Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Some days are just déjà vu all over again. As was the case earlier this week, the top two most active threads were the Hunter Biden pardon thread and the soccer league age bracket change thread. Skipping those, the next most active thread was titled, "How to know a college is safe for POC" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is also a bit of déjà vu since similar threads come up regularly. The original poster says that her son is interested in a top liberal arts college but, according to the Common Data Set, only 22 Black students out of a class of 436 were accepted during the last cycle. Her son was hoping to find a community and is very discouraged by these numbers. The original poster asks whether they should just "throw in the towel". Threads such as this always attract posters who appear offended that the topic was even brought up. They normally call the original poster a troll and suggest that the poster is making things up. I deleted posts of that sort from this thread and the remaining posts were generally very helpful (or at least seemed to be from my point of view — I can't speak for the original poster). The replies generally fall into two different camps. One is the "don't give up on the school" camp. Posters in that group urge the original poster to contact current students at the school and try to hear their experiences firsthand. They argue that simple numbers don't reveal the entire story. These posters suggest contacting any Black-student affinity groups that might exist on campus or the admissions office to arrange video calls with current students. The college in question later turned out to be Pomona College and one poster in the thread has a child attending the school now. That child is a person of color, though not Black. Still, the poster was able to provide links to many helpful resources and describe her child's experience at the school. The second camp consists of posters who argue that there are better options than Pomona. They suggest universities instead of liberal arts colleges. Suggestions include Duke University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. The original poster said that her son was not interested in historically Black colleges and universities, but posters kept suggesting them. Some posters struggled to understand the vast spectrum of colleges that exist between one with 22 Black students and an HBCU, leading to some vitriolic exchanges. Many posters suggested that the original poster's son has very competitive statistics and would likely have opportunities at many top colleges or universities. However, those colleges also tend to have smaller Black communities. Therefore, this presents a struggle between a better school or a larger Black community. Despite the few bitter posts that I removed, most of the posts in this thread were quite supportive of the original poster and her son. One of the nicest, I thought, was posted by a poster of Korean heritage who described her desire to find a Korean community at college and chose a university accordingly. She attributed much of her success in college to that community.

The next three most active threads were ones that I've already discussed, leading me to a thread in the "Political Discussion" forum titled, "Who is more responsible for this Democrat train wreck". This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a weird post. The original poster has a strange fixation on the Democratic National Committee or DNC. The original poster also appears to struggle with grammar, writing "Democrat train wreck" instead of the grammatically correct "Democratic train wreck". The original poster blames the DNC for "anointing" former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 and for doing the same with President Joe Biden in 2020. The original poster seems to blame Biden for choosing Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement when he dropped out of the campaign, but also blames the DNC for going along with it. In this regard, the original poster holds the DNC responsible for losing two of the last three elections. However, the original poster then turns his sights on Biden, blaming him for attempting to run again. But, most of all, the original poster is upset about the pardon offered to Hunter Biden. The original poster concludes by saying, "the Biden name should be banned from the Democratic Party for life." Frankly, I am not exactly sure what that means. Regardless, the original poster seems to have an exaggerated understanding of the DNC's power. As much as the group might like to, it doesn't have the power to "anoint" candidates. If it did, I wonder why the original poster's concerns only go back to 2016? Wouldn't the DNC also have chosen Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? I have previously used the expression, "victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan." An addendum is that defeat also has a hundred scapegoats. In answer to the question of who is to blame, posters have plenty of answers. The original poster suggests two: the DNC and Biden. In the responses, several posters blame "the American people" who were the ones that actually cast the votes. Many blame progressives who they accuse of being too focused on "woke" issues. In contrast, other posters blame centrist Democrats who refused to accommodate Arab and Muslim Americans and, instead, provided unconditional support for Israel. Discussions such as these are problematic on DCUM because they really should be held internally by Democrats. MAGA posters are disruptive at best. But the inclusion of MAGA posters does serve to highlight the "two realities" about which I often write. In this thread, there is a poster blaming Biden's lack of aggression in pursuing legal actions against President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and other figures, including the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, another poster claims that the Democrats’ "over-the-top pursuit of him [Trump] through the courts" contributed to making Trump more popular. This provides another opportunity for one of my gripes. When one side says Biden didn't go far enough and the other side says he went too far, Biden himself might be tempted to say that is evidence that he got it just right. For its part, the media is likely to report that "both sides" are critical of Biden as if each complaint were equally legitimate. But what does the evidence suggest? The evidence actually shows that Attorney General Merrick Garland moved about as expeditiously as was possible in pursuing legal charges against Trump and others involved in the January 6th insurrection. Whatever hesitation was involved was primarily due to trying to avoid appearing to be pursuing political motives. Therefore, I don't think either of those critiques has a sound basis. But, it was Biden who got it right, but rather Garland.

