The Most Active Thread Since Friday

The three most active threads over the weekend were ones that I have discussed before and will therefore skip today. That means that I will be starting with what was actually the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Why do parents have such an issue with DEIB" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. I was aware that Diversity, Equity, and inclusion or DEI initiatives had become a popular bugaboo in certain quarters, in many cases replacing Critical Race Theory, or CRT, as the root of all evil, but I was hitherto unfamiliar with the additional "B". Some quick Googling revealed that the "B" is for "belonging" and that "DEIB" is a popular alternative to "DEI". The original poster of this thread suggests that many parents have misconceptions of what is involved with DEIB and that she never sees assignments of the sort that others claim are prompted by DEIB. She says that she knows of parents who claim to be basing school choices on the avoidance of DEIB and wants to know why they are so threatened by it. This is the sort of discussion that can go one of two ways on DCUM. Because DCUM's users, especially in the private school forum, tend to be highly-educated, experienced, and, might I say, worldly, there could be a nuanced, sophisticated, and intelligent discusion. But, this is a polarizing topic and the discussion could be one that reflects simplistic and overly-generalized arguments that are often based on stereotypes or false impressions. Because the smart move would be to avoid this type of discussion in the first place, there are more posts from the second category than the first. In very broad strokes, the extreme positions in this thread are, on one hand, that any one who opposes DEIB is a racist and, on the other hand, that White people are tired of being called racists and, therefore, don't like DEIB. A more nuanced example was a post suggesting that an emphasis on race and gender ignores other important social divisions, particularly those involving class. While affinity groups for Black or LGBTQ groups are embraced, one poster wondered how parents would react to "a ‘working class’ affinity group in the schools? Particularly one in which teachers shared their experiences of their salaries and what it’s actually like to teach the children of the upper class?" Many of the criticisms of DEIB seem to of the sort described by the original poster and demonstrate a misunderstanding of DEIB. Throughout the thread posters make claims about DEIB but then, when asked, are unable to provide specific examples. Several posters say that they support the goals of DEIB but that efforts have "gone too far". One dilemma with which I see posters struggling is how to reconcile often conflicting values. For instance, affinity groups can be both important support mechanisms for groups that don't align with the majority, but also divisive factors that hinder unity and cohesion. This thread also attracted a couple of posters who seem to perennially argue about DEI, DEIB, wokeness, and so on.

Next was a thread that was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "WAMU going under?", the thread was started after news leaked about an email sent to all staff of local radio station WAMU. The email said that the office would be closed the next day with operations automated so that all staff could attend a Zoom meeting to discuss a new strategic direction for the station. Many interpreted this message as "ominous" and likely suggested staff cuts were in the making. In many ways, the reaction to this story was similar to the DEIB discussion above. Many posters complained that WAMU had adopted an "agenda" that was overly concentrated on race and gender. They suggested that this alleged agenda had alienated listeners and "advertisers" (a strange claim to make about a non-commercial radio station). Once news about the changes became available, it was clear that the title of this thread was overly alarmist and WAMU is in no danger of going under. Instead, the announcement was that 15 staff members would be let go and DCist, the local news website that WAMU purchased after its previous owner shut it down, would be shuttered. In addition WAMU would increase its focus "around audio and live experiences". The closing of DCist led to considerable concern that this would negatively impact local news coverage. Local news has already been hit with layoffs among the Washington Post's Metro team and struggles among other local news outlets. But, other posters argued that DCist and WAMU had brought this upon themselves by not delivering a product that attracts readers. My personal perspective is that regardless of what they say, most people are really not that interested in serious news coverage. Or, at least not only serious news coverage. I suspect that there might be more New York Times subscribers who are interested in its cooking section or crossword puzzles than hard news. This was the issue with DCist. By trying to be "serious", it was also seen as "boring". Moreover, as many posters in the thread pointed out, DCist had closed its comment section which was popular with regular readers. My understanding is that DCist encountered the same issue that we face at DCUM and that other local blogs and even the Reddit subreddit devoted to DC have faced. There is tremendous demand for discussions about crime but those discussions almost inevitably turn racist. The amount of moderation required by such discussions is often unsustainable and, as a result, fewer outlets are allowing comments about crime. The unfortunate reality is that if DCist had published story after story about crime and highlighted the involvement of Black men and undocumented migrants, it would probably be quite successful. While DCist's demise is sad and unwelcome news, at least they didn't choose that path.

