DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was one I've already discussed about the presidential election poll numbers. I'll skip that one and start with a thread titled, "I’m breadwinner, dh asked me to help with side hustle", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster and her husband are both attorneys. However, the original poster's husband lost his job several years ago and, while he currently works full time, he is severely underemployed. For these many years, the original poster has been the family's breadwinner, earning almost twice as much as her husband. However, during that time the original poster has also acted as the default parent, dealing with the bulk of the parenting tasks. This has understandably stretched her pretty thin and, in a moment of having too much to do and not enough time to do it, she lost patience with her husband. The original poster revealed her resentment about not having a full partner and feeling like the only adult in the home. A week after this, the original poster's husband approached her about a side gig opportunity in which he is interested. However, he said that because he is not very organized, he would like the original poster to participate and handle the organizing. The original poster lost her patience, not believing that after describing how she is overwhelmed her husband would approach her with the idea of adding more work to her plate. The original poster wants to know who is right or wrong in this issue. What is going on here seems pretty clear to me. Early in their relationship, the original poster's husband out-earned her. That justified to both of them that the original poster should undertake the responsibilities of the default parent. In a better world, they would have shared responsibilities more evenly even then. But many families don't live in such a better world and the original poster's situation is not unusual. Problems began when the couple's salary disparity reversed but their responsibilities didn't. Not only does the original poster's husband show no interest in correcting the current imbalance, but he actually wants to make things worse. No wonder the original poster is resentful. As clear as this seems to me, the vast majority of the responses in this thread are really disappointing. A good portion of the responses appear to be from women who may well be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They argue that the original poster and her husband should be a team and that the original poster should support her husband with his new venture. This ignores that the couple has not hitherto acted as a team and that the original poster's husband's concept of a team is him as captain and the original poster as team manager. Another large portion of the responses are from misogynist males who believe that it is unquestionably the original poster's duty to attend to parenting tasks and that she should fully support her husband by helping with his new business. Intermixed are a number of responses from posters who are trying to be helpful by suggesting strategies for the original poster to deal with her husband. Many of these seem to infantilize the man, something that I don't think is either required or appropriate. Eventually the thread more or less turned into a battle between wives who do everything and like it and those who want equal partnerships.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sooo am I just the best parent ever or are the others complete duds?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster is very proud of herself because she just completed a 3 hour flight with her preschool and elementary school-aged children. She had packed lots of games and engaged her children constantly during the flight. Meanwhile she noticed that other kids on the airplane were all using iPads while their parents used their phones. The original poster feels she is superior to the other parents because she used the travel time for talking and engaging with her kids while the other parents did not. The original poster did not post again until the 13th page of the thread at which point she criticized DCUM posters as "screen-addicted parents with screen-addicted kids". In terms of the replies, one of the posters responding basically did my job for me by writing a lengthy post that described the types of replies the thread received. I'll just crib some points from that post. As the poster noted, there was not agreement among posters about what constituted "good parenting". Many posters considered that good parenting was determined by how little their children bothered other passengers. In this regard, providing a child with a iPad and headphones is great parenting if it keeps the child quiet and still during the flight. Other posters, including the original poster, based their judgement on what they believed to be best for the child. But members of this group were not in complete agreement with each other because there were differences of opinion about what was best for the child. The original poster believes that engagement with a parent is best while others have different ideas, including the suggestion that using an iPad might be best. Another group of posters prioritized what is best for the parent. Because travelling can be stressful and parents, especially moms, are expected to not only plan and pack for themselves, but the children as well, the plane ride may be the only time parents will have to relex and de-stress. An iPad can help distract the kids while the parents have a break. The bottom line is that almost all posters beyond the original poster and a very few others view children using iPads on airplanes as potentially good parenting, rather than bad as the original poster believes. This includes posters whose families are "screen-free" in most other circumstances, but make allowances for air travel. As you would expect, there are plenty of posts that are critical of the original poster who is considered "judgemental", a "troll", and someone who likely has parenting failures as well and probably shouldn't be so smug. More than one poster noted that for all of her criticism of screens and screen-addicted adults, the original poster was using a screen to post on DCUM and appeared to be quite familiar with the website, suggesting frequent screen use. But, I'm sure the original poster can quit at any time.

