2024

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread that I previously discussed about plans by the Elite Club National soccer league to change the age cut-off date for players. This thread has been at or near the top of the most active list for months. I think that it is worth reflecting on the fact that, despite all that is happening in the world today, the division in which kids born in the fall should play soccer is dominating discussion. After that thread was one titled, "Anyone else depressed that our country elected a disgusting man to the presidency?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster lists several negative personality characteristics of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and describes his cabinet picks as "the lowest of the low". She wonders how Trump's followers do not see this and says that she is very depressed about this situation. This is one of many threads that have been posted since the election in which liberals are demonstrating their difficulty dealing with the result. During the campaign, many liberals predicted a number of terrible outcomes if Trump were to win. While some Trump supporters agreed that such things would come to pass, they were excited at the possibility. But much more often were posters who accused those issuing warnings of being "chicken littles" who were simply fear-mongering. The most obvious example involves Project 2025, which has been the subject of multiple threads in the political forum. Trump opponents repeatedly warned that Project 2025 would be the blueprint of a second Trump administration. When Trump disassociated himself from the project, many of his supporters took that at face value. They routinely accused those warning about Project 2025 of either lying or being misleading. Now that Trump has won, he has selected the architects of Project 2025 for high-level administrative positions, and many of the Project 2025 ideas are being promoted by Trump's cabinet choices. It is clear, in this case, that the "chicken littles" were correct. While there have been several threads demanding that Democrats engage in self-reflection in order to understand why they lost, I am not aware of any calls for those who told us that concerns about Project 2025 were simply fear-mongering to do their own self-reflecting. To the contrary, as this thread shows, Trump defenders are still not willing to face reality. Despite all evidence to the contrary, posters repeatedly tell the original poster that she is overreacting and that there is nothing to fear from Trump and his loony bin cabinet. One poster even called the original poster a "childless cat lady", suggesting that some posters are experiencing a sort of arrested development that has left them frozen in October. I think we are in a strange situation in which depression and anxiety are the more logical reaction than remaining calm (which requires some self-delusion), but I am worried about the impact of widespread severe depression and anxiety. If you are on a beach and see a tidal wave approaching, is it better to panic or set up a picnic lunch to assure yourself that everything will be fine? Obviously, the best solution is to run like hell, but most of us don't have that option.

Last February, a thread in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum alerted me that a novel centered on a fictional District of Columbia-based private school that is clearly meant to be Sidwell Friends was going to be published. The thread, which was titled "Novel based on Sidwell coming out in summer", also mentioned that the book featured a parenting website named "dcparentzone.com" that is clearly a fictionalized DCUM. I was intrigued that DCUM, even in fictional form, might figure in a novel and made a note to read the book, which was named "It's a Privilege Just to Be Here: A Novel", once it was available. Before I had the chance to read the novel, I learned of a second novel named, "All the Dirty Secrets", that went even further in portraying DCUM. This book not only used the real name of the website but included fictional posts said to have been in the forum. I promptly added that book to my reading list as well. I was then contacted by Jon Hart about his debut novel, "Party School", that he thought would be of interest to DCUM readers. That book also went into my queue. I've now had a chance to read all three novels and want to provide brief overviews of each.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. After those was a thread titled, "Backlash against college educated women" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster feels like this year's election was a backlash against college-educated women more than anything. She thinks that men are gaslighting women by claiming that colleges are indoctrination centers. In addition, she thinks that social media pundits have been so successful at denying centuries of women having no rights that other women have even come to believe it. Most polling of voting motivations suggests that concerns about the economy were the primary driver. Therefore, I don't think the original poster is correct to claim that a backlash against women played more of a role than anything else. But that is basically a nitpick with her argument. I don't think that there can be any doubt that resentment of women played an important role in the election's outcome. One need look no further than the triumphant taunting by Nick Fuentes claiming, "your body, my choice" to see where his mind immediately went after the election. Even earlier Democratic strategist James Carville argued that "too many preachy females" were turning men away from the Democratic Party. In recent years, women have outpaced men in college attendance, resulting in better employment and