DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dates and paying bill" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is 29-years-old is dating a man who is 41. While he is not wealthy, he does make about three times as much as the original poster. The original poster explains that she has picked up some of the expenses on dates, but she is bothered by a recent incident involving paying for dinner. On that occasion, her date had invited her out and chosen the restaurant. They ordered the same things. At the end, the guy grabbed the check and the original poster assumed that he would pay it. She offered to pay the tip, but he responded, "only the tip?". He then suggested that she pay for the drinks, which she did, but felt uneasy about the entire situation. The original poster added that the guy has only had a single relationship that lasted any length of time, that being 8 months. So, she wonders if he is unaware of social norms. But, to some extent, what this thread highlights is the lack of true social norms in this regard. Those responding explain a range of practices. Several think that whoever initiates the date should cover the expenses. Since that is most frequently the man, they end up paying more often. But, women can contribute by arranging dates in response. Others suggest that it is okay for the woman to contribute to a date, but think that using Venmo to transfer a portion of the bill is not the way to go about it. Rather, these posters suggest that the original poster should not have offered to pay anything at dinner, but then suggested to treat for  dessert or another round of drinks elsewhere. Some posters have made paying for dates almost a science. For instance, arguing that the man pay entirely for the early dates, but then contributions are made relative to income. A few male posters weighed in to complain that women want equality except when it comes to paying for dates. This provoked a few posters to respond that such posts reflected poorly on the manhood of those writing them. Other women posters claimed that this is simply a dating preference. If a man wants to split costs with a woman, he should date women who also like to split costs. Maybe this should be included on dating profiles? Many of the responses didn't address the meal paying issue at all. Rather, posters deduced that given the man's lack of long term dating experience, other women must have quickly realized that he was a loser. The original poster was repeatedly advised to move on and not waste time with this guy. Towards the end of the thread, it appeared that the original poster was ready to do this.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "President Biden acknowledged 4 year old granddaughter" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started after President Joe Biden and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden provided a statement to People Magazine discussing the daughter of Hunter Biden and Lunden Roberts about whom the Bidens had previously been silent. The child has been the subject of considerable legal contention between Hunter Biden and Roberts and Republicans have been vociferous in their criticism of President Biden for not having previously acknowledged the girl. As could be expected in today's political environment, the statement did nothing to stem the flood of Republican attacks on Biden. Indeed, even the original poster claimed, "The statement today seems politically motivated". In addition, Republicans simply moved the goalposts. When a Biden-supporter pointed out that Republicans had complained that Biden had not acknowledged the child and were now complaining that he had discussed her, a Biden-critic replied saying, "Biden hasn’t laid out plans to welcome her to either the [White House] or the Biden family home". As anti-Biden posters sought to portray the controversy surrounding the child as a significant moral failure by President Biden, pro-Biden posters suggested that the moral outrage was selective given the moral shortcomings evidenced by former President Donald Trump. For instance, Trump reportedly urged his former wife Marla Maples to get an abortion when she was pregnant with Tiffany and Trump has often given significantly less attention to Tiffany than his other children. Similarly, Biden supporters reminded Republicans of the support demonstrated for Herschel Walker even after all of his paternity issues were revealed. In a classic case of hair-splitting, a Biden-critic responded asking, "Was he running for president?" The more relavent question would have been, "is he a Democrat?" given that Republican morality concerns tend to be entirely partisan in nature. On the other hand, a small number of Democrats in the thread expressed discomfort with the way the Bidens have handled this issue. But, one poster in the thread described themselves as "a person born to an unwed mother" and expressed considerable understanding for Joe and Jill Biden. In this poster's view, it was entirely appropriate for the President and Fist Lady to remain aloof from the conflict between Hunter and Roberts. As the poster explained, "if Hunter has no relationship with the child then the Bidens can't either."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. For those not familiar with the nomenclature, "W" schools are Walt Whitman, Winston Churchill, Thomas Wootten, and Walter Johnson Montgomery County Public Schools high schools. All the schools have "W" somewhere in their name and all have student bodies that are generally wealthy and heavily White and Asian. Academically they are very good schools and, hence, highly sought-after. The original poster of this thread can afford private school but wonders if it is worth the cost and wonders, if cost were not an issue, if others would choose a private school over a "W" school. The background of this post is that private schools are often advertised as being notably better in a range of metrics than public schools. Whatever basis in reality this contention may have normally, it is a more difficult argument when applied to schools of the caliber of the "W" schools. Therefore, the original poster is asking about the value proposition of private schools in this scenario. Very broadly speaking, replies can be divided into two categories. On the one hand are those that favor one option or the other based on specific factors and how those will impact the student in question. For instance, one poster chose a "W" school because she believed her child with special needs would receive stronger support at that school. Other posters preferred private based on smaller class sizes that they believe better suited their children. The second category of responses might be described as focusing on the "soft" or "social" benefits of private schools. For example, in response to a post describing the academic achievement of a "W" school student, a poster asked, "Is you [sic] kids polished? Can he dress properly?" and "Does he have a Rolodex of very wealthy friends that can get him a job with the snap of a finger?" This school of thought essentially concedes that academically there is little difference between these public schools and privates (indeed, many parents argue the publics are better academically in some instances), but instead focuses on other presumed advantages. However, not all posters agree that those supposed advantages end up amounting to much and don't believe they are good reasons for choosing private schools. As is true with almost all school-related discussions these days, this one also gets sidetracked into arguments about COVID and how schools responded. One argument made is that public schools were closed longer than private schools which set students back further and therefore public schools are now at a disadvantage. Another debate is over whether private school students are ensconced in a bubble and, therefore, not prepared for the real world. This is countered by the proposition that "W" school students are in very similar bubbles. If true, that would seem to be a point in favor of the "W" schools which apparently provide the same bubble as private schools, but with no tuition fees.

