aggressive nature is like a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off. Our fragile society keeps it in check but ultimately it will require changes in the breeding habits of us humans over long periods of time to really change our nature.

princessjas
11-09-2009, 09:06 AM
A long debate, but I believe men have more power because we are more goal orientated than women. We are more single minded than women in our drive to the top, and hence tend to succeed more. (Did you know 95% of the world's technical experts are men for this reason).

I'm not saying its good or desirable for men to dominate the 'top of the pile', but we are genetically programmed to do so. (The roots of this lies in our development as hunter-gatherers when men and women developed different skill sets).

Men do not explicitly have more power because of "what lies between their legs", but because of their greater degree of goal orientation, they tend to earn better than women (not getting into the rights and wrongs of that) and that greater 'purchasing power' creates the 'patriarchy'.


I agree that more men strive to be at the very top of industry. Power is simply not as important to women. What bugs me though is the assumption that being more "single minded" means you are more goal oriented. This is not the case. You ARE more narrow minded when focused on a project, but only a male based society would value and reward this trait with higher pay.

In industry men often power through projects with single minded focus, thereby finishing earlier, but also missing many aspects of the total picture and negatively affecting the bottom line. The bulk of my old job was cleaning up after the project managers at a properties firm, and let me tell you, ya'll might have finished projects a week or two earlier than the women, but cleanup took weeks compared to a day or two and we often lost money due to stupid oversights/mistakes. Of course, the men that ruled the company seemed blind to this reality and kept hiring man after man while largely ignoring the admittedly few resumes of female PM's. They'd rather have men do the job and have a women on salary to clean up after them/handle the irrate contractors/customers.

On an interesting note though, x's assertion that men cover both ends of the spectrum could be seen in this one company. Our absolute most effiecent PM was a guy (loved working on his projects, hardly ever a problem) and the two bottom of the barrel PM's were men as well (both were fired during my time there, I can't possibly describe how incompetent they were and how big some losses on their projects were). Strangely though, speaking of the sorta "average" PM's, the men's projects were very difficult, and the women's broader views resulted in fewer headaches and higher profits. I doubt this offset the one guys insane productivity though, he really was WAAAYY more successful than anyone else, everything was without issues, under budget and ahead of schedule.

Sooo, as I've said, saying men should be paid more at the same positions because of their way of dealing with issues, really makes very little sense. We do function in different ways, but our broader views have pro's and con's as does men's tendency for laser like focus. ;)

Phil-W
11-09-2009, 04:18 PM
I agree that more men strive to be at the very top of industry. Power is simply not as important to women. What bugs me though is the assumption that being more "single minded" means you are more goal oriented. This is not the case. You ARE more narrow minded when focused on a project, but only a male based society would value and reward this trait with higher pay.

Long explanation, but the potted version runs as follows...

We evolved from humanoids into humans as hunter gatherers: men did the hunting and women did the gathering. As a result we got different skill sets.

Men ended up with greater physical strength, spatial awareness, the ability to single mindedly follow a goal (i.e. a the resources required for a long hunt).

Women ended up with less muscular bodies, better conversation and social skills skills, etc. And women are definitely better at multi-tasking than men. (They needed the ability to simultaneously pick berries, hold a conversation and care for infants).

In other words men and women ended up with the skills respectively developed from hunting and from gathering - and those differences carry through today. So most 'hard' professions like science and engineering are still dominated by men and most 'soft' professions - social work, nursing, etc, are dominated by women.

We are what evolution has made us.

If you want a classic example of that - look at chess. By all the rules of logic women should do as well as men at chess. After all, women are equal in intelligence to men and no physical strength is required.

However, it requires a singe minded ability to focus on one specific problem without any distractions or side tracking. This is a 'hunting' rather than a 'gathering' trait - and thus men do better at chess.

Phil.

princessjas
11-09-2009, 04:34 PM
Long explanation, but the potted version runs as follows...

We evolved from humanoids into humans as hunter gatherers: men did the hunting and women did the gathering. As a result we got different skill sets.

Men ended up with greater physical strength, spatial awareness, the ability to single mindedly follow a goal (i.e. a the resources required for a long hunt).

Women ended up with less muscular bodies, better conversation and social skills skills, etc. And women are definitely better at multi-tasking than men. (They needed the ability to simultaneously pick berries, hold a conversation and care for infants).

