Skip to content
    • — about/contact —
    • — hello —
    • — latest —
    • screaming into the void
    • baking shows
    • little stories

MiTHology (4.0)

  • TOP 10: “Infinite Jest” characters as contestants on a baking competition show

    February 25th, 2025

    You’ve probably already seen my Top 10 TV Characters as contestants on a baking competition show (seasons one and two). The idea for this post came from that. I was considering doing a version with literary characters, which got me thinking about my favorite book, which itself has more than enough characters to cast an entire season of a baking show!

    In fact, it has so many great characters that I regrettably had to cut some of the best, simply because I don’t think they’d be good enough bakers to make it onto the show, if they were being judged against everyone else. Among these were, tragically: Don Gately (I mean, come on, Corn Flakes in the meatloaf; it’s endearing, but I just don’t see him having the finesse for this kind of competition); Randy Lenz (too high); Poor Tony Krause (same); Pamela Hoffmann-Jeep (can she even do anything by herself? Lol), Kate Gompert (too depressed to care enough to bake anything), Mario (lacks the physical coordination), and JOI a.k.a. Himself (dead).

    Here are the twelve I think would make it, in order from first sent home to champion:

    12. Charles Tavis. He might be the character that I relate to the most, tbh, which is a pathetic thing to admit. He’s so painfully awkward. The remaining contestants (except maybe #5) are extremely relieved to see him go home, so they don’t have to be around him anymore. In his nervousness, he kept dropping and spilling everything.

    11. Hugh/“Helen” Steeply. I doubt he is much of a baker, but he probably practiced a few recipes over and over beforehand, and managed to present as just convincing enough to get through Episode 2. His bakes were very sloppy, a lot of melting buttercream and grotesque-looking cherries on top.

    10. Orin. Also not much of a baker; actually, not too interested in food or baking or in being here at all. But he’s smart enough to outlast the previous two. His bakes are efficient and minimalistic, but flavorful. Tbh I suspect he’s just here for the chance to see #9:

    9. Joelle van Dyne. She obviously has some skills in the kitchen (lol). However, I doubt she is that great at actually baking food, because despite her home-grown KY upbringing, she was always more of a daddy’s girl, so I doubt her mama taught her much; and her cakes did not taste as good as they looked. It’s cool she got to represent UHID on national TV though (side note, as someone who hates to be perceived, I’d totally join UHID if they were real).

    8. Hal. With a brain like his, he could pick up any skill, even baking. He knows all the terminology and all the techniques in theory, better than probably anyone else on the set. But, his mind is also his weakness, and his overthinking gets the best of him, and in this episode he kind of snaps and his cake collapses in an unsightly molten mess.

    7. Pemulis. He’s probably about as good a baker as Hal, but he’s a bit bolder, a bit more cutthroat, more ruthless, and unafraid of cheating. Which carries him halfway through the competition, but is, in the end, his downfall, as he gets disqualified off-camera when he’s caught lacing his opponents’ complimentary beverages with psychedelic drugs.

    6. Remy Marathe. Despite his physical handicap, he’s quite a strong baker, and has presented a number of Québécois-themed puddings and desserts using maple. He’s one of those baking show contestants who seizes every opportunity to talk about where they’re from, or to bake something that represents their culture.

    5. Avril. She’s one of those bakers who feeds everyone around her generously, but never seems to so much as lick a spoon herself. Highly proficient, and a fan favorite because of her looks. But, all things considered, you have to wonder if she made it this far by sleeping with at least one of the judges.

    4. Ortho “The Darkness” Stice. The youngest remaining contestant, at this point, so there’s a lot of pressure on him, but he never seems to crack under it. It seems almost supernatural. But, like his attire, all of his desserts are black, sealed up in black fondant or glazed in dark chocolate, and at this point the judges send him home simply because they’d like to see more variety.

    The Three Finalists:

    3. Pat Montesian. A formidable opponent, her recipes are homespun but tried and true, and she flinches at no challenge. She’s the only contestant who never bakes with liquor; when challenged to create a boozy dessert, she produced an excellent virgin Irish car bomb cupcake using nonalcoholic beer. Despite her humility and unflagging good cheer, the judges seem intimidated by her, and I don’t blame them.

    2. Coach Gerhard Schtitt. Remember Juergen from GBBO season 12? Schtitt is a lot like him, as a baker: very technical, very steady-handed, very German. He really could have won, had he not been competing against:

    The Grand Champion:

    1. Lyle. How could he lose? It’s like these perfect bakes just materialize on his station, as if we all collectively dreamed them into existence. Yet he never appears to be actively baking; he’s always meditating, or counseling the other contestants, and/or licking sweat off their foreheads.

    .

    Do my fellow IJ fans think I got it right? I’d be curious to hear your thoughts!

  • TOP 10: Songs About AvPD

    February 22nd, 2025

    So you find out you have avoidant personality disorder, or begin to suspect that you might; and so, like the sad avoidant little chronically online loser you are, you creep on over to Reddit to find out more about the condition and how to live with it. And you discover r/AvPD. God help you.

    The subreddit r/AvPD is a miserable place, and does not present a realistic picture of life as an adult with this disorder. I don’t hang out there anymore, because, when I was there, it seemed heavily dominated by a bunch of angry self-diagnosed teenage or twentyish male incels, who are just there to wallow in self-pity and gatekeep their mental illness, and will downvote you if you ever post anything slightly positive or pertaining to self-discipline rather than suicide. Not entirely, though; I actually have had a couple of nice interactions there, and seen a few worthwhile posts.

    One of the more interesting posts that I saw (one of the few that wasn’t just an angry suicidal vent or someone complaining about their parents), was someone asking the group: what are some songs that remind you of AvPD? I have several.

    Who knows what these musical artists were actually thinking about when they wrote these songs? Probably not avoidant personality disorder, lol.

    But, songs, perhaps more than any other works of art, have that cool feature where they begin in the artist’s brain but are completed in the listener’s. Their meaning is kind of subjective – a song can mean anything to anyone, regardless of what the artist meant when they wrote it. I think songs are the most subjective artistic medium, because music is, basically, pure emotion. Prose relies on language, which by its very nature must involve objective meaning. Poetry is where it gets perhaps more emotional and subjective, as it relies on things like metaphor, allusion, rhythm, flow, and subtlety. Then, when you take a poem and add music, it really creates a physical and emotional reaction, which is harder to quantify or qualify than simply answering “did you understand this work.”

