DCUM Weblog

Since I took the weekend off from blogging, today I'll cover the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "US Census Bureau: White Women More Likely Than Black Women to Move Up Income Ladder Due to Differences in Partnering" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a new analysis of census data that shows that white women tend to be partnered more often than non-white woman and that white women are more likely to attain upward mobility through partnerships. The bottom line of the data presented by the original poster is that white women tend to partner more often and when they do, they partner with a higher-earners. This perhaps explains the countless threads that we see in the relationship forum about finding a wealthy husband and so on. Those responding generally don't disagree that this is the reality. As one poster writes, "I'm a black woman. At my first job out of college three white women took me under their wings and made sure I understood how to marry up. It worked." Other posters attempted to offer explanations for this situation or to suggest ways to address it. Unfortunately, as with most threads dealing with race, racists came out of the woodwork to make their tired cliched tropes. As a result, I have had to remove a number of posts. This thread went all over the place as it seemed to give license to posters to demonstrate their personal biases. Somehow immigration, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and Kanye West all were either demonstrated or discussed. I will probably have to lock this thread soon. Because the value of partnering seems to be generally accepted by most posters, much of the thread is focused on relationship issues. But, personally, I think this misses the main point which is that women tend not to attain upper mobility through their own efforts, but through partnering with a higher-earner. This may well be the reality, but it is an unfortunate one. Rather than focusing on why Black women have difficulty marrying high earners, why not address the need to partner in order to get ahead? Shouldn't any woman, regardless of race, be able to achieve upper mobility through her own hard work and intelligence rather than relying on a partner? To be sure, there are posts that take this view and, as a result, address the structural obstacles to female advancement. Hence, about birth control and abortion.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "CVS Sangamore" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster provided a link to a video filmed within the CVS store located on Sangamore Street in Bethesda showing a man stuffing a bag full of items pulled from the stores's shelves. Behind him, another man casually exits the store carrying a similar fully-loaded bag over his shoulder before the first thief follows him out. The video documents one of several similar robberies that have targeted CVS stores in DC and Bethesda recently. Some of the stores have been robbed multiple times in recent days. The original poster and most of those replying want something to be done about these robberies. But, posters can't agree on who is to blame. The most popular targets for criticism are "liberals" who are allegedly soft on crime, are accused of defunding the police, and said to have ordered the police to stand down. Other posters point out that it took police 45 minutes to respond to the robbery and blame the police for not doing their jobs. The police are defended by posters who argue that it is a low-paying job in which the risk/reward balance often discourages officers from acting. One poster is intent on blaming Amazon and eBay, posting an excerpt from an article reporting that organized groups orchestrate these robberies and resell the stolen goods on online marketplaces He wants them to crack down on the sales. Posters warn that if these robberies continue, the stores will close. The point to recent store closings in San Francisco which has become a sort of poster child for conservatives.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dooce /Heather Armstrong" and was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Armstrong was one of the original "mommy bloggers", posting under the name "Dooce". She tragically died by suicide yesterday. This thread is currently eleven pages long which would be significant on its own, but a separate thread about her was also started and reached six pages before I locked it. I know very little about Armstrong and what I do know is limited to my brief interactions to remove inappropriate posts in threads about her that were occasionally posted on DCUM. As might be expected, posters familiar with Dooce posted about their surprise and sadness regarding the news. There is considerable discussion of her very personal and revealing blog. We have an informal but generally consistently-applied rule about criticizing individuals for the first 48 hours after their death. Because so much of Armstrong's life was apparently public, I had a hard time trying to draw a line between posts that were simply describing her life and those that were inappropriately negative. But, the thread was eventually growing so fast that I couldn't keep up in any case. As a result, the thread is likely very much out of compliance with our guidelines. The few times that I was able to read a few pages of this thread, I noticed that discussion had less to do with Dooce specifically, but more with "mommy bloggers" and others who lead their lives so publicly. In addition, there is considerable discussion of the "Get Off My Internets" website or GOMI. I also know about this website solely through earlier threads about Dooce and based only on that very limited knowledge, it appears that GOMI is basically devoted fulltime to critiquing bloggers and that Dooce was one of their favorite targets. As a result, there is considerable criticism of GOMI in this thread for potentially contributing to the blogger's mental health issues. While probably not appropriate for this thread, there is an interesting conversation to be held regarding discussion and criticism of those who willingly lead their lives very publicly. What boundaries should be observed with regard to those who themselves adhere to few boundaries?

