Monday's Most Active Threads

The first thread that I'll discuss today was titled, "NYT Article on ‘Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing’" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster commends and briefly quotes from an opinion article in the New York Times which discusses an increase in single-parent families and the disadvantages those families face. The original poster agrees with the article's emphasis that while stable two-parent families have significant advantages, single-parent families should not be shamed. Reading the article, I felt that the Times' headline writer had done both the author and the article itself a disservice by framing single-parent families negatively as "not a good thing". The author's book upon which the article was based and the article itself looks at things from the opposite point of view, focusing on the advantages of two-parent families. It's not that single-parent families are inherently bad, but that they generally lack the advantages of two-parent families. The two major advantages of two-parent families that the author cites are fairly obvious. The first being greater financial resources due to normally having two incomes instead of one and the second being greater parental involvement as a result of two parents being able to contribute to childrearing. The author laments that the government is unlikely to step into to help resolve either of these disadvantages single-parent families face and argues that society must find ways to promote two-parent families. I think a number of issues are ignored in what is obviously a brief overview of the author's entire body of work on this topic. For instance, when the financial disadvantage of single-parenting is removed, most of the negative factors impacting single-parent families also go away. Several posters in the thread describe examples of single-parents who are doing amazing jobs raising children. Almost exclusively, these parents are financially successful. The article mentions the Covid-era expanded child tax credit but fails to mention the tremendous success that program had in reducing childhood poverty. Instead of giving up hope on future government assistance, perhaps we should campaign for this program to be reinstated? Moroever, as several posters note, anti-abortion policies being implemented by several state governments directly contribute to single-parent families. This should also be part of any discussion of this sort. Moreover, the article does not discuss the quality of parenting or two-parent relationships. Is it really better for a child to be raised in a toxic environment involving two parents whose relationship is destructive than to be brought up in a supportive single-parent family? I would argue that it is not and, therefore, a two-parent family should not be promoted as a magical solution. It is not enough to simply encourage two-parent families, but rather healthy and nurturing families regardless of the number of parents. We should also make efforts to reduce the financial challenges often faced by single parents.

Yesterday I wrote about the most active thread over the weekend being the one discussing the new US News & World Report rankings of national universities. I forgot to mention above that that thread continued to lead as the most active thread yesterday, but I skipped it since I already discussed it. The rankings led to a number of additional threads, even provoking one in the "Website Feedback" forum complaining about the proliferation of threads related to the rankings. The second thread I'll discuss today, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, is one of those threads. Titled, "VT ahead of WM in USNews", the original poster is surprised that Virginia Tech is ranked higher than William & Mary and offers several arguments in favor of William & Mary being the better school. Most of the replies simply rehash arguments made in the original rankings thread. Posters argue that the quality of the schools hasn't changed but rather the criteria changed and the new formula favors Virginia Tech. In general, those responding disagree with the new criteria which they claim favors first generation and poorer students. However, the new criteria also favor schools with strong STEM programs which also benefits VA Tech. Several posters argue that the rankings have little value in any case, but even more so now. Despite this thread clearly being focused on VA Tech and W&M, no DCUM thread is safe from discussion of the University of Virginia and much of this thread is devoted to discussing UVA's ranking, with posters not even able to agree on what exactly that ranking is. UVA was tied with three other schools for positions 24-27. Some posters promote UVA as being 24 while others argue that's not true.

The third thread I'll discuss was titled, "DH Gave Marigolds to the New, Single, Female Neighbor" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that while she was out of town with their son, her husband gave their new single, female neighbor some marigolds. The original poster says that he was not flirting, but is clueless about the optics and simply wanted to share their bounty. She wants to know if she should just ignore this. Those responding view this as everything from a nice gesture to welcome a new neighbor to a flashing neon sign indicating her husband's desire to have an affair. Many posters request more details and require a verbatim recital of the conversation held between the original poster's husband and the neighbor before they can come to conclusions. However, while I haven't read this thread very carefully, I didn't notice any subsequent posts from the original poster beyond one early reply clarifying how she knew he had given the neighbor flowers. Her explanation that she noticed the amount of flowers missing was less than those placed in a vase for her became a topic of contention itself. So, much of this discussions was based on the imaginations of those responding. Several posters felt that the fact that the flowers were marigolds was an exonerating factor. Poster after poster condemned marigolds as the least sexy flower in existence. There is a huge debate about whether marigolds can or should even be made into a bouquet, resulting in many pictures of marigolds in vases being posted. I found this thread to be unintentionally funny with many bizarre and absurd responses.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" and titled, "Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread". With Republicans in the US House of Representatives unable to agree on a spending bill among themselves, let alone with the Democratic majority in the US Senate, the chances of an appropriations bill being passed by the end of the fiscal year appear slimmer every day, raising expectations of a government shutdown. I think that any discussion of this topic should be put in the context of the several recent shutdowns that many of those responding have experienced. In all of those cases, most government employees went without pay during the shutdown, but received their salaries retroactively. Therefore, for most government employees, shutdowns are little more than paid vacations. This does not take into account the experience of government contractors for whom shutdowns are often leave without pay. I think this significantly colors how posters respond. The thread started off with government workers planning how to use their time off. This thread was actually started back on September 8 and, at that time, several posters mistakenly thought that political developments made a shutdown unlikely. In recent days, this thinking has completely changed. Posters discuss experiences from past shutdowns and try to guess what will happen to them in the case of another government closure. Posters who expect to be declared essential staff and, therefore, required to continue working wonder what this means for them and whether or not they can also get some time off. Some posters don't like the idea of government workers getting paid retroactively and argue that they should go without pay. Obviously, this doesn't go over well with the government workers. Towards the end, the thread turned political with posters attempting to place blame, with one blaming Democrats. This is rather comical because it is absolutely the case that the hold-up in appropriations is with House Republicans. At the moment, Democrats are siting on the sidelines whether they like it or not. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy could pass a bill with support from moderate Republicans and Democrats, but that would likely cost him his Speakership. So, he is trying to cobble something together that he can pass with the slim Republican majority. So far, with no luck.