May

Once again the two most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed. So, I'll start with the third most active thread which was titled, "How does your redshirted kid feel now that she/he is older?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. This is the type of thread that I find very frustrating and makes me want to reconsider what we are doing with DCUM altogether. The original poster has a perfectly reasonable request. Her family is moving to the DC area and she is giving thought to school for her daughter who just completed kindergarten. The child's birthday is in late August and she has recently been diagnosed with ADHD. Therefore, the original poster is considering redshirting her daughter and having her repeat kindergarten. She would like to hear about the experiences of those who redshirted their children in the past. This sounds pretty straight-forward, right? If you redshirted your child, the original poster would like to hear how that turned out. No additional input was requested. But, this is DCUM where I have often said that if you post a question asking for input from cat owners, you will most assuredly be flooded by responses from dog owners, many of whom hate cats. No surprise then that the thread was filled by posts from those with no experience with redshirting. To be sure, many of those were helpful and informative and contributed positively to the thread. But, others were not. For instance, one poster weighed in to say that her older child was glad that he was not redshirted. Good to know, but hardly relevant to this discussion. That wasn't the end of this poster's participation, however. She would eventually post nearly 30 times in the thread, opposing redshirting and challenging the experiences of others. So, not only was this poster not providing responsive posts, she was debating those who were. As is turns out, probably not surprisingly, this particular poster is one that I encounter frequently due to her prolific posting. Yesterday, in fact, she posted at least 127 messages. The strange thing is that she does not appear to have actually started a thread herself during this calendar year. Her habit is to simply comment relentlessly, and mostly negatively, on other's posts. I appreciate this person's commitment to DCUM, but I wish she would be more positive and helpful. In this case, she is almost single-handedly responsible for this thread being among yesterday's most active and, more importantly, much less useful than it could have been. I wish I had the ability to contact the user privately and encourage her to do better, but I don't. So, maybe this post will suffice. Either way, I've blocked her IP address for 24 hours so we will see what that does, if anything. For the original poster's part, it doesn't look like she posted again in the thread. So, who knows what she thinks of the discussion?

Because I didn't post over the weekend, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Call to discuss the state of Hardy 05/15/23" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools". Initially this thread started with a question by the original poster asking about an urgent call involving Hardy Middle School, a DC Public Schools middle school located in Georgetown. Posters were fairly tight-lipped about the call in question, but it was implied that it was a conference call involving school parents. Subsequent posts revealed that the primary topic of the call, perhaps the only topic, was parents' loss of faith in Errol Johnson, the school's principal, and their desire to have him replaced. Just four days after the thread was started, Johnson was indeed removed. For me, this brought back memories of a similar controversy involving Hardy from over a decade ago. At that time, parents of inbound students had rallied to demand the removal of Principal Patrick Pope who inbound families viewed as overly supportive of out-of-bounds students to the detriment of inbound students. This resulted in allegations that the inbound families — largely wealthy and White — were using their privilege to disadvantage out-of-bounds families who were predominately (but far from entirely) people of color. As soon as Johnson's removal became known, several posters made similar allegations, complaining that wealthy White families had unfairly pushed out a Black principal with little input from people of color. While the speed with which Johnson was removed was remarkable, I see some fundamental differences between the Johnson and Pope incidences. Pope was clearly removed because inbound families wanted to see the school remade with a focus on its role as a neighborhood school. Regardless of the legitimacy of that position, it had an obvious negative impact on people of color. There was a certain amount of truth in the allegation that White people were taking over a school that, in their opinion, catered far too much to Black students. In the case of Johnson, while those organizing against him appear to be primarily White, their efforts seem to be aimed at protecting the interests of all students. Their complaints involve the principal's communications, managerial, and decision-making abilities. While I may have missed it in this nearly 40-page thread, I don't see many complaints about Johnson's removal coming from the school's parents. Rather, those standing up for Johnson and complaining about his treatment appear to be a small number of teachers. DCPS can often have a "crabs in the barrel" tendency, something that is reflected in some posts. For instance, there are posts from parents with children at other DCPS schools complaining that Hardy parents were able to get almost immediate attention while their schools are largely ignored. I would argue that the problem is not Hardy's issues being addressed, but that other schools don't get similar treatment. Don't blame Hardy for that, blame DCPS.