The next most active thread was titled, "Dear MILs" and is currently in the "Family Relationships" forum. The thread was originally posted elsewhere but I moved it this morning. The original poster has written a lengthy open letter to, apparently, mothers-in-law everywhere on behalf of the daughters-in-law of America. The letter lists a number of grievances that the original poster seems to believe are universal among daughters-in-law. These include mothers-in-law getting involved with matters of their sons' families that are not their business and blaming their daughters-in-law for choices made by their sons. My first impression of this thread was that it is a litteral waste of space. Poster after poster copied and pasted the original poster's 10 paragraph letter, only changing the signature at the bottom of it. Then, the original poster quoted each of those posts and added a one sentence question. As a result, the first page of the thread may be one of the longest pages in DCUM history. As if things could not get more bizarre, a "mother of a young boy" chose to write her own letter to daughters-in-law. The gist of that letter was that daughters-in-law should suck it, the mother was going to look out for her son. This poster, who showed every sign of being an overbearing mother, described her concern that her son would marry an overbearing woman. When questioned, the original poster indicated that the provocation for her letter was a visit by her mother-in-law after which the mother-in-law called her son and asked why he looked so tired. This seemed to send the original poster over the edge. It also turned out that the original poster is very worn out due to being a first-time mom of a young child. This can be a stressful period and she appears to be overreacting to her mother-in-law. Much of the discussion then turned to addressing what is causing her to be so tired. A number of posters worried that the original poster might be experiencing some sort of postpartum depression. In contrast to the animosity between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law, one mother-in-law wrote about her "lovely" daughters-in-law and stated her view that daughters-in-law should be treated like members of the family with equal importance to the sons. This view was also reinforced by other posters. The thread sort of bounced back and forth between posts discussing the original poster's specific situation and posts addressing mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships more generally. A significant number of posters identifying themselves as daughters-in-law fully or mostly agreed with the original poster's letter. So while the original poster might not have been successful at speaking for all daughters-in-law in America, she apparently spoke for a number of them.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Women whose partner's make enough for them to stay home, why do you prefer working?", the original poster says that after she had a child she found balancing childcare, home keeping, and work too exhausting and, since her husband was much more successful she quit her job. She says that she knows women married to high-earning men who continue to work even after having multiple children. She wonders "how can they do it all?" This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on DCUM. The answers in this thread are pretty much the same as the responses in all the previous threads. Women have a variety of reasons for continuing to work. Some like their jobs and find them fulfilling. Others want to maintain financial independence. In some cases, the husbands contribute to child-rearing and housekeeping and make balancing everything more achievable. But, more often than not, a high-earning couple can afford to simply outsource a significant number of tasks. They hire nannies, house cleaners, and maybe even a cook. To some extent, this thread turned into a fairly run of the mill stay-at-home-mom vs work-out-of-the-house mom debate with posters from each camp justifying their choice. But, more often than not, posters stressed that there is no correct answer to which choice is better. This is a personal decision that is dependent on specific circumstances, priorities, and goals. Some posters argue that they are simply blessed with outstanding management skills and are able to balance parenthood and employment. Others argue that regardless of those posters' abilities, something has to give and one thing or another must be getting the short end of the stick. Still, many of the same old tropes are voiced. For instance, one poster claimed that "Big career = kids who are not properly parented". Conversely, posters suggested that stay-at-home-moms don't contribute to society, may be less intelligent, and are boring. In the end, much of this comes down to identity and self-perception. Several posters stated that they wanted identities beyond being a wife and a mother. Others suggested that those were their primary identities and how they valued seeing themselves.