    Anyway, this is all just to say that, regardless of their actual meaning, to me, these songs are about living with AvPD. Certain choices would have been too obvious, like “Mad World” (which literally everyone who’s ever experienced a single moment of any kind of sadness can deeply relate to) or “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” (which lacks any kind of subtlety or depth, lyrically), so I went with ones that are perhaps a bit more personal to me, and that feel a bit more unique to AvPD.

    13. My Secret Friend by IAMX ft. Imogen Heap. This is truly a song for any mood. It is dark and gloomy but also kind of encouraging, and you can rock out to it. This was my jam in like 2009-2010 when I was in college and super depressed and isolated; it was precisely the musical nourishment that I needed.

    12. Walking With A Ghost by Tegan and Sara. Being a creepy avoidant loser doesn’t have to be a total drag all the time! Living alone with your thoughts can have its perks. That’s the vibe I get from this little song, which always reminds me of the summery, purely escapist novel that I wrote in 2006 and how much fun that was.

    11. All Alone by Gorillaz. This one’s more about being alone in the cosmic sense, I think, than about being simply lonely. But AvPD does definitely make you question, at times, whether you can really be a participating member of the human race or pleasing to God. This song captures the alienation and resignation of someone who knows it’s not going to get better.

    10. From Off To On by The Knife. As I understand it, this song is about escapism: not feeling like a real person in one’s own body, and escaping into a comfort zone of media consumption, a mirage, a pretend world where things appear beautiful; it seems to be about closing off the outside world, removing oneself from reality. Plus, the soft, slow, eerie singing really captures that AvPD feeling of not quite existing in the real world.

    9. Sick Cycle Carousel by Lifehouse. Make fun of me all you want for putting a Lifehouse song on here. My miserable fourteen-year-old self felt so seen and understood when I heard “if shame had a face I think it would kind of look like mine,” and, “you’d better believe that I have tried to beat this.” I still think it’s a really concise and eloquent little song.

    8. Imaginary by Evanescence. Go on, keep laughing at me! (An ex of mine once said “Evanescence is music for fat girls,” hahaha.) But I don’t care, this song is a gem. And what person with AvPD doesn’t want to be left alone forever in their imaginary world, in their field of paper flowers!

    7. Waltz #2 by Elliott Smith. No one else quite captures the tortured, lonely feeling of being unable to communicate, of being a stranger, trapped in your own head, loving someone from afar, like Elliott Smith does. “She appears composed, so she is, I suppose/ who can really tell?/ she shows no emotion at all, stares into space like a dead China doll.”

    6. Sometimes by Ours. This whole album, Distorted Lullabies, is a banger. I loved their next two albums too, but this one is probably the darkest and saddest. This track in particular encapsulates the despair and frustration of being stuck in a dark place. Idk if Jimmy has AvPD but he certainly seems like an introvert. When I saw him live, at one point in a pause between songs some drunk guy in the crowd hollered out “I LOVE YOU JIMMY!!!” and Jimmy, without even glancing up or smiling or anything, mumbles softly into the mic: “Iloveyoutoo,” lol.

    5. This Time Imperfect by AFI. The latter half, specifically; or, what constitutes the final third of this symphonic twelfth track of their amazing album Sing the Sorrow. “I’d share with you, could I only speak/ just how much this hurts me,” damn! Davey does not strike me as having AvPD (he’s way too cool, haha), but this mournful song really gets it – feeling paralyzed, trapped, unable to really interact in any meaningful way.

    4. Song of Imaginary Beings by IAMX. I find a lot of his songs relatable, from an AvPD perspective. The lyrics to this one are mystifying, but really feel to me like they’re about someone who does not know how to love other people, and feels, perhaps, more at home among fictional characters than in reality.

    3. Freakish by Saves the Day. This one’s pretty literal; not a lot of personal interpretation necessary. It’s simply about not knowing how to talk to someone, but wanting to; of being unable to be anything but pathetically boring.

    2. Awkward Last Words by Armor For Sleep. This song kills me to listen to, because the emotion is so specific and real and raw. My AvPD has put me in this singer’s exact situation quite a few times in my life. The desperate way he sings it – “I wanna live again, I wanna start everything over again/ I wanna get this right” – is almost too painful.

    And finally, the quintessential AvPD anthem:

    1. No Name #1 by Elliott Smith. The lyrics to this one really make me wonder if Elliott himself (may he rest in peace) had AvPD. “Leave alone, ‘cause you know you don’t belong/ You don’t belong here,” hits even harder when considered in light of his death. The interactions and feelings that he sings about in this one are so vivid and relatable for anyone who has this disorder.

  • How I Went From Liberal Atheist to “Rad Trad” Catholic Extremist: Mith’s Conversion Story (2)

    February 20th, 2025

    previous

    Chapter 6: Fallen Away

    After the wedding, we moved to a new town, and joined a new church: another ultramodern one, a big flat gray building from the ‘70s, no kneelers in the sanctuary, the tabernacle off to the side somewhere, a time for “personal testimonies” after each Mass, and a big emphasis on social activism. I threw myself into parish involvement – but, somehow, it all felt very fake and flat. I had a hard time relating. Something about it felt… unimportant, shallow, uninspiring, watery – and I felt that that must be my fault, that I felt that way. This was a Catholic church, after all – who was I to demand beautiful architecture and such? Shouldn’t I be able to feel inspired even in a bland environment?

    Around this time, I’d gone back to drinking. Things got really bad really fast. At some point I just gave up going to Mass. I got really into reading secular philosophy, for a good part of that year; I read Sartre and Camus and stuff like that, as well as some more contemporary works like “The View from Nowhere.” I kept trying and failing to stop drinking – sober for a day, three days, five days or so at a time, then right back to it. Life was not what I wanted it to be.

    Needless to say, I became incredibly depressed. I almost ruined my marriage. Pretty soon I was reading “The Final Exit” and basically ready to call it quits.

