[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

No, you wouldn’t necessarily have noticed it.
[/quote]
How would I have not noticed somebody telling me that the reason they don’t want their boys to be around girls is that they don’t want their boys to be feminized?

You tried to have it both ways, you got caught, and now you’re speaking gibberish to try to get out of it. Either it’s blatant and explicit, like you said it was. In which case I’d have noticed it. Or it’s not, in which case only you with your special powers would have noticed it. You said it’s blatant and explicit when I accused you of imagining it, but then you said I wouldn’t notice. You’re not making any sense.

[quote=CA renter]

Even your argument about “boys’ activities” and “girls’ activities” shows that you don’t see it. Do you honestly think that the orientation of our reproductive organs makes us more inclined to want to shop or get our nails done or play/watch football or go fishing or play golf? Really?
[/quote]
I don’t think the “orientation of our reproductive organs” has anything to do with it. Where you put the ovaries or the testicles is not important. What’s important is the differences between the brains and the hormones of men and women. And I think those differences have very much to do with watching football vs. getting your nails done.

You 1970s, humans-are-born-a-blank-sheet, genders-are-the-same types are dinosaurs. That’s wishful thinking. For those who would wish for such a thing. I say, “Vive la difference!”

[quote=CA renter]

What you see as “natural” gender-based behavior is due almost entirely to socialization, and it’s being done by people who (sometimes inadvertently, like you might be doing with your own kids) reinforce gender stereotypes by encouraging their kids to participate in certain types of events and activities while discouraging them from participating in other events and activities.
[/quote]

You’d like to think that. Boys and girls are different. They’re born that way.

Almost all non-human animals have gender roles. Those gender roles are obviously not due to socialization. Why do you think that humans would be an exception to nature’s general rule of gender roles?

[quote=CA renter]

I’ve seen it as a parent and as a teacher. There have been many occasions where I’ve witnessed a parent or teacher or aide guide a student, or group of students, toward or away from a particular activity based solely on the children’s gender. I’ve seen pink paper literally ripped out of a boy’s hands while doing some artwork because “boys don’t like pink, they like blue.” This happens in big and small ways, all day long, every day. It might seem subtle to you, which is probably why you don’t notice it, but it’s sending a very strong message to these kids and to the adults around them. Other parents, teachers, and students/children notice it and conform to what they are told is the “right” behavior for a particular gender. For the most part, this is not natural behavior; it’s socialized.
[/quote]
Anybody who would “[rip paper] out of a boy’s hands while [he’s] doing some artwork because ‘boys don’t like pink, they like blue’” is an idiot. You make it sound like the norm. It’s not.

It might seem real to you, but just as you say I don’t notice it, I say you imagine most of it. Your vacillation between “it’s blatant and explicit” and “only I, with my special powers, can notice it” is clear evidence of your weak postion.

You imagine it because of the way your mother treated you. You’re clearly angry about this whole situation, and you’re letting your emotions get in the way of seeing things clearly.

And you still haven’t answered why you think exposing boys to girls will feminize the boys.

[quote=CA renter]

As for the insults, the worst insults for BOTH genders tend to be sex/gender-specific. Think about the worst ones for both sexes and write them down, then look for a pattern. See? You might think that you’re capable of noticing obvious examples of sexism/misogyny, but even with this simple example, you’ve missed it entirely.

[/quote]
You missed my point entirely. My point was that the basis of insults for each gender is not proof of misogyny. And that you apparently need very little evidence to declare “proof” of misogyny.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]
ZK, the examples I’ve mentioned were absolutely based on the fact that these parents didn’t want their boys to be “contaminated” by anything remotely feminine. They made it very clear why they didn’t want their sons to sit with girls or, in the case of the infant boy, to wear pastel clothing. They didn’t beat around the bush at all. I just can’t type out the conversations and social history in a post here, for brevity’s sake.

[/quote]
Later in this post you say I’m wearing a blindfold while you’re able to see things others can’t. If anybody ever told me very clearly that they didn’t want their sons to be contaminated by femininity, I obviously would’ve noticed it. Even if I was wearing a blindfold. But nobody ever has. Nobody I’ve ever known has even hinted at such a thing nor, to my knowledge, even heard of such a thing. If this fear of contamination is so blatant, everybody could see it. How is it that only you and others like you with your special observational powers can see it because others are “blinded by the systemic nature of it,” if it’s so blatant and explicit? You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, you say you’re sure of the reason because it’s explicit, and on the other, you say that only you can see it because you’re so perceptive of it. Which is it?

