DCUM Weblog

Before I get started on the most active posts today, I want to draw attention to the new tab our navigation bar titled, "Contribute". This is in response to posters who offered to make donations to DCUM if we would discontinue the video advertisements that we had introduced. If you are interested in such a contribution, the "Contribute" page provides linkes to Patreon and PayPal allowing you to to that. All contributions will be greatly appreciated.

The most active thread yesterday by some measure — more than doubling the number of responses of the next most active thread and racking up an amazing 19 pages in less than a day — was a thread titled, "Travelled to interview, not sure what to think of prospective boss" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster describes an in-person interview for her "dream job" for which she had waited a long time for the previous job-holder to retire. The night before she was flying, her prospective boss texted her to say that he would pick her up at the airport and take her to lunch. This did not go over well with the original poster and, after some back and forth, she was able to get those plans changed. The prospective boss had arranged a full itinerary that included quite a bit of one-on-one time which made the original poster uncomfortable. The trip ended with the original poster being told that she would be offered the job. A few days later, the prospective boss texted her again which bothered the original poster and she told him that she would be available on another day (she later clarified that she was busy organizing a conference). This caused him to angrily reply back saying that maybe he should not offer her the job. The original poster ends by saying she believes that he is interested in more than a professional relationship and that she cannot take the job. She asks for advice about what to do. There are several issues included in this post and even more become evident as posters respond. There is the obvious issue of possible sexual discrimination or harassment. In the original post, the poster does not detail anything like that but seems uncomfortable simply being alone with a man. Some posters accept this as a reasonable concern but others think the original poster is overreacting. A second facet is the question of the boss's management style. Even taking the potential gender issues out of the discussion, many posters suggest that the prospective boss and the original poster may not have compatible working styles. Multiple posters stated that what the original poster described sounds very much like the typical interview in academia and the original poster confirmed that the interview was at a state university. This leads posters to advise the original poster that she likely does not understand what working in academia involves and that her expectations are massively unrealistic. Eventually the original poster did describe a comment by the prospective boss that was likely inappropriate, but posters are divided about whether it amounted to sexual harassment. Whether posters sympathized with the original poster or not, almost everyone agreed that if the original poster is not willing to put up with the boss, her only option was to turn down the job. Nobody seemed to see any effective recourse such as complaining to the human resources departement. I mostly stopped reading after the 4th page but as best I can tell, the same arguments simply repeated page after page with posters getting increasingly frustrated with the original poster.

The first thread that I'll discuss today was titled, "NYT Article on ‘Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing’" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster commends and briefly quotes from an opinion article in the New York Times which discusses an increase in single-parent families and the disadvantages those families face. The original poster agrees with the article's emphasis that while stable two-parent families have significant advantages, single-parent families should not be shamed. Reading the article, I felt that the Times' headline writer had done both the author and the article itself a disservice by framing single-parent families negatively as "not a good thing". The author's book upon which the article was based and the article itself looks at things from the opposite point of view, focusing on the advantages of two-parent families. It's not that single-parent families are inherently bad, but that they generally lack the advantages of two-parent families. The two major advantages of two-parent families that the author cites are fairly obvious. The first being greater financial resources due to normally having two incomes instead of one and the second being greater parental involvement as a result of two parents being able to contribute to childrearing. The author laments that the government is unlikely to step into to help resolve either of these disadvantages single-parent families face and argues that society must find ways to promote two-parent families. I think a number of issues are ignored in what is obviously a brief overview of the author's entire body of work on this topic. For instance, when the financial disadvantage of single-parenting is removed, most of the negative factors impacting single-parent families also go away. Several posters in the thread describe examples of single-parents who are doing amazing jobs raising children. Almost exclusively, these parents are financially successful. The article mentions the Covid-era expanded child tax credit but fails to mention the tremendous success that program had in reducing childhood poverty. Instead of giving up hope on future government assistance, perhaps we should campaign for this program to be reinstated? Moroever, as several posters note, anti-abortion policies being implemented by several state governments directly contribute to single-parent families. This should also be part of any discussion of this sort. Moreover, the article does not discuss the quality of parenting or two-parent relationships. Is it really better for a child to be raised in a toxic environment involving two parents whose relationship is destructive than to be brought up in a supportive single-parent family? I would argue that it is not and, therefore, a two-parent family should not be promoted as a magical solution. It is not enough to simply encourage two-parent families, but rather healthy and nurturing families regardless of the number of parents. We should also make efforts to reduce the financial challenges often faced by single parents.

