Thursday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed so I will start with the third most active thread which was titled, "Are there really men whose dream it is to have their wife not need to work?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that in a podcast episode the female host's husband joined and revealed that it had been his dream that his wife would not have to work but could if that were her choice. The original poster is very impressed by this attitude and asks where she can find a man like this one. Those responding take different approaches to this topic. Some posters take the original poster's question at face value and provide advice about how she can find this sort of guy. Others discuss the desirability, or lack thereof, of becoming a stay-at-home wife. With regard to the first, posters generally emphasize that it is important to find such men when they are young. Guys who are desirable and have the financial wherewithal to support a stay at home wife will either be taken quickly or be players who are not interested in commitment. One poster claims that the best place to meet them is graduate school. While at its heart this thread is a really a discussion of stay-at-home-moms versus work-out-of-the-house-moms, the thread has a much different flavor than most of this genre. The thread has a higher level of discourse than would normally be expected of the topic. Many of the responses are by posters recounting their own personal experiences. A significant number of those posters describe being heavily influenced by their own parents' situations. A factor of importance to the original poster that was overlooked in many responses was that the relationship she admires provides the woman the choice to work. Several of those responding agreed that this was key to such relationships. Some posters expressed concern about relationships in which a husband opposed his wife getting a job, considering it his duty to provide for his family. Posters warned that such men often enjoyed the power and control this provides them. Similarly, several posters expressed concerns that a woman who does not work can be left in difficult circumstances in the case of divorce or if her husband is unable to work due to health or accident. But posters frequently saw many benefits to having a stay at home parent which, several posters mentioned, could be a father as well as a mother. Several described this arrangement making their lives considerably easier and much less stressful. One poster argued that interdependence in which each spouse is dependent on the other leads to stronger relationships than independence of each spouse. He didn't view his stay-at-home wife as being dependent upon him anymore than he is dependent on her. But some others weren't necessarily buying this with one arguing that his wife would be homeless without his income.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum and titled, "How do I tell her I don’t want to buy dinner?". When I saw this title I thought the thread would be about a guy not wanting to buy a woman dinner and wondered why it hadn't been posted in the relationship forum. But, it is not about that at all. Instead, as the original poster explains, her son has a friend with whom he participates in a group activity. After that activity, the original poster often takes her son to dinner and the friend often asks to come along. The original poster is fine with him coming and is happy to pay for his meal. Recently, however, the friend has also been ordering food to bring home for his family, saying that his mother asked him to do this in order to be fair to his siblings. He suggested that she would be angry if he didn't. The original poster doesn't really want to pay for the additional food but doesn't know how to handle this without either causing the friend to get in trouble at home or to be forced to stop coming to dinner with them. Most of those responding suggest that the original poster either stop inviting the friend to dinner — something that her post made clear she is reluctant to do — or just say "no" to the extra food, something she is also reluctant to do. As such, much of the advice was not particularly helpful. One poster suggested preparing a care basket of food for the friend to take home, an idea that was roundly panned by other posters. Some posters suggested going ahead and paying for the extra food based on the possibility that the family is food insecure. To make this more affordable, some posters suggested inviting the friend less often. A similar idea was to order cheaper food items for him to take home and one poster who has been in a similar situation said that she went to a fast food drive through to get less expensive meals to be taken home. A number of posters suggested talking to the mother directly with many of those advising to ask her to pay for the extra meals. But other posters thought that this would embarrass the mother who would then take it out on the kid. Posters proposed instead just meeting the mother which might give more insight into their home situation. The main difference of opinion in the thread was between those who thought that either the mother or the friend is taking advantage of the original poster and those who were more interested in protecting the friend from potential abuse. Members of the first group repeatedly emphasized that resources are available to ensure that the friend's family doesn't go hungry. Those in the second group were less concerned that the family could starve if the original poster didn't help out than they were that the mother would punish the friend in some way. For her part, the original poster doesn't seem to have posted again so I have no idea how the discussion has or has not influenced her.

Next was a thread titled, "Why are people Republican?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster provocatively asks what happened to Republicans to make them want to hurt others so much. From my vantage point, and apparently from the original poster's as well, it is indisputable that many Republican policies have been based on cruelty. Whether it is separating babies from their parents at the border, preventing women from receiving adequate healthcare, supporting brutal policing methods, or purposely dropping off migrants in far away places without adequate clothing or coordination with local authorities, Republicans routinely adopt policies that cause unnecessary suffering. In response, some posters, likely Republican, criticized the original poster's framing of the post and suggested that he is not interested in a serious discussion. Others ignored his point about hurting others and simply attempted to explain why people become Republicans. Some posters argued that this is most often due to the influence of parents, others identified issues such as guns or lower taxes with which they align with Republicans, and some attempted deeper responses by recommending books to read. What emerges from the Republican responses that offer anything of substance is a perception of the state of the country in which people's lives have been disrupted by forces outside their control. This may be a lose of jobs due to foreign outsourcing of labor, destruction of communities as factories close and small retailers are wiped out by big box retailers, or the influx of drugs and struggles with addiction. In addition, culture war topics such as trangender youth, abortion, and immigration loom large and are blamed on overreaching by the federal government. What is ironic about the economic issues described is that, almost universally, Democrats are more likely to support solutions. It is the Republican-aligned Walmart that has wiped out all other retail in small towns across the country. President Joe Biden and the Democrats are the proponents of reinvestment in American manufacturing. Democratic-aligned unions are at the forefront of improving the lives of working men and women. Former President and current cult leader Donald Trump is credited with implementing tariffs that supposedly protected American jobs. But, I have seen little evidence that the tariffs did anything beyond causing price increases which were passed on to the very people about whom Republicans claim to care. As for the cruelty, the Republican posters simply refuse to acknowledge it. For that matter, even non-Republican posters have difficulty addressing this issue. It is far more common for those responding, regardless of their political affiliations, to criticize the original poster for asking such a mean-spirited question than to actually address the substance about which he is asking.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Titled, "DH called DD a ‘fat ugly pig’", the original poster expands upon her title by saying that after her daughter refused to change out of her "short/cropped clothes" into something more appropriate, her husband called the girl a "fat ugly pig". The daughter cried, the original poster is furious, and her husband refuses to apologize. I will say right off that there is something very strange about this poster. Just four days ago she posted about her daughter's father having died two years ago. Obviously, the original poster's husband might not be her daughter's father, but this poster has also started threads identifying herself as a high schooler. The poster appears to have started multiple threads a week, mostly concentrating on problems with a girl whose age can range anywhere from 12 to 17. The subjects are a litany of teenage angst, so possibly the poster is a high schooler. Within the thread the original poster sock puppeted once and made a number of posts that were ambiguous about her identity. Not the worse case of trolling I've seen, obviously, but enough to make me think this thread might not be entirely legitimate. As for the responses, basically nobody thinks the father acted correctly. Some posters thought the context of the girl disobeying created room for some leniency about his transgression, however. Of course, this thread being in the DCUM relationship forum, there were multiple suggestions of divorce. Some posters took issue with the original poster's subsequent clarification that her daughter is not fat because they thought this meant that it would be okay call an overweight child a "fat ugly pig". Many posters commiserated, describing the impact they themselves had suffered from being called similar things. Some posters suggested that the original poster's daughter would never get over the insult or, at a minimum, would require therapy. Other posters called this overly-dramatic.