DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sanity Check - DH in Boxers" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster asks how appropriate it is for a middle-aged man to do outside chores and short errands wearing boxer shorts with no other pants. The fact this thread reached 10 pages and leads all other topics in activity yesterday really makes me wonder whether life is so good for our users that this is the most troubling type of issue they face or life is so bad that they are forced to escape by reading the most mundane thread available. Either way, there is near universal agreement that boxers belong inside pants and are not outerwear. Some posters might allow boxers in the privacy of one's home and perhaps even outside in circumstances in which the wearer was not likely to be seen by others. But, for most, even that's not appropriate. A few posters argued that boxers have the same coverage as shorts and, therefore, they don't think there is much difference. But, the difference for most posters is the existence of a fly on boxers. While the ease of egress provided to the male genitalia by a fly may be a convenience in the bathroom, it provides obvious problems in the front yard, let alone the hardware store. I had thought that the original poster was talking about her husband but it turns out that the original poster is the boxer-wearer himself. He followed-up with several pro-boxers-as-outwear arguments and even proposed that this might be an "Italian thing". This suggestion was contested by a poster whose spouse is "100% Jersey Italian". The poster later clarified that his boxers have button flys which somewhat solves the "unexpected appearance" issue, but the poster also admits that he now realizes his attire might make the family's nanny uncomfortable. Several posters are concerned that poor bathroom hygiene could lead to unsanitary and visually unappealing leftovers on the underwear. They much preferred remaining ignorant about this rather than being forced to confront it when encountering the original poster and his boxers. One poster went as far to question the original poster's endowment based on her disbelief that any but the smallest examples could be constrained by mere boxers. The reaction to this by the original poster was such that I had to remove it.

The most active thread since my last blog post was titled, "School Asking DC To Mask To Accomodate An Other" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The original poster says that she received an email from her child's school asking that the child wear a mask in a specific class because another child has a "medical situation". If the original poster's child declines, her child will be moved to another class. The original poster is suspicious that this might not be a real medical situation but simply a mother overreacting to COVID hysteria. In that case, the original poster does not want to subject her child to wearing a mask. However, if it is indeed a serious medical need, the original poster says she will bend over backwards to accomodate the other student. She wants to know how she can determine which of the two cases this actually might be. It was almost immediately clear to me — once I saw the thread which, unfortunately was not until just now — that this poster was trolling. In subsequent responses, the original poster (frequently without identifying herself), suggested that concern about COVID was limited to "drama queens" and liberals. The original poster later referred to masks as "muzzling her child" and threatened to "spit in the face" of another poster. Without identifying herself as the original poster, the original poster responded in subsequent posts saying that she is done with masking and would not ask her child to mask and also saying that she would simply said her child to school without a mask rather than responding ahead of time. While this poster is trolling, the thread touches on a serious topic. The State of Virginia settled a lawsuit filed by the ACLU by agreeing that peer masking is an acceptable accommodation for students who are at risk from COVID. Therefore, some Virginia schools are likely facing this issue, though it is anybody's guess whether the original poster's child is in one of those schools.