Last Friday a thread about swim teams was among the most active threads that I discussed. I believe that was the first time that a swimming thread made this blog. But, not only has a swim team thread made the most active list again, this time it leads the list as yesterday's most active thread. This one was titled, "Swim Team Drama" and was posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. Since I have never been involved with swim teams, I don't understand much of what posters are talking about, including the original poster. The drama cited by that poster involved parents being upset about the times used for divisional lineups. Whatever this was, it stirred up drama in the thread itself as parents debated the rules back and forth. Other drama discussed often involved coaches, especially younger ones who seemed to disappear when needed. But, other than these examples, most of the dramas mentioned involved parents. Parents trash talking, parents arguing with each other, parents having issues with coaches, and even parents suing their pools. There also seemed to be a lot of drama surrounding team lineups. A number of posters reported drama-free seasons. Several others said the only drama on their teams was of the competitive type involving close races or slower swimmers improving and over-performing in the heat of a match. Based on this thread, I would guess that the bulk of the drama is caused by parents not understanding the rules, or — more likely — thinking they understand the rules when they don't. The original poster's example of drama was still being discussed 17 pages later, but apparently much of this is due to differences between leagues. There is also ongoing discussion about how to dress for the team banquet. I'm not sure if that actually counts as "drama", but plenty of posters have something to say about it.

If you can believe it, the thread I discussed yesterday about the University of Mary Washington was tied as the most active thread again. Since I've already discussed that one, I'll start with the thread with which it was tied. Titled, "Why does every tourist have a backpack" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum, the original poster is interested in the question posed on the thread's title. She doesn't understand the need for a backpack or a sling and explains how she and her husband equip themselves while touring. While no slings or backpacks are involved, she lists more than a half-dozen items that her husband carries in his pants pockets. To say that this thread did not go well for the original poster is probably an understatement. DCUM apparently has a very pro-backpack userbase. The first mistake made by the original poster, which was pointed out repeatedly, was not understanding that different people have different needs and different preferences. This is a surprising shortcoming for someone who professes to be a seasoned traveller given that one of the goals of travel is to see things that are different than in your own life. Being open to new ideas and not being judgemental are two qualities that help travel to be more enjoyable. Several posters took issue with the number of items the original poster's husband carries in his pockets, with several ridiculing him for possibly wearing cargo pants. The original poster's only subsequent post disabused the others of that idea and explained that the items, while plentiful, were all quite small. Still, the fact that she and her husband seem to never leave home without Pepto Bismol raised a few eyebrows. Posters have a host of reasons for carrying backpacks while touring, including carrying many of the items the original poster's husband stuffs in his pockets. In addition, quite a few carry water bottles and, especially if they have kids, snacks. Several of the female posters pointed out that their clothing often doesn't have pockets, so duplicating the original poster's strategy of carrying things in her pockets won't work. One irony of the thread is that as posters explained what they carry in their backpacks, they sometimes mentioned items that other posters hadn't considered, but could see being useful. Therefore, if this thread has any lasting impact at all, it might be to increase backpack usage, or at least the number of things carried in them. Also, given all the discussion of Pepto Bismol, I should probably charge Procter & Gamble a fee for product placement.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in the New York Times that discussed an analysis of college admissions data. According to that analysis, the wealthiest top 0.1% of applicants had a huge admissions advantage, the poorest applicants had a slight advantage, while those in the middle had a disadvantage. The article actually paints a somewhat more complex picture. As one poster, quoting the article, explained, "colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings". While the article mostly focuses on how this system perpetuates the "intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity", posters in the thread were more concerned by the disadvantages suffered by those in the middle that the article illustrated. As the original poster noted, that is where most DCUM posters are represented. Most of the college forum posters have always seemed to believe that college admissions were unfair and that they are particularly unfair when it comes to the forum's posters. So, for many posters, this article simply justifies what they already believed. Some posters ignored the advantages enjoyed by the wealthy and, instead, focused on the slight advantages received by the poorest applicants. As one poster explicitly put it, "there is a clear bias towards the lower half of the income bracket and again sthe upper half (half, not the 0.1%)" But, as another poster pointed out, unlike other groups, poor students are not overrepresented in student bodies. My understanding after reading the article is that there just are not that many poor applicants who meet the admissions requirements. Those that do