financial success. As a result, women are less likely to be dependent on men in general. This lack of dependence has enabled women to become more selective in the dating market, resulting in some men facing difficulties in finding a partner. Undoubtedly, this has led to increased resentment in some quarters. But not all women are on board with the original poster's argument. Indeed, despite hopes that things might finally change, the majority of White women once again voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. While Vice President Harris did win among college-educated women, plenty of them also voted for Trump. Ultimately, women — like all other voters — had a variety of motivations for their voting choices. For some, concerns about inflation were foremost. As was pointed out in earlier threads that I discussed, in many families women do the bulk of the grocery shopping and, therefore, are more cognizant of price increases for food. Similarly, many women were likely to have the same concerns as male voters with regard to a range of issues such as public safety, immigration, and foreign policy. While I don't have any evidence to support my gut instinct on this, I suspect that women might have even been more likely than men to vote based on concerns regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Some women, including some posters in this thread, agree that colleges are, in fact, liberal indoctrination centers. Still, I think the role of misogyny in the election cannot be discounted. I have written before that Harris was held to a much higher standard than Trump. Trump, who has been married three times, is a serial cheater, was found liable for sexual assault, and convicted of covering up payments made in connection to having sex with a porn star, was somehow the candidate of those with strong religious convictions. Harris, on the other hand, was attacked for not having given birth to children. The suggestion that women's primary role should be motherhood — rather than academic or professional achievement — is still soundly embedded in society.

Because the two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed, I will start with the third most active thread, which was titled, "Democratic pipeline of talent is sad". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster repeats what has basically become a broken record among centrist Democrats in the forum, claiming that the election was lost because of progressives in the Democratic Party. Never mind that Vice President Kamala Harris ran as exactly the candidate the original poster and those who share her beliefs wanted. Given the choice of recognizing that their strategy failed and blaming powerless progressives, they reflexively blame the left. The original poster then went on to denigrate several potential future Democratic presidential candidates, often using Republican talking points. This is where we are at the moment. So-called "Democrats" are devoting their efforts to mimicking Republicans while attacking the best political organizers in the party. Meanwhile, the original poster and those like her seem completely oblivious to the threat being presented by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Instead of organizing to resist Trump, these posters are spending their time attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Not unexpectedly, these days, almost before the first page was complete, this thread had gone off-topic. Instead of discussing the pipeline of Democratic political talent, posters simply discussed how terrible leftist Democrats are and how they have ruined the party. That discussion has been had plenty of times already, so I am going to stick to the original topic. The main point that the original poster seems to be making is that there are no centrist Democrats poised to be strong presidential contenders. If the original poster is correct, the fact that centrist Democrats have proven to be unelectable can hardly be blamed on progressives. But, in fact, the original poster is wrong. She mentioned Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear herself, but brushed him off as "a nobody". However, another moderate Democrat is North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. I think the bigger issue here is that politics no longer exists on a simple left-right spectrum. The old labels don't work, but those like the original poster haven't yet figured that out. The real division shown in the last election was not between the left and the right, but rather between populists and establishment politicians. When Harris first announced her candidacy, she took a populist slant and was boosted by a wave of popularity. Soon, however, establishment Democrats — the so-called "adults in the room" — took over the campaign and tamed things down. Instead of engaging in populist rhetoric, Harris took to campaigning with Liz Cheney, one of the most establishment figures in existence. A populist message that speaks to the working class will be necessary for the Democrats' future. But engaging populism while not alienating the Democrats' current base of affluent urban and suburban voters will take some talent. In that regard, I humbly suggest consideration of Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. Ossoff is a liberal who has managed to win in a red state. He is a Jew who last night voted to embargo weapons to Israel. He is a young man in a party that has suffered from the age of its leaders. Most importantly for this discussion, he is a populist who can also appeal to urban elites. If someday the original poster realizes who our real opponent is and stops firing on fellow Democrats, I suggest that she take a look at Ossoff or one of the many other Democrats that make up a pipeline full of talent.