Fully six of yesterday's ten most active threads were threads that I have already discussed. That barely leaves me enough for today's post. The first about which I'll talk was the second most active thread yesterday. Titled, "MCPS teachers - what would you tell parents in your class(es) if you could?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, the thread is meant, as the title suggests, to invite input from Montgomery County Public Schools teachers about what they would tell parents if they had the opportunity. The thread begins with warnings that teachers are very busy, have very little extra time, and cannot do all that they would want. A parent responds to one of these posts by describing the teacher in question as a "failure in [the teacher's] life's work." In many ways, this is current state of MCPS boiled down to its most essential essence. Teachers warning that they are being stretched too thin and being called "failures" by parents in response. The real cherry on the cake is that just four posts later that very same poster responded by describing herself as a "distraught" parent who was beng "taunted" by teachers and painting herself entirely as the victim of bullying teachers. If this is the situation with which teachers are dealing — and by all accounts it is — no wonder they are quitting in droves. Who wants to deal with this kind of parent? But, the poster didn't stop there. When other posters patiently explained that anyone reading the school forums on DCUM would know that there is a teacher shortage and that the remaining teachers face severe resource constraints and the poster should be supportive rather than combative, the poster rejected the message. Instead, she replied saying that she was an "outsider to the special needs parenting community" — the exactly opposite of what she previously suggested — and accused teachers of being abusive and "narcissists" who gaslight parents. This poster is not representative of all the parents who post in the thread and, hopefully, is not representative of most parents with whom teachers have to interact, but it wouldn't take too many parents like this one to completely poison things. In addition to this poster, other parents seize this thread as an opportunity to air their grievances with teachers. Ignoring that this is the compete opposite of the intention of the thread, one poster suggested that they discuss the teachers' union and school closures during the pandemic. It's been clear for some time that there is a cohort of parents who are no longer able to discuss any other aspect of schools and education and, like a scratched record that repeatedly replays the same few notes, fixate on school closures regardless of the context. It really seems like many school systems are entering a vicious circle in which teachers are stressed to breaking, parents are more than willing to break them, and more teachers quit causing those remaining to be stretched even thinner. I'm not sure that this pattern can be reversed until the kids that experienced school closures have aged out and taken their parents with them.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "The Blind Side scandal" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. This thread has been going for a while but apparently took off yesterday, adding 15 pages to reach 25 pages in total. As most can probably guess, this thread is about the lawsuit filed by former NFL player Michael Oher against Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy. Oher and the Tuohys were the subject of the 2009 movie "The Blind Side" starring Sandra Bullock. Oher claims that he just learned in February that he had not been adopted by the Tuohys as he apparently believed. Not being a family member, Oher says he did not receive payments from the movie that were provided to the couple's children. The entertainment forum seems to have attracted a number of obsessive posters who often appear deeply knowledgeable (though that appearance is often misleading) and are capable of a prodigious number of posts per day. We have seen this in threads about Meghan Markle and Taylor Swift. In this case, I don't think these posters are longtime fans of either Oher or the Tuohys, though it is pretty clear that many posters have been influenced by Bullock's portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy. Indeed, quite a few of those posting seem to have gotten most of their information from either the movie or the book on which the movie was based. Many of the posters in the thread are suspicious of the Tuohy's motives and accept Oher's contention that he was misled into thinking that he had been adopted when, in fact, he had not been. Some of these posters believe that the Tuohys exploited Oher, were only interested in him due to his football skills, and had no interest in making him a formal member of their family. Other posters side with the Tuohys, arguing that a conservatorship was more practical than an adoption and that Oher should have been aware of the legal implications. One argument made by Tuohy supporters is that they have not actually received that much money as a result of the book and movie and that the money they spent raising Oher exceeded any income. So they don't expect him to receive anything from the lawsuit even if it is successful. One particularly strong supporter of the Tuohys continually launched attacks on Oher that appear based on nothing more than conjecture. She suggested that Oher is out of money and going after the Tuohys as a money grab. Moreover, she alleged that this was being done at the best of Oher's wife, contending that this was mostly a mother-in-law vs. daughter-in-law conflict. I haven't seen anything to support this view, but given the innumerable mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflicts that are routinely fought in our Family Relationships forum, it would fit right in on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the lastest indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, since I've already discussed that thread, I'll start with the next most active which was titled, "Is there any way to convince a young man to step it up because he will never do better?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. There is an argument to be made that this thread would be more appropriate for the "Adult Children" forum, but I'll leave it where it is for now. The original poster says that her 25-year-old son has been dating his 25-year-old girlfriend for 5 years. The original poster likes everything about the woman and believes that her son would — in her words — "never do better". However, she describes her son as immature and failing to grow up. His girlfriend has confided in the original poster that she is losing patience with the situation and the original poster is concerned that the girlfriend will break up with her son and he will regret it for the rest of his life. To be sure, there are posters who sympathize with the original poster and urge her to have an open and honest talk with her son to make him understand what he risks losing. But, for the most part, those responding are not very supportive of the original poster. For some, this is just a matter of the son simply not being ready and, as such, he should not be pressured. Many of these posters argue that men can wait longer for marriage than women and 25 is too young. Others, are downright antagonistic towards the original poster, thinking she is way too involved in her son's affairs. Moreover, these posters suggest that the original parent has probably "over-parented" her son all along, leading to his current immaturity. These posters urge the original poster to butt out. Along these lines, several posters suggest that the original poster's son must be allowed to make his own mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. In a follow-up post, the original poster emphasizes that marriage is not the only milestone for which her son is failing to prepare. She lists things like exploring career opportunities, regions to which to move, or buying a house in which he could take his girlfriend into consideration. She repeatedly comes back to her fear that her son will always regret losing this girlfriend. While some posters do think it is appropriate to have this fear, most of those responding aren't as sure that her son couldn't do better or don't think that really matters if he is not ready.