    Chapter 7: Coming Back

    I wish I could say that prayer, or relying on God, pulled me back from the brink; but in reality, it was my husband. He gave me an ultimatum about my drinking. I decided that, fine, I would dry up for a year – one year – and see what happened. If life still sucked after a year I’d go back to drinking and self-destruct.

    Not even three months later, I found out I was finally expecting our first child.

    As a new mom, my interest in the faith was renewed. We moved again, and I found a new church, and started attending again. I knew that I wanted my child to grow up in the faith, and that meant being a good role model.

    But I was so preoccupied. And still, at this new church, I had a hard time getting my feet on the ground. It didn’t really inspire me or motivate me; we were, once again, pretty much the only people under 50. And then COVID happened, and we took a break from Mass because we were exempt; then I had another pregnancy, a more complicated one. We didn’t start attending regularly again until after #2 was a few months old.

    I guess it was around this time that I was starting to get more passionate about the faith, to look into it on my own.

    Chapter 8: Interest In Tradition

    The more you learn about Catholicism, the more you are drawn to the old Church, the Tradition of the Church. Because that’s where the real Catholicism is.

    Through my own idle research, I began to become aware of the dichotomy between “trads” and “modernists” in the faith. I hadn’t been aware of this before. I learned that Trads did things like: wear a veil in church, pray in Latin, and actually follow all the rules and social teachings, whereas modernists were, basically, more loosey-goosey, more likely to be liberal or to pick and choose which parts of Catholicism they liked (as I had been doing previously). For the first time, I developed an interest in living like a Catholic. I started to think about things like modesty and chastity, purgatory and hell and the importance of guarding my tongue – things I had never been taught about, in my formation in the modern Church. I had to teach myself! And I tried, because I wanted to pass on the true faith to my kids.

    (Also, around this time was when I gradually became extremely pro-life. Having opened my mind to the Church social teachings, and begun to see the logic and reasoning, plus, having now been through two pregnancies and one miscarriage, I was positively heated about the abortion issue, and remain so to this day.)

    Maybe I’d fit in better at a more traditional church? But there was no trad community around me that I was aware of. So I felt kind of isolated at my modern parish, as I began to question things like: is it really okay to stand and receive Communion in my hand? Why was I taught to do that, if centuries of Catholic teaching pre-1968 forbade it? I at last began to develop a sense of what was traditional and what was modern, and began to understand why I’d always felt so ungrounded and uninspired by the modern Church. It wasn’t my fault, after all! I felt validated. My intuition had been right all along. The solemnity, sanity, structure, and seriousness that I craved were still out there, enjoyed by some trads who were lucky enough to live near a TLM.

    But, there was no TLM around me; or so I thought.

    Chapter 9: Fence-Sitting

    And then I met a friend. I met her online, and we became pen-pals. I related to her a lot, plus she was Catholic like me – except, better. She spoke about spiritual things with an insight and wisdom, a clear-headedness, that I’d never encountered before. It seemed to be really working for her. I’d mention all kinds of spiritual questions and concerns that nagged at me, and she always had the most commonsense, realistic, quietly brilliant responses to all of them. I got such a sense of peace, reading her angle on religious matters, and felt eager to hear much, much more. Where on earth was she learning these things! I had to know.

    Turned out, she attends a Mass of the SSPX.

    I was only vaguely familiar with the Society. Weren’t they schismatic, or canonically irregular, or whatever? Weren’t we not supposed to go there? Yet, out of curiosity, I looked it up to see if they had a chapel near me – and they did! A fairly large one! Not even an hour away! So now, I was torn.

    For about nine months, I waffled. I scoured the internet. I grilled my friend about her reasoning, her rationale for “disobeying” the Church and attending outside of “full communion with Rome.” I reconnected with an old friend from the Campus Ministry Group, a very smart and devout person who was also trad-leaning, and bounced a million ideas off of him, too. I agonized over this the same way I’d agonized over the gay marriage issue. I lost a lot of sleep. I prayed for clarity.

    It was a hugely important decision: my family’s eternal salvation was on the line. The SSPX was certainly more serious, from what I’d seen, about helping people get to heaven. They actually talked about things like hell and sin! But, on the other hand, wouldn’t joining them constitute breaking from the One True Church, outside of which there can be no salvation? Was I, after all, being a cafeteria Catholic by trying to decide what I thought the Church ought to look like? Or, was the Society correct about what was going on in the world? Was I being emotional, or was my intuition drawing me towards the truth?

    There were strong arguments in both directions. I didn’t know what to do.

    At a standstill, logically, I finally realized I needed some new, empirical evidence to work with in making my decision. I decided to just give it a try. I bought a mantilla and a Missal and went to their chapel and attended my first TLM.

    It was beautiful and moving – but, honestly, more confusing and stressful than anything else. I didn’t know what to do. I felt like an idiot, like everyone was staring at me and judging me. My AvPD really flared up. It was quite unpleasant.

    So, I was torn. Mass at my local neighborhood NO was easier, I was comfortable there…

    But, chasing comfort will get you nowhere but rock bottom, as I’d learned. Comfort should not be the deciding factor in choosing a church.

    Throughout my life, I’ve always been too afraid to go for things that I thought were cool. Passivity has always been my defining characteristic. If I liked someone, or thought they were cool, I’d just admire them from afar and daydream about being the kind of person they’d like. Every friend and boyfriend I ever had approached me first. I always dodge, take the easier way, stay in my comfort zone to avoid humiliation. Here, I saw, was an opportunity to finally be brave and go for the thing that I sure as hell did not deserve to be a part of, but wanted really badly to be a part of.

    So, I persisted in trying the TLM, and continued to embarrass myself doing so. Maybe God thought I needed to be humbled? All I knew was, I saw that there was something really special and holy going on there.

    But still I waffled. I went back and forth: I’d go to my local NO for a few weeks, then back to the SSPX, then back to NO (which annoyed me more and more each time I went back to it, with its drivelly music, altar girls, feel-good homilies, college kids with leggings and Starbucks cups, noisy irreverent chit-chat before the Sacrament, and people wearing jeans and spaghetti straps), and I began to realize some things.