Next was a thread titled, "How are you preparing your DD to protect herself?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her daughter is 14 years old and likely at an age where she will begin experiencing unwanted sexual advances similar to those the original poster describes as being "relentless" when she was younger. The original poster has been teaching situational awareness and plans to enroll her daughter in a self-defense class. But she wonders how to teach about the vigilance needed without making all men appear as predators. Many of those responding are teaching their daughters the same things that the original poster is teaching hers. Some emphasize that not all guys are bad, but there are enough bad ones that girls and women must remain aware. Common advice is not to drink too much at parties so that they can get away from trouble and to keep an eye on their friends (who should also be watching them). Also, the mothers are teaching their daughters that it is okay to be rude in such circumstances. Surprisingly, quite a few posters responded to say that they had never been harassed and that they thought the original poster was overreacting. This led to a discussion of what might encourage harassment. Posters tended to agree that a woman's conventional attractiveness did not play much of a role. Women who said that they were pretty had never been harassed and some who said that their looks were nothing special had been harassed repeatedly. One poster even suggested that, as a less attractive woman, she was actually harassed more based on the apparent belief of some men that she would more likely welcome the attention. Similarly, while some posters thought the way a woman dressed might be related to the amount of harassment from which she suffered, others denied such a connection. Some posters suggested that it had more to do with the men to which women are exposed, suggesting that those who had not been harassed had been sheltered from men who might bother them. The claims by those who said that they had never been harassed led to a large number of posters listing their experiences. The impact of sexual harassment was also reported as being of much varying degrees. Some posters said that they didn't even realize that they were being sexually harassed at the time. Others said they realized it, but did not consider it to be a big deal. For others, the harassment had a fairly significant effect. This variety of experiences and reactions understandably plays a big role in how the mothers are addressing this topic with the daughters. Those who suffered more are being much more proactive in preparing their daughters. Some posters responded to explain how they are dealing with this topic with their sons. One poster says that she is teaching her son that "anything other than an enthusiastic yes is an automatic no." There is also some general discussion about sexual harassment. One poster, probably male, suggested that unless a woman says "no" it is safe to assume that she has consented. Another poster strongly argued that the default should be "no" and, unless consent is explicitly given, it should not be assumed.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "‘The Dating Cultural Norm That's Making Everyone Unhappy’", the original poster says that the thread's title is the headline of an Op-Ed in the New York Times. It appears that the headline changed since this thread was created, and the current headline is "How Our Messed-Up Dating Culture Leads to Loneliness, Anger, and Donald Trump". The original poster leaves out the article's focus on President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, which was probably a good decision. The point of the article is that we have grown up with the idea that men should earn more than the women they marry. But for decades now, women have exceeded men in both college admissions and graduation rates. There are now more college-educated women in the workforce than men. The result is that women are increasingly financially self-sufficient, and there is now much less economic incentive for women to marry. They can be picky about partners now in a way that they might not have been in earlier times. Moreover, their incomes often exceed those of many otherwise eligible men. This has left a shrinking pool of desirable men that women chase after and a larger group of men who struggle to find romantic prospects. Men and women both have become pessimistic about romance. I have read the central points of this Op-Ed in so many DCUM threads that I could easily have written the article myself. I have no idea how much of what the article says actually lines up with reality, but anecdotally and based on DCUM posts, it does accurately reflect the current dating market. Online dating seems to have magnified the trend. I've never used online dating services — my dating ended almost 30 years ago — but from what I read, users set filters to limit exposure to only those who meet their requirements. For the small number of users who meet the desired metrics, life is pretty good. For the rest, not so much. While the Op-Ed concentrates on the importance of money, I think the more important factor here is power. As one of my high school teachers used to say, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Income is really a proxy for power in the context of this article. The author hints at that by saying that men are increasingly emasculated. Our traditional patriarchal view of families is that the father is in charge. His job is not only to provide for the family, but also to protect and, ultimately, to be the final arbiter of justice. When men are no longer the ones "paying the piper", they are also no longer in a position to "call the tune." There are two ways to react to this and, again based simply on my observances, both seem to be happening. One is to attempt to return to the past. We see such efforts in such things as the "tradwife" movement and ideas promoted in certain quarters of the Internet. The other is to develop new ideas about the role of men. Many posters describe having successful husbands who, for one reason or another, found themselves out of work. They took over housework and childcare and performed phenomenally. Such men should not be derided as "beta males", but nor should they necessarily be glamorized as somehow exceptional. Rather, in an ideal society, this would simply be seen as normal. When power within a family is shared, income becomes less important. What difference does it make which partner makes the most money if authority is equal? The sooner we reach the point when "manly-men" wash dishes, change diapers, and take their children to the doctor and — more importantly — power and authority is shared, income will become less of an issue in dating. That will open more options for both men and women.