The two most active threads yesterday were the Harry and Meghan thread and the thread about the woman and the CitiBike. Since I've already discussed those, I'll move to the third most active thread which was titled, "Is this how thin people eat?" and posted in the "Diet and Exercise" forum. The original poster explains that she recently suffered from a stomach bug and didn't eat for 24 hours. Since then, she hasn't had much of an appetite and has only been consuming about 1,000 calories a day. She had already been at a healthy weight, though not thin, and has lost 3 lbs since her illness. She says that she feels great and asks whether this is how skinny people eat. Weight loss topics are popular in the diet forum and many of the posters that frequent the forum have very strong opinions about eating. There are posters who seem convinced that anyone whose diet is even a single calorie short of what they believe is sufficient suffers from an eating disorder. Others believe that all weight gain is a result of eating and weight loss is as simple as controlling your eating. Both viewpoints are expressed very early in this thread. I picture a forlorn DCUM poster who is hoping to get advice about lossing weight sitting at their computer with a small DCUM poster perched on each shoulder. One is telling the poster to "just eat less" and the other is saying, "that's disordered eating". These two popular but irreconcilable positions are what causes threads such as this one to be among the most active. In this case, the discussion transformed a bit into a dispute about nature vs nurture. Some posters argue that weight is genetic and that reduced calories can't do much about that in the long term. Others argue the opposite, suggesting for instance that identical twins can have vastly different weights based on differing diets. Posters link to various studies that make often contradictory claims. Intermixed among all of this are a number of posts that offer differing advice. Some suggest high protein diets, others low protein. Some think that protein should be just right, though of course there is no agreement as to that amount. Probably by now the original poster is sorry that she posted in the first place

Since I took the weekend off from blogging, today I'll cover the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "US Census Bureau: White Women More Likely Than Black Women to Move Up Income Ladder Due to Differences in Partnering" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a new analysis of census data that shows that white women tend to be partnered more often than non-white woman and that white women are more likely to attain upward mobility through partnerships. The bottom line of the data presented by the original poster is that white women tend to partner more often and when they do, they partner with a higher-earners. This perhaps explains the countless threads that we see in the relationship forum about finding a wealthy husband and so on. Those responding generally don't disagree that this is the reality. As one poster writes, "I'm a black woman. At my first job out of college three white women took me under their wings and made sure I understood how to marry up. It worked." Other posters attempted to offer explanations for this situation or to suggest ways to address it. Unfortunately, as with most threads dealing with race, racists came out of the woodwork to make their tired cliched tropes. As a result, I have had to remove a number of posts. This thread went all over the place as it seemed to give license to posters to demonstrate their personal biases. Somehow immigration, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and Kanye West all were either demonstrated or discussed. I will probably have to lock this thread soon. Because the value of partnering seems to be generally accepted by most posters, much of the thread is focused on relationship issues. But, personally, I think this misses the main point which is that women tend not to attain upper mobility through their own efforts, but through partnering with a higher-earner. This may well be the reality, but it is an unfortunate one. Rather than focusing on why Black women have difficulty marrying high earners, why not address the need to partner in order to get ahead? Shouldn't any woman, regardless of race, be able to achieve upper mobility through her own hard work and intelligence rather than relying on a partner? To be sure, there are posts that take this view and, as a result, address the structural obstacles to female advancement. Hence, about birth control and abortion.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dooce /Heather Armstrong" and was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Armstrong was one of the original "mommy bloggers", posting under the name "Dooce". She tragically died by suicide yesterday. This thread is currently eleven pages long which would be significant on its own, but a separate thread about her was also started and reached six pages before I locked it. I know very little about Armstrong and what I do know is limited to my brief interactions to remove inappropriate posts in threads about her that were occasionally posted on DCUM. As might be expected, posters familiar with Dooce posted about their surprise and sadness regarding the news. There is considerable discussion of her very personal and revealing blog. We have an informal but generally consistently-applied rule about criticizing individuals for the first 48 hours after their death. Because so much of Armstrong's life was apparently public, I had a hard time trying to draw a line between posts that were simply describing her life and those that were inappropriately negative. But, the thread was eventually growing so fast that I couldn't keep up in any case. As a result, the thread is likely very much out of compliance with our guidelines. The few times that I was able to read a few pages of this thread, I noticed that discussion had less to do with Dooce specifically, but more with "mommy bloggers" and others who lead their lives so publicly. In addition, there is considerable discussion of the "Get Off My Internets" website or GOMI. I also know about this website solely through earlier threads about Dooce and based only on that very limited knowledge, it appears that GOMI is basically devoted fulltime to critiquing bloggers and that Dooce was one of their favorite targets. As a result, there is considerable criticism of GOMI in this thread for potentially contributing to the blogger's mental health issues. While probably not appropriate for this thread, there is an interesting conversation to be held regarding discussion and criticism of those who willingly lead their lives very publicly. What boundaries should be observed with regard to those who themselves adhere to few boundaries?

