DCUM Weblog

The top three most active threads yesterday were all threads that I've covered in the last couple of days. So, I'm starting with the thread that was actually the fourth most active yesterday. Titled, "Women's NCAA championship game" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum, I believe this may be the first thread from the sports forum that I've discussed in these blog posts. If you have had even the slightest contact with news about the women's college basketball championship game, you will probably be aware that most of the discussion is not about buckets, blocks, or rebounds, but rather hand gestures. More specifically, hand gestures by Louisiana State University's Angel Reese. As soon as the game was over, Reese was inundated with allegations of being unsporting, classless, and even "ghetto" for a hand gesture that imitated one made by an opposing player, Caitlin Clark of the University of Iowa. Much of the discussion in this thread focuses on the disparate reactions to the same gesture being made by the two players. Whereas Reese, who is black, was generally criticized and described in negative terms, Clark, who is white, was generally described positively such as "having swagger" or being a "fierce competitor". The original poster of the thread drew attention to this racial divide which was repeatedly demonstrated throughout the thread. Just about the only thing to distract from the debates over Reese and Clark was the fashion choices of LSU coach Kim Mulkey. Jill Biden also became a topic of discussion after she suggested inviting both teams to the White House. This reinforced the view of those who felt that Reese and LSU were receiving unfair treatment. Traditionally only the winning team received such an invitation and LSU supporters viewed this as just another case of double standards. When Reese rejected Biden's suggestion, some posters doubled-down on complaints that she lacked class. But, eventually Biden backed off of her suggestion and even Clark rejected the idea. Clearly, however, there were posters prepared to interpret everything about Reese in the most negative light possible. These racial divisions continued later in the thread with posters complaining that Reese said that she hoped to inspire girls that looked like her. Other posters pointed out that Clark had made similar statements about inspiring girls in Iowa and again asked why similar behavior was treated differently. To be sure, Reese has her defenders in the thread and she may be proving the expression that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" true. As several of her supporters point out, her popularity has only grown and her earning potential has increased.

Today I'm back to looking at the most active threads from the previous day. The most active thread yesterday was one I've already covered so I'll move on to a thread titled, "White women try to ‘reclaim power’ through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts??" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster discusses an interview on NPR with Buzzfeed News reporter Steffi Cao about an article she has written arguing that certain fashion styles such as "the clean girl, coastal grandmother and – most importantly – the vanilla girl trends" are efforts by white women to reclaim "soft power". I have no clue what any of those fashion trends entail and I don't recall ever even hearing about them until just now. I was all set to ridicule this thread as a giant waste of time. But, it only took reading a couple of posts to change my mind. It is actually a quite intriguing topic. Cao's contention is that in recent years Black women seized the initiative in setting beauty trends and cites examples ranging from the Kardashians to Miley Cyrus of White women adopting, some would say appropriating, from Black beauty ideals. In Cao's telling, the "vanilla girl" and other trends are efforts by White women to regain influence over fashion and with it, the "soft power" associated with beauty. Enough of the responses on the first page of this thread were interesting enough to compel me to read Cao's article. I thought she made some interesting points, but overall I think she is unconvincing. I get the impression that she believes that White women somehow got together to plan their retaking of the beauty industry. I'm sure almost all of the female DCUM users will attest to having missed that meeting. Moreover, as posters in the thread point out, White women never controlled the the beauty industry which is primarily owned or controlled by White men. This is emblematic of much of the discussion in this thread which centers on differing views of the status of White women. In the perception of some, White women have been victims of misogyny and prevented from having a fully equal role in society. Moreover, any attempts to assert themselves provoke negative reactions and criticism. Others, including Cao, view White women as exploiting their alleged victimhood to wield power over others, the classic example being Amy Cooper who famously called police on a Black bird watcher in New York's Central Park. Whereas Cao provides "balletcore" (no, I have no idea what that is) as an example of a beauty trend fixated on "whiteness", some posters argue that the most popular ballet figure today is a Black women. In response, others argue acting like ballet is diverse because of one start is similar to suggesting that the presidency of Barack Obama means that US presidents have been diverse. In response to that, posters argue the lack of diversity of ballet is related to age and at the younger ages is actually is diverse. So, point, counterpoint, counterpoint, etc., before we even get to the issue of whether ballet-influenced styles are an effort to reassert white supremacy. Beyond the substantive disputes in this thread, which I admit much to my chagrin, fascinate me, there are several arguments about whether this is a real issue or a media-driven contrivance aimed at generating controversy and, hence, clicks. I think that this can both be a media-driven hyping and also touch on some real issues. At any rate, very much contrary to my initial reaction, I think this is a great topic for DCUM discussion.

