I think if there was a counter arguement to be made. It would have been made. In this case, "I rest may case" only serves to show a lack of thought and ability to reason.

The premise is solid, most men and women agree. However, we accept that some people might try to avoid the truth behind this statement, and will have little evidence to back up their lack counter arguements or discussion.

However, your feedback is appreciated, even though off topic and abusive.

It appears that this thread was not completely read, as there is a clear lack of understanding as to what the point was.

This thread was NOT about superioriry, rejection, or about being a doormat.

However, it's not surprizing that people who don't take the time to reads threads before venturing an off topic comment, miss the mark.

This thread's premise was simple, for a person who took the time to read it:

1.) Men do not want a career minded women to take their competitve attitude home with them and try to "one up" their bf/husband, or show how little they need men, or show how much better their career is than his. Men do not find this attractive.

2.) Men do not want a woman who does manly things. It's not attractive.

When you say "teen things"... what exactly are we talking about here?

(secretly dials the sexual predator line)

You might want to read the entire post. I've addressed the no pic question, Miss icon.

"Looks" has nothing to do with your need for glasses. It's related to your lack of viable man options as YOU grow older, and MEN start to look for a younger version of you.

I'm sure you will. You realize that men and women are different, have different needs, and are NOT equal in some ways. But, being able to adjust to the differences and sometimes doing things that are outside of our comfort zone, to please the other person, makes all the difference.

Nevertheless, you did sign an agreement that allowed the bank to raise the interest, no?

The bank is just raising the interest based on the prime rate in Canada, which is about 4.5%, 6.5% to the consumer.

Typically, short term fixed rate loans, with adjustable back ends, do go up 10%. These loans have a special purpose, which doesn't seem to fit the reason you signed the contract. The "value" of this loan is to pay it off in a year. You should have never gotten into the loan, if you could not pay it off in a year. This type of loan is designed for an inverstor, who has property that he's going to sell in a one year time frame, and pay off the loan. This loan was not designed to be paid off over 30 years. The rate goes up 10%, sort of, like a late payment penalty. The idea, however, is to pay off the loan off in one year. If no one told you that the loan would go up 10% after one year, that is criminal. However, if you knew it was going to go up after one year, then you needed to pay it off in one year.

You definately get it, Tulsa.

These kinds of comments are not contributing to the discussion and are offensive.

Thank God, Stacey is back!

This occurs because you are first time borrower, and the banks are willing to extend small lines of credit to first time borrowers, because even if you default, the $ are relatively low compared to a 25K line.

Just keep making your payments on time, keep your debt to income ratio low, and in 5 years, you'll be looking at the lowest possible rate on a fixed interest mortgage.

The statistics are based on your credit score group, not your personal payment history...

Kid, you're not seeing it from the bank's point of view...

The contract you entered with your mortgage company was adjustable based on the prevailing interest rates. They had every right to raise it. If you wanted a fixed rate, then it would have been prudent to obtain one. However, most people that find themselves in an ARM, are there because they are not being offered a fixed, due to their credit history. An ARM is just that, "Adjustable", so they can raise the interest, per the contract you signed.

However, it sounds like what your saying is that maybe the bank shouldn't have loaned you the money in the first place. If so, I agree. The concept of an ARM to me is insane. How can you lend someone money, to the limit of what they can afford, and then expect them to come up with more money, for more interest? I think the FDIC really missed the ball, in allowing ARM's to be offered, and we're seeing the effects of that now.

You did exactly the right thing. Sell the property out from under them. Most people are waiting for a miricle from president Bush, in the meantime, their equity is dropping. Those folks who wait are going to end up selling their place anyway, and paying off the balance on the mortgage for a property they don't even own....

The credit card companies don't assume you are going to default. They use risk models that say: given a person with credit score X, they have a Y percentage chance of default. So, if we offer card A, to people with a credit score of X, then we can assume that Y percent of the people will default. Then, the cost of paying off that Y percent of defaultors is Z, which is then passed on the consumer through interest rates, W.

