DCUM Weblog

Yesterday's two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed so I will start with the third most active thread which was titled, "Are there really men whose dream it is to have their wife not need to work?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that in a podcast episode the female host's husband joined and revealed that it had been his dream that his wife would not have to work but could if that were her choice. The original poster is very impressed by this attitude and asks where she can find a man like this one. Those responding take different approaches to this topic. Some posters take the original poster's question at face value and provide advice about how she can find this sort of guy. Others discuss the desirability, or lack thereof, of becoming a stay-at-home wife. With regard to the first, posters generally emphasize that it is important to find such men when they are young. Guys who are desirable and have the financial wherewithal to support a stay at home wife will either be taken quickly or be players who are not interested in commitment. One poster claims that the best place to meet them is graduate school. While at its heart this thread is a really a discussion of stay-at-home-moms versus work-out-of-the-house-moms, the thread has a much different flavor than most of this genre. The thread has a higher level of discourse than would normally be expected of the topic. Many of the responses are by posters recounting their own personal experiences. A significant number of those posters describe being heavily influenced by their own parents' situations. A factor of importance to the original poster that was overlooked in many responses was that the relationship she admires provides the woman the choice to work. Several of those responding agreed that this was key to such relationships. Some posters expressed concern about relationships in which a husband opposed his wife getting a job, considering it his duty to provide for his family. Posters warned that such men often enjoyed the power and control this provides them. Similarly, several posters expressed concerns that a woman who does not work can be left in difficult circumstances in the case of divorce or if her husband is unable to work due to health or accident. But posters frequently saw many benefits to having a stay at home parent which, several posters mentioned, could be a father as well as a mother. Several described this arrangement making their lives considerably easier and much less stressful. One poster argued that interdependence in which each spouse is dependent on the other leads to stronger relationships than independence of each spouse. He didn't view his stay-at-home wife as being dependent upon him anymore than he is dependent on her. But some others weren't necessarily buying this with one arguing that his wife would be homeless without his income.

Seven of yesterday's top 10 threads, including the top three were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that I will start with the fourth most active thread yesterday which was titled, "Off the waitlist at Duke - unsure what to do" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her son who had previously committed to attend the University of Pennsylvania was just accepted off the waitlist by Duke University. She says that he will study math and statistics and asks if anyone has experience with the two schools. The number one thing that those responding emphasize is that the schools have very different atmospheres. The campuses and surrounding areas are very different from one another and, as a result, it is important to determine which is more appealing to her son. Many posters stress the importance of finding the right fit. In terms of academics, posters didn't  think that there was much to distinguish one school from the other. A poster who has a child at each school agreed that there is not much difference. Another poster similarly argued that little separates the two schools academically, but that same was true of most of the top 20 schools. As such, everything kept coming back to whether the original poster's son would prefer a large campus to a compact one,  an urban location to an isolated one, or a northern climate to a southern one. One problem with threads such as this in the college forum is that so many posters respond who might not have firsthand experience with either school, let alone both. Their responses tend to reflect their personal biases and priorities. For instance, many posters suggest Duke between the two universities simply because they prefer warm weather. Others are angry about Penn because of the recent demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza. Several posters appear to base their judgement entirely on their opinion for or against the Ivy League. Over the years DCUM has managed to attract a large collection of strange posters. If nothing else, running this site has taught me that there is no limit to idiosyncrasies. One example was represented in this thread by a poster who wrote, "Duke. Many people confuse Penn with Penn State." This probably would not be notable, but therex is a poster who posts this in almost every thread dealing with Penn (I can't confirm that is this poster, but it is probable). To make things worse, multiple posters thought this was a legitimate point. I loved the response though, "Many confuse Duke with dukes of hazard." There is also always a poster who shows up to comment on the physical appearance of female students and has a strong personal preference for southern women. In this thread, such a poster, probably the same one as always, opined, "Duke has prettier women by some margin". Several posters claimed that despite the differences in atmosphere, Penn and Duke attract very similar students and more than one poster said that they knew of multiple couples made up of alumns from each school. So based on the logic of this thread, the original poster's son should go to Penn with the expectation that he will eventually marry a more attractive Duke graduate.