All of the most active threads yesterday were about the election and, while they might have started out discussing different aspects of the topic, they eventually ended up talking about the same things. Therefore, rather than writing about four threads that are essentially the same, I'll just write one entry today. For the record, the most active thread yesterday was titled "2024 Election Results" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread, which was only started around 6:30 p.m. yesterday, is currently 174 pages long. That is almost 2,000 posts. As everyone surely knows by now, the outcome of the election was not what I either expected or hoped it would be. The morning after an election, everyone is suddenly an expert and, in this regard, I guess I am no different. However, it is with quite a bit of humility that I write this today. MAGA posters seem to have a strong desire to hear folks like me admit that we were wrong. So, let's get that out of the way. I was wrong. Right up until about 9:00 p.m. last night, I was expecting Vice President Kamala Harris to win. In the daylight of a morning after what was, for me anyway, an electoral disaster, I am not even sure where to start when trying to make sense of things. As such, here are a few random, early thoughts.

The most active thread yesterday was one that was started on Sunday, but gained traction yesterday. It was titled, "Anxiety level going uppppp.." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I suspect that many DCUM users can relate to the original poster who says that her anxiety level has gone up, resulting in her eating a bunch of her kids' Halloween candy and increasing her anti-anxiety medication. She asks if anyone else is getting anxious about Tuesday and suggests that she should probably start watching less news. Whenever someone brings up anxiety surrounding politics, there are posters who react almost with scorn, suggesting that the outcome will have little impact. For instance, one poster wrote, "The world will still keep turning no matter who is elected. It’s only 4 yrs. All the doom and gloom talk on both sides is just theatrics." Such posters don't seem to understand the real effect that politics can have on people's lives. I can only assume that such posters live privileged lives because for a great many people, the outcome of an election does have a direct impact on them. It is popular to suggest that both parties are guilty of exaggerating the threat posed by the other side. There is an important difference, however. The campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz bases its warnings on the actual statements and actions of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. When they warn that Trump is a threat to abortion rights, it is based upon Trump's bragging that he is responsible for Roe v. Wade being overturned. When they warn about Project 2025, they know that, despite his distancing himself, Trump has praised the project and several of his closest associates were responsible for the effort. When they warn about a national sales tax on imported goods, it is based on Trump's repeatedly expressed plan for tariffs on all imports. The naysayers either think Trump is lying or won't be successful in imposing his plans. Trump, on the other hand, simply lies in his warnings about Harris. He says the country will be destroyed. He claims that we will be involved in World War III. He says that the doors will be opened to millions of immigrants who will be granted citizenship. There is no basis to believe any of these things. The result is that while MAGAs could legitimately be advised to calm down and maybe take a Xanax, liberals are justified in being anxious. Imagine being a transgender person — or the friend or relative of one — and being told that, after millions of dollars of anti-trans advertising by the Trump campaign, the outcome of the election doesn't matter? The threat posed by having Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — a nutcase anti-vaxer who would be a threat to food safety — responsible for food and medicine or Elon Musk made responsible for government efficiency is huge. We should feel anxious about those possibilities. But another question is now to control that anxiety. At this point, there is little that the average person can do about the election once they have voted. Being able to accept that something is outside your control and that all you can do is wait is an important skill and one that many people will need to exercise today.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Fairfax County Public Schools boundary changes in which posters are stridently debating boundary changes that haven't been proposed. I'll skip that thread since I have already discussed it. The most active thread after that was titled, "Do many people pick publics because of money?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she chose to attend a private university and because her family did not pay for it, she used a combination of loans and financial aid. After graduation, she worked in investment banking with a salary high enough to pay off her loans quickly. Now she is surprised that many students are choosing state universities rather than private colleges. She wonders if this is due to financial concerns and implies that, if so, that would be a bad decision. Whether by accident or intention, this poster managed to offend many other posters. She had very strong opinions, starting with her contention that private universities are almost by definition better than state universities. Next was her belief that attending a prestigious private university would immediately lead to a high-paying job. Her overall tone suggested that attending a state university is misguided and short-sighted, something with which fans of state universities did not agree. In response, posters pointed out that college costs are significantly higher now than they were when the original poster was a student and, hence, loans tend to be larger and not as easy to pay off. Several posters argued that state schools such as the University of Virginia provide a better education than many private universities and, for in-state residents, at a much lower cost. The original poster's attitude was influenced by the fact that because she and her husband have significant income, the can easily afford the high costs of a prestigious private university. Her suggestion that others should just as easily be able to pay — or, if not, could take out loans that wouldn't end up presenting a financial burden — put her pretty firmly in Marie Antoinette territory. Many posters were quite unapologetic about the fact that they were choosing state colleges for financial reasons. The University of Virginia in particular has many fans on DCUM and posters argued that being able to get an education that rivaled that provided by many top private schools at a much lower cost made a lot sense. Moreover, posters pointed out that not everyone wants the same experience for college. Some much prefer the environment of large state universities. As I have noted in several earlier blog posts, there has been an anti-Ivy League trend on DCUM recently and this has developed into disenchantment with many top private universities. This played into the thread as well as many posters displayed hostile attitudes towards top private universities and clearly didn't share the original poster's respect for them.