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Rich Men North of Richmond" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I can't believe that anyone has escaped knowledge of this song by Oliver Anthony that is being discussed nearly everywhere. Indeed prior to this thread there was already a 3 page thread in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum that I locked because it had turned into a political discussion. This song is widely seen as a rallying cry for the lower and middle classes and has been adopted by conservatives as almost an anthem. It turns out that the song's popularity has not grown completely organically, but rather as a result of a well-funded conservative campaign to promote the song. Because of the song's association with the right-wing and the tribal nature of today's society, liberals immediately attacked the song, which does touch on a number right-wing clichés. But Anthony himself says that politically he is in the middle of the road. Read carefully, the song's lyrics do have some lines that appear critical of the right-wing. For instance a line about protecting miners instead of "minors on an island" is seen as criticizing those more interested in Jeffrey Epstein than US mine workers. It is very clearly those to the right, as well as QAnon, who are most obsessed with Epstein whereas Democrats are generally more concerned with workplace safety, including in mines. In fact, the current Republican Governor of West Virginia who is also a US Senate candidate, Jim Justice, is the head of a coal mine empire that has hundreds of safety violations. Whether in the Governor's mansion in Charleston or his home in Lewisburg, Justice is a very rich man who is, if just barely, north of Richmond. Anthony also rails against fat people on welfare eating junk food. One of the ironies of both our food and wellfare systems is that unhealthy foods that lead to obesity are cheaper and more widely available than healthy foods. Our government would have to spend more to enable poor people to eat healthy. Moreover, Anthony — who describes himself as a farmer with a 90 acre farm — is likely eligible for, if not the beneficiary of, many government support programs himself. Regardless of the details, the song has resonated with a large audience. The song's lyrics are such that there is a bit for everyone included. As such, the right-wing has clearly embraced the song and others, including posters in this thread, find messages that would appeal to Bernie Sanders followers.

The most active thread since my last blog post was titled, "Washington Post article about Fromer Farquhar Administrator" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. As the title suggests, the thread is about an article in the Washington Post describing allegations against Montgomery County Public Schools Principal Joel Beidleman. Beidleman had been the Principal at Farquhar Middle School but was recently appointed Principal of Paint Branch High School. The Post article describes 18 reports of inappropriate conduct by Beidleman that include "harassment, threats, retaliations, workplace bullying and other inappropriate conduct spanning at least 12 years". Many of the allegations involved sexual harassment. Despite these reports of misconduct, the Post says that Beidleman has been a rising star in MCPS and his most recent promotion would have seen his salary increase almost six-fold. Needless to say, nearly all of those responding in this thread are outraged by what is described. The MCPS administration, including Superintendent Monifa McKnight, is accused of covering up Beidleman's misbehavior and there are many calls for McKnight to resign or be fired. For many of those responding, what the article describes is emblematic of the corruption and toxicity of MCPS in which employees fail upward — being promoted after failing — and rampant bullying is allowed. Some posters in the MCPS forum have repeatedly argued that MCPS concentrates on equity and diversity rather than fundamental academics leading to a decline of the school system. For those posters, Beidleman — who is Black — represents all that they have been warning about. In their view, his faults were ignored in order to promote a Black principal in the interest of diversity. Even posters inclined to be a bit more charitable are agree that Beidleman, a Black Male in a field often dominated by White women, might not have been given as close scrutiny as others might have been. MCPS has promised an external investigation but, for the most part, posters in this thread are pessimistic that there will be any real reckoning within MCPS. Posters repeatedly express doubt that this controversy will result in additional transparency or reforms to improve the system, let alone punishment for those who turned a bind eye to Beidleman's alleged misbehavior for over a decade.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Wedding offenses: rank according to badness" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Lately there have been multiple threads about posters objecting to one aspect or another of a wedding. Perhaps inspired by such threads, the original poster of this thread wants to rank items in terms of how "bad" they are considered. Her own list starts with "no kids" weddings and ends with "Weddings of couples who ask for cash". But, I don't know which of those is supposed to be the worst offense. She also lists "No +1 weddings", "Destination weddings", "Dry weddings", and "No open bar weddings". My first reaction when preparing to write about this thread is that I don't like summarizing threads that consist mostly of lists. But, then I noticed that the thread was 17 pages long and I knew there is no way that posters had stuck to the program for that many pages. Sure enough, while the initial responders did  pretty much keep to ranking their wedding peeves as the original poster requested, by the third page posters starting ignoring the rankings and just expressing their opinions about things others had listed. As could be expected, this caused the thread to devolve fairly quickly as others responded to those posts and the thread was overwhelmed by debates about wedding choices. The first poster to deviate from the assigned task of ranking offenses defended the practice of not inviting kids which was one of the leading wedding peeves. This provoked a rebuttal from a poster whose kids are always well-behaved at weddings. Of course everything that was listed as an "offense" had defenders. Otherwise, none of those things would ever be done at weddings. Some posters rejected other's lists completely, supporting every practice that was ranked as an offense. This seems to be a very popular thread but the topic is lost on me. I barely remember any wedding to which I've been, including my own. I couldn't tell you which ones had cash bars or were dry and I've never been to a destination wedding. My list of offenses would probably be "too long", "uncomfortable seats", and "bad music at the reception".