The two most active threads over the weekend were threads that I've already discussed. Therefore, I will start with the third most active thread which was titled, "Just got yelled at for leaving my kid alone in in the car while I went to the pharmacy" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she had to run into the pharmacy and her 7-year-old son didn't want to come in, even after the original poster had tried tempting him. Therefore, she left him alone in the car with the car running. When she returned about 10 minutes later, a security guard began yelling at her, saying that she could not leave her child in the car until he is a teenager. The security guard also questioned the original poster's son. The original poster wants to know if it is really a crime to leave her son alone in the car for 10 minutes. Whether or not leaving the child in the car is a crime depends on state and local laws. One responder says that in Maryland children must be at least 8 years old to be left alone in the car. Another poster copy and pasted regulations for DC, MD, and VA. DC law requires children to be 10 years old to be left alone. However, in Virginia it is only illegal to leave children 4 years old or younger alone. Because the original poster said that this happened in Virginia, her actions were apparently legal. Many posters agreed with the original poster that leaving her son alone for 10 minutes was okay, but they were concerned about the car being left running. One fear was of carjackers. That concern is not without merit as a huge number of carjacked cars in the region seem to have kids in them. Other posters worried about the child accidentally doing something to the car that could be dangerous, such as putting it in gear. Those concerns aside, many posters fully supported leaving an unattended child in the car for a brief time. But that opinion was far from universal. Many other posters considered the original poster's actions to have been "lazy" parenting and poor judgement. In addition to the concerns about the running car, these posters had other objections. For instance, the original poster may have been expecting to take only 10 minutes but could have been delayed and taken considerably longer. Several posters acknowledged the dangers of leaving an unattended child alone in a car, but admitted doing so nevertheless. They had found themselves in difficult situations with no good options and decided that briefly leaving their child alone was the least bad choice. Other posters seem to take pride in leaving their kids alone in the car, feeling that any objections were a result of overly-protective parenting. On the other hand, regardless of the wisdom or legality of leaving children alone in the car, some posters were most bothered that the original poster didn't simply tell her son he had to come with her and not allow him a choice. They saw that as her parenting failure.

I'm skipping yesterday's two most active threads because they are ones that I've already discussed. The third most active thread yesterday was titled, "Bible verse card at work", and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she is a public school teacher and that yesterday every teacher received a sealed envelope in their school mailbox containing a personalized Bible verse signed by a local church. The original poster is very upset and believes that the school secretary must have been involved in allowing the envelopes to be distributed. The original poster considers this an unacceptable intrusion of religion into a secular space. Responses can be categorized as three different types. There are many posters who think the Bible verses were harmless and many of these posters consider sending the verses to have been a nice gesture. This group believes the original poster is wrong to feel offended. Next are posters who agree with the original poster that distributing Bible verses in public school teachers' mailboxes is inappropriate. But they simply don't consider it to be a big enough deal to be upset about. They would have tossed the envelopes in the trash and not given them a second thought. Third were those posters who both agree with the original poster that the envelopes were inappropriate and that their distribution was worthy of a response. The original poster said that she had talked to her principal and emailed the church, steps that are consistent with the advice offered by other posters. Other public school teachers posted about the intrusion of religion into their schools. This includes prayers during meetings at which attendance is required and the reading of Bible verses at staff functions. Many posters argue that this is not only an unwelcome violation of the separation of church and state, but potentially an illegal one as well. Those who support the Church in this episode argue that it is simply the Church's right of free speech to distribute the Bible verses. What is particularly notable about this group is what I can only describe as their passive aggressive methods of practicing Christianity. The thread is full of such things as offers to "pray for" the original poster that are clearly not meant to be true offers to help the original poster in anyway. Rather, these are clearly attempts to further poke her. In addition, as several posters point out, it is very likely that the same posters who so adamantly claim support for the 1st Amendment that would be among the first to support banning books that offend them. Moreover, these folks have a very specific understanding of the 1st Amendment. Even if we disregard the establishment clause issues of distributing Bible verses at a public school, many of the supporters of that action don't seem to recognize a similar free expression right to oppose the activity. If we accept that a church can send teachers Bible verses, certainly we must also agree that a teacher has a right to vocally oppose the church's action. But many among the pro-Church crowd consider that to be intolerant and, because liberals are supposed to be tolerant, hypocritical (they also assume the original poster is a liberal).