In other words men and women ended up with the skills respectively developed from hunting and from gathering - and those differences carry through today. So most 'hard' professions like science and engineering are still dominated by men and most 'soft' professions - social work, nursing, etc, are dominated by women.

We are what evolution has made us.

If you want a classic example of that - look at chess. By all the rules of logic women should do as well as men at chess. After all, women are equal in intelligence to men and no physical strength is required.

However, it requires a singe minded ability to focus on one specific problem without any distractions or side tracking. This is a 'hunting' rather than a 'gathering' trait - and thus men do better at chess.

Phil.

I don't know where this post came from or why you thought I needed an explanation of why we developed different skill sets?

My post pointed out that men's specific strengths do not make them any more productive than women at most jobs. You do the work differently and often times a bit quicker, but also miss important details that later need to be cleaned up....basically bringing your greater efficiency back down to that of a woman who usually considers all external variables, which can slow down work...

The playing field is pretty level from what I've seen. Both sexes play to their strenghts and it evens out. That's why I said only a man would value (and pay extra for) a man's strengths over a womans for most jobs.

BTW - I'm the last person to argue that men are naturally more dominant. I do think that is true, but I don't think that dominance makes you better at most jobs that are not leadership positions, and well, I often think that women's greater people skills and ability to recognize many more non-verbal cues than men, helps level the field pretty well there too, even though we are less likely to desire those positions.

laurcon
11-09-2009, 04:35 PM
not disagreeing with you phil, merely mentioning i was chess club president in HS and college. nothing's set in stone from our hunter-gatherer days. one of the reasons women don't do well in some fields is because we're told from a young age that men are good at math and science and women get lame-o english and history. i used to study to become a brain surgeon from 4th-7th grade. i read tons of books on the brain, and by accident read a carl sagan book titled "broca's brain". i then got into carl sagan and astro-physics. when puberty came though i started to realize i was being silly by thinking that i, as a woman, could be good at science. i resigned myself to more "womanly" pursuits such as marketing in college. then i found economics which was a good blend of writing and math. i constantly think about physics though and wish i had never bought into that stereotype when i was younger. i probably will go back to school for physics, as hard science and math is what i truly love doing. screw what people say.

Phil-W
11-09-2009, 04:56 PM
My post pointed out that men's specific strengths do not make them any more productive than women at most jobs. You do the work differently and often times a bit quicker, but also miss important details that later need to be cleaned up....basically bringing your greater efficiency back down to that of a woman who usually considers all external variables, which can slow down work...

Dangerous to generalize I know - but I think there are jobs that men on average are better suited for and equally that there are jobs that women are on average better suited for. You can't legislate men and women equal for a specific job, when nature gave us slightly different skill sets.

I don't think women should be differentiated against in the work place at all - although I'd have to say I think unfortunately they often are. And (if we could find a universally agreed way of doing it) I'd love to see companies force to publish averages for wages so that there was a mechanism for ensuring equal pay.

But again this is problematic because men tend to dominate some professions and women others.



The playing field is pretty level from what I've seen. Both sexes play to their strenghts and it evens out. That's why I said only a man would value (and pay extra for) a man's strengths over a womans for most jobs.

I work for a major software company and there's a definite bias in the jobs the different sexes do. For example, most of the programmers are men, most of the people in HR are women.

Even in the job I do (technical authoring - writing help files, etc), I'd say there are more women writing front end documentation - how to use the software day to day - and more men writing back end documentation - how to install and implement the software.

Front end requires more 'people' skills, back end more 'technical' skills.

The pay scales are the same, so whether you end up doing 'front' or 'back' end is entirely personal preference, but I can see a definite pattern.

Phil.

Phil-W
11-09-2009, 05:00 PM
i constantly think about physics though and wish i had never bought into that stereotype when i was younger. i probably will go back to school for physics, as hard science and math is what i truly love doing. screw what people say.

A dancer who has become a close friend has just got her MSc in Marine Biology. I helped her with her studies for 5 years (foundation year, BSc and her masters) and I am chuffed to bits for her.

