The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Why do men still believe that divorce laws favour women?", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster notes that child custody and assets of spouses are split 50/50 during divorce and asks why men still believe that divorce favors women. She says that some men claim that occasionally she reads about men who claim to have lost custody of their children and their house and this is confusing to her. I know next to nothing about divorce laws and, to be honest, that seems to be true of a significant number of posters in this thread as well. Responses seem to reflect anecdotes that posters have heard, in some cases many years ago, partial knowledge, pure speculation, and a limited amount of personal experience. As a result, many of the replies directly contradict each other and, not personally knowing fact from fiction in this case, I have no idea which responses are accurate. Many posters, presumably women, argue that men believe that 50/50 is unfair to them. Others argue that men only lose custody of children in extreme circumstance and, when this happens, they are reluctant to admit their own failures and, therefore, blame unfair courts. Several other posters, presumably men, claim that the presumption of 50/50 division is not true everywhere and, in many cases, women end up with considerably more. Where a big difference of opinion exists, and ironically reinforces both main narratives, is over the issue of who earned the family's income. Several posters note that men often earn more money than women, this is especially the case when the women is a stay at home spouse. Some male posters argue that men work extra hours and make sacrifices to provide for their family and allow their wives to stay home and when those women turn out to be "losers" men are expected to continue working just as hard to provide the women the same lifestyle after divorce. They feel that these women should be required to get jobs and support themselves. Women posters contend that what is missing from such scenarios is the value stay at home wives contribute to their families and the sacrifices that they often make to further their husbands' careers. Other posters list a number of areas in which women are frequently treated unfairly, including wage disparities and professional advancement. But this sort of divisiveness doesn't characterize the entire thread. There are several posts from those who have divorced, split their assets and custody of their children 50/50 and are quite content about the situation.

The second most popular thread over the weekend was the one about Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift that I discussed some time ago. While that thread was started nearly a year ago, it has been continually active and is now over 500 pages in length. I'll skip that one today, though and discuss the next most active thread which was posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. Titled, "Oooops…MIL accidentally left me a voicemail", the original poster says that her mother-in-law accidentally left a voicemail that was meant for the original poster's sister-in-law which contained a snarky comment that seemed to question the original poster's ability to host Thanksgiving dinner. The original poster doesn't feel that the remark was justified and would like an explanation. Almost as soon as this thread was created I started getting reports suggesting that the original poster was a troll. I didn't have time to look into the thread earlier, but this morning I see that the original poster sock puppeted throughout the thread. Often starting responses by saying that she was a new poster and at other times not identifying herself but referring to the original poster in the third person. In all cases, her posts supported the original poster. Moreover, while the original poster claims complete ignorance as to why her mother-in-law might question her hosting abilities, she earlier started a thread about her mother-in-laws' constant criticism of her hosting of earlier Thanksgiving dinners. Therefore, I wouldn't expect a snarky comment about the original poster's ability to host to come as a complete surprise. Frankly, I am doubtful that any of this drama actually happened. But, if you believe that it did, the alleged story is that the original poster's husband called his mother and demanded an explanation. His mother then said that the remark simply referred to the number of people expected to attend and doubt that the original poster would be able to handle that number. The original poster's husband then told his mother than he and the original poster had decided not to host Thanksgiving this year. However, they will attend the dinner wherever it is hosted. Most of the thread is devoted to posters criticizing the original poster and the original poster, in her various personas, defending herself. There are also a number of posts supporting the original poster that she didn't write herself. Many of those advise completely ending shared holidays with her in-laws.