[quote=CA renter]
And the segregation I’m talking about happens at a very early age — infancy, in some cases. I’m not talking about teenagers who are segregated by their parents because the parents are worried about rape, etc. At that stage, the kids are already reintegrating themselves because they are going through puberty and want to have sex with one another. The problem is that this is happening after years of brainwashing and segregation that highlight and exacerbate the differences between the genders and result in people objectifying each other because they don’t know how to relate in a healthy and holistic way. Kids should never be segregated in the first place, IMO; not by gender, race, age, religion, etc., because this amplifies the worst in each group, whereas integration balances things out because people can learn from one another and relate with one another in a more natural way.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree that kids shouldn’t be segregated on purpose. Only to the natural degree that occurs when boys do boy things and girls do girl things. And I do agree that segregation happens more than it used to and more than it should, although I don’t think it happens nearly to the extent that you do. What I disagree with is why it occurs. Your only evidence of why it occurs is stories of people you know, stories where “the ultimate goal in every case is to keep their sons from becoming “feminized.” I’ve been hanging around parents for the last 15+ years. No parent I’ve ever known has even once mentioned such a fear. Why is that? What kind of blindfold would prevent me from hearing them say that? Why have you heard so many stories like that, and I’ve never heard one?

Has anybody else on this forum ever heard of such a thing? If so, has it been more than once?

Also, you never answered this question: Why would boys hanging around girls feminize the boys?

[quote=CA renter]
it is 100% true that my experience with my mother affected how I see the world. She opened up my eyes to the realities of sexism and misogyny at a very early age because she was so blatant about it. Because of this, I see sexism and misogyny when other people don’t because they are blinded by the systemic nature of it.
[/quote]
The fact that you can look at your childhood, which included this:.

“My own mother told me and my sister all the time that she wished so badly for a son instead of the daughters she got because boys and men were so powerful. Once I got married, she shoved me out of the way to get to my husband whom she insisted on calling “son,” instead of calling him by his name.”

and not see that it’s your perception that is skewed and not “other people’s” is indicative of the lack of your own self-awareness.
[quote=CA renter]
It is so accepted, and so much a part of our culture and society, that they don’t even notice it. I may be walking around with sexism/misogyny glasses that enable me to see sexism in our society, but you’re wearing a blindfold.
[/quote]
I didn’t call them “sexism/misogyny glasses.” I never mentioned sexism. You’ve just tried to change the entire argument. Sexism and misogyny are not the same thing.

[quote=CA renter]

You seem to think that sexism and misogyny don’t really exist to a large extent.
[/quote]
I never said that. And, it’s not true. I think there is lot of sexism in our society. I’m very much a feminist, because I do think there’s a lot of sexism.

I think there’s some misogyny, maybe even a lot. But certainly nowhere near the amount of misogyny you think there is. And I don’t think gender separation of children is a result of misogyny.

[quote=CA renter]

I can prove you wrong in a single instant. Let’s consider for a moment three to five of the most insulting names you can call a boy. (You can re-read the original post on this thread, for starters.) What do you think those terms might be? Please list them here.

After that, consider the top three to five most insulting terms for females, and list those here.

What patterns do you notice?

[/quote]

You really think the fact that female insults are sex-specific while male insults are not is “proof” that misogyny exists “to a large extent?” If that’s all the “proof” you need, then it’s no wonder you overestimate it.

[zk]

[quote=no_such_reality]So what you’re saying is you can’t find a better use for money than 2.75% interest?[/quote]

Right now, anything that pays more than 2.75% (or 1.5%, for that matter) involves some level of risk. The only risk of not borrowing at 2.75% (and not investing in something else) is that you might make more doing something else with the money. Of course, in an attempt to make more, you might lose some of your principal.

So, if somebody has very low risk tolerance, paying down your loan early to save interest (or borrowing less in the first place rather than borrowing more and investing some of it) might be a reasonable plan.

NSR, do you have other ideas for “better use” for money for those with very low risk tolerance?

[zk]

[quote=Hatfield]It’s a cool tool, but I don’t see a way for it to show what the effect of making overpayments. Here’s one in Excel that does.

http://daveaddey.com/?p=42%5B/quote%5D

Ooh! Very nice.

[zk]

Yes, if you don’t make extra or larger payments to pay off the loan in the originally scheduled time frame, you can pay more interest. Your principal and interest rate are both lower on your refi, but the overall time you’re borrowing money is longer. You’ll generally pay more interest on a longer-term loan.

The monthly payment on your refi will be less than your original loan, both because of the lower interest rate and the lower principal (the principal is lower because you’ve paid some of the principal off with your monthly payments).