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "WaPo: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough.". The thread was originally posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, but since the thread is not specific to MCPS, I moved it to the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in The Washington Post discussing efforts by schools to combat the usage of mobile phones in school by students. Mobile phone usage has apparently increased dramatically following the pandemic. The article describes a $16 pouch in which some schools are requiring students to store their phones during school hours, provoking the original poster to criticize the article as an "advertisement" for spending money instead of setting and enforcing rules. However, the article also discusses schools that have forgone the pouches and set and enforced the rules that the orignal poster advocates. The first poster to respond suggests that an effective intervention that only costs $16 per kid would be the cheapest solution yet. My main takeaway from this thread is that, perhaps as a result of their own mobile phone addictions, participants in the thread had a difficult time staying on topic. Within the first four posts, the discussion was switched to talking about textbooks. Then posters turned to talking about the use of Chromebooks and on-line learning. Just to be clear, the Post article is about students using phones while they are supposed to be either studying or listening to their teachers. The phones are not being used as part of the learning process. They certainly are not replacing textbooks or school-issued Chromebooks for that matter. Those topics are interesting and worthy of their own threads, but not relevant to this one. Posters who oppose mobile phone use during class suggest that not only are students distracted themselves by their phones, but they distract others in the class as well. Moreover, the phone are frequently used to cheat. A surprising number of posters were in favor of kids having their phones in class. One poster argued that it was the teachers' fault for not making lessons interesting if kids were distracted by their phones. Quite a few posters joined the original poster in advocating for strictly-enforced policies about mobile phone usage, but others argued that it should not be part teachers' jobs to enforce this and that it could place them in legal or physical danger given that teachers have been either sued or beaten for taking mobile phone away. Another surprising theme of some replies was to claim that mobile phones are analogous to comic books or rock music as things that "the olds" thought were ruining the youth but weren't. I think those type of replies missed the point. To my knowledge, reading comic books or listening to rock music during class, much like using mobile phones, is not considered a problem because it is going to corrupt our youth, but because it is interfering with children's education.

Despite the college admissions season mostly coming to a close, college admissions topics are not going to disappear. Two separate college admissions topics were among the most active threads yesterday. I've been thinking about this because so many college topics come up in these blog posts and it occurred to me that, since DCUM is now over 20 years old, most of our original members have children of college-age or older. I don't think younger parents are as interested in forum discussions and, instead, spend their time on TikTok and Instagram. So, I think we have fewer posters interested in discussing newborn issues and more who want to talk about colleges. As a side note, I suspect that we are getting close to having, if we have not already had, second-generation DCUMers with posters who are the children of DCUM posters now becoming parents.