The most active thread over the weekend was the one that I've previous discussed about Fairfax County Public schools boundaries. Posters in that thread have worked themselves up into a frenzy and have now started a petition to oppose a boundary change that nobody had proposed. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Can we analyze jennifer lopez?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. While the competition is fierce, this thread might be the most absurd that I've come across in this forum. The original poster accuses Jennifer Lopez of having a level of narcissism beyond anything that she has ever seen and, based on the title, is inviting other posters to analyze Lopez. I am sure that I can think of something more ridiculous than asking a bunch of people who almost universally lack any relevant qualifications and do not have first-hand access to the subject to conduct psychological analysis, but I would have to really work at it. Obviously, this a clear cut situation in which the responses will say more about the posters writing them than about Lopez. The first poster to respond more or less turns the tables on the original poster, writing, "She’s got you so hooked that you want to analyze her even though she allegedly repulses you." Another poster presented my own view fairly accurately, saying, "Nonsense post. Projecting based on what you think people are feeling based on photos?" A number of posters either don't view JLo as narcissistic or are willing to forgive her for it. They see her as a hard worker who has earned what she has. As one poster put it, "She looks incredible and to look like that you must be extremely self-disciplined." There are differences of opinion about her abilities as an actress or a singer, with most posters, even some who generally don't have a lot of appreciation for her, concede that she has at least some talent. But others aren't even willing to grant that to Lopez. Before long the thread turned into a discusion of Lopez's relationship with Ben Affleck, to whom she has been married for nearly two years. Lopez has had a rocky road when it comes to relationships and was engaged to Affleck over 20 years ago. Now there are apparently rumors that their marriage might not last. Posters were busy analyzing photos to see whether or not Affleck was wearing a wedding ring and debatting the significance of the couple arriving individually to an event be leaving together. One indicator of the quality of the "analysis" generally conducted in this thread is that any photo that showed JLo appearing happy was immediately alleged to be "staged" whereas any photo showing her to look like a normal person trying to get someplace without being hassled was used as incontrovertible evidence that her life is a disaster. With all of her wealth, I am sure that JLo can easily afford top notch mental healthcare. But, if it is ever needed, she can obtain psychological care free of charge from a host of eager DCUM therapists. What they lack in qualifications is certainly make up in obsessiveness.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sheryl Sandberg Releases Screams Before Silence, A Free Documentary About the Sexual Violence on October 7" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The war in Gaza and the resulting college campus protests have spurred an endless series of threads, many of which have been among the most active topics that I've discussed in this blog. This thread is one more of the genre. As the title makes clear, this thread is about the documentary "Screams Before Silence" which was led by Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook/Meta fame. The film is about sexual violence allegedly used by Hamas during and after its October 7 attack on Israel. My use of the word "alleged" will likely be controversial because a significant number of DCUM users do not think that there is anything "alleged" about this and that Hamas' sexual violence is beyond question. To be clear, I abhor sexual violence whoever it is committed by. Those who commit such crimes should be exposed and punished. Unfortunately, like so much else involved with the the Israel-Gaza war, sexual violence has been caught in the fog of war and the endless propaganda surrounding events. It is undeniable that in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack, Israel and some of its supporters engaged in spreading manufactured accounts of atrocities. Many of these accounts made it into the Western media and become accepted as fact. Chief among these stories was the allegation of 40 beheaded Israeli babies, something that proved to be completely untrue. A number of other high-profile incidents similarly turned out not to have occurred. Just as these stories of Hamas violence were initially widely believed, allegations of sexual violence committed by Hamas has been accepted as fact among