    Chapter 10: Committed Radtrad

    It finally began to sink in that:

    1, the warmth and kindness at the SSPX chapel was much more real and genuine. People there were less in-your-face about it – at the NO, you’d always encounter this overly familiar, “Hiiii, welcome!!! 🥰🤗” flavor of Committee-enforced kindness, peppered in amongst a crowd of blank-faced strangers who were just there to do their thing, did not care a whit about you and did not even look your way once: an awkward contrast, a very fakey feeling. Whereas at SSPX, every person there would look me in the eye and wish me good morning, or initiate a polite conversation, and remember my name the next time. (Part of why it is so much more socially uncomfortable, for someone like me: no more just disappearing into the crowd.) I got a sense of a very real goodness, a very sincere desire to welcome the newcomer. It felt like an actual community.

    2, There was real faith, at the SSPX. No one there was just there because it was part of their routine, it was what they’d always done. You can see in their every gesture that they mean it with all their heart, that this is life or death for them. It’s not just a social outing. This was deathly serious! This was real religion, the real thing I’d always wanted, not just a watered down modern rendition of it.

    3, The priests there really cared about us. A couple of times, I reached out to priests via email or in person, and each time, these very busy, very holy men would positively bend over backwards to listen to me, to help me, to make time for whatever I needed. In the NO, I met plenty of very holy and very good priests, but I could just tell that this was a different breed of priest from the way they attended to my every question and concern with seriousness and devotion. I could 100% tell that he was not just being social and polite; he felt deeply called to help my soul attain salvation, and it came through in every interaction. He even spoke like a different breed of person – like someone not of this world. I experienced this fatherly love and holiness in Confession, too, to an even greater degree. These priests are not like other people; you can really tell that they are not just ordinary guys wearing cassocks; they truly have a supernatural vocation. I’ve found that I trust their advice completely, whereas in the NO I almost always left confession feeling like I wasn’t really heard, I wasn’t really recognized, or they didn’t really care.

    4, The “not in full communion with Rome” thing is a myth, perpetuated by tradition-haters to try and keep people from experiencing the fullness of the faith. The SSPX is not disobedient to the Pope, nor are they outside of the Roman Church. It’s absurd to think otherwise, and I’m not going to bother enumerating all the reasons why; there are plenty of books and websites on this topic if you’re interested. Don’t fall for the slander and lies.

    5, the NO world is completely wrong about the SSPX, and Lefebvre was completely right and will surely be canonized one day for singlehandedly saving Tradition; the fullness of the Church is found in the SSPX. It didn’t take long for me to see the light, and after just a few weeks of commitment, I began to realize how pathetically laughable it was that I spent so much time waffling. If you are on the fence, like I was, I urge you to just try it – just visit a SSPX Mass a few times, and see this difference for yourself. I now see how absolutely tragic it is that the modern Church makes the Society into these outcasts, pariahs, like they’re some kind of weird taboo cult, not even to be mentioned in polite company – when in reality, they have the fullness of the Catholic Faith.

    I’m still the village idiot, at the TLM. I’m still trying to figure out my way around it. I still embarrass myself on the regular. And as you can see if you read my blog, I’m far from a model Catholic, lol. But, it’s worth it; it’s better to be awkward at the TLM than to be too comfortable at the NO.

    Things are falling into place. I can’t even begin to list all the things that have started to make more sense, since finding Tradition – both in my personal life and liturgical life. I at last have found it: the real religion that my soul was always hungry for. Here, there is sanity, and stability, and safety.

    Perhaps the most personally life-changing thing (aside from more perfect Sacraments, obviously) that I’ve realized since switching to Tradition is that – and this is gonna sound extremely cheesy – it’s actually okay for me to be my weird misfit self. Which is part of the reason I even started this stupid blog in the first place. In the modern Church, which is so preoccupied by liberation theology and social work and thinks everyone is basically the same as a priest, I felt like I could never actually be a good Catholic, unless I found a way to completely change my personality. Unless I miraculously transformed into someone else, some extrovert who could go around like a missionary, confidently teaching the faith to others, I wasn’t fulfilling my calling. In Tradition, I realized that lay people are not priests. It’s okay to be a lay person concerned with lay things. God made me an introvert, and weird, and it’s okay to be that way. There is much more humility in this take.

    That, and learning that I can trust my intuition as much as my faculty of reason. I felt lost and confused in the modern Church not because I was doing a bad job, but because the modern Church is lost and confused herself! Several experiences along this path showed me that my “gut” was actually right, and I should have learned to trust it earlier.

    I’m so grateful that I met that friend and that, after 10+ years as a Catholic, I finally found real Catholicism – the true religion, the kind of religion I always craved and needed in my life. So yes, go ahead and call me a radical traditionalist and an extremist; if that is what the priests of the SSPX are, then I am honored to be in that company.

  • How I Went From Liberal Atheist to “Rad Trad” Catholic Extremist: Mith’s Conversion Story (1)

    February 20th, 2025

    Tl;dr: This is a personal account, not an argument. Having grown up in a world where there was no fundamental meaning to anything and “anything goes as long as you don’t hurt anyone,” I always felt something was lacking, and craved some kind of structure and meaning. In my 20s, I was drawn to the beauty of Catholicism, but struggled with the social teachings (LGBTQ rights, abortion, premarital sex, etc.). So I sampled several flavors of Protestantism, but found them all unsatisfying and hollow in comparison, and so eventually surrendered, learned to open my mind and approach these issues logically rather than emotionally, and see things from a new angle. However, as much as I loved Catholicism in theory, and had seen that she was the path to Truth, I failed to thrive in the modern Church, because it all felt watery somehow, basically the same as Protestantism. Like the theory did not line up with my lived experience. I couldn’t tell exactly why I felt that way. I worried that something was wrong with me that I couldn’t “click” with my religion like I wanted to; I felt I had no place there, and life got worse. Eventually I discovered that Traditionalist Catholicism was a thing that actively existed. But the modern Church says that Traditionalism is a no-no; so, what to do? After about a year of waffling, I learned to trust my intuition and be brave and finally found my way to the true religion that I had been craving since childhood.