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "why is mrs still a thing" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster noted that several of her children's teachers — of varying ages — prefer to use the title "Mrs.". The original poster thinks this is strange and wonders why they don't prefer "Ms.". On one hand, this is a fairly simple post that should be easily answered. On the other hand, this is DCUM. In a perfect world, posters — particularly those who themselves prefer to use "Mrs." — would respond with explanations for their choice and the original poster would leave the thread more knowledgeable and with a better understanding then she entered. But, sadly, DCUM is far from the perfect world. DCUM in an environment in which posting "I like dogs" will result in responses such as "Why do you hate cats?". Posters rarely answer the question asked, but rather the question that they think you meant to ask, or the question that they would have preferred you to ask. As a result, the post is addressed as part of a culture war. Posters imply that the original poster is being hypocritical because, as a feminist, she should support women's choice. This trend reached the pinnacle of absurdity when the poster who had brought up freedom of choice being a goal of feminism was herself responded to by a poster saying that the point of feminism was to give women a choice. Hello, you both are saying the same thing. Perhaps actually reading posts will result in more appropriate responses? Of course the original poster is not necessarily saying that those who choose "Mrs." should not do so, but just wants to know their reasons for that choice. Unfortunately for the original poster, almost none of the responders offered a reply that would provide such enlightenment. Plenty of posters described their own choice of titles, but not really offering much in the way of explanation for their choices. Other posters simply posted opinions about titles. One poster rejected her family name entirely, including her mother's maiden name, due to concern that the names had been used by male abusers in the past. An off-topic discussion regarding the entomology various words broke out. So, for instance, we were entertained with the history of the word, "hysterical". This discussion also highlighted the increasingly conservative nature of DCUM. I have to say that this is a disappointing trend in my view given the website's original userbase of progressive urban women. Now we have posters who equate choosing to be called "Ms." with being a man-hating, failure who will end up living alone in a cardboard box.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "dominate spouse during game night if you're intellectually superior?". The thread was originally posted in the "Off-Topic" forum but I moved it to the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum where it is more appropriate. The original poster considers himself to be considerably more intelligent than his wife. For the past two months they have been playing a game that involves statistics and math principles. The original poster has been letting his wife win. However, the previous night he decided to play seriously and won all four games they played that evening. This upset his wife and she went to bed in a huff. He wants to know what other couples in which one member is "far more intellectually superior" do about games. One of the reasons that the original poster considers himself much more intelligent than his wife is that he has a graduate degree in engineering while his wife has a degree in political science. As could be expected, the original poster doesn't find a lot of sympathy from those who respond. Some posters focus on the competitive aspects of the question and suggest games that rely more on luck and chance which would probably be more fun for the couple. Others suggested choosing games that were more compatible with his wife's skills. Other posters responded about his attitude towards his wife which they found disappointing, arguing that he was contemptuous of her. Still others addressed the topic of intelligence and arguing that strength in some areas does not necessarily translate into overall intelligence. Moreover, several posters noted that while the original poster might have a high IQ, he was severally challenged when it comes to EQ, with many thinking that EQ was more important. I didn't read much of this thread so I am not sure about everything that was discussed. But one other thing that I did notice were a number of posters who are extremely proud of the Scrabble skills.