Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I disconnected my direct deposit" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster, who appears to be highly stressed at the moment, doesn't do the best job of explaining her circumstances which, I think, leads to a somewhat negative tone for this thread. Essentially, the original poster works in a high-pressure job that pays well while her husband works as a professor, earning less than half that she does. They have a three-year-old child and the original poster is currently 32 weeks pregnant. She appears to have had a somewhat long-running resentment due to what she sees as her subsidizing her husband's lifestyle while also trying to be a mother. With a second child on the way, these feelings have come to a boil. The original poster's husband is about to start a year-long sabbatical and they have enough liquid savings to cover two years of their living expenses. Therefore, the original poster has chosen this time to take steps to force the issue of his refusal to increase his earnings. She says that she will "quiet quit" her job with the expectation that she will eventually be pushed out. In addition, she has switched the direct deposit of her paycheck from their joint bank account to her personal account. The bottom line is that she wants financial support of their family to be more evenly divided, something that can be achieved either through her husband increasing his earnings or by downsizing their lifestyle. Since her husband has not been willing to do either, the original poster essentially wants to create a financial crunch for him. I think that it is fair to say that the most common response to the original poster was one of confusion. Posters didn't understand what she meant by "disconnecting" her direct deposit and they were not sure if her problem was with her job or with her husband. Several question why in these circumstances the original poster would choose to have another child. They also are doubtful that changing her direct deposit arrangement will have any real effect. Many posters are concerned that this strategy might simply lead to financial insecurity or divorce. The original poster is willing to accept divorce if her husband continues to refuse to find a higher paying job and doesn't seem very worried about their financial situation. Many of those responding suggest that the original poster switch to job that has less pressure rather than risking getting fired at her current job, but the original poster insists that her skills are only suited for her current job. The most amazing part of this thread is that someone managed to dig up two threads that appear to have been created by the same original poster four years ago. I am simply dumbfounded that someone could remember the two threads sufficiently to connect them to this poster and was able to find the threads now. For what it is worth, despite the many allegations in the thread that the poster is a troll, the two old threads actually support the latest thread being authentic.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Do most people pay for college out of pocket?", the original poster says that while she understands that many posters on DCUM are wealthy, in most of the country $90 thousand for college is daunting. The cost of colleges and how to pay for it is a perennial topic in the college forum. There are always a variety of responses because there are so many unique circumstances. Many of the most common themes of such threads come up within the first few responses. One poster points out that even the top 3% of earners comprises millions of parents, meaning that there are plenty of families able to pay such amounts. On the other hand, a poster argues that most students are not paying anything close to such costs. Instead, they attend cheaper in-state schools and/or receive financial aid. Many posters have contributed to 529 plans since the birth of their children and are using that money to pay for college. It is fairly common for families to use a variety of means, relying on savings, financial aid, and choosing cheaper colleges. If necessary, they cashflow the rest, in some cases getting the kids to kick through summer earnings. One aspect of this thread is that almost all of those responding either successfully paid for college, are currently paying, or are not yet at that state but have been preparing for it. I don't think there are any responses from posters who had to pass on a college opportunity simply because they couldn't afford it. As a result, the thread is full of successful strategies with no failures. Among those strategies, one of the most common was saving for college. Posters describe driving old, beat-up cars and living in small houses so that they could put much of their earnings in the bank. Another strategy was to prioritize affordability when selecting colleges. Beyond in-state public universities, many posters cite private schools that provide significant financial assistance. One poster says that she has a child who attends a private school who pays less than her other child at an in-state university. But, as the original poster said, there are plenty of posters in the thread who have no problem writing a check for $80k or more because they have sizable incomes. Other families started out paying for expensive daycares and preschools, then for private school, and now college. The monthly costs were simply built into their budgets and, therefore, college costs were not particularly daunting.

The next two most active threads were the Gaza war thread and the Fairfax murders thread. Since I've already discussed those, I will skip them today. The most active thread after those was titled, "Florida abortion issue about to blow up" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the original poster explains, the Florida Supreme Court just made a series of rulings involving abortion. The court allowed a 15 week ban on abortion to go into immediate effect. An even stricter 6 week ban will go into effect on May 1. In addition, the court ruled that an abortions rights measure can be on the November ballot. Restricting abortion to 15 weeks seems to have become the conventional Republican position recently. A six week ban, however, will be among the most strict in the nation and, for de facto purposes, is nearly an absolute ban. Pregnancy is determined beginning from the last menstrual period and, in most cases, women will not suspect that they are pregnant until missing a period. Therefore, women will have roughly two weeks to confirm pregnancy and, if desired, arrange an abortion. Many will not even realize they are pregnant within the six weeks. All of this could, of course, be reversed if voters approve the ballot measure that will protect abortion access. Experience in red states such as Kansas and Ohio shows that abortion rights have strong support, even among many Republicans. There is hope among abortion rights supporters that a similar pattern will be followed in Florida. Moreover, the six-week ban will make the reality of such restrictions clear and possibly create even more motivation in favor of the measure. One hurdle, however, is that the ballot measure must be approved by at least 60 percent of the voters which is a rather high bar. In addition, two of Florida's Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of the six-week ban are up for election. Democrats are already making abortion rights the centerpiece of their election campaigns in Florida and hope that the issue will lead to increased turnout that might impact other races on the ballot. This issue is far wider than simply the right to choose whether or not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. As experience in other states with strong restrictions on abortion demonstrates, there is a broad impact on women's health in general. Women with non-viable pregnancies are forced to carry them to term, in many cases putting their own health at risk. In Mississippi, even in vitro fertilization was ruled to be illegal. The reversal of Roe vs. Wade has been a classic case of the dog catching the car. Now Florida Republicans have caught the car and may well find that car running them over in November.

Speaking of getting what you asked for, the final thread that I will discuss today was another example. Posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Boyfriend and I have been arguing and I asked for a break; he's immediately out dating other women", the original poster says that she asked her boyfriend for a "bit of a break" and he immediately posted on his social media about being on a date with another women. The original poster thinks this was disrespectful and she is embarrassed that their mutual friends will see it. For most of those responding, this is what the original poster should have been expecting. Once they broke up or took "a break", the guy was free to do whatever he wanted. Some posters suggested that he was simply trying to get back at the original poster and make her jealous. Others contended that he was showing his true colors and, therefore, the original poster is better off without him. For her part, the original poster at first appeared simply to be hurt by the guy's behavior. Then she became angry and expressed a desire to end the relationship. But, in subsequent posts she started brushing off the dates with the other woman, saying that he had been texting her during the date which suggested that it wasn't serious. Perhaps because she wasn't getting the support she desired, the original poster started sock puppeting responses that supported the idea that the other dates were not serious and, generally, supporting herself. Many of those responding found both the original poster and her ex-boyfriend to be immature and questioned whether they were very young. Several posters cautioned the original poster not to get back together with the guy — this is at least the second time they have had "a break" — but the original poster seems to have been heading in that direction. Also while I didn't exactly catch the reference myself, repeated posters either asked or agreed with the question of whether the original poster was "Rachel from Friends".