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "WaPo: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough.". The thread was originally posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, but since the thread is not specific to MCPS, I moved it to the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in The Washington Post discussing efforts by schools to combat the usage of mobile phones in school by students. Mobile phone usage has apparently increased dramatically following the pandemic. The article describes a $16 pouch in which some schools are requiring students to store their phones during school hours, provoking the original poster to criticize the article as an "advertisement" for spending money instead of setting and enforcing rules. However, the article also discusses schools that have forgone the pouches and set and enforced the rules that the orignal poster advocates. The first poster to respond suggests that an effective intervention that only costs $16 per kid would be the cheapest solution yet. My main takeaway from this thread is that, perhaps as a result of their own mobile phone addictions, participants in the thread had a difficult time staying on topic. Within the first four posts, the discussion was switched to talking about textbooks. Then posters turned to talking about the use of Chromebooks and on-line learning. Just to be clear, the Post article is about students using phones while they are supposed to be either studying or listening to their teachers. The phones are not being used as part of the learning process. They certainly are not replacing textbooks or school-issued Chromebooks for that matter. Those topics are interesting and worthy of their own threads, but not relevant to this one. Posters who oppose mobile phone use during class suggest that not only are students distracted themselves by their phones, but they distract others in the class as well. Moreover, the phone are frequently used to cheat. A surprising number of posters were in favor of kids having their phones in class. One poster argued that it was the teachers' fault for not making lessons interesting if kids were distracted by their phones. Quite a few posters joined the original poster in advocating for strictly-enforced policies about mobile phone usage, but others argued that it should not be part teachers' jobs to enforce this and that it could place them in legal or physical danger given that teachers have been either sued or beaten for taking mobile phone away. Another surprising theme of some replies was to claim that mobile phones are analogous to comic books or rock music as things that "the olds" thought were ruining the youth but weren't. I think those type of replies missed the point. To my knowledge, reading comic books or listening to rock music during class, much like using mobile phones, is not considered a problem because it is going to corrupt our youth, but because it is interfering with children's education.

The two most active threads yesterday have already been discussed, so I'll start with what was actually the third most active thread yesterday. Titled, "Algebra 2 is currently offered at TPMS" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, this is quite a bizarre thread. The best way that I can think of to convey the essence of this thread is to transport us all back to the time of my youth when I would occasionally stay up late to watch the "The Twilight Zone", the original not the remakes. Imagine the voice of Rod Stirling introducing an episode as you read this. So, come with me, if you will, to the Twilight Zone. For the last several days a poster has revived several old threads in the MCPS schools forum in order to highlight old posts about the math class offerings in various MCPS schools. The argument this poster is trying to make is that Algebra 2 is only offered at "a few wealthy schools" and either implying or explicitly claiming (I'm not sure which) that Algebra 2 is not offered at Takoma Park Middle School. This thread was created in response to that poster to assure everyone that Algebra 2 is indeed being offered by TPMS. Yes, dear readers, this is what resulted in the third most active thread yesterday. The very first response is from the poster who has been reviving all the threads, who simultaneously claims that Algebra 2 is only being offered at Frost Middle School and that TPMS does offer the class, albeit reluctantly. I'm not sure how both of these claims can be true, but the poster goes on to repeat this contradictory argument multiple times. The poster, who also has a bad habit of replying to their own posts, would ultimately end up posting 42 times in this 11 page thread. Not that they are obsessed or anything. I can't fully immerse myself in this particular twilight zone and haven't read all of the pages. But, from what I understand, some MCPS elementary schools offer a class called AIM. I have no idea what that stands for, but the class seems to be some sort of advanced math that prepares students for algebra. Many of the students who complete this class naturally want to continue into algebra and, eventually, algebra 2. Therefore, TPMS provides a class to meet this demand. Apparently, students who did not take AIM in elementary school are not able to take algebra 2, presumably because they lack the prerequisites. Depending on your point of view, this is either a huge travesty of justice that represents the gross inequities plaguing MCPS or a completely normal and acceptable arrangement. Basically, this debate went around and around until I eventually locked the thread. Yes, I had to lock a thread about Algebra 2. It truly is the Twilight Zone.