Phil.

laurcon
11-09-2009, 05:07 PM
^ that's great but what does it have to do with my post. i feel like i'm saying its not a good message to send to little girls. if i didn't buy into what you posted when i was 12 yrs old, i could be doing what i love already and it wouldn't be so hard to get back into.
also, marine biology is very girly as far as sciences go.

xdamage
11-09-2009, 05:16 PM
not disagreeing with you phil, merely mentioning i was chess club president in HS and college. nothing's set in stone from our hunter-gatherer days. one of the reasons women don't do well in some fields is because we're told from a young age that men are good at math and science and women get lame-o english and history. i used to study to become a brain surgeon from 4th-7th grade. i read tons of books on the brain, and by accident read a carl sagan book titled "broca's brain". i then got into carl sagan and astro-physics. when puberty came though i started to realize i was being silly by thinking that i, as a woman, could be good at science. i resigned myself to more "womanly" pursuits such as marketing in college. then i found economics which was a good blend of writing and math. i constantly think about physics though and wish i had never bought into that stereotype when i was younger. i probably will go back to school for physics, as hard science and math is what i truly love doing. screw what people say.

Hey, you should do it!

FWIW all through HS I loved science classes and did well, but never had the desire to be a hard scientist, let alone anything that requires a lot of math. I like math only to the degree I can apply it to something else.

In fact of all my similar friends who we took advanced classes with, only one went on to become a Physicist. I've met relatively few people who really love it enough to do it as a job, and likewise even fewer mathematicians. The only one mathematician friend I met later in life, but he needed a second job to pay the bills as a pure mathematician may have trouble finding work. He did it out of love, and taught some, not for the money.

There are other things in life that attract most of us, usually the opposite sex, and it seems to take a fairly introverted abstractionist to do well in pure math, pure research physics, but if you have the desire go for it.

I really think though it is just a rare personality type that can see it through into a career, and my own personality has aspects that would leave me hating it or failing at it.

But that is not meant to discourage you, just to say most of us guys also would fail at, and simply have no desire to actually do the job. We might like the idea of the respect and fame if were lucky enough to invent something, but in reality the vast majority of us simply don't love math enough or physics enough to devote our life to it. My one friend basically lives and breathes it and has since HS. He's the kind of guy who stands a chance at fame in the field, and even still I haven't yet heard of any discoveries of his. Chances are it's too late if he didn't already do so. They say most physicists do all of their important work between 20-30 then burn out and teach.

laurcon
11-09-2009, 05:24 PM
thanks xdamage :) i'm going to for sure. these posts made me remember how smart and focused i used to be, and how i've felt so down on myself and confused only because of buying into societal norms. i have a giant calculus book from which i do problems for fun, or when i'm getting down on myself for being a "stupid stripper". i wanted to get the partying out of my system so i wouldn't regret it later, and i think its nearing that time. i def don't care about making any famous discoveries or lots of money, just so i'm happy with what i do :)

Phil-W
11-09-2009, 05:26 PM
^ that's great but what does it have to do with my post. i feel like i'm saying its not a good message to send to little girls. if i didn't buy into what you posted when i was 12 yrs old, i could be doing what i love already and it wouldn't be so hard to get back into.

I'm not saying we should stereotype anyone - but neither can we ignore what quite a lot of scientific studies have shown. That's why - if you look at averages - some performance is gender specific. But there are any number of counter examples - so you can only look at averages.

Plenty of women have done well in fields that should theoretically be male (and vice versa).

On a more personal note, I'm sorry that you felt discouraged from following your original path of physics and maths.


also, marine biology is very girly as far as sciences go.

Stereotypes?

There was a lots of maths in the course, particularly statistics. (And certainly more stats than in the Materials Science course I got my BSc in).

And the chemistry and biology were fairly heavy duty too.

Phil.

xdamage
11-09-2009, 06:05 PM
thanks xdamage :) i'm going to for sure. these posts made me remember how smart and focused i used to be, and how i've felt so down on myself and confused only because of buying into societal norms. i have a giant calculus book from which i do problems for fun, or when i'm getting down on myself for being a "stupid stripper". i wanted to get the partying out of my system so i wouldn't regret it later, and i think its nearing that time. i def don't care about making any famous discoveries or lots of money, just so i'm happy with what i do :)

Hey seriously... all reasons aside, if you love it, that is 99% of what it all comes down to. And I agree regarding fame. Fame is a losers reason to do something. It's a lucky side bonus if it happens, but the other 99.9% of the time it's all about doing what we love day in and day out. That spirit, the love of what you are doing, vs just doing something for pay, is the big magic factor that separates out the real winners from the losers in life.

