DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Wedding offenses: rank according to badness" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Lately there have been multiple threads about posters objecting to one aspect or another of a wedding. Perhaps inspired by such threads, the original poster of this thread wants to rank items in terms of how "bad" they are considered. Her own list starts with "no kids" weddings and ends with "Weddings of couples who ask for cash". But, I don't know which of those is supposed to be the worst offense. She also lists "No +1 weddings", "Destination weddings", "Dry weddings", and "No open bar weddings". My first reaction when preparing to write about this thread is that I don't like summarizing threads that consist mostly of lists. But, then I noticed that the thread was 17 pages long and I knew there is no way that posters had stuck to the program for that many pages. Sure enough, while the initial responders did  pretty much keep to ranking their wedding peeves as the original poster requested, by the third page posters starting ignoring the rankings and just expressing their opinions about things others had listed. As could be expected, this caused the thread to devolve fairly quickly as others responded to those posts and the thread was overwhelmed by debates about wedding choices. The first poster to deviate from the assigned task of ranking offenses defended the practice of not inviting kids which was one of the leading wedding peeves. This provoked a rebuttal from a poster whose kids are always well-behaved at weddings. Of course everything that was listed as an "offense" had defenders. Otherwise, none of those things would ever be done at weddings. Some posters rejected other's lists completely, supporting every practice that was ranked as an offense. This seems to be a very popular thread but the topic is lost on me. I barely remember any wedding to which I've been, including my own. I couldn't tell you which ones had cash bars or were dry and I've never been to a destination wedding. My list of offenses would probably be "too long", "uncomfortable seats", and "bad music at the reception".

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "why is mrs still a thing" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster noted that several of her children's teachers — of varying ages — prefer to use the title "Mrs.". The original poster thinks this is strange and wonders why they don't prefer "Ms.". On one hand, this is a fairly simple post that should be easily answered. On the other hand, this is DCUM. In a perfect world, posters — particularly those who themselves prefer to use "Mrs." — would respond with explanations for their choice and the original poster would leave the thread more knowledgeable and with a better understanding then she entered. But, sadly, DCUM is far from the perfect world. DCUM in an environment in which posting "I like dogs" will result in responses such as "Why do you hate cats?". Posters rarely answer the question asked, but rather the question that they think you meant to ask, or the question that they would have preferred you to ask. As a result, the post is addressed as part of a culture war. Posters imply that the original poster is being hypocritical because, as a feminist, she should support women's choice. This trend reached the pinnacle of absurdity when the poster who had brought up freedom of choice being a goal of feminism was herself responded to by a poster saying that the point of feminism was to give women a choice. Hello, you both are saying the same thing. Perhaps actually reading posts will result in more appropriate responses? Of course the original poster is not necessarily saying that those who choose "Mrs." should not do so, but just wants to know their reasons for that choice. Unfortunately for the original poster, almost none of the responders offered a reply that would provide such enlightenment. Plenty of posters described their own choice of titles, but not really offering much in the way of explanation for their choices. Other posters simply posted opinions about titles. One poster rejected her family name entirely, including her mother's maiden name, due to concern that the names had been used by male abusers in the past. An off-topic discussion regarding the entomology various words broke out. So, for instance, we were entertained with the history of the word, "hysterical". This discussion also highlighted the increasingly conservative nature of DCUM. I have to say that this is a disappointing trend in my view given the website's original userbase of progressive urban women. Now we have posters who equate choosing to be called "Ms." with being a man-hating, failure who will end up living alone in a cardboard box.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "dominate spouse during game night if you're intellectually superior?". The thread was originally posted in the "Off-Topic" forum but I moved it to the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum where it is more appropriate. The original poster considers himself to be considerably more intelligent than his wife. For the past two months they have been playing a game that involves statistics and math principles. The original poster has been letting his wife win. However, the previous night he decided to play seriously and won all four games they played that evening. This upset his wife and she went to bed in a huff. He wants to know what other couples in which one member is "far more intellectually superior" do about games. One of the reasons that the original poster considers himself much more intelligent than his wife is that he has a graduate degree in engineering while his wife has a degree in political science. As could be expected, the original poster doesn't find a lot of sympathy from those who respond. Some posters focus on the competitive aspects of the question and suggest games that rely more on luck and chance which would probably be more fun for the couple. Others suggested choosing games that were more compatible with his wife's skills. Other posters responded about his attitude towards his wife which they found disappointing, arguing that he was contemptuous of her. Still others addressed the topic of intelligence and arguing that strength in some areas does not necessarily translate into overall intelligence. Moreover, several posters noted that while the original poster might have a high IQ, he was severally challenged when it comes to EQ, with many thinking that EQ was more important. I didn't read much of this thread so I am not sure about everything that was discussed. But one other thing that I did notice were a number of posters who are extremely proud of the Scrabble skills.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Siblings kids not invited to wedding" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that her sister is planing a "weekday, outdoor, daytime, destination wedding" for which children under 18 are not invited. The original poster apparently has two toddlers and one infant who will be 11 months old at the time of the wedding (though she didn't mention the infant in her initial post). Arranging childcare and the difficulties of being away from the infant child who she says she will still be nursing are daunting and she believes there may be an exception for siblings' children. Therefore, she asks how she might bring this up with her sister. Somehow, this thread managed to grow to 17 pages in a day. That activity has little to do with the original poster who only posted twice in addition to her original post. Rather, the first post contained enough red flags to create a frenzy all on its own. First, the description of "destination wedding" gave posters the idea that this involved an exotic island in the Caribbean or something along those lines. Then, it turned out that the "destination" is only a four hour drive away. The fact that the wedding is being held midweek, in the morning, and outdoors struck many as strange and invited significant commentary. Finally, the meaning of "no children" was debated with some arguing that this restriction does not apply to children under the age of one. But the biggest debates involved the original poster's statement that she would still be nursing one child. Before posters realized the child would be 11 months old, several thought that a breastfeeding mom would have a hard time being apart from the baby for the 3 1/2 hours the wedding and reception would take. Some posters argued that this could be resolved by pumping, provoking responses from moms who had difficulty pumping. I haven't read all of the thread, but I don't think a formula vs breastfeeding fight broke out. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Things really took a turn when it was learned that the baby would be 11 months old at the time of the wedding. Many posters were adamant that the baby should be switching to solids by then and being apart for a few hours shouldn't be a problem. In her final post at the time of this writing, the original poster said that her in-laws would stay with the children and she and her husband would make a day trip of the wedding and reception. Despite this resolution, the thread continued for another five pages, so far, with all kinds of personal conflicts between different posters taking place.