have a great chance of admission, but there still simply aren't many of them. Ironically, that was almost exactly the same argument made by one of the apologists for the ultra-wealthy who wrote, "who really cares about the very small number of ultra rich?" Like the original poster, most of those participating in this thread are most interested in discussing the disadvantages suffered by those with middle incomes. Some posters even parse the data to show that differences even among varying strata of the middle income segment. But, basically, this is the other side of the coin used to explain the poor and ultra-wealthy advantages. While there are few members of those categories, there are a lot of applicants in the middle and, as such, the competition is fierce. The bottom line described in the article is that there is an entire system of "affirmative action for the wealthy" that includes legacy admissions, admissions of friends and family of large donors, athletic admissions, and advantages provided to private school students that give the ultra wealthy an extreme advantage. As illustrated, an applicant in the 99.9th income percentile would have a roughly 3 times more likelihood of being accepted by an elite college as a student in the 90th percentile.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread about Virginia's new policies regarding transgender students about which I already wrote. So, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Gosselins" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I have led a fairly fulfilling life to this point with little to no exposure to the Gosselins. I would have been quite happy to keep things that way. I have heard the family's name in passing and I understand that there was a reality television show called "Kate Plus 8". But, beyond that, I know virtually nothing about them. So, this thread is very confusing to me with lots of names being cast about by posters who seem to have very detailed knowledge of everyone involved. The thread was started back on May 15 by a poster who simply asked if the "the twins" were graduating from college and where "the septuplets" were going to go to college. This was a major gaff by the original poster that was quickly pointed out. The Gosslins have "sextuplets", not "septuplets". The thread sort of languished until the past few days when, apparently, various members of the family began giving interviews criticizing each other. That reignited the thread which gained 12 pages over the weekend. I, of course, am not going to read the entire 28 pages of this thread or even the new pages. The only thing I could conclude from skimming some of the recent discussion is that this is not a thread that I am going to be able summarize. Posters have different opinions about different family members, but there is too much that I don't understand for me to have any idea about what anyone is talking. All I can say is that the family is divided and, similarly, posters are divided. I have been happy living in blissful ignorance regarding this family and I prefer to continue to do so. Therefore, rather than delve into the details of what is going on, I am just going to throw up my arms in resignation and leave it to those of you who are interested to read the thread for yourselves.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "New VA trans policies for schools" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The thread addresses new model policies issued by the Virginia Department of Education regarding the treatment of transgender students in schools. The new model policies require students to use facilities that match their biological sex and require referring to students by names matching the sex on their official record unless parents request something different in writing, It will be up to local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the new models. As would be expected, posters are strongly divided about the new guidelines. For instance, regarding the role of parents in a student's social transition, posters favoring parental rights strongly agree that parents should be informed if their children are using different names or pronouns at school. They consider a failure by schools to inform parents of such matters as "conspiring" against parents and, in the most extreme cases, examples of "grooming". The new model policies go beyond merely informing parents, however, and prevent schools from using names or pronouns that differ from the sex contained in the official records. Parents opposed to these policies want schools to be safe places for students in which children can confide in trusted adults without fear of repudiation by their parents. There is also considerable disagreement about the guidelines concerning bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a lot of fear and anxiety among some posters concerning students assigned as male at birth sharing girls facilities. These parents welcome the new guidelines that prohibit this. On the other hand are parents who view this as discriminatory. While I did not see it mentioned in the thread, my understanding is that this issue has already been decided legally in favor of transgender students. Ironically, this is based on legal proceedings that took place in Virginia. A transgender student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County School Board when he was prohibited from using male bathrooms. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rule in Grimm's favor and the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving those rulings in place. This would seem to mean the new guidelines are in contradiction to legal findings. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin may welcome a legal battle on this issue given the political advantages he seems to see in attacking transgender rights. Moreover, the current Supreme Court Justices may not be as sympathetic to transgender students as in the past. At any rate, transgender issues remain among the most divisive topics on DCUM.