So far from what I've seen you have the kind of personality who is open to discussion, ideas, multiple PoV.. that's great, and I really hope you pursue your dreams and don't worry about social norms. They really are more bogey man in our heads then what really tends to stop us - ourselves.

mvivian
11-09-2009, 06:12 PM
But the part that I'd add to lopaw's comment is that to a degree aggression is a useful trait. It is useful for multiple reasons, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, aggression is power.
Agreed.
There's socially acceptable outlets for aggression (sports, games, business), but physical aggression outside the codified lines of sports, games, or business is generally frowned upon.

And, w/r/t your comment about cosmetic surgery:
Using the term "flaw" w/r/t cosmetic surgery kind of bums me out (but I know I'm fighting a loosing battle).
Cosmetic surgery doesn't correct flaws- it changes a certain aspect that someone was uncomfortable with. I don't consider a hooked nose, small boobs, a buddah belly to be "flaws" per say. Granted, they don't fall in the lines of ideal beauty, but they aren't flaws. And no, I'm not a plastic-surgery-hater.

Furthermore, w/r/t breeding & plastic surgery, it's a slippery slope from there to eugenics. From there, complaints could be raised about diabetics being allowed to breed (because they have to take meds which mask their true self), etc.


Men ended up with greater physical strength, spatial awareness, the ability to single mindedly follow a goal (i.e. a the resources required for a long hunt).

So, in studies boys (aged 8-12) do better at spatial rotation tasks than do girls. It's a task where they are shown a multi block formation and asked what it would look like if it rotated one way or the other in space (think Tetris in 3D). Small differences, but boys generally score better than girls.

BUT, then they followed up and gave the girls specialized play things (blocks, legos, etc) for 2 weeks (maybe a month) that mimicked the task and after a short exposure to these toys, the difference between performance at the spatial rotation tasks was no longer statisticly significant.

This leads some sociologists/evolutionary psychologists to believe that differences in ability are due more to differences in socialization than due to faint evolutionary traces of the hunters vs. gatherers theory. (e.g. Girls are given dolls, boys are given blocks)


Women ended up with less muscular bodies,
Uh, the differences in muscular composition are more due to testosterone than due to evolution.

laurcon
11-09-2009, 07:26 PM
I'm not saying we should stereotype anyone - but neither can we ignore what quite a lot of scientific studies have shown. That's why - if you look at averages - some performance is gender specific. But there are any number of counter examples - so you can only look at averages.

...
Stereotypes?

There was a lots of maths in the course, particularly statistics. (And certainly more stats than in the Materials Science course I got my BSc in).

And the chemistry and biology were fairly heavy duty too.



i grew up with lots of girls saying they wanted to be a marine biologist, none of them actually did it. i'm sure there was lots of math and i'm sure it was hard. that's not at all what i meant by saying it was "girly". only that it is a life science and not a physical science, and physical science seems to be what you're talking about where women are lacking technical expertise.




So, in studies boys (aged 8-12) do better at spatial rotation tasks than do girls. It's a task where they are shown a multi block formation and asked what it would look like if it rotated one way or the other in space (think Tetris in 3D). Small differences, but boys generally score better than girls.

BUT, then they followed up and gave the girls specialized play things (blocks, legos, etc) for 2 weeks (maybe a month) that mimicked the task and after a short exposure to these toys, the difference between performance at the spatial rotation tasks was no longer statisticly significant.

This leads some sociologists/evolutionary psychologists to believe that differences in ability are due more to differences in socialization than due to faint evolutionary traces of the hunters vs. gatherers theory. (e.g. Girls are given dolls, boys are given blocks)


^ and this is what i was getting at with the "stereotype" thing. i understand what the results say, but the reasons why are not so clear cut. just like i was saying about womens lower wages being related not to performace differences, but differences in experience and expected return on investment in human capital, due to maternity. so therefore, i find it irresponsible to merely note differences without exploring the contributing factors.

sorry that i don't have any real research to back up what i'm saying right now, esp with women in biology. its so fustrating not having the access to papers and studies like i used to in college! :-[