    Full Story:

    Not that I’m any great example of the faith. Nor do my niche weirdness and bad attitude at all represent traditional Catholicism as a whole. But, as poor of a Catholic as I am, I have found that the radtrads are actually right. So, I’m on their team now (the worst player on the team, but still). I love hearing other people’s conversion stories, so here is mine.

    Heads up: this is not a research paper or a dissertation. I’m not going to explain what Traditionalists believe, nor go into all the arguments in favor. All of this is available for free online if you care to look. I’m literally just sharing my silly little personal experience.

    Chapter 1: Sordid Youth

    My family of origin was liberal and atheist. We did not go to church. My Dad, in fact, was given to frequently complaining about the stupidity of Christians. We were a family of smart people, intellectuals. My Mom had a Darwin fish on the back of her van. Just do no harm and be a good person. It’s not that hard! That was the philosophy I grew up with.

    Religion, I knew from an early age, was dumb. And yet, there was a part of me that envied my friends that went to church with their families. It was like they had somewhere to belong, something to be a part of: a culture. It also seemed like such a normal, wholesome family thing to do: church on Sunday mornings. As early as age five, I was fascinated by “normal” families.

    Occasionally I’d go to church with the family of a friend. Most notably, I attended a five-day summer day camp for “Vacation Bible School” with my bestie who was Mennonite. That was really fun. I remember the theme of it that summer was “jungle” or “rainforest” or something like that. I just remember fun decorations, painting toy frogs, and having fun hanging out with my friend. I had also in the past attended a LDS church with a different friend, and a Catholic Mass with yet another friend and her dad. The Mass, which was in an ultramodern, roundish, gray-carpeted space, did not make an impression. That was all of my early experiences with religion.

    I also remember staying in a hotel once and finding one of those Bibles in the drawer, and opening it to random pages and reading what was in it. It seemed like it was all weird random stuff about angels with a million eyeballs in weird places. I didn’t get what the big deal was.

    The only really cool and noteworthy thing that happened, in a religious sense, before age 20, was when I went with my family to Ireland when I seventeen, and we visited St. Kevin’s monastic site at Glendalough, Co. Wicklow. (Would return there three more times over the next ten years.) It made quite an impression. I still hated Christianity, but a part of me found St. Kevin really relatable, and thought I might be able to get on board with whatever belief system inspired him to found this place.

    But overall I just survived the first 20+ years of my life as a godless little heathen, just living by this “do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” policy, and thinking Christians were all exceptionally stupid, often commenting things like “wow, so-and-so is so smart, I don’t understand, how the heck are they a Christian? Like, what went wrong?!”

    2. What Went Wrong

    I’d say I started realizing I needed a religion when I was a junior in college, living alone, and really miserable in my struggle with eating and drinking. I remember sitting there alone in my apartment thinking, “if I had, like, a higher power, something to worship besides my ED, something else to give me some rules to live by…”

    Around this time I was taking a really cool elective course on Judaism, and holding down a work study job at a kosher bagel shop in the campus Hillel House (which was awesome; dietary laws fascinate me), and vaguely toying with the idea of becoming Jewish. But a couple things bothered me about Judaism: it was basically genetic — you were either a member of the chosen race, or you weren’t, and I didn’t see how conversion could change that; and also, they didn’t really have an answer to the whole death problem.

    I’d also taken a Philosophy course on Søren Kierkegaard. I’d thought it would be edgy and cool to learn about the Father of Existentialism; I had not expected to gain a new respect for Christian philosophy. I particularly remember studying SK’s writings on Abraham, the “hero of faith,” and that made a pretty huge impression on my psyche, and was the first time I thought the Bible seemed to contain something profound, even incomprehensibly deep.

    And then there was that ethics class I’ve written about before – the one where I began to question the basis of my whole understanding of morality. Notably, there was one kid in that class who was more confident in his beliefs and more articulate than anyone else in the class, who alone seemed unshaken by any of the moral problems posed to us in the coursework: a very conservative young man, a Roman Catholic.

    All of this was still just bumping around in my skull like meteorites in space at the point when I dropped out of college. I took almost a year off to dick around, then applied to a new school, where I thought I’d be happier, to finish out my degree.

    Spoiler alert, changing geographical locations did not solve my problems or make me happier! I was still sad and screwed up. But now, I was sad and screwed up just a few blocks away from one of the most beautiful old cathedrals in this part of the US. I’d been toying with the idea of trying to visit a church for a few weeks. I longed for a secure foundation, someplace where I could belong and find solace. Knowing next to nothing about any of the denominations of Christianity or what made them different, I decided to just wander into the place with the coolest vibes.

    It’s undisputed fact that Catholics have the coolest vibes.

    I don’t really remember the Mass. It didn’t make a huge impression. I just remember the kind young priest who spoke to me on the stairs outside when it was over. He helped me connect with the local Catholic campus ministry group.

    There, I met some of the best people I’ve ever known. They took me under their wings and did everything they could to help me. I learned more and more about the Church, and saw how perfectly logical and rational and beautiful her teachings actually were.

    Chapter 3: Cold Feet

    Several months into the inquiry process, my RCIA course officially began. However, I started to get cold feet. I was still very liberal: pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and such. And I believed I was right about those issues (I was, at the time, especially heated about LGBTQ rights), and could simply not get on board with a church that professed otherwise. (To my credit, I guess it was a better move to be honest and just leave Catholicism, than it would have been to go ahead and join and become a “cafeteria Catholic.”) I was really sad about it, but did what I thought was best. I wracked my brain day in and day out about all the reasons why my decision was justified. On my blog at the time (MiTHology 2.0, as you may remember), I, a 22-year-old kid who had only been casually inquiring into Catholicism on my laptop for a few months, made post after post “explaining” why the Church was wrong about these issues (LOL).

    I mulled it over and mulled it over, and eventually went with the Episcopal Church. There was a really lovely Anglo-Catholic Episcopal church in that city, where I could get all the cool Catholic vibes (kneeling at the communion rail, incense, Mary statues and Stations on the walls, sung vespers every evening, etc.) with none of the difficult social teachings. I was Baptized there Easter morning, taking the name of Saint Kevin as my patron saint, and confirmed a few weeks later when the Bishop came to town. I was still pretty bothered about Catholicism – it was, for me, like the ex that you can’t stop thinking about, that you bitch and complain about to everyone you know so it’s clear you’re still obsessed – but, the church I’d found was working well enough for me.

