The Most Active Threads Since Friday

Quite a few of the most active threads over the weekend were ones that I have already discussed. This seems to be an emerging trend as the same thing happened last week. But, that was not the case for the most active thread. Titled, "Help me understand Republican women in their 30s and 40s" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, not only had I not previously discussed the thread, I hadn't even read it. Now it is 40 pages long and there is no way that I will read the whole thing. The original poster states that she understood Bush-era Republicans, but "cannot wrap my mind around how any remotely educated woman today could consider herself a part of the Republican party." She asks others to explain the appeal of the Republican Party to women. Based on some of the responses I read in the thread, many posters — and perhaps the original poster as well — assume that the Republican Party's hostility toward reproductive rights and the former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's history of brutish behavior toward women (which includes being found liable of sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll) would push women away from the party. Recent election results have demonstrated that there may be some truth in this theory, though the trend is clearly not universal. Based on the responses from Republican women in the thread, I don't think that Republican women are all that different than Republican men. The traditional view of Republicans is that they are motivated by interest in low taxes, business-friendly regulations, tough on crime measures, and a strong defense. That view is outdated, or if not outdated, those concerns taken a backseat to other priorities. Washington Post columnist Philip Bump recently wrote about Pew survey results regarding race, immigration, and gender. Bump's findings are consistent with the posts by Republican women in this thread. While crime remains a concern, they tend to be much more motivated by cultural issues. In each of the three topics, race, immigration, and gender, the Republican women feel that they are being disadvantaged by Democratic policies. Like White men, White women frequently believe that the interests of non-White people ar put above theirs. One of the first Republican women posters to respond in the thread cited the claim that White women have "privilege" as something she resents, implying that it hurts the employment opportunities for White women. Immigration in Republican thinking is often connected to crime, reminiscent of Trump's claim that Mexico was sending rapists and murderers to the US. But an equal concern seems to be the belief that Democrats are encouraging immigration in order to gain Democratic voters. Again, these women think that Democrats are putting the interests of others above theirs. The gender issue is more complicated. One would be inclined to think that the motivating issues around sex and gender would be reproductive rights, equality for women, and other women rights issues. But, again, Republican women see themselves as being disadvantaged in preference to others. In this case, transgender women who, these women believe, are men impinging on women's rights. In general, I think it is safe to say that Republican women, like Republican men, are primarily motivated by a series of issues which cause them to feel that their position in society is being eroded by trends towards diversity.

The next most active thread over the weekend was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "It’s shocking how many parents tell us (DINKS) we ‘did it right’", the original poster is part of a dual income, no kids couple. She is surprised how often parents have opened up with her about regretting having children. The parents cite stress, finances, and lack of freedom as reasons they suggest they might prefer to be child-free. It makes the original poster uncomfortable when parents do this and she doesn't know how to react. As is to be expected on a website that specifically appeals to parents, there is a rush to deny that posters regret becoming parents. Posters suggest that the original poster is reading too much into off-hand comments that may not have been meant seriously. Others suggest that those parents were trying to be kind by expressing false envy. One poster points out that she might express regret that she can't take a long European vacation like a childless couple, but that does not mean that she is sorry to have had children. To the contrary, her children are the focus of her life. A number of posters expressed skepticism that the original poster has actually encountered so many regretful parents. One poster said while a mom might think she would have been better off childless, she would never say that out loud. Even another poster who is childless expressed surprise about the original poster's claims, saying that she mostly gets treated like a second-class citizen for not having children. Many of those replying reacted very defensively to the original poster, suggesting that she was being judgemental of parents. They expressed the joy and sense of fulfillment they receive from being parents and said that they feel sorry for those who don't have children. To an extent, the thread broke into a back and forth between childless posters and parents arguing whose life was better. In the midst of this, several posters attempted to point out that people have different priorities and don't necessarily enjoy the same things. As if this was not enough about which to argue, one poster decided to bring stay-at-home-moms into the discussion and make derogatory remarks about them. So a fight between work out of the home moms and stay at home moms joined the battle between those who are child free and parents. It was a full fledged melee at some point. As one poster suggested, none of them sounded particularly happy. There was also a bit of a dispute about whether being a parent might be more fulfilling for women than men. Again, this is really specific to the individual.

