Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "University of Alabama - ‘ peak neo-antebellum white Southern culture’ - NYT" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As I have been required to read a great many threads from the college forum in order to produce these blog posts, I've noticed that discussions of southern universities almost universally devolve into culture wars. Conservatives tout the schools as having lenient Covid policies, a lack of "wokeness", and inviting campus atmospheres. And, yes, there is one fanatical University of Alabama supporter who is obsessed with the attractiveness of the women. Roll tide my good man, roll tide indeed. So, I guess that it shouldn't be a surprise that we now have a thread that skips the pretense of addressing academics and goes directly to the cultural war. The original poster of this thread critiques a recent opinion article in the New York Time by Tressie McMillan Cottom, "a sociologist, professor and cultural critic". McMillan Cottom takes a side-eyed look at the phenomenon of the University of Alabama's sorority rush. This is something that I had hitherto not known about, but which has become popular on TikTok. The original poster is clearly not a fan of either the article or McMillan Cottom. To say that his summary of the article is rather sophomoric is being generous. His primary point is that McMillan Cottom is "big mad". The irony is that I suspect the original poster agrees with nearly all of McMillan Cottom's points. But, whereas McMillan Cottom sees the situation as disappointing, the original poster likely takes pride in it. This thread is 21 pages long so I can't read the entire thing. But, I've read enough to see that, as expected, there are posters who don't like the article and posters who agree with much of it. The thrust of McMillan Cottom's article seems to be that Alabama's rush tradition is an unapologetic rebuttal of "woke" northeastern universities, though she doesn't use that word. She sees the sorority system has a means for women to get "close to the women who are close to the men who tend to dominate the state’s network power." According to McMillan Cottom, the system demands conformity, which leads to a lack of diversity and, as such, non-White women are largely left out. Reading the article I had two thoughts. First, McMillan Cottom was taking a very cheerless view of something that is generally considered to be full of fun and joy. Regardless of the validity of her critique, she had no hope of coming off as anything other than a scold and that is how many of those responding viewed her. Second, underlying much of McMillan Cottom's analysis is the fundamental fact that a system such as she portrays cannot simply be reformed by adding diversity. This is a point that she makes explicitly. The idea that women should seek power through the men they marry rather than due to their own accord is not one that modern feminism can accept. That is true for women of color as equally as it is for the blond, haired, blue-eyed, White women rushing in Alabama. The more of the article I read, the more that I understood that McMillan Cottom could not be simply seeking the doors of the sororities to be opened to a wider group of recruits, but rather the complete abolishment of the system. Therefore, I was not surprised to read — in the very last sentence of the article — McMillan Cottom's suggestion that Alabama Rush is a tradition that should be left in the past.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" and titled "Longterm dc area residents, have you noticed decline ?" The original poster says that he has lived in Montgomery County for 48 years and perceives the area as being in decline. The main indicator he describes is the prevalence of panhandlers. The metropolitan politics forum has attracted an inordinate number of posters who are really down on the area. I am not sure if this reflects a general feeling of residents or those who have complaints are simply more likely to post in the forum. Anyone who visits our real estate forum will know that posters have been predicting a housing crash for over a decade. I guess that one will arrive one day and they will all say they told us so, but it's getting kind of ridiculous. The counterpart to those posters in the metropolitan politics forum is those who expect the area to collapse into complete anarchy that rivals Somalia any day now. Several of those replying agree with the original poster. One, for example, writes, "I am a 35 yr MoCo resident and yes, everything is far worse now - education, crime, tax, rude people. We plan to get out once I retire in two years." But, somewhat surprising to me, this thread has a number of posters who don't see the past as better. Graphs are posted that show significant downturns in crime and posters offer first-hand testimonials of how things have improved. I think this thread reflects how perception is often more important than reality. What many of the posters think is happening is not actually happening. For instance, a poster blames rising crime on the "defund the police" movement. Yet, none of the area jurisdictions have defunded the police. DC, for instance, has consistently increased funding for the police. Moreover, based on my own observations, what is really affecting the area is not a general decline, but rather a widening gulf between the rich and the poor. At the same time that tent encampments for the homeless are proliferating, homes are selling for record prices. Similarly, the larger number of panhandlers may well reflect a growing number of those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy while the upper parts of that hierarchy are doing rather well. Another poster made a point with which I agree, saying that the "[n]ature and location of the crimes has changed". In the past, there was more violent crime but it was contained to certain areas. If you didn't live in those areas, it was easy to ignore. Now, violent crimes seem to be occurring everywhere. So, while there may be fewer of them, we are more aware of them.

Third was a thread titled, "I think my marriage may be over" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster describes her husband who seems to have almost no faults. He is good looking, a great father, an equal partner, and intelligent. Essentially, exactly what many posters in the relationship forum would love to have. Yet, the original poster says that their relationship is mostly platonic and has very little affection. It seems that the only thing keeping her in the marriage is their 10-year-old child. She says that she feels terrible and hopes that something will click with therapy or time. Several posters suggest that she is suffering from a mid-life crisis, a notion that the original poster doesn't seem to accept. Another poster suggests that what the original poster describes is not an unusual trajectory for a relationship. Society simply does a poor job of discussing such things and, therefore, people are not prepared for it. Posters for the most part are sympathetic to the original poster, but nevertheless gently urge her to consider how good she has it. The alternative is much worse they warn. A number of posters respond saying that the original poster is describing their own past or present relationships. One poster says that when she was in a similar situation she and her husband gave up early and divorced. While she met someone with whom she connected better and is happy, she sometimes has regrets. Therefore, she urges the original poster to try everything to improve her marriage. A number of posters simply don't see what the problem is with the original poster's situation. Several urge her to identify specifically what she wants and is not getting from the relationship. There are suggestions that if she articulated her expectations, a solution might be more obvious. Or, in constrast, letting go of expectations might be a solution in itself.

For the last thread this blog post is going full circle. It began in the "College and University Discussion" forum and will end there. Whereas the first thread I discussed today was about universities in the south and the inviting atmosphere they offer (at least on the surface), this thread is titled, "Are schools in the northeast just less happy fun and positive?" The original poster wonders whether as a result of a competitive vibe, cold winters, and unfriendly people, students are more likely to be unhappy at northeastern universities. Many of those responding seem to find the entire premise farcical at best and trollish at worst. Others agree with the original poster's thinking, with some saying they avoided northeastern universities for their kids for exactly that reason. But, others report having great experiences with these schools. Some posters believe this is more a factor of the individual than the school. As one poster asks, "Are there places where strivers don't stress?" Much of the discussion revolves around culture and how it differs in the northeast as compared to other areas. Quite a few posters insist that while northeasterners might be unfriendly on the surface, they are kind and supportive underneath. They see those in the South as the exact opposite. Friendly and hospitable on the surface but not necessarily below that. One poster says this about those in the northeast, "New Yorkers will not say a single nice word for 15 minutes, whole time they're shoveling your car out of the snow for you." A number of posters find comfort in the grumpiness of those in the northeast. One poster says, "people from DC to Maine are pretty snarky. But we like it that way."