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "my husband's mother hit my kid", and originally posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. This morning I moved the thread to the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that while she was getting dressed after getting out of the shower, her mother-in-law was attempting to put sneakers on the original poster's 4 year old son. The boy was resisting because he wanted to wear flip flops and repeatedly pulled his feet away from his grandmother. His grandmother got frustrated and "hit" him on the leg. The original poster says her mother-in-law did not hit the boy very hard, but she was quite angry that her mother-in-law hit the boy at all. The original poster's husband doesn't think this is a big deal, but the original poster doesn't want her mother-in-law to babysit anymore. Corporal punishment is a very controversial topic on DCUM with many posters having strongly held but diametrically opposed views. In this thread, the first responses all came from posters who generally oppose spanking, let alone "hitting" a child. In some cases, posters had zero tolerance positions and would not allow the grandmother to babysit in the future. One poster went so far as to say that the original poster's mother-in-law is "would be lucky if I didn't keep my kid from her forever." Others took a more moderate stance and argued in favor of the accepting the apology that the grandmother had offered and more or less putting her on probation. She would be allowed to babysit, but would be watched carefully for future transgressions. A number of posters viewed what occurred more as a "swat" than a "hit" and, like the original poster's husband, were not that concerned about it. At the far end of the spectrum were the "spare the rod, spoil the child" type posters. Many of these posters were more critical of the original poster than they were of the grandmother. One poster, blaming what she viewed as the original poster's lenient parenting style, wrote, "Your DC is a brat and no one, but you, can deal with him." Similarly, a number of posters pointed out that the original poster had apparently disciplined her mother-in-law, but not her son. They worried that this might send the message that he could disobey his grandmother with impunity. Heated arguments developed between advocates of differing approaches to parenting. Some posters suggested time outs instead of spanking but other posters declared that time outs are also abusive. Some of the posts were so extreme that it was impossible to tell whether they were trolling or serious. A poster who wrote, "Any child who was physically struck cannot ever grow up to be a normal, productive member of society" later declared that the grandmother deserved the death penalty and, as such, was pretty clearly trolling (at least I hope). But what about a poster who expressed hope that those who advocate spanking would be put "on some sort of watch list"? That poster seemed to be serious. Another poster suggested that the result of no longer spanking children is an increase in mental illness. That posters also appeared to be serious.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Are Any Fellow Jews Thinking of Changing Their Voting", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is a lifelong Democrat but that she is very angry about the college protests and is considering not voting for Democrats and possibly even voting for former President and current cult leader Donald Trump. While the original poster perceives significant and obvious anti-Semitism among the protesters, she is dismayed that many liberal groups that she has supported don't seem supportive of her at this time and she is upset by non-Jews who deny the anti-Semitism that she observes. This thread is sort of ironic in view of the thread I discussed yesterday that suggested that Biden is intentionally trying to lose the election by alienating young, Arab, and Muslim voters due to his statement that appeared to oppose the college protests. Biden is literally being criticized from both sides. Just as I said when reviewing the thread yesterday, this is really a problem of differing perceptions that is probably going to be impossible to resolve. The history of anti-Semitism has understandably made many Jews especially sensitive to perceiving anti-Semitism. In addition, there are politically-motivated groups and individuals who have an interest in increasing the perception of anti-Semitism. Moreover, anti-Semitism very much tends to be in the eye of the beholder. There is not even universal agreement on a definition of anti-Semitism. Combine this with the relationship between Israel and Jews and things get even more complicated. I will hasten to add that there have been clear and indisputable incidences of anti-Semitism among protesters, so I am not suggesting that the original poster's observations and unfounded. But, the result is that the original poster and someone like me might witness the exact same event and perceive it entirely differently. Where I might see a group standing against the killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of their towns and cities, the original poster can — with equal legitimacy — see a mob threatening Jews. There is enough objective evidence to support either perception. In an ideal world, those holding these differing views might be able to come to some amount of reconciliation through communication and understanding. But today's political environment, and particularly a DCUM discussion thread, doesn't really provide for that opportunity. Instead there is more interest in exploiting these divisions for political gain. As such, those with conservative and Republican tendencies are more than willing to welcome those such as the original poster, never mind the Republicans' own struggles with anti-Semitism. In contrast, Democrats in the thread reacted much as they have to the voters who have threatened not to support Biden because he is too pro-Israel. They warned the original poster against throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying that Trump would be worse on host of other issues and not necessarily better regarding Israel and anti-Semitism. Trump associates with actual Nazis and personally has made a number of statements that could be considered anti-Semitic. While many believe that he would be more pro-Israel than Biden, Trump seems to have personal animosity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has strong business and financial ties to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Trump's support for Israel might not be as ironclad as many believe. Biden, on the other hand, has done almost everything possible to support Israel.