Thursday's Most Active Threads

Once again the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I'll start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Sharing pronouns at work" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she just attended inclusivity training at her company and, for the second time, employees were asked to include their pronouns in their email signatures and when they introduce themselves in meetings. The original poster did not comply the first time that employees were asked to do this and doesn't understand why her not doing so would offend others. She asks to be enlightened about the importance of sharing pronouns. The announcing of pronouns in work and social situations has been controversial on DCUM for a while. I am not sure that this thread advances the conversation in any meaningful way. As usual, there are posters who support sharing pronouns in order to be inclusive of those whose pronouns might not be obvious. They say that providing pronouns avoids those whose pronouns might not match their gender expression being singled out and it proactively signals acceptance to them. On the other hand, there are posters who consider listing pronouns to be nothing more than woke virtue singling. Some of them get irrationally angry over the subject and one poster considers a requirement to include pronouns to be a threat to democracy. Some posters don't care about the culture war aspects of pronouns. They just want to know how to address someone properly. For others, this is simply an issue of adhering to company standards. Some of the female posters who work in male-dominated industries have a different perspective. They prefer that their gender not be obvious because they feel they are taking more seriously if they are mistakenly considered to be male. Some will even make an effort to identify themselves ambiguously in order to make their gender less obvious. Whether true or not, there is a perception that the current emphasis on pronouns is being driven by youth. As a result, some of the resentment about sharing pronouns is mixed with disdain for young people. More than one poster would love for Zoomers to get of their lawn and take their pronouns with them.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Titled, "Whitman Graduation Postponed", the original poster is ostensibly complaining about the postponement of Walt Whitman High School's graduation ceremony. However, this may actually be one of the better written troll posts in the history of DCUM. Having moderated this site for over 15 years, I am intimately familiar with all types of troll posts and I've developed an appreciation for the good ones. The key to a good troll post is that it makes responding irresistible. The post must press exactly the right buttons so that the brains of those reading it bypass all neurons that might apply caution and go directly to response mode. This post is such an outstanding example of the genre that I think it is worth analyzing in detail. The original poster takes what is likely to be a legitimate topic of frustration to many — the postponement of a long-awaited graduation ceremony — and makes it the topic of the thread. She then complains about being forced to change a reservation at a "Michelin-starred restaurant". demonstrating the sterotypical pretentiousness many posters would attribute to Whitman parents. Just to hammer that point, the poster goes on to take a swipe at the Olive Garden, reminiscent of DCUM's normally scorned suburban chain restaurant, Applebee's. But, the pièce de résistance of this post is the original poster's complaint that MCPS staff had not prepared for "this once-in-a-generation unique set of environmental circumstances". This perfectly satirizes the irratonal entitlement attributed (not always without justification) to Whitman families. Needless to say, plenty of posters took this bait hook, line, and sinker and are now ripe to be taxidermied and hung on the original poster's wall. A few posters were on to the original poster, however, and joyfully joined in the fun. What I really appreciate about this excellent bit of satire is that the original poster is poking fun at her own community and revealing a ton of self-awareness. Good job, original poster. Good job.

Next on the most active list was a thread titled, "Movies that don’t age well and you wouldn’t show your children" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As the title explains, the original poster is interested in movies that presumably we watched when we were young but that we would not now show to our children. The original poster lists "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". I haven't read this entire thread, but based on what I have read, nearly every movie I watched growing up is on the list. Lately it seems that posters love this type of thread which are basically just lists. Almost every day there seems to be a different thread about some sort of song. For instance, "what song did you like to listen to on AM radio while sitting in the backseat of a green car on Thursday's while driving in a westwardly direction in the early evening?" As entertaining as these may be for posters, they are a pain to summarize. So, I won't bother. You can read the thread if it interests you.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Envy of other women’s husbands", the original poster expresses sadness that she occasionally encounters other couples in which the husband is a fit, smart, emotionally-mature, high-earning family man and exactly the kind of man she would like to marry. She says that in such cases, the wife is prettier than her and suggests that such men are out of her reach due to her looks. I am always amazed that on a website dominated by women, and particularly feminist women, threads such as this are still common. It seems like almost every week there is a thread about attracting a rich husband or something along those lines. This is another thread for which life is too short for me to spend time reading. I just skimmed a couple of pages and based on what I did see, there are posters who agree that looks are all important and a failure to be "hot" means that a "high value" man is not in your future. Others argue in favor of characteristics beyond looks which they believe are more important than raw beauty. Some posters contend that they found spouses who had potential and helped develop them to be the type of man the original poster describes. On the other hand are posters who thought they had found the perfect husband but now can't stand to be around them. Eventually the discussion seems to have coalesced around the idea that you can't have it all. Posters argued that, at best, you might be able to get two of "rich", "handsome", or "faithful". Some argued that you are lucky to get even one. Eventually, as is to be expected from any thread dealing with a woman's looks, posters began to argue about weight. It is really under appreciated just how much distain there is for those who are overweight.