    But that November I graduated, and moved back to my hometown. There, there was no Anglo-Catholic Episcopal church. There were three or four different Episcopal churches, and I tried them all out; they were each extremely different, and I didn’t love any of them, but committed to one anyway (because, for lack of a more compelling reason, it had the prettiest location). I attended there for probably almost a year, but I felt ungrounded – like the foundation was gone from beneath my feet – and I was still bitter and obsessive about Catholicism, scribbling away about it by night.

    I even looked into some different Protestant churches. A couple Lutheran churches, Methodists, et cetera. Nothing filled me with awe; nothing felt like the real thing.

    Chapter 4: Coming Home

    Eventually I guess I gave up the fight. Episcopalianism just wasn’t doing it for me. It felt, to me, like trying to subsist on watered-down porridge. Everything felt two-dimensional. I was tired, I was sad. I wanted to be Catholic, I finally admitted. But I couldn’t in good conscience join them unless I could make some kind of peace with their social teachings.

    So I decided to just open my mind. To just try. To just try and see things from a different angle than I always had – to actually try and listen to what they were saying, instead of reacting emotionally. I gave up the fight, basically, and decided to just admit that it was possible that maybe the 2,000+ year old Church understood a few things that my 24-year old self did not.

    Meanwhile, I began attending a Catholic parish near my home. The Mass was very modern – the Protestantish music, the acoustic guitar, the rambling, conversational, feel-good homilies – which I didn’t love; but, it was Catholic. The priest was kind, and the other parishioners were lovely, although I was pretty much the only person there under age 50. I promptly started RCIA and was received into the Church some months later, in late November, on what the modern Church observes as the Feast of Christ the King. By this point, I still didn’t love the Church’s social teachings, but I was at least able to see the logic of why they taught what they did.

    Chapter 5: The Search Continues

    As soon as I became Catholic, my life started to change for the better. In retrospect, it is pretty cool and fascinating to see. About a month and a half after my reception, I ended the problematic relationship(s) that I was in at the time, and finally started trying to get sober. It was a good year; I felt helped by God; I was on what they call in AA the “pink cloud” of early sobriety. I started a new relationship, and promptly moved in together with the guy, because no one in my church had ever told me that wasn’t okay; I mean, it was just the normal thing to do, and it wasn’t like anyone actually lived by the “old” Catholic rules anymore, apparently. Except maybe a few weird extremists out there, and those folks needed to chill. I was a basically good person, and in a monogamous relationship, and that was the most important thing!

    But then one day I went to confession with a different priest than the super-chill one that I normally went to. During my confession I mentioned something about being “at home with my boyfriend,” and the priest, in the kindest and gentlest terms, explained that he could not absolve me as I was still living in a state of sin.

    And I was like: “😮🤯 You mean, people actually still follow those archaic rules? They still apply?!” No one had ever told me! I was floored – and honestly, on some deep level, relieved, and happy – it was like my feet had found some solid ground to stand on, an actual structure to support me. My then-bf and I promptly amended our living situation, not fully cohabitating again until after we were married, about a year later.

    That was when I first began to develop an interest in living more traditionally. But, still, it was just a vague idea, floating around in my head, lost in a stew of anxiety.

    continued

  • Is it ok for women to wear pants?

    February 17th, 2025

    A reel popped up on my IG feed today that gave me a moment’s pause. I don’t like to link to social media here, plus I didn’t follow or save or anything; so, let me describe it for you. This twentysomething Catholic girl influencer, who’s trying to promote her content I guess, goes: “I was always a tomboy. This is how I always dressed,” and she shows us photo after photo of a girl in jeans and t-shirts. “Then,” she says, “I became Catholic. I saw in Mary how beautiful femininity is.” She tells us how she started trying to present as more feminine: first with just one dress, then gradually, “through the grace of God,” came to a point where she now wears dresses exclusively, all the time. She showed photos of herself gardening, driving a tractor, and doing yard work in pretty dresses.

    Now, I have mixed feelings about the message that this is sending.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m very pro-modesty and pro-dress. Myself, I wear dresses and long skirts exclusively (except when I’m in my PJs, because I have been wearing the same pair of Eeyore PJ pants from Walmart since 2017 and it’s just my thing now, no other PJs are comfortable anymore, I will probably be wearing them on my deathbed). Modest attire like this is what is comfortable for me – although, tbh, that has more to do with my issues with my body appearance than with me being super “devout” or “feminine.” If I were skinny and toned, I might be more tempted to dress immodestly.

    But all that is just to say, I myself am a believer that dresses are superior for women and girls. I wish it were the norm, instead of the weird and gross things that females are expected to wear these days. I am generally anti-pants (although in 2025 America, some allowances have to be made, because many women are required to wear pants at their jobs, which is too bad), and definitely anti-leggings as pants, anti-crop tops and booty shorts and all that. I do believe women ought to be charitable towards men and cover up decently. True, it’s a man’s fault if he looks at a woman with lust; but there’s truly no reason why women need to make it more difficult for him by going around showing it all off. (Even as a straight female, I find it super distracting when women go around in practically their underwear.) I know a lot of more feminist-leaning readers will disagree with me here – “it’s not my problem if men can’t control their urges!” – correct, but, as a Catholic I believe we have a duty to be charitable to our neighbor, and that certain parts of the body should only be seen by your spouse. To me, this includes legs, so I personally would not wear something that shows off the legs.

    Thus, I am by no means mad at this influencer for preferring to present as feminine. She pointed out that “God has set women apart as something sacred and special,” so we ought to dress like it, not like a man. I think that’s generally true.

    But I take issue with the suggestion that being a tomboy is bad and something to be overcome.

    We need to stop saying shit like this. Assertions like this are what lead people to question their gender identity, these days. It’s okay to be a tomboy! You are still a female! Just because you don’t love doing stereotypically girly things, does not mean you are “actually a man!” If your biology is female, you are a woman.