Yesterday I finally locked the transgender athletes thread that has been the most active thread for several days. Even so, it tied for the top spot yesterday. The other top thread was titled, "Met Gala 2023" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. As you can surmise, the thread was about the Met Gala. There is not a lot for me to say about this thread. I know very little about the event and have no opinions about it. The thread itself is mostly a series of pictures showing exotically dressed celebrities with posters raving about how good they look. I have not read much of this thread but it seems that those responding appreciated everything they saw. The one notable exception that I came across was Brittany Mahomes, a former professional soccer player and founder of the Kansas City Current professional women's soccer team. The fitness entrepreneur, who is married to NFL Quarterback Patrick Mahomes, was criticized both personally and for her choice of dress. But most of those mentioned in the thread received postitive reviews. If this sort of thing interests you, there are 18 pages for your viewing pleasure.

Today I'll look at the yesterday's most active threads. The leader continues to be the transgender athletes thread that I've already discussed and which has been the most active topic for several days now. I'll skip that and look at a thread titled, "I feel bad for low-income/first-gen students at elite schools" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. One theme that is frequently apparent in the college forum, as well as some of the school forums, is that efforts to increase diversity of schools result in less qualified students taking the places of those who are more deserving. This thread is another of that genre with the original poster taking a rather unique angle. Instead of merely criticizing the performance of low-income and first generation students — most of whom are likely racial or ethnic minorities — the original poster expresses sorrow for them. The original poster provides data compiled by the The Daily Princetonian — the student newspaper of Princeton University — from a survey of graduating students. Based on that data, the original poster finds that low-income and first generation students (those who are the first generation in their family to attend college) lag behind their peers in several metrics. The original poster wonders why Princeton is seeing such discrepancies if education is supposed to be the great equalizer. Some posters point out that low-income and first generation students still face significant disadvantages — for instance low-income students may have to work while their wealthier peers participate in free internships. Others point out that the gaps are not really that large and, moreover, the opportunties for these students likely exceed what would have been available to them if they had attended less prestigious colleges. But, as can be expected, there are posters who claim that this is evidence that universities are admitting unqualified students for ideological reasons. One poster suggested that the original poster was feeling sorry for these students for the wrong reasons, pointing out that these students often doen't get much support from home because nobody understands their experience and at school they are painfully aware that they are not part of the "elite". As such, their experience can be isolating. Later the thread devolves into a lot of discusion about the quality of k-12 education provided to low-income students and how that allegedly leaves them unqualified for college.

As usual I skipped blogging over the weekend other than the short post about the design update in the forums (something I'll get to later). So, today I am looking at the most active threads since Friday. The leading thread was actually the thread about transgender athletes that I discussed on Thursday. So, I'll skip that one and go to the next most active thread which was titled, "‘I’d rather have a happy kid at UMD than a miserable one at Harvard’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The quote in the thread's title is paraphrased from a post in another thread to which the original poster linked. The original poster disagrees with the sentiment expressed in the quote and thinks that kids who get burnt out and are miserable at Harvard would probably feel the same at any middling or better college. The poster cites her own experience as someone who was pushed by her parents and went to a high-pressur high school and believes that the intensity paid off. The original poster also references a thread that was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forom that was allegedly by a Columbia University student who precisely fits the profile of a miserable Ivy League student. That post was from a well-known troll who alternates between posting in the guise of a student and her disappointed parent. I received a number of reports by posters suspecting the original poster of this thread was also that troll. I am unable to confirm or disprove the suggestion. At any rate, the discussion in this thread goe in a lot of different directions. Some posters agree with the original poster that pushing children to succeed can benefit them. Others agree that kids who are over-stressed or depressed in due to the pressure of their high schools will probably continue to suffer from those conditions whether they attend Harvard or a lower-ranked school. But many posters argue that pressure on kids that results in depression and other ill effects is not helpful. If the same kid who is miserable at Harvard will also be miserable at a state university, it does not excuse putting pressure on kids. In fact the opposite is true. It is an indictment of that practice. Another poster contends that developing a strong sense of self, having fun, and making friends is more important to a child's future well-being than attending any particular college. The point being that, yes, a damaged child will be damaged regardless of the university they attend, so don't damage them in the first place. Rather allow them to attend to their current and future mental health rather than placing all effort and hope on getting into Harvard. Nothing can dissuade the original poster, however, who continues to reiterate her position throughout the thread.