The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "My kid is in a class with a chair thrower" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. Last week I wrote about another thread about a disruptive child in class and I initially thought this was that thread before realizing that I had confused the two. This thread is about a student in the original poster's child's first grade class who threw a chair. The original poster is concerned about her child's safety and wants to know what recourse is available to her. A surprising number of posters in this thread have children who have been in classes with kids who throw chairs. Their attitudes towards violent children and their advice for the original poster run the gamut from calling the police to moving to private school. The biggest division in the thread is between those on one hand who view such children as being in need of compassion and advocate for what is best for such children and, on the other hand, those who are more concerned about the potential victims and who oppose the non-violent students' rights being treated as secondary. While many posters are in the middle of these extremes, it is the posters at the extremes who get the most attention. Those who advocate on behalf of the violent child are seen as dismissive of the needs of the other children. In contrast, those more interested in the safety of the other students are viewed as lacking compassion for children suffering from things outside their control. Several posters explain the hurdles and challenges that are often required in order to provide appropriate care for a violent child. There are legal, financial, and other resource constraints that lead to a time-consuming and often frustrating process. This is often perceived by victims or potential victims as a lack of concern by school administrators and teachers. This, in turn, causes some to advocate for rather extreme measures. For instance, some advocated for calling the police and reporting violent incidents, though others strongly disputed the appropriateness of involving the police with a six-year-old. Others suggested that such students should be moved to special classes or required to attend virtual school online. Other posters opposed such ideas as not being effective treatments. Several posters were frustrated that solutions that might serve the needs of both the violent student and his classmates are easily identifiable, but not easily implemented due to a lack of resources. The discussion in the thread was so heated and so divided that the thread reached nearly 60 pages before I decided enough was enough and locked it. I also had to lock a 2 page thread in the Website Feedback forum that was about this thread.

Next was a thread posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Husband wants to move out of DMV but my job is here". The original poster explains that she, her husband, and their early-elementary-school-aged child live in DC, where she also works. Her husband loves nature and rural environments and they spend all of their vacations and an entire month in the summer in such places. However her husband wants to move to a rural area so that they can be there full time. He works remotely so this is an easy transition for him. However, the original poster works in-person in a senior level position in a field in which rural positions will not likely be available. Such a move would require her to give up a job that she loves and to which she is very dedicated. It is unlikely that she would be able to find a position in which she would enjoy similar status in a rural area. She doesn't want to be the cause of her husband's disappointment, but she also doesn't want to give up her job. Therefore, she asks what others have done in situations in which there are no good compromises. The most obvious solution to me was to purchase a second home in a rural area and spend as much time there as possible. Several other posters had the same idea. But, what was obvious to us was also obvious to the original poster and she had already considered the idea. Her husband doesn't think this would be sufficient and spending time there would be increasingly difficult when their child starts to have more weekend activities in DC. A number of those responding report being in similar situations, both being in the role of the original poster and having a spouse who wants to move and being the one who wants to move. Regardless of which role they were in, they all agreed about how difficult this situation is and how there are no good compromises. Several posters warned the original poster about being "stuck" in a rural location if she agreed to move. They might divorce, her husband might lose his job and might not be able to find another that is completely remote, or other developments could leave her in a difficult situation. Generally responders advised that she not give up her job. There is a lot more in this thread which has reached 19 pages, including an argument that there are plenty of "rural" activities right in DC. Since I live near Rock Creek Park and generally spend at least an hour per day there, I would tend to agree.

The third most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Danny Masterson" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. This thread was started way back in 2017 by a poster who says that she grew up in a "very secretive international cult" and, based on her experience, finds it easy to believe that the Church of Scientology may have participated in suppressing rape accusations against Danny Masterson, a star of the television series "That 70s Show". This thread was revived recently after Masterson, who subsequent to the start of this thread was convicted of two cases of rape, was sentenced to 30 years to life. The thread has gained 17 pages of posts since the sentencing. There was considerable surprise — some of it pleasant — at the length of the sentence. Many were pleased to see a convicted rapist get a punishment that they considered fitting of the crime. Others pointed out that this might exceed the sentences of some murderers. A few, however, thought the sentence was too lenient. For some the issue was not actually the severity, but the inconsistency given that some rapist are given light sentences. For instance, some posters pointed out, Brock Turner was only sentenced to 6 months, ultimately only serving 3 months due to good behavior. However, Turner pled guilty to sexual assault rather than rape so it is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Soon the topic turned to Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, Masterson's television co-stars who had written letters to the court attesting to Masterson's good character. While some posters were willing to grant some leeway due to Kutcher's and Kunis' friendship with Masterson, others saw the letters as nothing short of apologies for rape. This even took on sort of an associated property of rape apologetics in which those defending Kutcher and Kunis were also said to be condoning rape. Other topics that were discussed in the thread included Hollywood and whether or not it coddled rapists and the Church of Scientology, of which Masterson was a member.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "General admission bias in favor of male applicants", the original poster linked to a New York Times Magazine article titled, "There Was Definitely a Thumb on the Scale to Get Boys". The original poster summarized several points of the article which argues that as male applicants to college have decreased, colleges have instituted what is effectively affirmative action in favor of males. The original poster lists a number of ramifications of colleges having fewer males enrolled, including several that impact post-college life. Many of those responding blame the gender imbalance on the programs being offered by universities. If these colleges simply offered stronger computer science or engineering programs, these posters argue, the gender imbalance would sort itself out. Others argued that even with strong programs in those areas, schools would have to reduce requirements to attract males in sufficient numbers. Several posters see value in a diverse yet balanced student body and grudgingly accept that males on campus are important even if that requires lowering standards a bit. Much of the discussion revolves around what is to blame for the decline in male applicants. Everything from the way in which boys are being educated to video game addiction comes under scrutiny. I didn't read much of this thread but skimming through I see a lot of focus on books that are assigned for reading in high school. Apparently some posters think boys don't read enough and blame this on the assigned books not appealing to them. Some think that excuse is hogwash. Still, some posters insist that schools are spreading "poisonous political indoctrination" that boys simply refuse to accept. This is confused as a lack of educational merit, rather than what these posters believe to be understandable rejection. One might surmise that in a world that has increasingly encouraged female and minority achievement, males might be feeling a little left out. Alternatively, maybe they should just adjust to a world in which they are not the center of attention. There is something a bit absurd about the argument being made in this thread that males are not pursuing college because the traditional school reading lists that were dominated by books written by Western White males have been diversified. How do they think all the non-Western White males have felt all along?