The most active thread since my last blog post was the thread about the Big Ten expansion that I discussed last week. Therefore, I'll start with a thread titled, "hahaha Fox is sooo mad about Dark Brandon being turned on them" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster embedded a clip from Fox News in which a group of Fox News hosts view video of President Joe Biden drinking out of a "Dark Brandon" coffee mug. For those of you who have not followed the "Brandon" saga, this began following a NASCAR race in which the winner, Brandon Brown, was being interviewed. The crowd behind him was chanting "[Profanity] Joe Biden!" The interviewer misheard them as saying, "Let's go Brandon". "Let's go Brandon" was then adopted by anti-Biden folks as a non-profane version of the original chant. Biden and his staff eventually embraced the "Brandon" moniker and when "Dark Brandon" memes showing Biden with lasers emanating from his eyes began flooding the Internet, the Biden campaign started selling merchandise with the theme. The anti-Biden folks who once thought that they were clever referring to Biden as "Brandon" have now seen the joke completely turned on them. What the Fox News video highlighted by the original poster shows is how poorly those on the right are reacting to be hoisted on their own petard. Originally, "Let's go Brandon" was a way for the right to "own the libs", or provoke liberals into irrational anger. Now, it is a panel of five Fox News hosts left sputtering in rage — clearly completely owned by the Biden campaign — by a meme they helped inspire. As an aside, I really think that not enough attention has been paid to the fact that Fox News is a 24/7 propaganda network for Republicans. Right-wingers can talk all they want about CNN and MSNBC, but neither network would air a segment anywhere close to this one focused on a Republican. The attacks on Biden by the Fox hosts are personal and vicious and include outright falsehoods. From the network's lies about Seth Rich to the misinformation about Dominion Voting Systems that have cost the Network millions, the Fox News is consistently caught having complete disregard for the facts. Sadly, as many responses in this thread demonstrate, far too many Americans are susceptible and accepting of the indoctrination the network conducts. Nevertheless, it is fascinating that the Biden campaign managed to completely knock the network out of kilter with something as simple as a mug.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If adults kids don’t have kids what’s the point?" and posted in the "Adult Children" forum. The original poster laments that she gave up 22 years of her life for her kids and apparently has no grand children. Therefore, she questions the point of her sacrifice and dreads what he expects to be a lonely, sad life with empty Thanksgiving tables. I am familiar with parents who live their lives vicariously through their children, but this was the first time I can recall encountering this phenomenon with regard to grandchildren. However, since a few other posters agreed with the original poster, I guess it is not uncommon. From these posters' perspective, all that they worked for in their lives was not for themselves, nor even for their children, but for their grandchildren. Without grandchildren, it was all for naught. For some of these posters this is an issue of "keeping their line going". One poster claims to be from an aristocratic family to whom a "line" is very important. On the other hand, some posters mocked the idea of a "line" that had any value. For the original poster's part, I don't think she was all that concerned about her "line". Rather, she seems to view grandchildren as something that would give value to her life. She is not interested in future generations after she's gone, but simply the remaining years of her life. Many posters disagree with the original posters' thinking. They argue that having children is a personal decision that should be done because the parents want the experience of raising children, not as a duty to their own parents. Many are critical of the original poster for not finding other things of value in her life. Almost universally, those posters who expect grandchildren react by threatening not to leave money to their children. More than one poster describes having worked diligently to amass fortunes big or small with the plan to pass them on to grandchildren, but will now find ways to spend the money. Not too many posters find this decision to be problematic and they agree that parents have no obligation to leave inheritances to their children. Generally, I found this thread to be very bizarre and, based on several responses, so did a number of other posters.