Next was a thread titled, "Is anyone else depressed about MAGA?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says she is depressed by the "uneducated, racist, misogynistic, homophobic citizens of this country", by which she appears to be referring to supporters of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The original poster provides what is a common stereotype of MAGAs, but as those responding immediately point out, the stereotype is far from accurate. Responders point out that many MAGAs are actually educated and financially well off. I have written frequently about the "two realities" that I have seen develop among DCUM posters. One group views Trump as a corrupt, autocratic, ego maniac driven by nothing but self-interest. The other see him as the only person willing to stand up for the common man against the numerous forces aligned against them and as devoting himself to strengthening America. The different realities are fed by partisan media outlets and the tendency of both groups to stay within their own respective bubbles. Divisions between the groups is often severe, frequently resulting in ended friendships and estrangement among family members. As a result, many posters empathize with the original poster saying that they are also depressed that they have lost friendships and seen family relationships strained. It is obvious that the roots of the MAGA movement have been around for years, particularly in the Tea Party movement that arose during the administration of President Barack Obama. My belief is that this movement was less about taxes and more about the resentment of White males over what the viewed as their loss of status. As there were increased efforts to achieve equality for women and racial and ethnic minorities, some White men began to believe that everything was aligned against them. As they say, to those who are used to beneficial treatment, equality feels like a step backward. White men who saw their economic power eroded, their social status downgraded, and a number of social changes that were alien to them, the idea that they maintained any sort of "White privilege" was ludicrous and they resented the suggestion immensely. Men even lost their favored status in higher education as their numbers at elite universities declined in favor of women and minorities. In what were initially extreme cases, individuals turned to conspiracy theories to explain what to them was otherwise inexplicable. With media and leaders more than willing to exploit their fears and resentment, the alienation of these individuals from mainstream society increased. The MAGA movement is really the combination of the Tea Party and QAnon. It is radical conspiracy theory combined with resentment over loss of status. However, not every member of the MAGA movement supports the entire agenda. MAGA is more of a buffet from which adherents pick and choose. For some, the primary issue is immigration which threatens to replace "real" Americans with immigrants. For others, the driving factor is crime, or more likely, the fear of crime. No surprise then that crime committed by immigrants is a huge topic among this crowd and one that is readily exploited by MAGA leaders. Moreover, the idea that a globalist elite (the same group that sends "White jobs" overseas) is importing foreigners who terrorise "real" Americans with crime and will be disciplined supporters of that same elite is a believable theory among a large number of people. It is rare for a MAGA supporter to fit the entire stereotype described by the original poster, but that in no way decreases the division that exists between those adhering to the different realities. That is understandably depressing.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum and titled, "Why do so many SAHMs insist on PTA or activity meetings during the school day?" The original poster complains that whenever she proposes holding meetings in the evening so that she doesn't have to miss work to attend them, stay at home moms object for various reasons. Instead, meetings are held during the day and the original poster wants to know why this is. Several posters respond to say that the explanation should be obvious. When their kids are at school, stay at home moms have free time and can easily attend meetings. Conversely, as many stay at home mom posters explain, one of the reasons they are stay at home moms in the first place is to handle childcare and the evenings are when they tend to be busy. This thread has two separate debates waging throughout it. One is between stay at home moms and working moms. The stay at home moms argue, as previously stated, that the daytime is when they are free to attend meetings. They tend to believe that working parents can simply take time off from work and attend the meetings as well. The working parents ask why the stay at home moms' husbands can't take over childcare once in a while so that the moms can attend evening meetings. No surprise that each group wants to do whatever works best for them and each also thinks the other should have more flexibility. One thing noticeably missing from this discussion is the participation of fathers whose absence seems to be accepted as fact. The second debate is about Parent Teacher Organizations themselves. Some posters don't like the organizations or their activities and, therefore, don't attend any meetings or activities. As such, this entire thread is irrelevent to them. Some avoid the planning meetings but are happy to volunteer as a worker at the events. Others refuse to participate in events for which they were not involved in the planning. Some posters believe that it is the worker role rather than planning that is important while others, some of whom have been involved in planning PTA events, would love to see more of the planning handled by additional volunteers. PTAs have been always been somewhat controversial on DCUM, but I think things have gotten worse recently. I don't think I have previously seen so many posts that simply oppose the entire existence of PTAs. One explanation for this opposition is that they are most successful at schools that are wealthy and, therefore, don't need additional resources. This understanding is not true in the cases of a great number of schools. Moreover, such a belief reveals a lack of understanding of the role of PTAs which goes far beyond simply raising money.