Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Israel and Lebanon which I have already discussed and will skip today even though that conflict has heated up with Israel killing over 500 Lebanese, mostly civilians, yesterday. After that was a thread titled, "When do you have time to eat?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster apparently has multiple children, a husband who works extremely long hours, and an eight hour a day job herself. She outlines her daily schedule which involves shuttling the kids to and from school and evening sports practices. In between the driving, she puts in her work hours, prepares dinner, and helps the kids with homework. She finishes the day with a bedtime routine for the kids. This schedule doesn't leave the original poster time to eat. As the original poster responds to questions from other posters, her situation turns out to be even worse than it first appears. Several posters ask why she doesn't eat when the rest of her family eats. The answer is that the kids eat dinner in the car while she drives them to their practices. She doesn't eat because she doesn't like sandwiches or cereal and she finds it hard to eat while driving. Several posters point out the obvious. The original poster is trying to do too much in too little time with no help from her spouse. The posters suggest eliminating some activities or getting additional help such as someone to cook meals or assist with childcare. Some suggest that she cut back on her work hours. But the vast majority of those responding seem to accept the necessity of this schedule and offer advice about how to make it work better. There are several suggestions that the original poster wake up 15 minutes earlier and eat a quick breakfast before the kids wake up. They suggest preparing meals on the weekend that can be reheated during the week. Some posters have specific meal plans or meal suggestions. Other posters suggest eating dinner later, after the practices, which would allow the original poster to join her kids for the meal. Several posters conclude that the original poster is a "martyr mom" who really doesn't want to improve her situation but rather simply wants to be recognized for her sacrifice. This leads to more criticism of the original poster with some of those responding suggesting that she might have an eating disorder. Others criticize her parenting, arguing that putting the kids through this schedule is not healthy for them and that she is modelling a bad lifestyle. This trend became more pronounced after an apparently frustrated original poster responded to suggestions that she was over-scheduling her family by saying that she would pull her kids out of all activities, including one child's therapy. Nobody had made such a suggestion and this reaction reinforced the belief among many posters that the original poster was not really looking for advice.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Moved into house and husband doesn’t seem interested in doing house projects". The original poster says that she and her husband are first-time home owners who recently purchased their house. She is excited about personalizing the home and has been eagerly seeking projects to do around the house. Her husband, on the other hand, has shown no interest in doing anything to the house. The original poster is willing to accept his lack of interest in decorating, but is frustrated that he ignores problems such as non-flushing toilets or power outlets that don't work. She wants advice about how she can broach this topic with him without making him angry. Based on the responses, the original poster's situation is far from unique. Several posters say they have husbands who are not interested in fixing things around the house. The normal advice is that the original poster should take care of the things she wants and is able to address and hire someone else to do the rest. Other posters suggest distinguishing between things that have to be fixed and things she simply wants changed or repaired. She should list the things that have to be fixed and talk to her husband about them, proposing that either he take care of them or hire someone to do it. One poster said that her husband was not interested in fixing things around the house, but became more eager when he saw what it cost to hire someone to do it. Several posters strongly advised the original poster not to nag her husband about the things she wanted fixed or to suggest that his lack of interest was a character flaw. Multiple posters said that such behavior had caused divorces, including the divorces of some of those responding. Most posters seem to believe that if the original poster simply focuses on the "must be fixed" items, she and her husband could communicate like adults to come to satisfactory solutions. I think the biggest takeaway for the original poster, which gets repeated several times in multiple ways, is that she views the new home as a hobby while her husband doesn't. She is not going to convince him to be enthusiastic about something that doesn't interest him. Therefore, she must accept that he is unlikely to ever proactively try to find things to fix or change. The level of management of her husband in which the original poster should engage is disputed. But generally posters favor the most hands off approach possible, even a single conversation if that is sufficient or, if necessary, maybe looping back sometime later. But posters stress that the original poster's husband may have a timeline that is not as urgent as the original poster's and she should be patient in that regard. Many posters reiterate the importance of finding a good and reliable handyman on whom the original poster can depend rather than creating issues with her husband.