If you increase your monthly payment on your refi to equal the payment on your original loan, your loan should be paid off before the original loan was scheduled to be paid off because your interest rate is lower (resulting in more principal being paid off with each payment than on the original loan).

If you increase your payment on your refi to the amount required to pay off your refi at the time the original loan was to be paid off, that monthly payment should be less than the original loan because of the lower interest rate.

None of that takes into account closing costs or points.

If you take either of those options, you should pay less in total interest than you would’ve on the original loan. If you don’t at least make some extra payments, you’ll likely pay more interest overall. Scenario:

If you borrow 100k at 5% for 15 year, your payments will be 790.79.

If you keep that loan for 15 years, you’ll pay $42,342 in interest. After 5 years, your principal will be $74557. You will have paid $22,004.73 in interest to that point. Now your loan is the same as a $74557 loan for 10 years at 5%. If you refinance that into a 15-year loan at 4.9%, now you have a $74557 loan for 15 years. Your payments will be $585.72. Your interest over the life of the refi loan will be $30871.79. You will pay an extra $10533.67
in interest ($22004.73 for the first loan,+$30871.79 on the second loan,-$42342.85 you would’ve paid if you’d kept the first loan).

Karl’s Mortgage Calculator is fantastic:
https://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/

So, if your goal is to pay less interest, then you should consider making extra payments on your refi. If you have some other goal (smaller payments, cash out, etc), then maybe you don’t need to make extra or larger payments.

[zk]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Violence is only acceptable by teachers and law enforcement to prevent violence. A student who is disruptive but not violent can be threatened with escalating consequences when they don’t obey the rules. Frankly, if the threat of suspension isn’t sufficient to motivate a student’s actions, they probably should face expulsion, for the sake of the other students’ learning experience.

The officer’s actions weren’t appropriate.[/quote]

The idea of threats of escalating consequences might work, but I believe that option had already passed by the time the officer arrived. If I’m not mistaken, he was brought in for the purpose of removing the student.

[zk]

So what should the officer have done? He couldn’t just stand there and talk to her all day. She’s kind of wedged into her chair there, and untangling her from that without some violence would be difficult, especially with her flailing.

I’m not saying he didn’t do anything wrong. But I am asking those who say he did what they think a better course of action would have been (because it doesn’t really hold water to say he was wrong unless you can say what reasonable option he had).

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]
And women absolutely do pass on the misogyny. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard women say:

“I have such a GREAT relationship with my son. There is nothing like the relationship between a mother and her son. Boys are just so special.”
[/quote]

Thinking boys are special is not misogyny.
[quote=CA renter]

It’s like having boys makes women feel like they’ve gained access to the “penis club,” and since women have had to compete for men throughout history (because men — either husbands or sons — were key to their survival), they exclude other women from this “club” every chance they get. Women with sons tend to associate with one another, to the exclusion of women with girls.
[/quote]
It appears you’ve got issues. I don’t say that to be mean. We’ve all got issues. But think about it.

[quote=CA renter]
And women who have both sons and daughters will often go on and on about their sons, while largely skipping over the importance of their daughters, or just mention the girls as a side story or talk about how they like to go shopping together — but rarely talk about their girls’ achievements in the same way they do their sons’ achievements, even when the daughters are more accomplished. I’ve had women tell me, point blank, that they don’t really like their daughters, but they love their sons because of this supposed “mother and son” relationship. I used to think that Freud was off his rocker, until I started noticing these behaviors. It’s creepy.
[/quote]
Only a person wearing misogyny-tinted glasses would see something like that, especially to that extent. Most of our daughter’s friends have other-gender siblings, and I’ve never once seen anything like that.

[quote=CA renter]

My own mother told me and my sister all the time that she wished so badly for a son instead of the daughters she got because boys and men were so powerful. Once I got married, she shoved me out of the way to get to my husband whom she insisted on calling “son,” instead of calling him by his name.

[/quote]
It seems obvious to me that this is the root of your issue. A parent’s attitude is an extremely powerful thing in shaping a child’s psyche.
[quote=CA renter]

This male-worship is not uncommon among women. My MIL is the same way. Every time when I was pregnant, she would tell me how much she hoped for a grandson, and was clearly disappointed when we kept having girls. My own mother did the same thing, too.
[/quote]
Lots of grandmothers hope for granddaughters, too. But your misogyny-tinted glasses filter that out.