The Carlee Russell thread was back as the most active thread yesterday after local officials held a press conference. But, again, since I've covered that thread I'll move on to the next most active. That one was titled, "What do the non mask wearers think today when they see someone wearing a mask" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she is a healthcare worker and still wears a mask when she goes out. She is glad that a few others do as well so that she won't stand out as much. Responses fall into roughly three categories. Many posters believe that those wearing masks may be ill, recovering from an illness, or live with folks who have health concerns. Several others simply don't care or assume whatever reasons the mask-wearer has are personal and not their business. The third category attributes mask wearing as a sign of anxiety or mental health problems. Eventually, a group of posters emerge who don't really address what they think about those who wear masks, but proudly and defiantly announce their own unwillingness to wear masks. Some nostalgically recount not masking at the height of the pandemic and feeling pleasure about the discomfort they caused in others. There is also a number of posters who see masks as political symbols and believe that those who wear them are engaging in political symbolism. Of course the mask debate is not new on DCUM. Far from it. But one thing that has changed in these discussions is that there is no longer much of an effort to persuade others to wear masks. To be sure, posters who still wear masks are willing to explain their reasons and defend themselves. But, almost no one is telling others that they should mask. But, past efforts to encourage masking seem to have left a number of posters traumatized to the point that they react to the mere sight of a mask as if it is an attempt to oppress them. There is a certain irony in seeing those who are riled to the point of anger by someone else wearing a mask questioning the mask wearer's mental health. For every overly-anxious mask wearer that probably needs to spend some time in a therapist's office (note, this applies to very few mask wearers) there is probably a rabid anti-masker who should be sitting right next to them. A new development in this discussion is that some posters have started using masks due to poor air quality, particularly on code red days caused by smoke from Canadian wildfires. Whereas in the past people might commonly be maskless outside but don a mask when entering a building, now the opposite happens with people wearing masks outside and removing them upon entering.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Will no longer shop at Giant- annoying checkout machine" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster is upset because the checkout lines at Giant that have cashiers are long and slow and the self-checkout machines are annoying and don't always work properly. While the original poster is specifically referring to the Giant in McLean, other posters report similar frustrations with Giants all over the DC region, at other grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Wegmans, and at stores outside the area. Some posters report having better luck using a hand-scanner, but apparently those are not available at all stores. The positive stories about hand-scanners led to several requests for instructions about how to use them. However, other posters said that the hand-scanners are beginning to disappear because of increased theft. One poster said that the hand-scanners themselves were being stolen. A dispute broke out about whether Giant's increased use of self-scanners is due to theft or a desire to reduce staff and rid the company of a union contract. In contrast to the complaints about self-checkout, a number of posters were fans of the system with some even saying they go to Giant specifically because of the self-scanners which they find easy and quick to use. But far more posters report avoiding Giant due to the scanners. One strange thing I noticed was a poster who showed up posting several posts supporting Giant and its self-scanners. The poster would ultimately post 9 mostly consecutive posts defending Giant, mocking the complaints of others, and accusing them of whining. I normally don't take accusations of posters being corporate shills very seriously, but this poster certainly raises suspicions. Other posters find the in-store shopping experience so frustrating that they have resorted to ordering online and using curbside pickup. It is amazing how so many current issues impacting society are all represented in this thread. There is automation versus human staff, accusations of political tolerance of theft, inflationary prices during a time of rising corporate profits, differing comfort levels with technology, and a general dislike of change all impacting the common experience of grocery shopping. On a more basic level, I think this also reflects the impact of corporate MBAs in windowless offices fixated on spreadsheets and profit margins. The idea of increasing automation and reducing a unionized workforce probably sends those bar charts rocketing upwards. When the actual result is increased theft, they simply make the process more onerous for their customers. Their solutions always seem to result in transferring more responsibility to the customer. But, at what point will the customers no longer tolerate their grocery shopping experience turning into a miserable ordeal? For several posters in this thread, that point has already been reached.