Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Once again several of the most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed and will skip today. As a result, just as was the case over the past two days, I am starting with what was actually yesterday's fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "HoCo dresses- Could they be any shorter" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. At first I assumed that residents of Howard County have been wearing especially short dresses for some reason. Later I deduced that the thread's title actually referred to homecoming dresses. I am used to DCUM's annual tradition of bashing girls' high school prom fashion choices, but I guess that this is now going to be a twice a year event. The original poster writes that the dresses "literally couldn't be any shorter or tighter". But that was said last year and will be said again next year. Therefore, I can comfortably predict that they can, in fact, get shorter and tighter. I find this sort of thread to be especially tedious. There is no better way to make yourself sound old and out of touch than by complaining about what "the kids today" are wearing. Making some old foggy clutch her pearls is basically a rite of passage for high school kids. As one poster wrote, "It is the God-given duty of teenagers to wear/do/say things that are shocking to their elders. I’m sure the prehistoric cave parents stood around and clucked about the appalling trends in mastodon skins." There is rarely anything new in these threads. This one, just as all the others before it, has posters who agree with the original poster that nobody should be allowed out of the house dressed in such a manner. Others tell the original poster to mind her own business. Still others defend the dress choices. Some posters cloak their disapproval in notions of practicality, arguing that the dresses are uncomfortable and make bending over difficult. Others suggest that regardless of the propriety of wearing such clothing, many of the girls don't have the body type necessary for the dresses. A number of posters complained about being "forced" to look at girls' private parts. In response, a poster says, "I have no idea what those posters talking about private parts are on about. They sound like internet perverts." A popular tactic was to compare the attire to that worn by prostitutes. This seems to especially raise the hackles of those supportive of the girls. Parents of girls who dress in such styles argue that this is not a battle worth fighting and question why others care about it so much. One poster asks, "why do the choices of unrelated teen girls get people so furious?" Another issue that posters bring up is that only girls' clothing is policed in such a manner while the boys are ignored. This is excused by a poster who suggests that it is because boys aren't the ones showing up "mostly naked". Some of the anti-short-dress crowd suggest that girls dress in such a manner because they lack self-esteem. In response, some posters who support allowing girls to dress however they want suggest that it is actually those posters who are offended by the dresses who have issues. As one poster responded to them, "You also have serious hang ups with sexuality. Yours and, weirdly, other peoples. And you’re beyond strange [because] of it".

Yesterday's next most active thread was another about which I've already written and will, therefore, skip. After that was a thread posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Harris' 60 Minutes interview". One of the threads that I discussed yesterday was about upcoming media appearances by Vice President Kamala Harris. One of those was an interview with the CBS program "60 Minutes". This thread was created after that interview aired and the original poster asked others how they thought that she did and whether any minds were changed because of it. I have not watched the interview and, therefore, don't have my own opinion about it. I can't say that this thread was not very helpful in informing me about how things went either. I am not sure that many of those replying actually watched the interview, or perhaps limited their viewing to a few clips. Of course those opposed to Harris didn't see anything positive about the interview. They claim that she didn't answer the questions, that she didn't demonstrate competence, and that she was overly wordy. From the few clips I've seen, the last complaint might be accurate. But I am not sure that is actually a bad thing. Harris seems to have a habit of trying to be accurate but diplomatic. So while a direct blunt answer might suffice, she spends a lot of time dancing around trying to put together a response that doesn't offend anyone but still is technically correct. This can be annoying, but there is nothing really wrong with it. One thing that this thread does do is highlight the completely different standards to which Harris and former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump are being held. Trump, for his part, refused to do a similar interview with "60 Minutes". Whatever complaints posters might have had about Harris' speaking ability, she at least has a coherence to which Trump can't come close. She may try to evade questions or avoid answering them, but she doesn't simply spew a stream of lies as Trump does. Those responding also had diametrically opposed perceptions of the interview. For instance, one poster complained that Harris had not provided "real answers" regarding either Israel or Ukraine. In response, a poster summarized Harris' answers on those topics which seemed pretty real to me. The first poster's only response to that was to say that it was more of the same ineffectual policy. There were complaints from both sides that "60 Minutes" had heavily edited the interview. Supporters of the Vice President thought that Harris should have been allowed to speak without constant edits while critics of Harris complained that the editing protected her. Conservatives in the thread also argued — and seem to support with some evidence — that CBS edited the interview to remove a response by Harris that had been criticized and replaced it with a completely different response. I've learned not to trust conservatives, even when they appear to have video evidence, but based on what has been presented this looks like a very questionable action by the network.