Because I took the weekend off from writing blog posts, today I'll look at the most active threads over the last three days. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Big 3 Nightmare" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster laments that it has been a difficult year in terms of college acceptances for the top students at the "Big 3" private schools in the DC Metro area. I guess I should start off by noting that the term "Big 3" is controversial on DCUM with posters unable to agree on what schools should be included in the group, or even if "3" is the proper number with some arguing for a "Big 5" or another designation. At any rate, you can be sure that Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day School will be included in any discussion of this sort and St. Albans is also repeatedly mentioned in the thread. But, it can be assumed that this discussion is not limited to those three schools. Beyond that, this thread is a perfect illustration of what I've coined as the "DCUM Paradox" in which parents choose schools or neighborhoods on the assumption that their choices will enhance their children's college acceptance opportunities. But, at least since I've been following this topic, it turns out that they end up competing with their classmates and students at similar schools who all have roughly the same qualifications, actually making acceptance more challenging as colleges seek diverse student bodies. As I have written before, no Ivy League school is going to accept the entire Sidwell senior class, so simply graduating from Sidwell is not going to be enough for an Ivy acceptance. Posters in this thread report that this year has been especially difficult with essentially only "hooked" students (i.e. athletes, underrepresented minorities, legacies, big donors, etc.) being accepted. Some posters say that even legacy status has not been enough. Several posters in this thread take a certain amount of joy in the idea that students privileged enough to attend these pricey schools are finding that their privilege has limits. Other posters argue that while the opportunities at the very top universities may be limited, these students still have very good chances at other highly-ranked universities. There is quite a bit of discussion about how much college admission opportunties figured into parent's choices of private schools. Some posters concede that was part of their calculus while others point to broader goals. Inevitably, the discussion leads to comparisons with local public schools with some posters suggesting some area public high schools have similar college acceptance records without the financial outlay. It is safe to say that argument was not universally accepted. However, some posters tell stories — possibly apocryphal — of parents switching their children to public schools for their final years or even enrolling in rural schools in order to improve their admissions chances. The bottom line is that while the top area private schools may have a lot going for them, they are clearly not guaranteed paths to the top universities.

The most active thread yesterday was one that was started back on March 17 titled, "Indictment Monday?". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster optimistically cited reports that former President Donald Trump might be indicted the following Monday. Of course, that didn't happen but for the next few days discussion in this thread would seesaw as the chances of a Trump indictment seemed to rise and fall. The thread started off very slow yesterday with a self-described Democrat expressing hope that Trump was not indicted in this instance, another poster sarcastically predicting an indictment "any week now", and a third poster claiming to have heard an indictment might come next week. But, at 5:30 pm, the thread went crazy, adding eleven pages of posts since that time. Most of the posts expressed jubilation about the news but a few posters cautioned that the indictment would strengthen Trump. Debates broke out over whether the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had acted in a politically partisan manner or was simply following the rule of law. Some posters viewed the indictment in nearly apocalyptic terms with one predicting that it would lead to a "right wing dictatorship" when Republicans inevitably retaliated, things escalated, and civil war resulted. While this case did not involve the January 6 insurrection, many posters referred to that event as justification for holding Trump legally accountable. Many posters seemed to experience considerable schadenfreude that Trump supporters who once yelled "Lock her up!" were now disparing that Trump was facing legal consequences. Some of the Republican posters questioned whether Trump could get a fair trial in heavily-Democratic New York. Others warned that red states would now start indicting Democratic politicians. If grand juries in conservative states are able to find evidence of wrong-doing by Democrats, more power to them I say.