    A friend of mine who is an expert on systems of personality typology has recently gotten me interested in that topic. And I’ve found it very liberating to study, as someone who has always been insecure about my own personality.

    God created us all with different personalities. In His creative genius, that’s how He made us: varied and diverse. Some personality types are more inclined to feminine traits (emotional, warm, caring, good housekeepers, good dressers); others, to traditionally masculine traits (logical, cold, reserved, uninterested in hosting parties or decorating or shopping). Are we going to tell all women with these latter types of traits that they are a failure? That they need to overcome or change the way God made them?

    I can totally see how a traditionally feminine woman would be preferred by men as potential wife material. But that doesn’t mean that tomboys are broken or bad or need to fix themselves. And someone’s value as a human is not determined by their desirability as a spouse.

    I’m what most would probably call a “rad trad” Catholic extremist, because of my beliefs and where I attend Mass. But one thing about Tradland that I’m not so sure about, that I sometimes take some issue with, is this obsession with femininity and masculinity.

    Sure, masculine men are great, and I can see why a woman would prefer one as a husband. But that doesn’t mean that a man who is thin or small, who doesn’t care to lift weights or chop wood or fix cars, who perhaps prefers baking or painting or fashion design, is any less of a man. If he has male biology, he is still a man. His value as a person should not be determined by how traditionally masculine he is.

    “But Mith, femininity is the essence of womanhood, and masculinity the essence of manhood! When a woman is feminine, she’s being the best version of what God made her to be!”

    But not every woman is, or should be, the Platonic form of a woman. That’d be a pretty boring world, wouldn’t it! People are varied, and imperfect, and diverse. God designed us, as I said, with all different temperaments and natures. A person in perfect shape exemplifies the image of good health, and that is a good thing, and we should all strive to be healthy… but we should also honor the way that God made us. Some people have naturally bigger bone structure. Some people have physical handicaps. Should a person born with only one arm live their life in constant distress because they aren’t the image of an ideal human? I don’t think God wants that for them.

    “But a handicap like that is not a choice. Behaving like a feminine woman is a choice!”

    Is it? I mean, sure, I guess a woman with no interest in baking or hostessing or sewing could force herself to learn these skills, if they’re necessary for her or would make her life easier. She could try to change her personality, to act more sweet and sensitive, if she feels called to or if it would benefit her existing relationships. But should she force this just for the sake of being feminine? Couldn’t she better spend that time doing what she’s actually naturally inclined to do, like read, write, exercise, analyze data, ride horses, whatever it may be? What if her gifts go to waste because she’s so busy trying to be someone she’s not? Maybe she’s called to be a researcher, or to be the perfect partner for a more emotional and sensitive husband. God might be calling her to something great, who knows. What if St. Joan of Arc had dismissed God’s call to go to war because, well, that wasn’t a very feminine thing to do, so surely it couldn’t be God’s will?

    “If a woman is inclined to be tomboyish, she should work to overcome that. Our natures are bad, and we must not submit to them, but conquer them!”

    Our nature is bad insofar as it leads us to sin. If, by nature, someone prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla – that is a natural preference, not a sin. Similarly, tomboyishness is not a sin, nor is it a sin for a man to have feminine traits; and it’s absurd to think that it is.

    Honestly, some members of the online trad community have an obsession with masculinity/femininity that feels kinda fetishy and gross to me at times. Like, you just know these people who post this stuff are sitting there at their computers, salivating and squirming in their seat while they type out some rant describing in detail their fantasy sexual partner – creating and sharing those idiotic AI images of huge, burly bearded men chopping wood while their delicate, doe-eyed, pregnant wife looks on in adoration, five or six small children at her feet. It’s cringe AF. Sure, that type of femininity/masculinity is an attractive ideal, and we can probably all benefit from borrowing some things from that ideal; but, most people in the world do not fit that stereotype perfectly and never will. So please, let’s stop shaming people for not being TradCath Barbie & Ken.

    Plus, I mean, you can be a tomboy in modest dresses. Dresses come in all different styles and colors. You don’t have to be pink and frilly and made-up.

    “By the grace of God I exclusively wear dresses now.” That feels slightly weird to me, and smacks of ego-driven perfectionism, puritanism, and privilege, doesn’t it? Not everyone can afford those “workout skirts” or swim dresses, which are only to be found at cute little specialty modest boutiques online, while sweatpants are like $9 a pair at Walmart. I can’t imagine that God is disappointed in a woman for wearing a pair of loose-fitting sweatpants to the gym or in the garden if that’s all she has or if she can’t afford to buy a special “workout skirt” right now, right? What do you think?

    (In all conversations about modesty, societal norms must be taken into consideration. Modesty is, to an extent, conditional on the society we live in. Certain native cultures wear less clothing because of their lifestyle and traditions and the climate they live in. For a woman in one of these cultures, it’s obviously not a sin to show her belly or legs. In fact, it would be weird, and call undue attention to herself, to dress in a long skirt like an Amish lady. Similarly, in certain Middle Eastern countries, it’s expected to cover all the way up, and attire that would be considered modest in the West could be scandalous there. We have to consider these things. Given that we live in the West, I really don’t see how it would possibly be a sin for a woman to wear a pair of sweatpants in the garden or to the gym. Maybe an imperfection at the worst, but, I’d have to get a priest’s opinion here.)

    “I want my daughters to have a good woman to look up to.” This was another thing this influencer said that kinda irritated me. So you’re only a good woman if you wear a dress 24/7? Are we sure about that? One of my most beloved friends IRL is a good Christian lady who’s a tomboy, almost never made-up, usually in casual attire like t-shirts and modest shorts, because she’s outdoorsy and practical. And she is a wonderful woman, with many feminine gifts, who would be an amazing mom if she had kids. Does this mean I think t-shirts and shorts are good? No, but nor do I think I’m a “better woman” than her because I only wear dresses!

    I want my daughters to not feel forced into some mold that’s not them. I want them to have parents who are authentically answering God’s call in their lives – who don’t think living the faith can be boiled down to these external habits like sewing or chopping wood. It’s much deeper than that. I want them to know that there is a place for them in God’s kingdom, no matter what their personality or taste or foibles; they don’t have to change the morally-neutral things about their nature in order to have value.