[quote=CA renter]

The push to segregate often involves both the mothers and the fathers, with the fathers spending all their time on “boys’ activities” with their sons, and the mothers dragging their daughters around to shopping malls and nail parlors. All too often, the family refuses to socialize together because they don’t want to mix the genders together. I kid you not.
[/quote]
Dragging? Are you sure the daughters don’t want to go to shopping malls and nail parlors? If boys like “boys’ activities” (spoiler alert – they do), and girls like girls activities (again…), then why wouldn’t you take them to those places? I’ve never seen, or even heard of, a parent in our circle of friends discourage any of their children from doing activities that are generally associated with the other gender. Are my friends superior to yours? Obviously not. Do they behave much differently? Probably not. Do you and I see different things? Apparently so. Why is that? I honestly want to say this with a kind, gentle tone: Check your glasses.
[quote=CA renter]

But the ultimate goal in every case is to keep their sons from becoming “feminized.” One time, when we went out to eat with another family who had both a son and daughter, the father tried to insist that the boy sit with the adults so that he wouldn’t have to sit with the girls. I had another mother insist that she wouldn’t dress her son in pastel blue outfits because they were “too girly,” so she would dress him in plain white onesies with dark blue pants.
[/quote]
I seriously doubt that’s the ultimate goal in every case. Maybe the father knew that the boy didn’t want to sit with the girls. Maybe the other boy’s mom knew he didn’t like pastel blue.

In any case, I don’t think that most parents think that integrating the genders would result in the boys being feminized. Why would it? That’s not a rhetorical question – I’m curious why you think that. Boys were around girls for millennia before we came along. They certainly weren’t feminized by that. Why would they be?
[quote=CA renter]

If a parent has a new baby, and it’s a boy, all you hear is “my son…my son…my son…my boy…my boy.” When people have a daughter, they tend not to mention the gender as often, usually just referring to gender when it would seem unnatural to do otherwise.

[/quote]
You really do go on and on with your misogyny-tinted views. I’ve never seen anything like that reaction from new parents.

Seriously, CA renter, you obviously have issues seeing misogyny everywhere when it’s actually much rarer than what you’re seeing. And, while I’m no psychologist, it seems painfully obvious that your mother’s attitude has almost everything to do with that. My mother was a fine woman, as I’m sure yours was or is, but she was a bit of a 1970s-style man-hater when that was in vogue. Which has caused me my share of issues. One of which (my confidence-with-guy-friends issue) I’d been carrying around my whole life without even realizing it was, at least in part, caused by her attitude until this thread (and some input from a friend about this thread) came along. So I know what it’s like. It’s not your fault; parents have been causing their children issues since probably shortly after humans developed the ability to speak (or maybe even before). But it is up to you to recognize and overcome this issue. And I hope the discussion on this thread will help you like it’s helped me. Good luck.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]
My response to Brian should make clear my position on this. In the vast majority of cases that we’ve seen and experienced, the segregation is being done to prevent the “feminization” of boys; it’s not done to prevent the girls from becoming too masculine.
[/quote]
Here’s where you’re wrong:
Not wanting boys to be like girls is not the same as hating females. It’s not misogyny. Do you want boys to be like girls? Do you want girls to be like boys?

Also, I think your misogyny-tinted glasses are the only reason you think that the reason for the separation of boys and girls is to prevent the feminization of boys. You see misogyny where there isn’t any, as you’ve shown.
[quote=CA renter]
The girls are the ones who are being excluded in almost every case.
[/quote]

That’s just plain, made-up b.s. There are plenty of parents of girls who don’t want their daughters to hang out with boys for fear of the boys wanting sex, the boys driving too fast, the boys being “bad-boy” types. And that list goes on and on.

Parents are much more protective these days than 30 or 40 years ago. Kids back then were left unattended most of their free time. They were allowed to do all kinds of things that most parents today wouldn’t dream of letting their kids do. Our culture has gradually shifted from kids doing mostly what they want with whom they want, to one where kids are ultra-closely monitored, and that has left the sexes relatively segregated. Nothing misogynistic about it. Again, the desire to keep girls away from boys is at least as big a part of it as the other way around.

[quote=CA renter]
Look at scaredy’s posts about his sons. That is what we see on a daily basis — the notion that females are “screwed up” and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.
[/quote]
Put down your misogyny-tinted glasses and then read scaredy’s posts again. What scaredy said was that he was neurotic, and that he didn’t want to create another generation of neurotic men. What he said in reference to females was:

“Is this intrinsic to men or is the above description the result of the last generation of mothers screwing with their sons heads. “

And when he said “this,” he was referring to your description of what made a man a good friend to other men. And part of his point was that women can’t understand what makes a man a good friend to another man, and that they should stay out of the discussion. And that those moms (and maybe our culture) shouldn’t be trying to feminize men. Not because there’s anything wrong with women. But because there’s nothing wrong with men being men.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]You think boys and girls don’t mix in 2015 and you call it “misogynistic”? Wow![/quote]

What if we changed it to say this:

“You think whites and blacks don’t mix in 2015 and you call it “racist”? Wow!