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "When the Dems Lose 2024..." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on September 14 but apparently gained a lot of traction over the weekend. But, since it's 18 pages long, I don't have time to read the entire thing and I am not sure why it was so active over the past three days. I've come to think of the DCUM political forum as sort of junior varsity political discussion, but even that may be overrating it much of the time. It is often just a level or so above drunk guys in the bar blurting out their political opinions. The main point the original poster makes in this thread is that President Joe Biden will lose the upcoming presidential election, leaving Democrats bewildered and confused. The poster starts out saying that Democrats mistakenly believe that the country loves Democrats, something that the poster does not believe to be true. The poster's second point is that the Biden/Harris ticket is untenable and that "you" — apparently meaning DCUM posters but maybe meaning Democrats at large — didn't develop a better option. Next, weirdly enough, the poster blames ActBlue for upsetting grassroots Democrats by emailing them too often. But, the poster really hits it out of the park by concluding that the Democrats should nominate a bipartisan ticket that includes a Republican. In a better world, this thread would have ended after the first post because everyone would have read it and decided it wasn't worth their effort to reply to such nonsense. Sadly, that did not happen. Contrary to the original poster's belief, there is not a Democrat in the world who is not chewing their nails to the quick in fear of Biden being defeated. I guarantee that absolutely nobody will be surprised if he loses. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. Similarly, Democrats are well aware of the animosity they face in much of the country. Groups of Republicans who routinely stage armed protests in response to anything from Covid restrictions (real or imagined) to drag queen performances leave little doubt about their feelings. In a perfect world, Biden probably would have announced early on that he would not run for a second term. But, that likely would have left him as a powerless lame duck. So, I understand why he didn't. At any rate, this is not something the average person has much influence over. Similarly, we could ask why Republicans haven't found a better candidate than former President Donald Trump. As for the original poster's last point, selecting a ticket that includes a Republican, the original poster shows his true delusion. What motivation do Democrats have to put a member of the opposition party a heartbeat from the presidency? All available evidence suggests that the 2024 election will be close. Between now and then any number of things can happen to change the calculus. Anyone who believes they know the outcome now is fooling themselves.

Yesterday there were two threads tied as the most active of the day. I'll give the nod to a thread titled, "am I a ‘Karen’ for not wanting my driveway blocked?" which was posted in the "Real Estate" forum. This thread was originally quite a bit longer but I removed several off-topic posts. The original poster says that she lives in a cul-de-sac with limited parking. Three to four days a week, contractors working on her neighbor's home block her driveway with their trucks. In order to pick up her children from school, she has to go over and ask for the trucks to be moved so that she can get out. After this occurred a number of times, her neighbor posted in their Facebook group that she was being a "Karen" and didn't have the right to interrupt the contractors' work. I've often said that DCUM could be be a good topic for someone's PhD thesis because it demonstrates so much about human behavior that could be analyzed and dissected. One characteristic is for posters to respond to posts with little regard for the actual topic, but instead to focus on their own personal crusade of the day. In this case, four posts into the thread a poster chastised the original poster for using the term "Karen". I've written before about how I don't like the name "Karen" being used as a pejorative (and I proposed that it be replaced by "Elon"), but it is clear that the original poster is only using the term because that is what her neighbor called her. If this was somehow too subtle for some readers, the original poster explicitly explained this in a response to the previous poster. Nevertheless, the thread was significantly diverted by posters protesting the use of "Karen". I removed those posts, otherwise this thread would have overwhelmingly been the most active yesterday. The second characteristic of human behavior that might be worth studying is the tendency to — for lack of a better term — nitpick or find fault with the original poster no matter what. While the original poster said that her driveway was being blocked, she also said that sometimes she was able to maneuver her car around the trucks and get out, albeit with some difficulty and only after moving another of her family's cars. One poster latched on to this as evidence that the original poster was, at best, not being truthful and, at worst, was trolling. This really misses the point. The third characteristic demonstrated is the lengths to which some folks will go to excuse bad behavior. One poster agreed with the original poster's neighbor because the contractors don't have anywhere else to park and, therefore, blocking her driveway is understandable and asking them to move is wrong. On the brighter side, several of those responding offered a good solution of purchasing some traffic cones and placing them at the end of her driveway.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Handling fancy destination wedding with small kids" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster is thinking about how to handle her brother-in-law's wedding which will be held next year in an expensive tourist town located two time zones away. Her main concern is what to do about her two young children. In past blog posts, I've discussed threads about destination weddings and threads about children and weddings. So, I expected a wedding that both involves children and a destination wedding would be full of challenges. But, it turned out to be almost completely to the contrary. In contrast to past threads in which children were not invited, the original poster's children are not only invited, one of them has been asked to be the ring bearer. Where in previous cases finding childcare at the location of the destination wedding seemed all but impossible, the original poster has a nanny that they could bring along and her own parents, who are also invited to the wedding, have offered to provide childcare. The original poster is reluctant to bring the nanny due to the added expense. She originally forgot to mention her parent's offer and, after bringing it up, still seemed hesitant to turn to them. Those responding simply don't see many hurdles in this situation, but instead, see many readily available solutions. They recommend renting an Airbnb instead of staying in a hotel and then bringing the nanny. Alternatively, they suggest missing a couple of the planed events in order to handle childcare. After it is revealed that the original poster's parents have already offered to help with childcare, that becomes the obvious solution. Many posters actually appear exasperated that solutions are so easily available and are frustrated with the original poster for not recognizing it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips". This thread, which was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum, is about the revelation that Susanna Gibson — a 40-year-old mother of two who is running for Virginia's House of Delegates in a suburban Richmond district — has been posting sexually explicit videos of herself and her husband online. This is really going to test the maxim of whether there is such a thing as bad publicity. But, on the positive side, Gibson will probably soon rival all Virginia politicians in terms of name recognition. For those who want their politicians to be transparent, Gibson has left very little to the imagination. There was a time when it didn't take much of a scandal for a candidate to withdraw from an election. But, that time appears to be gone. Numerous politicians have attempted to ride out — many successfully — scandals of varing degrees. Who can forget that former President Trump, while still a candidate, was caught on tape admitting to sexually assaulting women? Gibson shows no indication of backing down and has, instead, gone on the offensive against the Republicans who are behind the disclosure of the videos. Whether it is due to increased partisanship or changing mores, it is not clear whether this controversy will hurt Gibson. The first indications are that she has successfully increased her campaign fundraising in the aftermath of the disclosure. Those responding in the thread are divided between posters who think the videos are disqualifying and those who believe that consensual sex with a spouse is completely acceptable even if there is a bit of a twist. Conservative posters accused liberals of only being concerned about abortion and gun control and, therefore, ignoring anything negative about Democratic candidates. Democratic posters agreed that they only care about abortion and gun control and don't care what Gibson is live streaming herself doing. A significant number of posters contended that they would have to watch the videos in order to have an educated opinion. Gibson and her husband apparently solicited monetary tips in exchange for requested activities. This, Republicans argued, made this more than a matter of consensual sex and instead made it a form of prostitution. I am fairly certain that prostitutes are viewed more favorably than politicians among significant numbers of voters, so this line of attack may backfire on conservatives.