Once again yesterday the most active thread was the one about the Democratic National Convention and, once again, I will skip the thread because I've already discussed it. After that, the most active thread was titled, "MIT releases post-affirmative action class of 2028 data" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article reporting on admissions results at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the first highly-selective university to release statistics regarding the composition of its freshmen class since the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited using race as a factor in college admissions. The topic of race and admissions has been the subject of many lengthy and heated discussions in DCUM's college forum. The results at MIT were almost exactly what critics of race-based admissions had predicted. The number of Asian applicants admitted increased while the number of Black and Hispanic students decreased. Both the NYT article and posters in the thread noted that the MIT results defied expectations by some that universities would use information gleaned from student essays to advantage Black and Hispanic students as a way around the Supreme Court restrictions. MIT, at least, does not appear to have done this. Posters in the thread described that sort of work-around as "cheating" and the Times article suggested that schools that engaged in the practice might expose themselves to legal action. Still, colleges seem to want to recruit diverse student bodies. Even Sally Kornbluth, MIT's president, seemed to lament the loss of diversity in a quote reported in the Times article. However, the MIT data would seem to present a significant roadblock to maintaining diversity. By being the first out of the gate, MIT's results set the benchmark by which other universities will be judged. If the admissions statistics of other top universities do not show similar drops in Black and Hispanic admissions, the schools will be accused of having "cheated". While many of the posts in this thread mention "Asians" and make broad generalizations about them, what comes across if you are paying attention is the significant diversity in that community. On the one hand are Asians who, despite the MIT results showing increased admissions of Asians, seem to feel that everything is stacked against them and, as a minority, they are prejudiced against. On the other hand are posters who seem to believe that the MIT results show that Asians will soon dominate. As one poster writes, "in 10-20 years most of these institutions will be led by Asian Americans." But, in the middle are Asian posters who value diversity and are not thrilled with the MIT results. Given that the term "Asian" encapsulates both east and south Asians, we might want to begin using other designations. China and India are the world's two most populous countries. That's a lot of people to identify by a single label. This issue is a topic of dispute in the thread. The missing element from the MIT data is the demographics of those who applied. Apparently, MIT did not collect that information. There seems to be general agreement among posters that the vast majority of applicants to elite schools have the academic qualifications required and are separated by other factors. Therefore, a drop in the number of Black and Hispanic applicants might explain their drop in admissions. It would also be interesting to see if those groups have higher or lower rejection rates. But we simply don't have those numbers.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the Democratic National Convention which had a big night last night. But since I have already discussed that thread, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "To my husband’s work AP", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster writes an open letter to her husband's affair partner who works with the original poster's husband. The original poster tells the affair partner that after working with her husband for so long, she should know that the man can be sloppy. As a result, he didn't cover his tracks regarding the affair very well and the original poster found out about it. Now, the original poster warns, she plans to tell the affair partner's husband about the affair. The original poster seems to take considerable delight regarding the problems that this wil cause in the affair partner's family. This thread is a bit of a mystery. The original poster sock puppeted throughout the thread, repeatedly offering support for herself. In one post, she alluded to earlier threads which she posted on this topic and I did find an earlier thread that is mostly consistent with this one. While I initially thought that the "open letter" format used by the original poster was just a stylistic technique, later in the thread the original poster demonstrated that she truly believes that the affair partner has not only been reading, but participating in the discussion. The original poster posted several messages in response to posts she believed were from the affair partner. As if to confirm the original poster's suspicions, another poster responded to say that she was the affair partner and because she and her husband have an open relationship, her husband would not be bothered by the original poster's revelations. The original poster did not immediately buy what this poster was saying and asked for evidence that the poster really was her husband's affair partner. The original poster has not posted on DCUM since then and the evidence has not been provided by the other poster, who I believe was trolling in any case. That is all to say that I am not sure what to make of this thread. On the one hand, the original poster may be a troll with a flair for the dramatic, being trolled by another poster who also enjoys drama. On the other hand, the original poster could be a slightly deranged, revenge-seeking, obsessive who probably should not be left alone near bunny rabbits and pots of boiling water. I am not sure which alternative is preferable. Frankly, it is not clear to me that most of those reading the thread care whether it is true or not since they are enjoying the drama so much. A few even managed to sleuth out one of the original poster's earlier threads. At this point the original poster might have legitimate concerns that one or more of those involved — assuming the story is true — might be identified.

Yesterday was another day in which politics dominated discussion. Over half of the ten most active topics were political, including the top four that I will discuss toda. The first of those was titled, "2024 Democratic National Convention" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started Saturday in advance of yesterday's opening day of the Democratic National Convention. The original poster appears to be a Republican who asked if anyone was planning to attend the convention and then quickly turned to expectation setting by suggesting that the DNC might get a bigger audience than the Republican National Convention because the RNC was held while everyone was on vacation. It is clear to anyone that enthusiasm and momentum have clearly switched to the Democrats since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the presidential nominee. That even Republicans understand this is evident from the preemptive excuse-making of the original poster and the apocalyptic tone of many of the Republican posts. For instance, one MAGA poster claimed that the DNC would be "watched for decades to come as the death of democracy in America". The thread was 10 pages long before the convention even got started as posters debated whatever political issue crossed their minds. I have long since given up that any thread in the political forum will stay on topic for longer than a few posts. In this thread, posters were debating Harris' anti-price gouging position and Doritos, both of which have their own threads. Once things finally got started, the thread settled into a routine of each side trying to spin events as much as possible. There have been expectations of large, possibly violent, protests against Israel's war in Gaza. As it turned out, the number of protesters was smaller than expected. Police had erected several rows of fences to contain the protesters and, while protesters broke through one row at one point, things remained under control and there was no real violence. That didn't stop some posters from fixating on the protests and doing their best to blow them out of proportion. On the other hand were posters who attempted to minimize the authentic anger aroused by Biden's complete and total support for Israel while it kills tens of thousands of Palestinians, blaming the protests on Iran. With regard to the speeches, things were much the same. Conservative posters found many things about which to complain while liberals were full of praise. Much of the discussion revolved around Biden and his stepping down from the race. Many posters, most of whom were probably Republicans, claimed that there was something irregular about Harris replacing Biden at the top of the ticket. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has been referring to this as a coup and some of his supporters in this thread followed suit. Several posters asserted that nobody had voted for Harris and, therefore, her accession to presidential nominee was anti-Democratic. Factually, due to the peculiarities of the American political system, voters in the primary elections actually select delegates rather than an actual candidate. The majority of the delegates elected were pledged to Biden. When he stepped down, however, Biden asked his delegates to support Harris. Those delegates were free to support any candidate of their choice, but most chose to support Harris. There is nothing anti-Democratic about this, particularly since Harris was Biden's running mate in the first place.