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "The Dad Privilege Checklist" and was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Substack article that was titled the same as thread. The author of the article posits that "Almost all fathers can slack off, confident in the knowledge that someone else will do the work for them" and then provides a list of ways that fathers are privileged relative to mothers. The original poster of the thread invites others to read the checklist and provide their reactions. One of the earliest reactions was to say, "It's an idiotic list." In contrast, just after that another poster stated that "My husband enjoys most of the privileges." My own reaction is that while the idea behind the Substack article has some validity, the actual article was not particularly well done. Frankly, some of the things listed were pure nonsense. It is true that ours is a traditionally patriarchal system that has provided significant privileges to men, especially fathers. But equally true is that for several generations, significant inroads have been made toward equality. Progress has been uneven and varies from family to family. As such, no such checklist is going to be universally applicable. Nevertheless, this was not a particularly good list. As one poster noted, "It's a crowd-sourced list of petty grievances and projections, most of which are unsupported by any real data or facts." On a list of this length — over 100 entries long — there are obviously going to be a few entries that fit specific relationships. In many cases, however, it is reasonable to ask if the items are true privileges, or rather the result of a division of labor. For instance, one poster — who is a father — wrote, "We divide and conquer. For example, I handle paperwork like school registration, health forms for camp, and paying tuition" but his wife "handles clothes, including laundry and buying clothes" and other duties. He says that they divide up tasks based on who has time and skills. The real failure of the article, I think, is that it almost guarantees that the forest will be missed for the trees. There are so many items of questionable validity that they tend to undermine the entire point of the post. I think a better approach would have simply been to point out that, more often than not, the mother is the default parent and responsible for all that entails. This results in natural privileges with regard to parenting for fathers that may or may not be offset by responsibilities in other areas. Just as the length of the list means that it includes several items for which many fathers take responsibility, it also includes "privileges" that ring true for many of the women responding. However, women who say that the list applies to their husbands come under fire not only from defensive men, but also from women who question why they made such a poor choice of a husband. This might be the ultimate privilege. A man can be lazy and incompetent, but his wife will be the one who is blamed.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will start today with the third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Why pay all of kids' college?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. The original poster says that she does not understand the expectation that the average middle class person should save to pay for 100 percent of their kid's college. She says that everyone she knew growing up had college loans and they were fine. She has decided that she will pay for two years at a public university for her kids and the rest is up to them. Reading the responses, it is clear that posters approach this topic from very personal angles. Those for whom college loan debt was a burden tend to believe very strongly in paying for their children's college. One poster compared this to passing on generational wealth. These posters often stress the significant impact of large debt that forces young people to delay many other aspects of their lives. As one poster put it, "If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home". In contrast, those like the original poster who didn't have personal experience with significant debt see less importance in saving for college and are more likely to expect their children to take out loans. Some posters contend that kids should have "skin in the game", meaning that they be responsible for paying for at least part of their education so that they will value it. Otherwise, these posters suggest, the kids might see college as a four-year long party at their parent's expense. Many posters see attitudes about paying for college as having regional or social class divisions. One suggests that DC-area families are more likely to pay for college than those in her home state of Pennsylvania. Others argue that upper middle class families are more likely than middle class to save for college, though this may simply be an issue of means. Some posters think that unless saving for college would cause significant financial problems, it is selfish not to save for your kids' college. A number of posters point out that young people just starting college often are naive and uninformed about the ramifications of debt. They don't have a proper understanding of how much a burden paying off loans can be or they wrongly believe that loans are easily forgiven. Therefore, many posters feel they have an obligation to pay for college to prevent these kids from making mistakes. There was quite a bit of discussion of the Public Service Loan forgiveness (PSLF) program that forgives loans of those who choose specific professions. However, this forgiveness only occurs after 10 years of making payments. For some posters, struggling with debt for even that long is unreasonable if parents could prevent it. For many, this is a question of priorities. Whereas some posters see giving a debt-free education to their children as way to give them a leg up and a good start to their lives, others have different priorities. As one poster put it, "I want to retire and enjoy what is left of my life. I can afford to retire while I'm young and do the things on my bucket [list]". This poster was specifically discussing paying for graduate school, but the sentiment was representative of some posters' attitudes about paying for college in general.

