Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Failed my test" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she had a date with a guy who was in many respects great. He is close to her age, has a great job, and is a decent guy. While the original poster found him to be a bit too publicly affectionate for her taste, she doesn't seem to have been overly bothered by that. What really put her off however is a "test" that she uses to filter the men that she dates. She offered to split the check for their dinner and he accepted. In this way, he failed her test. She fully expects her offers to split the check to be politely declined. She believes that this is an indication of a man's generosity and his willingness to care for her. Despite the date being otherwise good, she has no plans for a second date because this guy failed her test. Before going any further, I should address the issue of whether or not this poster is a troll. I received about a half dozen reports suggesting that is the case. All I can say is that this thread is consistent with previous threads by the poster and, despite posting 34 times in the thread, she did nothing to suggest that she was trolling. Instead, she repeatedly stuck to the same message: that she is a high-earning, divorced, mid-40s, professional woman who has the luxury of being picky about men and has strongly held views about gender roles. This does not mean that she has purely traditional ideas about gender roles — she says that she contributed equally if not more to expenses in her marriage and a subsequent long term relationship — but she feels strongly that a woman should not be seen to pay for food in public. Needless to say, not every poster who responded was impressed with the original poster's test. The test was variously described as "idiotic", "silly", and a test of whether her date could "read your mind". While the original poster didn't really care about the amount she ended up paying — she has plenty of money and can easily afford it — other posters tended to fixate on that aspect. The topic of splitting checks on dates has come up a lot in the relationship forum. Some women are uncomfortable with the practice of guys picking up the check and some guys resent the financial burden it places on them. As such, this is a part of dating, particularly first dates, in which there is no agreed upon practice and expectations may differ. That contributes to the view among many of those responding that the original poster's test is flawed and she is wrong to adhere to it so strictly. Many posters have no problem with the guy agreeing to split the check, but they are bothered by his physical forwardness. They consider that a much bigger red flag and are astonished that the original poster, while expressing her discomfort with it, was not more bothered by his aggressiveness. As best as I can deduce, the original poster considers his attempts at public affection to be an indication that he is an "alpha male" which is not something that really displeases her. Rather, it was her date's departure from this alpha male persona when he allowed her to split the check that bothered her. Not all of those responding were critical of the original poster's test. Some thought it was a good screening mechanism. Far more common, however, were posters who thought that the guy was a loser who should have been rejected for multiple reasons. They didn't care which specific reason motivated the original poster and his failure of her test was as good as reason as any to pass on further dates with him.

The next most active thread that I will discuss today was posted in the " College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "How do you think race actually impacts admissions now?", the original poster outlines a series of "truths" about college admissions that suggest that while colleges no longer explicitly ask about race or ethnicity for admissions purposes they have other ways of determining an applicant's race and continue to be motivated to recruit a diverse pool of applicants. Therefore, the original poster argues, colleges are still likely engaging in racial preferences but in ways that are much harder to prove. The original poster asks what the real world implications of this might be. There is really no way to accurately address this question unless you are inside the admissions offices when decisions are being made. As a result, responses are either speculative or anecdotal. You don't have to read very many posts in this thread before you realize that the common belief is that some groups are being unfairly treated by the current admissions processes. The disagreement, however, is about which groups. Some posters claim that Asians are having a harder time while others claim that admissions of Asians are up. The same with Black students. Posters outline a number of ways that minority applicants can indicate their race or ethnicity, but don't really demonstrate whether doing so has an impact. Despite all the machinations that minorities are said to use to game the system, several posters describe admissions cohorts that noticeably lack diversity. This topic has been covered, re-covered, and covered again in previous threads. Racial topics tend to go bad in general, but when combined with college admissions are especially volatile. It didn't take too long before posters in this thread were speculating about the supposed academic abilities of different racial and ethnic groups. Several pages are devoted to discussing the percentage of Black students studying various fields. This triggers a debate about whether this is a result of a lack of opportunities, a lack of ability, or simply a lack of interest. This tangent is pretty off-topic but still might be interesting in the right circumstances, which this thread is not. Posts that were not meant to be racist were interpreted as such and clearly racist posts were defended. That led to an overall decrease in the level of discourse which, in turn led to lots of posts being reported. Eventually, based on a suggestion in one of the reports with which I agreed, I locked the thread.

Next was a thread titled, "Is it your DH’s job to protect you?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster asks whether married women consider it their husbands' role to protect them and their children. For instance, getting up at night to investigate a noise or walking a mile in the dark to get gas if the car runs out of gas. This is another thread that seems trollish. However, it appears that the original poster simply likes to start threads. She started two more threads yesterday, both of which dealt with dating. So it is not even clear that the original poster has a husband to hypothetically protect her. However, it also looks like she didn't bother posting any further responses in this thread. Therefore, if she was trolling, it was very low effort. As for those responding, many of them focus on the two examples. Posters say that their husbands would be the ones investigating noises or walking for gas simply because they are better suited to do so, not because it is their job. Likewise, many of those responding insist that it is both spouses' job to protect their families, but tasks are divided by ability. In the two examples, in most cases the husbands would be better. But some posters have husbands that for various reasons wouldn't be the best choice in either of the examples. Some of these posters do seem to be disappointed by that fact. Other posters do, in fact, consider this sort of protection to be the husband's responsibility. Posters view spouses as having differing roles and that role falls to the man. Other posters dislike adherence to traditional gender roles and reject that thinking. Quite a few posters say that they get along just fine without a man to protect them. Later the thread turned toward a discussion of gender roles in general. One poster in particular was upset that traditional gender roles delineate certain tasks to her as a woman. She resents that she is expected to play that role and, therefore, doesn't expect her husband to conform to traditional gender expectations either. As such, he should not be responsible for protection. However, the same poster accepts that the realities of our society often result in her husband being better able to perform that role. This makes her angry. Similarly, a poster is upset that traditional gender expectations can make it difficult for a man to arrange playdates for his children. While he might be able to do so with another father, it is generally awkward to arrange playdates with a mother. One other point that comes up is that the original poster assumes the importance of physical strength. In the responses, differences of physical strength between men and women are also repeatedly brought up. But some posters suggest that physical strength is often not the most important aspect of avoiding danger. For instance, skills such as planning or negotiating can help get out of or avoid danger and a dog can often provide better protection than a husband.

So many of the following threads in the most active list were ones that I've already discussed that I thought that there might not be any left for me today. However, the tenth thread in the list is one that has not previously come up. That thread was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum and titled, "It Ends with Us". Apparently, "It Ends with Us" is both a movie starring Blake Lively and a novel. But I am not familiar with either one and really don't know anything about this topic. The original poster wants to know whether the movie is any good and whether the novel would be good for a middle-aged adult. Both the book and the movie get mediocre at best reviews from those responding. Based on the responses, both the book and the movie take what is promoted as a nuanced view of domestic violence but, at least in many posters' view, is simply naive. Neither seems to get much praise from those responding. Instead, attention is focused on a sort of soap opera going on with the movie's cast and director (who also appears in the movie). Justin Baldoni, the director, is — according to posters — doing publicity that portrays the movie as a serious discussion of domestic violence. The rest of the cast, including Blake Lively, have been presenting the movie as a romantic comedy. I know so little about this book or movie and so little about Hollywood in general, that I was soon lost in the discussion. Also bored. Therefore, I don't really have much more to say about this thread. Many posters have detailed responses and fairly long posts. But, I am not sure they are about the book or the movie. Rather, I understand them to be about relationships of various Hollywood personalities. So, if that sort of thing interests you, you may enjoy this thread.