Over the years DCUM has expanded from its parenting roots to include several topics that are not directly related to parenting. Even so, most days parenting threads are still among the most active. Today is not one of those days. The most active topic yesterday is related to parenting only by the fact that the main personality involved is a father. The thread is titled, "Youngkin pardons Loudoun county father" and was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The "Loudoun Country father" is the father of a high school student who was the victim of a rape that took place in a high school bathroom. The boy convicted in the case occasionally dressed in women's clothes, but is not transgender and was involved in an ongoing relationship with the girl. They had previously met for consensual sex in the school bathroom and had arranged to meet each other in the bathroom when the rape occurred. In normal circumstances, this would be considered a case of date rape. However, the assault took place during a time when the Loudoun County Public School Board was debating the school system's policies regarding transgender students and right-wing activists had been fanning fears that the policies would allow boys into girls bath and locker rooms and, thereby, put girls in danger. School board meetings had become extremely contentious with frequent interruptions. During one such meeting, the board was told that there had not been cases of boys assaulting girls in school bathrooms, causing this father to become irate and begin shouting. He resisted as police tried to remove him from the room and pictures and video of him struggling with police officers were widely circulated and used to demonstrate the hostility of anti-trans activists. Liberals and the Commonwealth’s Attorney saw this case as part of a nationwide wave of protests against school boards that had involved frequent threats of violence. As such, the Commonwealth’s Attorney was unusually personally involved in prosecuting the case. The father was convicted of two misdemeanor charges. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail which were suspended pending good behavior. Meanwhile, right-wing anti-trans activists exploited the fact that the boy involved was wearing a skirt at the time of the attack to further anti-trans sentiments. The father became a hero to these activists and a symbol of the overreach of school boards at the expense of parents. This aligned almost perfectly with Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's campaign of supporting parental rights and rolling back pro-trans measures within schools. It is no surprise, therefore, that Youngkin has now pardoned the father. I don't have much to say about the posts in this thread because they do little more than rehash the same arguments that have been made in a number of previous threads dealing with this assault, as well as a second one later committed by the same boy, and school trans policies.

