Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was a bit of a surprise. Titled, "Is Saoirse cruel?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum, I honestly had no clue what this thread was about based on its title. My first thought was that it was referring to a new fangled birthing method or the latest fad child-rearing philosophy. But, it turns out that "Saoirse" in an Irish name that the original poster is considering using for her daughter. The original poster is Irish-American and has loved this name for many years. She would like to give her daughter an Irish name as way of connecting the child to herself and her family. But she wonders if a lifetime of mispronunciations and poor guessing is a cruel burden to put on the child. To make things even more confusing for readers, the original poster added that they would also use the nickname "Sari (said like hair, just like how we'd say sair-shuh)". The immediate reaction from those responding was that not only did they not have any idea how to pronounce "Saoirse", they could not comprehend how "Sari" could be said like "hair". Therefore, as you might expect, there was a wave of responses advising the original poster not to choose this name. The orignal poster has also mentioned that there might be more awareness of the name because of Saoirse Ronan. I had to Google "Saoirse Ronan" in order to learn that she is an actress, but one whose performances I've never seen. So, she was, in fact, no help in my case. I seemed to not be alone in this regard. Amidst the warnings that nobody would be able to either pronounce or spell the name, a few posters were supportive of using it. They think the name is beautiful and argue that the original poster should not worry about the concerns expressed by others. Some posters suggest that "Saoirse" might, in fact, be getting more well known in the US and that many children have unusual names these days. There was an entire side debate about the appropriateness of Irish-Americans using Irish names, especially ones that are not even that common in Ireland and, as in this case, have political significance. Multiple posters, including one who herself has an Irish name that is difficult for Americans to pronounce, believe that parents who choose such names are being pretentious and "try-hard". They think such parents enjoy correcting others and either showing that they are worldly or stressing their Irishness. However, every objection to the name was met with a response brushing off the criticism. There were also suggestions for alternatives such as using "Saoirse" as a middle name or spelling it phonetically. For her part, when the original poster finally returned to the thread, her reaction was "Woah I didn't expect people to have this much to say!" Welcome to DCUM. Or should I say, fáilte.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Family Relationships" forum and titled "Sort of estranged from parents, but they want to come to college graduation". The original poster purports to be a college student whose parents have not contributed financially to his college expenses and with whom he has rarely spent time since going away for college. Now that he is nearing graduation, they want to make a big production of the affair which the original poster resents. I used the word "purports" because a couple of weeks ago the poster started another thread in which he represented himself as the parent of a college student who was only taking easy classes. In that case, the original poster went on and on about how disappointed they were with the student. Moreover, later in this thread the original poster sock puppeted a couple of posts. In addition, the poster has several additional characteristics of a frequent troll so I would not put much faith into the veracity of this thread. Nevertheless, posters advise the original poster that it is his graduation and, therefore, he can do whatever he wants for it. If he doesn't want to make a big deal out of it, he doesn't have to. Similarly, some posters argue that he should should do whatever is best for his mental health and well-being. There is a dispute about how much he owes his parents and whether that entitles them to be involved in his graduation. The original poster only concedes that they have kept him on their health insurance and paid for his cell phone. He doesn't consider either of these to be important contributions. Other posters question what type of relationship the original poster hopes to have with his parents going forward and suggest that he should view the graduation in that context. A number of posters view the original poster as immature and tell him to grow up and learn to be respectful of his parents. The original poster seems to have disappeared from the thread rather early and it continued with posters debating the topic among themselves. A side debate broke out over the cost of college, especially living expenses, and whether college students survive on ramen noodles or feast on Uber Eats.

Next was a thread titled, "Where are your UNDER 1400 SAT kids going?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Normally discusion in our college forum tends towards high-achieving students and focuses on the top colleges. But, while it might not be immediately apparent when reading the forum, not all kids have nailed the SAT or ACT or racked up a bunch of 5s on the AP exams. There are also a bunch of kids who, for a variety of reasons, have respectable but not outstanding scores. The the original poster of this thread is interested in what colleges such kids have ended up in and how they liked them. At first this thread was a little slow starting and the original poster began to worry that nobody in the forum received anything below a 1500. But then a few posters whose children had received scores in the 1200s started responding. These students tended to get accepted by state colleges, including flagships. In many cases, the students received merit aid as well. Many of those with less than stellar test scores applied test optional. Also, these students tended to have high grade point averages. This, of course, reignited the debate about test optional admissions. Another related debate is about test prepping. While some posters have latched onto standardized tests as the best indicator of academic ability, one of the criticisms of such tests is that they can be gamed, either by prepping or multiple retakes. However, some test proponents disputed whether prepping can actually help. While a 1400 SAT score — or anything close to it — is a very good score, it appears from this thread that many applicants with such scores chose to apply test optional. This seems to support one frequent comment in the forum that test optional admissions has led to only those with outstanding scores submitting them. This has artificially distorted the average test scores at some schools. Generally the schools mentioned in this thread are quite good ones with which most students would be pleased.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Titled, "What is the earliest age you would buy condoms for your son?", the original poster says that her son has been dating a girl for almost a year. She knows that they have been considering "it" and while she has been thwarting their opportunities, she is also a realist. This thread was started back in 2020 and was revived at the beginning of April. Apparently it received enough attention yesterday to be among the most active threads. Because old threads being revived is increasingly common these days, let me take a second to discuss that topic. Last Fall, Google made changes to its search algorithm that favored discussion sites. As a result, the number of referrals DCUM receives from Google has significantly increased. Recently we were given an achievement award by Google because we received over a million clicks in Google's search system in a 28 day period. Some of those are simply regular users who are used to typing "DC Urban Moms" or something into Google as their means of getting to our website, but others are from those doing searches such as, hypothetically, "age for buying condoms for a son". That leads them to threads such as this one which they may not immediately realize are old, or they simply might not care. If they revive the thread as was the case with this thread, other users frequently join in. This thread has nearly three times as many posts since it was revived than it did prior. The basic division of posters is between those that believe that hormone-fueled kids are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what their parents prefer and those who believe that parents have the ability to influence and control their kids. The first group may not want their kids to have sex, but recognize that it is probably inevitable and that it is better for them to do it safely. The second group argues that any accommodation will be interpreted as approval. Members of the first group will often provide birth control directly to their kids, or make it easily available (for instance leaving condoms in a bothroom where they are accessible). Members of the second group will not do that because they think that is tantamount to providing a permission slip to have sex. There is a third group who, like the first may accept that sex between teens can't easily be prevented, but doesn't want to be any part of it either. Therefore, while they may discuss the importance of birth control with their kids, they don't actively provide it. They leave that to the kids. Some of those that oppose providing teens with condoms argue that parents that do are approving of sex, even at very young ages. In contrast, others contend that it is possible to both disapprove of sex between young people but also want to make sure that if it does take place, it is done safely.