Again, the next two threads were ones that I've already discussed. Therefore, the next thread was actually yesterday's ninth most active. Titled, "DS's friend called me a ‘tiger mom’- should I say something?", the thread was posted in the Tweens and Teens forum. The original poster says that both she and her husband are half-Korean and Korean culture plays a big role in their household. Her son has a friend who is not Asian and has periodically made statements that the original poster considers somewhat racist. But she has let those slide. However, she was dropping this friend off at home after a playdate at her house and the friend asked about another playdate on a specific day. The original poster explained that her son had a violin lesson and tutoring that day so a playdate would not be possible. The friend then spoke to her son saying that his mom is a "tiger mom". The original poster is quite offended but didn't say anything at the time. Now she is wondering if it is appropriate to say something to the friend's mother. There are a variety of responses to the original poster, many of which reflect attitudes that appear quite frequently in various threads. Some posters agree with the original poster and don't think speaking to the friend's mother would be out of line. Several understand why the original poster would have been upset by the comment and think saying something to the friend at the time would have been appropriate, but they don't necessarily agree with speaking with the mother now. Several posters argue that the friend was correct and that the original poster is a "tiger mom". One argument that is made in the responses, and which definitely seems to be true from what I've read in several discussions, is that while "tiger mom" started out specifically referring to a type of Asian mom — not all Asian moms, but many — it is now used without respect to race, culture, or ethnicity. These days, these posters argue, "tiger mom" simply refers to any mom who heavily schedules her children or "type A" moms who are gunning for Ivy League admissions. Therefore, these posters argue, the original poster should not consider the remark to be racist. Other posters do think the remark was racist and, moreover, they are upset with what they perceive as casual racism against Asians that is accepted or ignored. As is sadly usual on DCUM, many posters ignore the main point and fixate on marginal issues. For instance, several posters criticize the original poster for responding to the friend's question about a playdate, arguing that her son is old enough to answer for himself. One thought that I had is that violin lessons and tutoring are not really enough to demonstrate that someone is a "tiger mom". My own kids have had instrument lessons and tutoring but nobody would ever, under any circumstances, suggest that either me or my wife are tiger parents. Absent any further information showing that the original poster is really a "tiger mom", I have a hard time believing that her ethnicity is not playing a big role in other's perceptions that she is a "tiger mom".

The last thread that I will discuss today was actually the tenth most active thread yesterday. Posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "‘My friends warned me not to marry a white woman’", the original poster says that she is White and married to a Latino man. They have struggled over the division of domestic labor and they agreed to try the "Fair Play" system which uses cards indicating various household tasks. The cards are supposed to be divided between the couple. While the original poster and her husband were going through the cards, her husband got frustrated and said, "my friends warned me not to marry a white woman because they don’t clean!" While the original poster let it go at the time because they were in a public restaurant and she didn't want to make a scene, it really bothered her. Now she wants to know whether she should be upset by this. The DCUM relationship forum being the DCUM relationship forum, it can be expected that the original poster would be advised to divorce. That suggestion came in the first reply and in several others afterwards. The original poster is reluctant to get divorced because they have children. Some posters suggest that the original poster stop working and become a stay-at-home mom. The original poster doesn't like this suggestion either because she likes working and loves her job. Several poster are concerned about raising children with a role model such as her husband. However, many posters doubt that the original poster's husband will ever change. In follow-up posts the original poster indicates that her husband has also been making other prejudicial statements about White people and that she is has not been sure how to respond. Some posters advise ways that she can respond that, hopefully at least, won't make things worse. A number of posters note that the original poster's husband is consistent with the stereotype of Latino men. White women who are married to Latino men agree that the stereotype is generally correct but that they knew that going into their marriages and are comfortable with it. Along these lines, the original poster is subject to considerable criticism for not knowing what she was getting into. Somewhat surprisingly, a poster claiming to be a Latino man posted who also agreed that the common stereotype of Latino men is correct and that he himself would not want to do any housework. I am not sure that I have ever seen a thread in which almost everyone agreed that a stereotype was accurate. I am sure there is a Latino man out there who loves housework who will weigh in to object. There is some discussion about standards of living in other countries and how that creates situations were household help is very affordable or older relatives are around to help, both of which can resolve conflicts such as the original poster is having with her husband. But those situations don't apply in this case. In the end, I am not sure that the original poster received much in the way of assistance.