As has been my habit, I didn't post on this blog over the weekend. Therefore, today I'll discuss the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "UK Coronation" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Obviously, this thread is about the coronation of King Charles III. At 34 pages, you would think that this thread would have covered just about everything, but you would be sadly mistaken. There is a second 12-page thread in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum focused on the fashion of the coronation. That thread was the 8th most active over the weekend. I don't have a lot to say about either of these threads. They are too long to read now and I haven't been interested in reading them beforehand. My only interaction was a result of posts from each thread being reported. The most common reason for reports was due to the threads going off-topic into discussions of royal drama, especially involving Meghan Markle who didn't even attend the coronation. I also managed to avoid most news or discussion about the coronation on TV or social media and, frankly, I'd like to keep it that way. As a result, other than my knowledge that there is nothing that will prevent some people from discussing Meghan Markle, I know very little about the event. I'm sure that any DCUMer with even a passing interest in the British Royal Family has already perused the threads, but if you have such an interest and have not already indulged, we have 46 mostly Meghan-free pages at your disposal.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The thread is about the killing of Jordan Neely, an unhoused individual who suffered severe distress while on a New York City subway train. According to witness reports, Neely was shouting that he had no food or water and that he was willing to go to jail to obtain them. A passenger on the train, identified in some press reports as former marine Daniel Penny, placed Neely in a chokehold and held him until Neely died. The New York City medical examiner has ruled the death a homicide. Penny was taken into custody by the police and then released without charges. The original poster of the thread is understandably appalled by this killing of a man who does not appear to have been presenting a danger to anyone. But, if there is one thing that I have learned from DCUM, it is that there is virtually no killing of a black man that some posters will not rush to justify. As such, posters were quick to defend Neely's killing. Indeed the very first response claimed, with no evidence, that "he was dangerous and needed to be subdued" and "Why wouldn't someone understand that?" To be clear, there are both posters like the original poster who do not think that the killing was justified and posters who are fully behind it, like the first poster to respond. From reading the posts, I see the merging of two separate trends in our society. On one hand, the theory of "stand your ground" has morphed from what I believe was its original intent of being the right to defend yourself from a clear and present danger to a justification to kill basically anyone who you perceive as a threat. So, essentially, "I felt threatened" has become a justification for murder even if a realistic threat did not exist. On the other hand, unhoused individuals have become increasingly visible, especially in cities, since the COVID pandemic. Many of these individuals suffer from mental health problems and, occasionally, some of them are violent. The result seems to be in the public's mind that unhoused people are ipso facto a threat. The convergence of these ideas is that many DCUM posters — and indeed many members of the public at large — seem to believe that it is perfectly okay to kill an unhoused individual who is simply being a nuisance.

Despite the college admissions season mostly coming to a close, college admissions topics are not going to disappear. Two separate college admissions topics were among the most active threads yesterday. I've been thinking about this because so many college topics come up in these blog posts and it occurred to me that, since DCUM is now over 20 years old, most of our original members have children of college-age or older. I don't think younger parents are as interested in forum discussions and, instead, spend their time on TikTok and Instagram. So, I think we have fewer posters interested in discussing newborn issues and more who want to talk about colleges. As a side note, I suspect that we are getting close to having, if we have not already had, second-generation DCUMers with posters who are the children of DCUM posters now becoming parents.

Yesterday I finally locked the transgender athletes thread that has been the most active thread for several days. Even so, it tied for the top spot yesterday. The other top thread was titled, "Met Gala 2023" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. As you can surmise, the thread was about the Met Gala. There is not a lot for me to say about this thread. I know very little about the event and have no opinions about it. The thread itself is mostly a series of pictures showing exotically dressed celebrities with posters raving about how good they look. I have not read much of this thread but it seems that those responding appreciated everything they saw. The one notable exception that I came across was Brittany Mahomes, a former professional soccer player and founder of the Kansas City Current professional women's soccer team. The fitness entrepreneur, who is married to NFL Quarterback Patrick Mahomes, was criticized both personally and for her choice of dress. But most of those mentioned in the thread received postitive reviews. If this sort of thing interests you, there are 18 pages for your viewing pleasure.

Today I'll look at the yesterday's most active threads. The leader continues to be the transgender athletes thread that I've already discussed and which has been the most active topic for several days now. I'll skip that and look at a thread titled, "I feel bad for low-income/first-gen students at elite schools" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. One theme that is frequently apparent in the college forum, as well as some of the school forums, is that efforts to increase diversity of schools result in less qualified students taking the places of those who are more deserving. This thread is another of that genre with the original poster taking a rather unique angle. Instead of merely criticizing the performance of low-income and first generation students — most of whom are likely racial or ethnic minorities — the original poster expresses sorrow for them. The original poster provides data compiled by the The Daily Princetonian — the student newspaper of Princeton University — from a survey of graduating students. Based on that data, the original poster finds that low-income and first generation students (those who are the first generation in their family to attend college) lag behind their peers in several metrics. The original poster wonders why Princeton is seeing such discrepancies if education is supposed to be the great equalizer. Some posters point out that low-income and first generation students still face significant disadvantages — for instance low-income students may have to work while their wealthier peers participate in free internships. Others point out that the gaps are not really that large and, moreover, the opportunties for these students likely exceed what would have been available to them if they had attended less prestigious colleges. But, as can be expected, there are posters who claim that this is evidence that universities are admitting unqualified students for ideological reasons. One poster suggested that the original poster was feeling sorry for these students for the wrong reasons, pointing out that these students often doen't get much support from home because nobody understands their experience and at school they are painfully aware that they are not part of the "elite". As such, their experience can be isolating. Later the thread devolves into a lot of discusion about the quality of k-12 education provided to low-income students and how that allegedly leaves them unqualified for college.