For the third day in a row, the most active thread was the thread about the school shooting in Tennessee. Since I've already discussed that thread, I'll move to the next which was titled, "Republican controlled states - Limiting college students’ voting rights" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Most of the most active threads yesterday were political in some way and several posters suggested this one should be moved to the political forum. But, since the original poster, who discussed Republican efforts to prevent college students from voting and anti-abortion moves, asked whether these developments should affect college choices, I decided to keep it in the college forum. The responses that I read concentrated heavily on the posters' personal experiences with voting during college. Those who voted in their hometowns by absentee either implicitly or explicitly suggested that other students should do the same. Those who voted in their college towns argued that such voting was proper because they spent most of the year there. Several posters opposed students voting because they believed it would be easy for students to also vote at home, thereby voting twice. Regardless, this dispute misses the point of the thread which is whether efforts to prevent voting, as well as lack of access to abortion, should be reasons to avoid such states. Many posters agreed that these states should be avoided and several said that they had avoided them during recent college searches. Nevertheless, most of the responses ignored the intent of the thread and focused on the issue of students' residency, addressing such issues as where students obtained drivers' licenses, where they paid taxes, or how long they lived in the state.

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads that I discussed in yesterday's blog post. So, I'll start with the third most active thread yesterday which was titled, "United just randomly reassigned my seats" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster explains that she paid extra for tickets on a United Airlines flight in order to be seated together with her three children. However, just as they were boarding the aircraft, she found out that United had changed their seats without notice. As a result, all three kids were seated away from her. The original poster admits to being the type of person who is annoyed when others try to change seats after boarding, but in this case was happy that the flight attendant managed to get her two youngest children moved to seats next to her. The topic of seating for families on airlines has been recurrent in our forum and I have written about several such threads which were among the most active topics on various days. President Biden has even weighed in on the topic and airlines have been promising to do better. Nevertheless, several posters in this thread recount experiences similar to that of the original poster, several of them also on United. Another poster told of her husband's ticket being changed to an entirely different flight after he had already obtained a boarding pass. They were not aware of this until the poster boarded the plane and her husband was prevented from joining her. She had to leave the plane to even find out what was going on. Our travel forum is frequented by a number of posters who delight in telling others what they have done wrong. In this case, the original poster was criticized for not checking the family's seat assignments earlier. Other posters made excuses for the airline, for instance suggesting that the aircraft type had changed. Some posters argued that precisely because airlines act so cavalierly so often, the original poster was wrong not to be keeping tabs on things. Several posters suggested that at a minimum, the original poster should have the fees she paid to be seated together refunded. At least one poster expressed hope that the original poster might have gained a new-found sympathy for those who try to change seats in order to be together with family members.

The most active thread yesterday, by a good measure, was titled, "3 children dead in private Christian elementary school shooting in TN" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread is obviously about the shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville, TN that left three young students and three adults dead. In addition, the shooter was killed by police. In the few months that I've been writing these blog posts, I've summarized multiple threads about mass shootings. I've noticed increasing cynicism in how posters respond, with this thread going in that direction from the very first post in which the original poster, tongue-in-check, suggested the cause of the shooting was that the Christian school had "had too many doors and too little God". The original poster then went on to offer nothing beyond "Thoughts and prayers". Clearly, the original poster is satirizing pro-gun politicians such as US Senator Ted Cruz who responded to a school shooting in his state of Texas by suggesting that schools should only have one door. I understand the inclination but I also believe that the killing of innocent people, especially children, should be addressed with a more serious tone. When children are laying dead on a classroom floor, humor probably should be avoided. If there is another thing that I wish posters would learn, it is to wait for the details of such events. In this case, posters almost immediately started making jokes about a drag queen or a trans person committing the shooting, as if such a thing were unthinkable. When the shooter subsequently turned out to be a trans man, those jokes lost much of their luster. Mass shootings are always politicized now and this one had immediate political dimensions. Some posters wondered if it was a hate crime targeting Christians. Others, morbidly and inappropriately, were pleased that what they believed to be conservatives had been targeted. When information spread that the shooter was a woman, posters discussed that unusual development given that almost all mass shooters are male. When Nashville's police chief repeatedly used female pronouns to describe the shooter who he also said was transgender, several posters interpreted that to mean that shooter has been assigned male at birth and transitioned to female. That provoked some posters to declare that the shooter really was a man. It turned out that the police chief was actually misgendering the shooter who had been assigned female at birth but identified as male. The reaction among some posters to the news that the shooter was transgender can only be described as just short of orgasmic. What had looked to be another wave of calls for gun control could now be refocused on the current conservative pet issue of anti-trans activity. Very little is known about the shooter's gender identity such as how far down that path the individual had progressed, what, if any, type of care had been provided, or even how long the shooter had identified as trans. I would advise everyone to slow down a bit and try not to get ahead of the facts.