Next was a thread titled, "Helping neighbor kids onto morning bus" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she takes her two kids to the bus stop every morning. For the past two weeks, a neighbor has been sending her 3rd grade daughter to the bus stop on her own but then texting the original poster to see if her daughter made in on the bus okay. The original poster didn't mind this at first, but after two weeks has grown tired of it. She asks whether she should suck it up as a good neighbor or tell the neighbor that she should find another method of checking on her child. As one of those responding points out, this is one of several recent threads about someone dumping some portion of their morning responsibility on a neighbor who didn't offer and doesn't wish to take on the responsibility. It is the second such thread that I have discussed recently. Much of the advice offered in this thread is similar to that provided in the earlier threads. In this case, some posters suggest a bit of passive aggression such as increasingly delaying a response to the texts or simply not replying at all. Hopefully the neighbor will get the hint. But one poster who tried exactly this with a neighbor who had been similarly texting her said that neighbor got offended. That poster thinks a better strategy is an idea suggested by several other posters. That recommendation is to tell the other mother that the original poster will text her if she doesn't see the child get on the bus. Otherwise, the neighbor will not hear from her. However, a number of other posters argued that this puts the original poster on the hook for checking in with the neighbor anytime the child doesn't show and they consider this an unfair expectation. Quite a few posters don't see the big deal in responding to a single text every day, especially since it can be as simple as a "thumbs up" emoji. They consider this such a small burden that they don't understand why it bothers the original poster. For some posters, their reaction would be based on their existing relationship with the neighbor. They would be more willing to respond if it is someone with whom they do reciprocal favors or can expect a favor in return. If it is someone with whom they don't have more than a casual relationship and don't expect anything in the way of return, they would stop responding. Some posters warned about being taken advantage of, especially around bus stops. One poster related how neighbors noticed her at the bus stop every afternoon and assumed that she was a stay-at-home-mom. They then stopped meeting their own kids and instead contacted the original poster to ask her help in getting their kids home. This became a real burden and one day the original poster simply didn't show up at the bus stop and mass chaos ensued. After that, the other parents got the hint. One irony of this thread is that the original poster doesn't seem to have posted again. Therefore, many of the assumptions about the neighbor made by other posters were completely invented.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Muslim mayor of Hamtranck, (the only majority Muslim city in the US) gives Trump his endorsement .", the original poster reinforces the points from the title in the body of his post. Amer Ghalib, the mayor of the Muslim majority Detroit suburb of Hamtramck, announced his endorsement of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Republicans, including Trump, are thrilled about this, despite their normal suspicion of Muslims. In his endorsement, Ghalib did not explain his reasoning beyond saying that he believes that Trump is a "man of principles". The mayor has clearly misread Trump in that regard. Trump has shown no sign of having any principles beyond doing what is best for himself. Due to this and Trump's history of anti-Muslim actions, including the so-called "Muslim ban" enacted during his first term, many posters are astounded by the endorsement which they find to be irrational. There seem to be two separate issues behind this endorsement and other Muslim and Arab support for Trump. The most obvious is the Israel war on Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon. The Biden/Harris administration does nothing but supply weapons to Israel and offer very mild and meaningless words of caution. Arabs can be very justified in believing that the administration considers their lives to be worthless. The pro-Israel stance demonstrated by Biden and Harris is enough to cause many U.S. Muslims and Arabs to withhold their vote for Harris, either by not voting or voting for a third party. Democrats can argue that this is self-defeating, and are probably correct, but the Administration's failures have been too severe to forgive by many concerned about the Middle East. But the issue that likely pushed Ghalib into the Trump camp was probably LGBTQ rights. Hamtramck was previously in the news when its town council voted to remove LGBTQ flags from public property. In Hamtramck and elsewhere in the U.S., many socially conservative Muslims have strongly opposed LGBTQ rights and, especially, the inclusion of LGBTQ characters in books that are required reading in public schools. Republicans have embraced the anti-LGBTQ positions of these conservative Muslims. In Michigan, the Trump campaign organized special outreach efforts aimed at Muslims and Arabs. Trump's former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has visited Hamtramck and had multiple meetings with Mayor Ghalib. It is likely that the Harris campaign has not given Ghalib the time of day. I think that U.S. Muslims and Arabs are making a mistake by cozying up to Trump and the Republicans who likely view them as little more than useful idiots. I remember how in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting in which a Muslim attacked a gay nightclub, Republicans were suddenly very supportive of the LGBTQ community and opposed to Muslims. Now they have switched and support Muslims against the LGBTQ community. They could easily switch back again if Trump finds it to be personally beneficial. Despite all of that, I have heard from Muslims that while Trump may be just as bad as Biden and Harris, they don't believe he will be worse in terms of Israel. The only differences are likely to be in tone because, when it comes to actions, Biden and Harris have granted Israel's every wish. They hold out hope that due to Trump's natural isolationist tendencies, he may be somewhat better. I don't know if Muslims and Arab disenchantment with Democrats will be difference-making in this election. But, if it is, Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame.