Thursday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday — the Fairfax County Public Schools boundary changes thread and the Jennifer Lopez thread — were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The next most active thread was titled, "Cuts" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. This thread was started five days ago by a poster complaining that Montgomery County Public Schools had conducted a "midnight massacre" and cut about 100 teaching positions. The poster warned others to get ready for bigger classes and asked why this is not a bigger story. The first issue with this thread is that there was no source provided for the original poster's allegation. This led some posters to doubt that it was real. Other posters accepted it as fact, but attempted to justify the cuts. One argument was that while positions were being cut, many of them were currently unfilled. If there is a current teacher in the position, that teacher will be offered an opportunity to transfer to another school. As such, these are not job losses. Contrary to this, some posters said that actual layoffs are in the works in some cases. Another argument was that in a school system of 14,000 teachers, 100 teachers being forced to transfer to different positions is not really that significant. Soon enough reports of positions being cut at posters' schools arrived and provided some evidence of the veracity of the original poster's claim. Discussion then turned to what might be cut other than teaching positions. The main target was the MCPS central office which poster after poster criticized as bloated and filled with high-earning staffers that either do little or lack competence. Two days ago, the Board of Education held a meeting to discuss the school system's budget. According to posts in the thread, teachers were barred from entering the meeting. When a small group managed to push their way in and attempted to start a protest, the meeting was recessed and after the break teachers were again prevented from attending. Based on teacher reactions in the thread, these cuts — whether of positions or employees — are one more factor contributing to already high levels of frustration among teachers. There are many warnings that more teachers will leave rather than put up with increasingly difficult work circumstances. As one poster wrote, "MCPS trying this after arguably the worst year most of us have ever had… is just laughable." The poster then went on to say, "This is going to be the straw that broke the camels back for A LOT of teachers in the county … good luck next year when there’s no one there to staff their huge classes."

Next was a thread that was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, but when I saw it just now I moved it to the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum for which it is more appropriate. The thread was titled, "why are short woman blamed for dating tall men ?" and the original poster says she is "4’11 and I’m not attracted to men over 5’9". However, she says that while she always hears about short women chasing after tall men, that has not been her experience. In fact, she finds that the opposite is true and that tall men are often chasing after short women. The topic of short women, as well as short men, who finds them attractive, and to whom they are attracted, has been done several times in this forum. I have discussed many such threads is this blog. As such, this thread covers a lot of well-tread ground. Points of view in this thread range from "nobody cares about the heights of people dating each other" on one end of the spectrum to "short women should leave the tall guys to tall women" at the other end. In the middle are posters who think any significant height disparity is awkward, or as one poster put it, "more like a circus act." The fundamental issue here is that almost universally it is accepted that males should be at least the same height as the women with whom they are paired and, preferably, taller. As such, tall women can only consider tall men and, if those men are taken by short women, this is a problem for them. There seems to be a tendency to put blame for short women/tall men pairings on the woman who was supposed to have left the guy for a tall women. This is probably the phenomenon that the original poster is describing. Several posters who describe themselves as short women express frustration that friends have pushed short guys on them. These posters say that they are free to date whomever they want and should not be expected to limit themselves to short guys. This surfaces resentments held by both short guys and tall women. The more tall guys that get matched with short women, the fewer options there are for the inverse groups. Of course, if it were socially-acceptable for short guys to date tall women, this problem would be resolved. But, generally, our society is not there. As a result, height is just one more factor in the ongoing competition within and between genders over finding a mate. Frankly, it's all pretty dismal. As one poster writes, "This is one of oddest threads on DCUM and I’m embarrassed to say I’ve read it all."

The next most active thread was titled, "Miss T said I have to bring a water bottle" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. I was not immediately sure who "Miss T" is and suspected that she might be a relative of Mr. T. As such, I envisioned the original poster's child being told, "bring a water bottle, fool!" But I later surmised that "Miss T" is the child's teacher and she was probably much more polite. The original poster explains that she has been sending her child to school with snacks, lunch, and a water bottle. Earlier the child said that "Miss T" had told him to tell his mother that he needs more snacks. Because the child kept having problems with his water bottle, the original poster stopped sending that and asked him to just use the water fountain and drink water at lunch. This resulted in "Miss T" telling the boy that he needs to bring a water bottle, specifically one with a straw so that he doesn't spill. The fascinating aspect of this thread is how ingrained water bottles have become for school children. My kids are older and water bottles really weren't a thing with them. I had heard that due to water fountains being turned off during COVID that kids needed to bring water bottles. But the obsessiveness with which the topic is approached surprised me. I recently watched a Youtube video of a guy preparing for a 150 mile bike ride through the desert and I am quite confident that he was less concerned about water than some of the posters in this thread. Posters insist that water bottles are a necessity and some describe owning multiple bottles that their kids rotate during the week. A few kids even bring more than one bottle at a time with them to school to ensure that they have sufficient water. The original poster, supported by a small number of other posters, is skeptical that water bottles are this big of a deal. These skeptics argue that kids can get through the day just fine without a water bottle and, besides, the kids keep losing them or the bottles get damaged or grow mold. But apparently, expecting kids to rely on drinking fountains is out-of-date and old fashioned. One poster wrote, "Should OP send her kid to school on a pony and then be upset that there's no hitching post?" The original poster seems to have repeated issues related to snacks and water, not only with "Miss T" but her son's previous teacher as well. Posters urge the original poster to contact the teacher directly in order to clearly ascertain what issues her child is having. Some posters suspect that he may be engaging in disruptive behavior related to snacks or water that that the teacher is attempting to address.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" and titled, "WWYD exH wants to get back together". The original poster says that her ex-husband wants to get back together but keep their finances separate. The original poster would have to change jobs and move to his location. They have two children who are grade-school aged. Throughout the thread, in response to questions from other posters, the original poster added additional details. If she moves to be together, her ex-husband will pay for their housing, private school and summer camps for the kids, and vacations. The original poster will still have to have an income in order to save for her retirement. On the face of it, this might make financial sense for her. However, she says that it is within the realm of possibility that her ex-husband is planning a bait and switch in order to reduce his child support payments. She views this as his desire to be with the kids at least until they go away for college. She seems to believe that he will lose interest in them at that point. Other posters suggest alternatives to this proposal such as demanding that her ex-husband move back to her but the original poster says that he can't because of his job. Generally posters stress putting their kids' interests first and doing what is best for them. Some posters emphasize that it would be terrible for the kids if they would get back together and then split a second time. There is near unanimous opinion among those responding that the original poster should not accept this offer. Posters feel strongly that the original poster's ex-husband is manipulating her. If she moves under these conditions, he will have the upper hand and have considerable control over her and the kids. They agree with her concern that this may be about reducing his child support and also gaining shared custody of the children. This point was made emphatically by a poster who wrote, "Absolutely, NO. HARD NO. PASS, DO NOT GO! This is so screwed up. He's manipulating you. If the kids are doing okay, do not uproot."