Since I took the weekend off from blog posting, today I'll look at the most active threads since Friday. The first of those was titled, "This is getting ridiculous" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. At first glance, this is simply another in a long list of threads complaining about the alleged unfairness of college admissions. The original poster complains that her son — whose stats objectively are impressive — has repeatedly been waitlisted or deferred by top universities to which he has applied to study computer science. What makes this thread somewhat different is its focus on computer science and the substance of the replies. Whereas most threads of this sort tend to get bogged down in self-pity among White males and Asians who are convinced the entire system is rigged against them, the replies in this thread look at other explanations. Many posters point out that computer science is currently very popular and universities have difficulties expanding their programs given the high salaries that potential professors are able to command elsewhere. As a result, there is a supply and demand problem that is resulting in disappointing admissions results for many very qualified candidates. Other responses suggest that the original poster's son might not be as uniquely qualified as she believes and some posters hypothesize that admissions committee members are not sufficiently versed in technology to adquately understand the qualifications of the strongest applicants. Eventually the discussion does turn to the usual trope that equity is causing the best candidates to be rejected. But, by now, forum participants are well-versed in the argument and able to provide solid counter-points. One slightly new twist in this discussion is a debate about whether computer science is a dead end field that will be replaced by artificial intelligence. As is soundly argued in the thread, believing such a thing suggests a significant misunderstanding of the field.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "School punishment" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster explains that her 2nd grade child got in trouble for talking during lunch and will have to eat lunch alone for a day as punishment. The original poster says that her child is well-behaved and this is a first offense. Therefore, the original poster thinks the punishment is inappropriate, she says that her child is very embarrassed by being forced to eat alone, and that prior for leaving for school the child was crying about being punished. The original poster asks what others think. Most posters agree that being forced to eat alone as a result of talking during lunch is an inappropriate punishment. However, most of those advise just accepting the situation and using it as a lesson about how life is not always fair. Many posters are in disbelief that children are supposed to be quiet during lunch and either think this is a ridiculous expectation or that there must be more to the story. The original poster clarified later that the children were told to be quiet for the entire lunch as punishment for being noisy previously. Many posters weighed in with posts that on the surface appeared to be reasonable, but were actually based on a false understanding of events. For instance, many posters accused the original poster of undermining the school's authority, even though the original poster stated several times that she had not contacted the school about the episode and had told her child to accept the punishment. Similarly, the original poster was repeatedly criticized for wanting her child to go unpunished, despite multiple posts by the original poster saying that she fully supported consequences for her child. It was just that she believed that this punishment which singles out her child for humiliation by being put on display eating alone was not appropriate. Quite a few posters focused on the child's reaction which they considered out of proportion to the punishment and wondered if the original poster was feeding the child's reaction with her own concerns.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Same college, same sorority, many of my prettiest sorority sisters did not marry well. Who did?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster has, for whatever reason, gone on a Facebook safari to check the current marriage and socio-economic status of her sorority sisters. Twenty years after graduating, the original poster finds that many of the prettiest women fared poorly in marriage. On the other hand, average looking women who attended "ritzy private day schools and boarding schools" all seem to have married well and been successful in their lives, both financially and personally. She asks, "Is there something to this?" To put it mildly, the original poster's observations were not received warmly. She was accused of being shallow, stuck in 1953, and being on drugs. Some posters pointed out that she really had no idea what was actually going on in someone else's marriage and finances. Others asserted that this was nothing more than wealthy people marrying other wealthy people and, hence, no big surprise. One poster who said she came from a wealthy background explained that social and peer pressure naturally led to what the original poster describes as "good marriages", though the poster was not convinced such arrangements were actually "best" for everyone and recognized that there are multiple paths to happiness. Other posters contributed stories of their own experiences and observations. But, frankly, this thread couldn't keep my interest past the second page. So, I can't comment on anything beyond that point.