What, exactly, are you surprised by? That it appears as though boys and girls are more segregated today than when we were growing up; or that, if true, it would be considered misogynistic?[/quote]

That doesn’t even make sense. That analogy would only hold water if someone had said that lack of interracial interaction was due to blacks hating whites and someone else said:

“You think whites and blacks don’t mix in 2015 and you say it’s because blacks hate whites? Wow!”

See, because that would be taking issue with laying the blame for the lack of interaction on one side. You blamed misogyny, and Russ took issue with it. The speaker above blamed blacks’ hate for whites. To take issue with that seems like a valid, proper, basically required response.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Is this intrinsic to men or is the above description the result of the last generation of mothers screwing with their sons heads.

I say the latter.

History is replete with great friendships of men. The above post sounds like men can’t be friends because they aren’t “nice”.[/quote]

Having the same confidence-with-guy-friends issue as scaredy and having had a mother who looked down upon any kind of manliness, I’m going to agree with scaredy here.

“Nice” (I use the word “nice” but what I really mean is closer to “good friend”) among men might look different from “nice” among women. What might look to a woman like a man being nice to another man might look to the recipient man not like nice at all. And what might look to a woman like a man being “not nice” to another man might feel like gold to that other man. A woman is not in a position to judge that. She never has been and never will be.

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=outtamojo][quote=Blogstar]Yesterday I was at the gym with my eight year old son. We walked around the pool area looking for a man to do the swim portion of and upcoming triathlon relay. My son couldn’t believe I was going to walk up to complete strangers introduce myself and ask if they wanted to do the swim. I did it though, had a few nice conversations, that is an initiation. Of course, if they didn’t wan’t to do it, I said thanks anyway lil’ bitch.[/quote]

Not supposed to talk that way to strangers ( the lil bitch part). My son and the other kid had more history than that.
I can see now how new this is to you.[/quote]

Not new to this at all. I went to middle school from the wrong side of the tracks in the wrong kind of town. I spent 6 years as an enlisted man in the Navy and worked in construction after. I have been on plenty of sports teams. I have two middle school boys beside the 8 year old. I don’t see the lil’ bitch and other stuff as constructive. Common yes, forgivable yes, not that big of a deal in many circumstances, all true.
I can understand your wanting to discredit my perspective though. For whatever reason , you think it will help your kid. If anyone is new to it , that’s you, after all you started a thread on Piggington’s about basic stuff.[/quote]

I wonder if there’s some miscommunication/confusion here. outtamojo seems to be under the impression that you actually, out loud, and in front of your son, said to people you’d just met and who had just declined to swim a long distance, “thanks anyway, lil bitch.” Because you wrote that that’s what you said. But that goes against everything you’ve been saying on this thread. What gives?

[zk]

[quote=flyer]No question there, Blogstar.

As far as the meaning of my post. After reading it again, I can see how it does sound abstract, even OT, but this discussion reminded me of some experiences we’ve had concerning people with attitudes, as have been mentioned in this thread.

I was actually thinking of how we have had friends over the years, some with very “in your face” attitudes concerning their elevated financial status when, in fact, in the end, that proved not to be the case.

These families carried on the charade as long as they could, until they found themselves with no way out, and there were no happy endings. In fact, some were tragic.

Since then, I’ve theorized that if a mechanism, such as the transparency concept had been in place, perhaps they would not have been tempted to fabricate their wealth to such a ridiculous level. (I know this is a stretch, but you never know–it might have helped.)

In these cases false “attitudes” simply kept these people from facing the truth about their circumstances, until it was too late to recover.
An interesting study in human nature.[/quote]

All this assumes that people judge others by their financial status. I don’t think that people judge each other that way as much as you (and the jackass in your story) would like to think they do. Most people are aware that the douchebag/good guy ratio is no different for rich people, middle class people, and poor people. In fact, anybody who is “in your face” about their claimed “elevated financial status” is going to be immediately judged by most as a douchebag, and nobody will really care whether he’s actually rich or not.

[zk]

Just saw a commercial for an Oral B electric toothbrush. The woman recounts asking her dentist if she should use an electric toothbrush. His response was, “sure.”

That sounds about right. You have to ask them, and then they say, “meh, sure.”

I am, by nature, probably less cynical about people’s intentions than I should be. But I’m starting to wonder if dentists don’t push electric toothbrushes because more people using electric toothbrushes would result in less dental/periodontal work being needed.

[zk]

dup

[Author]

Posts