The most active thread yesterday was once again the thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, I've already discussed that thread so I will start with a thread titled, "What Schools Do You Consider ‘Prestigious?’" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks what universities people in the DC metropolitan area consider to be prestigious. Ater reading this thread, it occurred to me that this thread would be great research material for both a psychologist and a sociologist. But, sadly, those are both fields that I suspect are terribly unappreciated by the participants in this thread and, as such, any findings by those professionals would be ignored. Nevertheless, of interest to a psychologist would be the original poster himself. The poster's main interest in the thread appears to be to include Duke University among elite colleges. The poster posted multiple lists of schools he believes to be prestigious, always including Duke. The poster then repeatedly sock puppeted responses to his own posts expressing approval of his own lists. The poster would respond to other posters' lists suggeting that entries on their lists be replaced with Duke. The poster also posted standalone posts arguing that Duke was an elite school. At one point the poster favorably compared Duke to Stanford University. I am not sure if "delusions of grandeur" would be the correct diagnosis here, but probably not too far off. A second participant in the thread with whom a psychologist might be intrigued is a poster whose obsessions is with "ALDC" applicants. That refers to "recruited athletes, legacies, those on the Dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff", or those who are often granted advantages in college admissions. This poster posted at least 20 times in the thread, almost always either mentioning "ALDC" or replying to posts that did. The poster seems to consider "ALDC" synonymous with "rich white people" and implies that they are academically weak relative to other students. The poster also argues that the entire concept of "prestigious" universities is an effort by rich white people to make themselves feel good. The poster writes off entire universities due to their perceived popularity with ALDC students and dismisses certain majors as being the choices of ALDC admits. A sociologist might be interested in how this thread illustrates the decreased lack of esteem in which DCUM posters seem to hold traditional liberal arts educations. There is an argument throughout the thread about whether Yale University should be included among elite colleges, apparently due to its perceived weakness in STEM fields. Traditional liberal arts majors such as English are downplayed, even if taken at Harvard. Poster after poster suggests greater prestige for schools with strong STEM programs rather than those that have strong liberal arts offerings.

The most active thread yesterday was a thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump. Since I've already discussed that thread, I'll go on to the next most active thread which was titled, "Etiquette re landscapers taking their lunch break on my front lawn" and posted in the "Lawn and Garden" forum. I believe that this is the first appearance of a thread from this forum in the most active list. The original poster explains that she has landscapers come weekly to mow her lawn. She is very happy with both the cost and performance of the service. However, often the crew members take lunch just before or after working on her lawn. They lounge around on the ground under a cherry tree in her front yard. They don't leave any trash or cause problems of any kind. Nevertheless, this bothers the original poster. However, she is concerned that complaining will cause problems of some sort and wants to know what others think about the situation. DCUM posters rarely are unanimous in their responses, but in this thread they are very close. Overwhelmingly, posters are appalled that the original poster is upset by this behavior. I don't think more than 2 posters sided with the original poster. The rest considered the original poster to be, at best, unfamiliar with American customs (the original poster described being an immigrant) or, at worst, being a horrible monster. Just about everyone said they would have no problem with the landscapers eating lunch in their yards in this manner. Several said that they routinely offer drinks in similar situations and some even invite workers to sit on their porches or other more comfortable seating. Given the near universal reaction, one would have thought that the original poster would quickly accept that she was wrong. But, no. Instead, the original poster rejected any post that wasn't supportive of her — at one point clearly saying that only the supportive posts were "decent". This attitude further enraged those responding who doubled down on their opinion that the original poster is a terrible person. Any attempt by the original poster to defend herself or offer additional clarification only seemed to make things worse. At the rate things are going, there is a fairly good chance that the original poster will enter the pantheon of DCUM folklore legends  beside Pinecone Mom and Lightly Fried Tuna Lady.

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."