The Most Active Threads Since My Last Post

I've missed a few days with this blog due to the holidays keeping me busy. So, today I'll catch up by reviewing the most active threads since my last post on Thursday of last week. During that time, the most active thread was the Gaza war thread which I've already discussed. Following that was a thread titled, "50/50 split of assets with SAHM" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster asks whether it is fair for a stay-at-home-mom who is divorcing after 20 years of marriage to receive 50% of the couple's assets. The original poster, who appears to be the husband in this scenario, believes this is not justified. I immediately noticed two things about this thread: 1) the original poster had engaged in a considerable amount of sock puppeting and; 2) he has an extremely dismal view of stay-at-home-moms. His first response in the thread — in which, of course, he did not identify himself as the original poster — claimed that the wife shouldn't receive a significant amount of money for being lazy and sitting on her [bottom] for 17 years. His next post, which was directed to the original poster, argued that in a non-community property state the wife might not get anything. He then posted that the wife had done "nothing to earn this money," Next he claimed that they were in New York state which is not a community property state and that he hoped to keep her share below 30% of their assets. After one more sock puppeted post in which the original poster claimed that the original poster clearly had a reason to hate his wife, he abandoned the thread. Nevertheless, the thread continued for another 23 pages. I haven't read many of those pages, but it looks like the thread deteriorated into a debate about the value of a stay-at-home moms. Some see these parents, much like the the original poster, as lazy do-nothings. Others take the conventional argument in opposition to that position and explain the work that stay-at-home moms normally perform. In addition, some posters contend that for many high-earning men such as the original poster claims to be a stay-at-home mom is required to both enable the man to engage in the intense work environment and ensure that his children are raised by at least one parent. As such, the wife is not only a contributor of household work and childrearing, but an important component of her husband's success.

Next was a thread in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "JMU vs. Colby". The original poster says that her child has received offers from both James Madison University and Colby College which would allow the student to play their sport. Recognizing that the colleges are very different from one another, the original poster is interested in the impressions DCUM posters have of the schools. The problem, as if often the case in such threads, is that posters can only offer their own opinion and, without further information about the student, nobody knows which may be the better fit. As such, posters can do little more than reinforce what the original poter already knows — the schools are very different. Probably the only misconception by the original poster that others can correct involves the spread of the school's reputations. The original poster seems to be under the impression that JMU is more widely known than Colby. Posters argue that is only true within Virginia and outside of the state, Colby may be more widely known. Both schools have fans and detractors and those posters engage in considerable debate. Much of the thread is taken up by arguments between these groups. There were frequent claims that posters were trolling and a number of posts in this thread were reported to me. The obvious point is that the schools present two very different opportunities. The original poster's child likely has interests that align more with one than the other. But, the original poster resolutely avoids shedding any light on what those interests might be. Instead, the original poster appears to be completely fixated on the reputations of the schools. But, those reputations depend on what is being considered — for instance sports versus academics — and the audience. Depending on the circumstances, an argument can be made in favor of either school having the better reputation.

Following that thread was a thread titled, "VA Tech Releasing Some Decisions at 5 pm Today" and also posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her daughter received an email from Virginia Tech saying that students will be notified at 5:00 pm about their admissions results. She further describes the details of a student who was accepted that I assumed was the original poster's child. This post was made at 5:10 pm and I was somewhat surprised that the poster would rush to DCUM so quickly to report her child's results. In a follow-up post, the original poster says that her daughter did not receive an email, which seems to contradict the original post. But, as best I can tell, her daughter did receive the initial email saying that results would begin being released at 5:00, but did not receive an admissions email. Rather, a friend of the original poster's child received the second email. Regardless of the original poster's circumstances, other posters soon began reporting their children's results with several being admitted. There is considerable confusion about the ramifications of receiving the first email but not a second. Some posters consider this a prelude to a rejection while others quote from the original email to argue that this is not the case. What appears to be happening is that results for Early Action admissions are being rolled out in batches with all results to be reported by late February. Regular Decision results will continue after that until mid-March. What is not clear is whether the results being announced now include Regular Decision results. Posters are confused and upset by what they consider to be a convoluted process. Most of the thread is actually devoted to complaints and other discussion about the two emails. In some cases, applicants claim not to have received either communication. Some posters seem to understand the process and believe that it is sensible, but they seem to be in the minority. As usual with Virginia Tech threads, a poster disrupts things by bringing up race and alleged advantages racial minorities have in admissions. Also, the poster who is obsessed with "yield protection" makes an appearance to explain things, attributing the process to, of course, yield protection.

Next was a thread that I've already discussed about the court decision in Colorado to keep former President Donald Trump off the presidential primary ballot. I'll skip that one and, instead, discuss a thread posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum titled, "DH wants to do ivf to pick gender of baby". The original poster says that she and her husband have two girls but that her husband has always wanted a boy. In order to determine the sex of a third baby, the original poster's husband wants to use in vitro fertilization to select for sex. The original poster is somewhat uncomfortable with this idea. The original poster's husband's desire is a result of a long-held "father son fantasy". For the most part, posters are not on board with this idea. Several warn about the impact of IVF on the original poster's body and argue that she will bare the brunt of the difficulties while her husband will get off easy. This, of course, is also true of natural pregnancy. Other posters warn that even if the couple does have a son, nothing will guarantee that the son will have the interests that the original poster's husband expects. There are many testimonials from posters who have athletic husbands but have children who are not athletic. Further, several posters argue that some fertility clinics will not offer IVF for the purpose of sex selection. Other posters argue against the entire idea of having a gender preference. They argue that the original poster's husband could engage in the same activities with daughters that he can with a son and that gender preferences are outdated. Finally, several posters argue that even IVF might not guarantee a male baby if the only viable embryos are girls. This topic has several different aspects, all of which are contentious, and therefore is ripe for controversy. Currently at 11 pages, the thread probably has a long life ahead of it.