Yesterday's most active thread was again the college protests thread which, again, had several times the number of posts of the next most active thread. But, since I've already discussed that thread I'll skip it today and move to the next most active thread which was titled, "NYT: ‘Peak College Admissions Insanity’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article with the same title as the thread. The author of the article, a former official in the US Department of Education, describes a number of developments that led to admissions for the 2023-2024 school year at selective universities becoming a chaotic and unpredictable experience. As the author wrote, "even the gatekeepers seemed not to know what the new rules were." I was about halfway through this article when I decided that it was clearly written for the express purpose of trolling DCUM. The article hit on all of the hot button DCUM college forum topics including the obvious ones such test optional admissions, early decision, and financial aid. But it also hit some of the deep cuts such as when the author name-checked Northeastern University. When he brought up "yield protection", I imagined the forum's yield protection obsessives setting off fireworks in celebration. In many ways, the article is the culmination and distillation of all of the most active college forum topics that I have discussed in this blog. The article emphasizes the impact of early decision applications and how they have changed the admissions calendar. It discusses the importance of colleges making standardized tests optional and the huge growth in the number of applications the top universities receive. The decision by the US Supreme Court prohibiting the use of race in college admissions received only a cursory mention, putting the article somewhat at odds with DCUM's college forum where the topic is heavily discussed. DCUM posters quickly caught on to an error in the author's understanding of when applicants accepted in the early decision round must pull applications from other colleges. However, financial aid decisions this year were delayed due to changes in the FAFSA application that postponed its availability. So for this year, the author may have been correct. In addition, posters pointed out additional factors that the author did not appear to consider. Generally, however, posters agree that the current college admissions process is filled with unknowns and that there appear to be few rules. As one poster summarized things, "High school seniors think this is checkers, but the schools know it’s chess. This has all become frankly terrifying for students, who are first-time players in a game their opponents invented."

The most active thread yesterday was the campus protest thread that I have already discussed. That thread had nearly six times as many posts as the next most active thread which was titled, "Disney DAS" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is anxious about upcoming changes to the Disney's DAS program and asked if anyone knows what to expect. I had no idea to what the original poster was referring and had to do some quick research. "DAS" is Disney World's Disability Access Service which, according to its web page, accommodates guests who "due to a developmental disability like autism or similar, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time." Apparently, guests with DAS access are assigned an entry time to an "experience" — as Disney calls them — that corresponds to the length of the current queue. Such guests don't have to physically stand in line, but just return at their assigned time. The current Disney webpage only contains information about DAS up to May 19 and it seems that changes to the program will be introduced beginning May 20. But with folks attempting to plan trips that will occur after that date, the lack of information about the changes is causing some frustration as in the case of the original poster. Those responding in this thread don't really have any more information about the upcoming changes than the original poster does, so instead replies focus on rumors or describe past experiences. Some posters complained that the DAS system has been abused in the past which might be the reason for the changes. In addition, the DAS program is compared to other programs that Disney offers such as Genie+ and Lightening Lanes. Several parents of children with autism explained how the program had been helpful to them and worried that it might not be continued. But parents with kids without autism complained that the long lines are difficult for young children generally and that Disney should rethink how it handles lines to better accomodate all young children. One poster reported that her family was approved for DAS post May 20 and that the rule changes were not significant. At some point the thread broke out into an argument about using both Genie+ and DAS. For those who, like me, know nothing about this stuff, Genie+ allows guests to use short, fast-moving Lightening Lanes for a select number of rides. Some posters reported using both Genie+ and DAS to keep line waits to a minimum. This upset other posters who thought that using both programs was taking advantage of system. As one poster wrote, "You shouldn't be able to use Genie + if you have DAS. It's double dipping." In response, a poster wrote, "It looks like you can only get a certain #of ride passes per day with the DAS. If you can use Genie + to get on other rides quickly, why wouldn’t you?" Most of the rest of the thread simply consisted of variations of this debate.