much of the public. A highly-publicized article by the New York Times initially seemed very persuasive in documenting widespread sexual violence. However, that article soon proved to be very problematic and has been shown to have relied on several discredited sources. Chief among these was ZAKA, an Israeli volunteer group that responds to emergencies to recover bodies. Israeli newspapers have documented that many of the stores of atrocities on October 7 that were later shown to be false originated with ZAKA. ZAKA's leader has attributed this to mistakes resulting from the difficult circumstances following the attack. Either because of intention or error, ZAKA's allegations must be approached skeptically. Like the New York Times, Sandberg's film relies heavily on ZAKA. As a result, critics of the documentary argue that its allegations are not to be believed. Defenders of the film point to a report by the United Nations that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that sexual violence occurred during the Hamas attack. While the report did find evidence to believe such attacks occurred, it did not find anything near the scale that is commonly claimed. Moreover, the report explicitly found that some well-publicized allegations were unfounded. All of this is to say that while there is evidence that some sexual violence did occur during Hamas' October 7 attack and has probably occurred afterward involving the Israelis being held hostage, the allegations of widespread and systemic sexual violence have not held up to scrutiny. This has provided justifiable grounds for critics to challenge portrayals such as that in this film. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in this thread, posters are less interested in separating fact from fiction than they are in utilizing the topic for their own partisan benefit. I eventually locked the thread when it devolved in simply another debate about all aspects of the conflict without specific relevance to the initial topic.

Yesterday's two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed so I will start with the third most active thread which was titled, "Are there really men whose dream it is to have their wife not need to work?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that in a podcast episode the female host's husband joined and revealed that it had been his dream that his wife would not have to work but could if that were her choice. The original poster is very impressed by this attitude and asks where she can find a man like this one. Those responding take different approaches to this topic. Some posters take the original poster's question at face value and provide advice about how she can find this sort of guy. Others discuss the desirability, or lack thereof, of becoming a stay-at-home wife. With regard to the first, posters generally emphasize that it is important to find such men when they are young. Guys who are desirable and have the financial wherewithal to support a stay at home wife will either be taken quickly or be players who are not interested in commitment. One poster claims that the best place to meet them is graduate school. While at its heart this thread is a really a discussion of stay-at-home-moms versus work-out-of-the-house-moms, the thread has a much different flavor than most of this genre. The thread has a higher level of discourse than would normally be expected of the topic. Many of the responses are by posters recounting their own personal experiences. A significant number of those posters describe being heavily influenced by their own parents' situations. A factor of importance to the original poster that was overlooked in many responses was that the relationship she admires provides the woman the choice to work. Several of those responding agreed that this was key to such relationships. Some posters expressed concern about relationships in which a husband opposed his wife getting a job, considering it his duty to provide for his family. Posters warned that such men often enjoyed the power and control this provides them. Similarly, several posters expressed concerns that a woman who does not work can be left in difficult circumstances in the case of divorce or if her husband is unable to work due to health or accident. But posters frequently saw many benefits to having a stay at home parent which, several posters mentioned, could be a father as well as a mother. Several described this arrangement making their lives considerably easier and much less stressful. One poster argued that interdependence in which each spouse is dependent on the other leads to stronger relationships than independence of each spouse. He didn't view his stay-at-home wife as being dependent upon him anymore than he is dependent on her. But some others weren't necessarily buying this with one arguing that his wife would be homeless without his income.