Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Do I need to lower my expectations ( dating)" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is a 27 year old woman who has a career that she loves, makes decent money, owns a home, and has no debt. She has been dating in hopes of finding a husband but coming up empty. She hopes to find a guy who earns as much or more than she does, lives alone, has not been previously married, does not have children, and has no debt. Because she can't find these characteristics in men her age, she has been looking at somewhat older guys. But, since she has been unsuccessful, she wonders if she should lower her expectations. A number of posters suggest easing up on the salary requirements and dropping the requirement that the guy live alone. Living with roommates is both economically efficient and indicates an ability to successfully live with others they say. In response, the original poster emphasized the importance of income because she hopes to quit her job or work part time to raise kids who she also wants to send to private school. Several posters note that she is not considering some important attributes in a mate with one poster suggesting that she look for "someone who shares your values and will be a good partner." As another poster writes, "You sound like you're vetting loan applicants, not life partners." The original poster agreed that shared values are important, but her initial set of expectations was simply to screen for dates. She explores values and compatibility during dates. Posters warned that in order to attract the sort of man she is seeking she would need to meet certain beauty standards. "Are you Instagram fitness model caliber or nah?", asked one poster. The original poster's response, at least in my mind, left that as an open question. But, then on the second page of the thread a poster wrote, "Every single one of these threads lately reads like the ‘wife is a bad sham’/‘using pregnancy as an excuse’ troll" referring to a troll about whom I wrote in yesterday's blog post. Agreeing that this poster was on to something, I began to investigate that possibility. That particular troll uses DCUM in such a way that it is not possible to make conclusive determinations about his/her identity. So, I can't say that I know for sure that this poster is that troll. But, there are signs that indicate this might be the case. Enough signs that I have locked the thread this morning. But, I should emphasize that I could very easily be wrong in this identification. Assuming that I am correct, one reason that this troll has been so successful at creating threads that are among the most active threads of the day is through their shear tenacity. The poster posted more than 50 times in the thread yesterday.

Next was a thread posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "Things you wish you knew…". The original poster asks for advice for early high schoolers, basically anything that would be useful for either the parent or student. Presumably the original poster is seeking advice that will be helpful for college, though she didn't specifically say that. The very first poster to respond said that she wishes she had never read DCUM's college forum. It was not entirely clear why she regretted reading it, though she did report learning a few things about the University of Virginia. The college forum, like all DCUM forums, can be hit or miss. Many of the posters to whom I refer to as the "College Admissions Fantasy League" are extremely knowledgable and often have terrific advice. But others are just taking the opportunity to argue about whatever is bothering them at the moment. A number of posters said that they regretted not placing more emphasis on grades given the importance of grade point averages. In contrast, a poster wished she had ignored those who had said that a few "B" grades on a transcript took Top 20 colleges off the table. "They are wrong. Don't listen to them", said the poster. Another poster advised worrying less about stats and more about developing your child's unique personality. As the poster wrote, "There are a gazillion kids with the perfect stats. There are fewer with genuine personalities." As in this case, much of the advice was contradictory. Some posters argued in favor of applying test optional saying that they had more success doing so while others said their experience was exactly the opposite and they had better luck submitting test scores. One thing that is evident from the responses is that much of the college-admissions landscape seems to have changed over the last several years. Not only did test optional and holistic admissions policies shake things up, but costs have risen significantly. The Common App has increased the number of applications some colleges receive. As a result, many of the replies were simply regrets that posters had not been able to predict the future. The implication of this, of course, is that advice offered today may not be relevant a few years from now if things continue to change.

I am skipping several threads that I've already discussed so the next thread I will write about was actually yesterday's sixth most active. Titled, "Biden Has Fully Embraced YIMBYs and Will Lose Suburban Voters", the thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster links to a report by the Council of Economic Advisors to discuss support by President Joe Biden for a number of zoning reforms that would promote greater housing density in many areas, including suburbs. The original poster, referring to those who support such policies by the acronym for "Yes in my Back Yard", argues that this will cost Biden suburban voters who, the original poster believes, prefer their single family homes with large yards and multiple car garages. I am not going to spend much time reading this thread. For one thing, none of these policies are new ideas for Democrats. The high cost of housing is a hurdle for many families attempting to buy homes. The best way to lower costs is to increase supply. That can either be done by building ever distant exurbs that increase automobile congestion and pollution or by increasing density in existing areas and promoting mass transportation. The original poster is correct that many existing home owners are resistant to changes that will increase density. We see that in DCUM discussions such as those about Arlington's Missing Middle initiative. But whether that opposition is enough to cause suburban voters to choose former President Donald Trump over Biden is another question. Almost all recent electoral experience has shown that the motivating factor for suburban voters, especially women, is reproductive rights. Telling a woman that she can be assured that no fourplexes will be built in her neighborhood but in exchange she and her daughters will have to accept threats to their reproductive, and non-reproductive, health may be a hard sell. Moreover, Trump has already tried this in the past. Months before the last presidential election, Trump tweeted that, "I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood" because he had overturned Obama-era housing rules aimed at increasing density. That didn't save Trump from defeat and that was before Roe vs. Wade had been overturned due to his Supreme Court appointments. Moroever, given the list of issues that must concern Biden in order to create a coalition capable of wining the election, housing zoning policies are far down behind many others. In fact, running in favor of lower housing costs will likely be a net winner for Biden.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "s/o How do we screen potential spouses for mental illness?", the thread is a spin-off from an earlier one in which a poster only found out about her husband's struggle with depression and anxiety after getting married and having kids. The original poster of this thread wants to know how those who are dating can avoid similar fates. There seems to be a few schools of thought here. Several posters believe that simply spending sufficient time with the other person should reveal any issues. They suggest not only dating for a long time, but living together and getting to know their family of origin as well as possible. The theory here is that even those who try to hide their issues can't do it for long. Another thought is that individuals simply ignore red flags during dating and later, after marrying, accept that the issues are real. Posters who found themselves in such situations say that whatever red flags existed were subtle and that they didn't pick up on them. Alternatively, they didn't have to knowledge base to recognize the conditions. As one poster says, "Years ago we didn't carry diagnosis indicators with us everywhere we went and we were a lot more trusting and less paranoid." On the other hand, a poster argues that the conditions were likely known or suspected all along. But later in the marriage and after kids, one of them starts to think they could have done better and starts labeling the behavior to justify their unhappiness. This poster further suggests that the unhappy spouse probably suffers from mental health issues themselves. Similarly, another poster wrote, "people know what they are getting, and they marry anyway." This discussion about how to screen for those with mental health provoked significant backlash from posters who disagree that those with mental health issues should automatically be avoided. I'll quote one of these posters at length:

How about we not stigmatize mental illness any more than it already is? Are you really suggesting people with ADHD, anxiety, autism, depression, etc should never get married?? The vast majority of these people can have happy lives. Supportive families make a world of difference too, in the ability to access and participate in mental health care.