Here is the simplified formula, where total credit line of the credit card population equals C.

Z = C * Y (total default $ = total credit line * percent default)

W = Z/C (consumer interest rate = total default $ / total credit line)

If credit score A, results in Y = 10%
and

If credit score B, results in Y = 20%
then

The credit card companies have to charge more interest because there are more defaultors with credit score B.

This is, of course, a simplified formula, which does not include many things like overhead.

The bottom line is, you are charged interest rates, based on the likliness of someone in your group (i.e. credit score) to default.

The offering of credit, the types of credit lines, and interest rates are all regulated by the FDIC.

Rose, In theory what you are saying makes sense. However, credit card companies can't offer different rates to individual people for the same card.

Since credit card companies are regulated by the FDIC, they would have to provide all of the complex models they used to calculate each person's individual rate to the FDIC for evaluation. The overhead in doing this would be enormous. It makes most business sense to offer different interest rates to different risk groups.

The best way to decrease your interest rate is to pay your cards on time for about a year, then find another card with a lower interest rate and transfer your balance.

You can never make late payments these days, or miss a payment. The card companies now seiously penalize you for this, because you are a greater risk to default. However, to avoid getting dinged for making a late payment, call the card company in advance. Many times you can pay a week or two late, and avoid the hit to your credit report, if you call them.

Kid. Unfortunately, the statistical models work that way. Since you once owed money, and subsequently paid it off, your risk to default has gone down, hence the credit card companies are able to offer you a lower rate.

Credit card companies and banks in general should tighten up their guidelines, in terms of who they lend money to; it would be good for our economy.

However, if the guidelines where tightened, then people would say, "I've got an income to debt ratio of 30%, how come I don't qualify?".

If banks and credit card companies tightened their credit offer guidelines, and only extended offers of credit to people, who could statistically pay off the debt, with the least risk of default, then only people with very good credit would be extended a credit card offers. Once you start extending credit card offers to people with less than perfect credit, statistically your odds of that person defaulting on their credit line increase, and thus the need for an increase in interest to pay off the defaultors debts.

The interest rates a credit card company offers you can never be bound by your individual credit report. They have to look at the entire population of people they offer a given card to, and assess risk and interest rates based on that population. So, regardless of your individual credit history, your interest rates will be tied to the population of people offered the same card, under the same qualification criteria.

The male friends may enjoy a woman's knowledge of sports, but they definately don't want to get into a relationship with her. Who wants a woman that owns more cleats than they do?

Women can certainly have a blast talking sports, drinking beer, and high fiving their guy pals, but the point is men don't want a beer chugging, sports center watching girl for long - unless she's hot. Then they might have sex during Monday Night Football and call it over.

It's perfectly fine not to need anyone. That's probably a good quality to have, given the uncertainy of life. But, the point is, getting into a relationship with a man - if you are a career minded woman - means not competeting with the man. That doesn't mean you can't expect to be treated very well in return. (That goes without saying.) But in order for the relationship to have a decent chance of success, a career minded woman should not try to compete in the relationship.

Please re-read my post, sir, on "be-littling", I shared your sentiments.

I'm not sure if the point can be made any clearer...

This discussion is NOT about who does the cooking. Some women are obsessed with 1950's thinking, and their radar goes off, if a man suggests that a woman not boast about her career, or lack of need for a man. The suggestion is that a career minded woman not try to compete with her partner. NOT that a woman should be in the kitchen, making babies...

Regarding the compliments your sisters have received from their spouses, that makes sense, given they are not boasting about their career, or comparing their careers to their husbands on a nightly basis. A woman can be more sucessful than a man and make the relationship work, but the point is...

A woman that tries to compete with a man, in a relationship (i.e. tries to show him up, or boast about her career, or he lack of need for a man) is unattractive to a man. Second, a woman that takes on manly traits, like watching sports centers, or trying to be "like a man" in her interests, is unattractive to men.