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "My kid is in a class with a chair thrower" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. Last week I wrote about another thread about a disruptive child in class and I initially thought this was that thread before realizing that I had confused the two. This thread is about a student in the original poster's child's first grade class who threw a chair. The original poster is concerned about her child's safety and wants to know what recourse is available to her. A surprising number of posters in this thread have children who have been in classes with kids who throw chairs. Their attitudes towards violent children and their advice for the original poster run the gamut from calling the police to moving to private school. The biggest division in the thread is between those on one hand who view such children as being in need of compassion and advocate for what is best for such children and, on the other hand, those who are more concerned about the potential victims and who oppose the non-violent students' rights being treated as secondary. While many posters are in the middle of these extremes, it is the posters at the extremes who get the most attention. Those who advocate on behalf of the violent child are seen as dismissive of the needs of the other children. In contrast, those more interested in the safety of the other students are viewed as lacking compassion for children suffering from things outside their control. Several posters explain the hurdles and challenges that are often required in order to provide appropriate care for a violent child. There are legal, financial, and other resource constraints that lead to a time-consuming and often frustrating process. This is often perceived by victims or potential victims as a lack of concern by school administrators and teachers. This, in turn, causes some to advocate for rather extreme measures. For instance, some advocated for calling the police and reporting violent incidents, though others strongly disputed the appropriateness of involving the police with a six-year-old. Others suggested that such students should be moved to special classes or required to attend virtual school online. Other posters opposed such ideas as not being effective treatments. Several posters were frustrated that solutions that might serve the needs of both the violent student and his classmates are easily identifiable, but not easily implemented due to a lack of resources. The discussion in the thread was so heated and so divided that the thread reached nearly 60 pages before I decided enough was enough and locked it. I also had to lock a 2 page thread in the Website Feedback forum that was about this thread.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Boomers can’t downsize" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. As I have written many times, I hate generational labels which I consider to have little validity and generally to be unhelpful. In this case, the original poster is a self-described boomer who is upset that he cannot find an affordable house in which to retire in one of his preferred locations. I really don't understand why, in a forum that is full of boomer-haters, one of them would put a big huge target on their butt with a giant "kick me" sign above it. But that's essentially what this poster did. His post leaves him open to many obvious criticisms and few posters miss such inviting opportunties. Younger posters have long complained that "boomers" refuse to retire and, therefore, prevent younger employees from taking their jobs. In addition, some have complained that boomers refusing to move out of their houses have constrained the housing supply and driven up prices. Generally, younger posters have complained that boomers should get off the lawns that the younger posters would like to acquire (and then build auxiliary housing units on). The original poster's point is that suitable retirement houses in Rehoboth Beach, the Hamptons, the beaches of the Carolinas, or the "good" parts of Florida are too expensive. As such, he can't afford to sell his current house and move to one of those places. One might think that this is due to other boomers who have also wanted to move to those places and, therefore, driven up demand while supply remains limited. But, no, the original poster doesn't blame other boomers. Instead, he blames younger people who are working remotely while living in those coveted locations. The original poster's solution, therefore, is to require employees to return to the office so that these younger work-from-home types will be forced to move out and he can buy one of their places cheaply. Most of this thread consists of posters of various ages calling each other "entitled" and selfish. Even though practically every member of every generation wants access to affordable housing in desirable locations, each sees their own aspirations as reasonable while the other generations' as entitled. Eventually this discussion expanded from its focus on housing and, instead just became an argument about boomers. There are debates about the college tuition boomers paid, whether or not they have pensions, and other generalizations often made about boomers. This supports my dislike of these labels. They are broad generalizations that have so many exceptions as to have little utility. In this thread there is even an argument about in which years boomers were born.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sept. 6 WSJ Rankings" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The Wall Street Journal issued college rankings based on "how much a college improves its students’ chances of graduating on time, and how much it boosts the salaries they earn after graduation." The original poster is interested in seeing the list but had been unable to find it when visiting the library. The original poster also mentioned that the College of William and Mary had dropped significantly on the list which caused an immediate diversion of the thread to discuss William and Mary. Posters suggested ongoing construction at the university and the quality of the food in the cafeteria might be responsible. However, it doesn't appear that either of those would be factors that the WSJ considered. When posters finally got back to discussing the rankings, several posters had the same reaction that I did which was to the question the emphasis on those particular metrics. Other posters, however, argued that return on investment is among the most important factors when considering colleges. This is another example of a phenomenon in the forum about which I have complained in the past in which a significant number of posters seem to view universities as little more than glorified vocational schools. Of course, this WSJ rankings are the ultimate expression of that view. Schools are ranked, not by their effectiveness at teaching or spreading knowledge, not by the contributions of their graduates to the public good or society, but solely on their ability to pump out graduates as quickly as possible and put them into high-paying jobs. Universities are seen less as fountains of knowledge and more as widget factories, the widgets being employees for the worlds of tech and finance. The focus of the WSJ methodology caused some colleges to drop considerably from where they normally appear in rankings, provoking surprise among some posters. Others noted that top schools were penalized for having strong programs in low-paying majors.