Next was a thread titled, "Election predictions" and, like the first thread in today's post, was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster of this thread may have a lot of strengths, but originality does not appear to be one of them. The forum is full of threads about the election and, in most of them, posters give their predictions. So there was not a huge demand for another thread on the topic. The original poster asked for predictions on how the election would shake out, but — at least initially — mostly received snarky responses. "Thank God someone has started a new thread on the election," wrote the first poster to respond. "Claudia Sheinbaum will win", predicted another. Even when responses turned serious, they seemed to be heavily influenced by rose-tinted glasses. It was popular to suggest that Democrats would sweep the presidency, House of Representatives, and the Senate and, as a result, the Republican Party would rid itself of Trumpism. Republicans were not much better, expecting all types of election fraud. Some posters attempted to support their predictions by referring to polls, but nobody could agree on which polls are valid. Depending on the results of a poll, one side or the other would identify a problem with it or declare the source to be biased. Discussions like this really highlight the two different realities in which political partisans now live. There is a group of posts in which the authors are accusing each other of not living in the real world. Tellingly, it is not possible to tell which posters are on which side. Both sides believe the other is living in a fantasy world. Beyond the election prognosticating, posters also opined on what they don't like about the current election system. Republicans, of course, are upset by voting by mail which they are convinced allows massive election fraud. Democrats, in contrast, don't like the electoral voting system, which, they fear, could allow Trump to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. They are even more upset with the Supreme Court which they believe Republicans have unfairly stacked in their favor. Similarly, they dislike the arrangement of the Senate that provides sparsely populated Wyoming the same two Senators as California. In this regard, it should be noted that the District of Columbia, with a greater population than Wyoming, gets no Senators. One step to correcting the Senate imbalance would be to simply give the District fair Congressional representation. I always find it ironic that today's MAGA movement, which has its roots in the Tea Party, itself based on a famous revolt against taxation without representation, are staunchly against giving the District's taxpayers representation.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities" forum. Titled, "School psychologist gave my child a survey", the original poster says that during an evaluation for her son's 504 plan he was given a survey that had questions to which the original poster objected. She is "livid" and wants to know to whom to complain. For those not familiar with special needs nomenclature, "504" refers to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 provides various rights and protections for kids with disabilities. In practice, 504 provides appropriate services and supports for students with disabilities through their schools. Posters quickly point out that the survey in question is highly respected. The goal was not to find the original poster's child guilty of a transgression, but rather to evaluate him in order to provide appropriate services. Therefore, the survey was aimed at helping the child, not harming him. Posters don't understand the original poster's anger and stress that it is a very normal survey and that her son will face many similar survey's as he continues seeking supports for special needs. As far as I can tell, the original poster only responded a single time, offering very minor clarification. The most important issue that posters highlight is whether or not the original poster consented to the survey. Even with the original poster's clarification, what type of consent she may have given, if any, is unknown. More than likely the original poster provided consent but did not know about the specific questions on the survey. The thread basically turned into a discussion about the type of consent that parents should expect to provide, how much responsibility schools have to inform parents about to what they were consenting, and the responsibility of parents to research the type of thing for which they are providing consent. There is a bit of a dispute about "informed consent" and exactly what that requires. It seems that there is a fairly big gulf between some parents' expectations and what is actually required by law. Moreover, while some parents are comfortable with a general overview of what they are providing agreement for, others expect detailed information. In the case of the original poster, while legally she may have provided consent, it seems clear that she was not — at least in her opinion — sufficiently informed. Had she been aware of the type of questions on the evaluation, presumably she would not have provided consent. Whether that would have been the correct action is an entirely different discussion, with most posters arguing that it would not have been because it may have deprived her son of accessing beneficial services or receiving services not appropriately tailored for his needs.