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about college protests and the thread about paying off a spouses's student loans. I already discussed those threads in yesterday's blog post, so I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Honestly, how do you manage dual income marriage with kids?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that both she and her husband have "highly intellectual jobs" that don't pay all that well but are intellectually stimulating, have prestige, are fun, but also are stressful. They each make around $200k annually, which caused some posters to question the original poster's description of their jobs as not paying well. They have two kids and, despite "a lot of help around the house" are increasingly having relationship conflicts. As the original poster explains it, between their long hours and frequent travel which also requires time for recuperation, the original poster and her husband are struggling with family life. The original poster is particularly frustrated because she feels that she picks up most of the load around the house and her husband, rather than recognizing that she is tired and overworked, expects her to be the "sexy available girlfriend" when it is convenient for him. She asks how others have made this situation work. On the face of it, what the original poster is describing is a very common scenario — a struggle to balance work with parenting. It has been a decade since Sheryl Sandberg urged women to "lean in", yet as the original poster demonstrates, while women struggle to overcome barriers at work, they also encounter barriers at home. This topic has been covered a million times in the relationship forum and most of the advice offered is standard fare. Posters suggest hiring more help, attempting to better balance responsibilities with her husband, cutting back on travel, etc. Some of those responding argue that the original poster is simply expecting too much and that she should accept that she can't have it all. Almost immediately I started receiving reports suggesting that the original poster was a troll. Initially, I couldn't find any indication that this was the case and I was baffled by the suggestion because this is such a common scenario. But, after considerable digging, I discovered that the original poster was sock puppeting throughout the thread, often replying to herself in the third person. Later in the thread she introduced a new twist to her story and then immediately sock puppeted a response. Ironically, some of the original poster's sock puppeted responses contained pretty good advice. So one of the original poster's personas should just listen to what her other persona has to say. I also note the irony of someone with an intellectually-challenging and prestigious job who lacks time and energy for sex toiling away having a conversation with herself on DCUM.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Protests on college campuses" which was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The student protests against the Israeli devastation of Gaza which has killed over 30,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and placed most of the remaining population at risk of famine, have provoked thread after thread. I've essentially been playing whack-a-mole trying to prevent the threads from taking over multiple forums. While Columbia University and the University of Southern California were the initial focus, protests soon spread to colleges across the nation. The original poster of this thread specifically mentioned a protest at DC's George Washington University and asked what effect the protests might have. The nature of the demonstrations has varied from campus to campus, as has the response of college administrations and local governments. Israel and its supporters clearly view the protests as a serious threat and their reaction has been extreme. Israeli Prime Mininister Benjamin Netanyahu described the protests as "antisemitic" and "horrific". US Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson called for the National Guard to be deployed. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, a man whose job is supposed to be contesting defamation, went so far as to call the protesters "Iranian proxies" and compare them to Hezbollah. DCUM posters have been similarly hostile to the protests, often criticizing the students as uninformed and entitled. One tactic that has been used across the board by those who oppose the protests is to conflate incidents that don't involve students with the campus protests and to exaggerate, if not outright lie, about events. At Columbia University, protesters who are not associated with the school have gathered outside campus. The media has routinely portrayed aggressive behavior and anti-Semitic incidents involving that crowd as being part of the student demonstrations. The students, for their part, have condemned and disassociated themselves from those instances. At Emory University in Atlanta, video shows a college professor stopping to question police about why they were violently arresting a student. A police officer hurled the professor to the ground, knocking her head on concrete. Similarly, at the University of Texas in Austin, police were filmed violently throwing members of the media to the ground. In an outrageous event at Northeastern University, video shows a member of a pro-Israel counter protest crossing over to the anti-war group and, while in the midst of them, yelling "kill the Jews". University administrators had the anti-war demonstrators arrested on the basis of this statement. All of this is in reaction to students who largely are doing nothing but sitting in the grass with protest signs listening to speeches. But the clear overreaction by authorities has strong support among DCUM posters who, let's be frank, are getting old. They have no time or patience for today's youth. There is lots of advice concerning the "proper" way to protest which basically requires avoiding anything that anybody would notice. Protests are to be neither seen nor heard. But hats off to the kids. They are clearly getting under some skins and the overreaction aimed at suppressing the protests shows that those in power view them as a real threat. They may call you naive, but they clearly fear you.