Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "DC shut out from all but one, now wants a gap year" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title explains, the original poster's son, who had applied to a range of colleges, was shut out of all but his least favorite schools. Now, her son has lost interest in that college and no longer wants to attend. Instead, he wants to take a year off and work on his grandparents farm. Due to labor shortages, his grandparents are thrilled to have his help. However, the original poster and her husband not happy with this idea. They are concerned that next year will be even harder for their son to get accepted to his desired colleges and fear that he might not want even want to go to college next year. As you can expect, posters are divided about what to do. A considerable number support the son, thinking that he will have a year to mature and have a better idea about what he wants to do. They also argue that it is a bad idea to force a kid to attend a college against his wishes. Others believe gap years are a waste of time and that the son is reacting emotionally to a set-back. Some warn that his admissions options might even be worse next year and that he will be left with no choice beyond community college. Several posters focus on making the best of the gap year with suggestions such as taking online classes that can be transferred later and deferring his current acceptance so he will still have that opportunity. Another suggestion is to encourage him to attend the college to which he was admitted, but consider transferring to another school that he might like better. There is general agreement among those responding that a year spent helping his grandparents on their farm is a significantly more understandable use of a gap year than backpacking across Europe. Some posters think that an application essay based on that experience would write itself.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. Titled, "If there is a SAH spouse, are finances truly equal?", the original poster poses the question in the title as a broad, almost theoretical topic. But, she addresses her own situation in detail and that is what most of the thread is about. The original poster explains that her husband is a high-earner while she is a stay-at-home-mom. They support her parents financially and want to replace her parents car. The original poster's husband is fine with buing a car in the $20-30k range, but she would like to spend more like $50-60k. The original poster is perturbed that her husband seems to have the final say on this and believes it makes her unequal in the relationship. She is considering getting a job so that she has her own money which she can spend as she wishes. Regardless of whether posters ultimately side with the original poster or her husband, they basically all agree that large expenditures of money should require agreement between both parties. In the specific case of the original poster, some interpret her post as suggesting that she generally asks permission from her husband and, while he normally acquiesces, he is the final decision-maker. They agree that this makes her unequal. Others see the husband as very generous and, even by the orignal postre's account, his "permission" is basically pro forma and almost always granted. Therefore, those posters don't see this as any different than any other normal discussion about spending family money. Moreover, many posters think the original poster and her parents should be happy to get a car in the price range supported by her husband. In contrast to this, there are a few posters who claim they never check with their spouse about expenditures. I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but from looking at the last page it appears the thread might have got sidetracked into a discussion of the original poster's behavior toward her husband which would be more appropriate for the relationship forum than the money and finance forum.

Third was a thread titled, "Is it rude if I don’t want my kid to go to a birthday party at 6PM?!" and posted in the "Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers" forum. The original poster explains that her sister-in-law has scheduled her daughter's 4th birthday part for 6:00 pm with dinner at 7 pm on a weekday. The original poster's 3-year-old son normally has bathtime at 7 and is in bed by 8 and she doesn't want his schedule disrupted. Her husband, in contrast, is adamant that they attend the party. Most of those who respond side with the original poster's husband, thinking changing their routine for one night is not a big deal. Several posters suggest compromise solutions such as feeding her son beforehand and then skipping the dinner. Later the original poster clarifies that she doesn't really like her sister-in-law who is an anti-vaxer and she says that her son always ends up catching a bug when he is around them. This causes several posters to support skipping the party. Some suggest that her husband can drop by to socialize a bit and leave a gift, but that their child wouldn't be missed. Quite a few posters claim that at these ages neither the birthday child nor the original poster's son will even remember the party or who was there. There are a few posters who describing having children who are very difficult when forced to change schedules. These posters are much more sympathetic to the original poster and favor skipping the party.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN SPORTS ACT", the original poster apparently felt strongly enough about this topic to give the title the all-caps treatment, but not strongly enough to say very much about the topic. For instance, she didn't bother to explain what the "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act" even does, but simply complains that no Democrats supported it. I'm not going to spend time describing what it is either, but I have a number of issues with this thread which can be viewed from both political and policy angles. As a matter of politics, this is a so-called "messaging" bill that is not intended to become law but rather single to supporters the political stance of the bill's supporters and potentially cause political difficulties for its opponents. In the best case, in the view of the supporters, it will be a "wedge" issue dividing the opposition party. I am very opposed to using transgender children as politcal pawns and attempting to make politcal gains on their backs. If Republicans want to play politics, let them do it by picking on people of their own size. But, as is unfortunately typical of today's Republicans, they prefer to "punch down" on already marginalized groups. Most of the policy issues are addressed by posters in the thread. The bill would allow inspections of children's genitals by school officials to determine their sex, it addresses what is basically a non-issue with very few transgender athletes in existence, and it intrudes on areas of responsibility of sports organizations which are already addressing the topic. While some proponents of the bill don't disguise their transphobia, others go to great lengths to argue that they are trying to protect hard-won women's rights, not unfairly punish transgender children. I am sympathetic to some of the arguments about women's rights, but — at the risk of being accused of "mansplaining" — I get frustrated when "even the liberal" posters attack Demorats who support trans rights as anti-women. Transgender athletes may negatively impact a handfull of women. Meanwhile, Republican legislators are taking away rights from entire populations of females. Women are literally being forced to wait in hospital parking lots for their medical condition to become life-threatening before they can receive medical attention. This seems to me to be a much more important issue than a high school sporting event. Of course, it is possible to oppose both but perspective should be maintained.