The most active thread on DCUM over the weekend was titled, "Price gouging as her first policy announcement? Really?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Some days I feel like there is practically a contest on DCUM to see who can post the most uninformed post. Today is one of those days and this thread is one of those threads. A corollary to this is a widespread desire to be contrarian as if that automatically bestows some sort of intelligence on the poster. It doesn't. The original poster of this thread transgresses in both of these ways, at least in my opinion (admittedly, completely worthless). The original poster's primary point in her post is to question why Vice President Harris chose price gouging as her first major policy announcement and to argue that such a policy is unnecessary and brings back memories of 1970s price controls. As the very first response in this thread points out, this is not Harris' first major policy announcement. She had already announced plans for the national protection of reproductive health and support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Second, the original poster clearly knew nothing about Harris' proposal and, therefore, was misleading in her post. However, had the original poster made an effort to inform herself before posting, she might have some lingering confusion for which she could be forgiven. Harris did not exactly announce a policy but rather a plan to develop a policy. Her announcement promised the development of "clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries." She also committed to authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to “impose strict new penalties” on companies that price gouge. Harris would also address anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions that cause grocery price increases. Because none of the details of these initiatives were announced, a lot of exactly what Harris will do is unknown. But, nothing Harris outlined suggested that there would be price controls. Moreover, several states have existing anti-price gouging laws and don't impose price controls. Many of those responding are supportive of Harris, noting that posters have been complaining about inflation generally and grocery prices specifically for months. Now Harris is promising to address those concerns. The MAGA reaction is as expected. They accuse Harris of being a communist. There is literally no policy that Harris could announce which would not cause MAGA posters to claim that she is a communist. Somewhere in the middle were those who oppose former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and would like to support Harris, but are opposed to this initiative. Some of them claim to be professional economists. What I have noticed over the past few years is that mainstream economists have adopted a fairly conservative view of economics. For instance, the acclaimed Lawrence Summers repeatedly argued that unemployment would have to reach 10% in order to control inflation. President Joe Biden somehow managed to get inflation under control while keeping unemployment at historic lows. I normally respect expertise. But, professionals in two specialities, weather forecasting and economics, really seem to be wrong more than they are right. I no longer have much faith in either one.

Yesterday's most active discussion was titled, "JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I am sure that by now everyone has heard about the controversy involving Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and the Olympics. But for anyone who has been locked away in a cave, here is a summary. Khelif was identified at birth as a female, raised as a female, and has competed in boxing as a female for several years. After she defeated a Russian boxer, the Russian President of the International Boxing Association, Umar Kremlev, claimed that tests showed that she has XY chromosomes and, therefore, is a man. Kremlev disqualified Khelif, along with Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu Ting, from competition. Notably, Kremlev has not revealed which tests were conducted or who conducted them. Nor have the results other than his general statement been provided. The International Olympic Committee has suspended relations with the IBA and rejects its findings regarding Khelif and Lin. It is important to remember that allegations that Khelif has XY chromosomes and tested high in testosterone come only from Kremlev and have not been confirmed otherwise. While many posters in this thread assume Kremlev's allegations are true, that remains an open question. Regardless, Khelif's participation in the Olympics led to a wave of on-line hate and bigotry towards her. Some prominent individuals, including J. K. Rowling and Elon Musk, joined in and encouraged those attacks. In response, Khelif has filed a complaint in French courts accusing those two and others of cyberbullying. The original poster of this thread is doubtful that successful legal action would do anything to temper Rowling's attacks on women who do not conform to her own rigid gender norms, but is happy that Rowling may at least suffer financial repercussions.

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