    But do femininity and masculinity carry moral weight? That, I think, is the core of the question.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they do? Because I’ve never seen an Examination of Conscience anywhere that asks, “have I been sufficiently masculine/feminine?”

    Maybe those are a good thing to strive for, just as good health and fitness are good things to strive for… but are they? Are they an objective good, like health? Let’s think about it. Health is something that’s always good for everyone. But, being very stereotypically feminine might not be good for every woman. As I said, she might have different gifts, a different calling. And she shouldn’t try to be something she’s not called to be. A nun shouldn’t spend her time stressing about not having a vocation to marriage, just as a wife shouldn’t worry that she’s inferior for not being called to the religious life.

    For exhibit B, there’s this other content creator I follow who comes to mind. She’s a health and fitness influencer, and a very masculine lesbian (at a glance you could mistake her for a man), and also very conservative and outspoken against the transgender movement. Occasionally she posts pics of herself as she was in her “before” era; she used to present as feminine, with long hair and a softer body. Now she’s really buff. And you can just see in the before and afters that she’s so much more confident and happy and thriving now. And, I kind of can’t help but love that for her?! Because there’s nothing sinful about simply looking more masculine, is there? Sure, she dresses in pants and menswear, which is not something I think women should do, but in theory, there’s nothing wrong with just having masculine traits, with being a tomboy.

    In her videos, this influencer often makes the very point that I’ve been trying to make: being a tomboy does not make you a man. Your biology is what makes you male or female. Let’s stop telling girls they can’t be girls if they don’t like girly stuff! As a Catholic I do of course believe in chastity, sacramental marriage and all that, but at the same time, I honestly love non-traditional gender expressions. God made us all so different! We don’t have to be ultra-feminine to be great and awesome women!

    And I guess the same applies to men — to an extent. I don’t think it could ever be considered modest for a man to wear a dress or noticeable make-up, because it violates societal norms in a way that would call undue attention to himself. But, if he wants to do certain traditionally feminine things like wear long hair, buff his nails, have a skincare regimen, get his brows waxed, or talk in a ladylike voice, then those are all morally neutral, aren’t they? Maybe weird and quirky, and probably not going to make him the most eligible bachelor at church, but not a sin, right? He’s still a man, and as long as he’s modest and living chastely and not claiming that he’s actually a woman, then I assume it’s not a sin.

    The exclusively dress-wearing Catholic influencer says that she wants to imitate our Blessed Mother. As we should! We should all strive to imitate Our Lady’s humility, charity, love of God, modesty, and purity. But I don’t believe that we women are all required to embody the epitome of femininity. Femininity is good, but it’s not the only way for a woman to be good.

    “But Mith,” you may be arguing, “you said in your other post that we have a moral obligation to look good! Now you’re saying t-shirts and pants are okay?”

    No, I’m not saying t-shirts and pants are okay. I do think women should cover their legs. As I said, you can be a tomboy in modest and simple dresses or skirts/skorts. She doesn’t have to wear make-up or style her hair or try to look very “pretty,” but she does need to be well-kempt and modest.

    In short: I kind of feel like some of these “mad trads” out here need to stop shaming tomboys and effeminate men. I think this tendency is perhaps a defensive reaction against the rise of “Pride” and transgenderism and gender confusion and all that, which is totally fair. But, let’s not let the pendulum swing so hard to the other side that we become as narrow-minded and shallow as the liberals accuse us of being.

  • TOP 10: Least Favorites

    February 15th, 2025

    I’ve talked a lot on this blog about things I love, and frankly, you’re probably sick of hearing me go “absolutely captivating,” “brilliant,” “truly a masterpiece,” etc., etc. Listen, I’m actually a super negative and grumpy person. Let me prove it. Plus, everyone in my house has the flu right now, and I’m in a shitty mood about it, so, now feels like a good time to vent about things that I hate.

    27. Raw celery. Cooked celery in a recipe is fine, but, what is even the point of raw celery? It’s at once peppery, hairy, and watery, none of which are good flavors. Carrots are definitely the superior dipping veg.

    26. Complicated board games or card games. Anything with a massive set of rules to remember. My sweet husband has, in the past, tried to introduce me to some of his favorite “nerdy” tabletop games. Learning all those arbitrary rules, I just get so bored I could literally cry. A game should be simple in theory, like Scrabble, or Apples to Apples.

    25. Pandas. Did you know that, if a mother panda gives birth to twins, she just straight up abandons one of them? Also, they like to express their anal glands and rub them on things. Overrated creatures. Least favorite animal (besides #4).

    24. Weddings. If you’re one of my loved ones and you’re getting married? Love that! Please, count me in! But, weddings in general, with all their fuss and fanfare and formalities, not to mention the expectation of blowing thousands and thousands of dollars, are so dumb.

    23. The writings/podcasts of Brené Brown. She’s a talented writer, and a savvy businessperson, and clearly deserves her millions! But, I just can’t with the whole modern pop-psychology “self love” “self forgiveness” “self compassion” thing. All that soft, warm-and-fuzzy, 21st century egotistical “me first” philosophy. It just turns my stomach.

    22. Sex scenes in novels/movies/TV. The only one I can think of that was not complete cringey fanservice was in the show The Outsider; it revealed a relevant plot detail we could not have otherwise known. If you’re not sharing an important plot detail that you can’t fit elsewhere, LEAVE IT OUT. Fade to black. Be an adult.

    21. High Fantasy and sci-fi. Anything with extensive “world-building” involved… I just can’t. There have been exceptions, like a couple of Brandon Sanderson’s standalone novels, and the LoTR movies, even though I really struggled to follow them – but, generally, my brain is highly resistant to this genre, and I just tune right the heck out.

    20. Corduroy. Gives me the sensory ick; touching it makes me want to moisturize my hands stat.

    19. War movies/war novels. Another genre that I just can’t with. I will fall asleep. I feel like I had so much war fiction forced upon me in public school English class, that now, if a novel’s back cover blurb mentions a war, I put that sucker right back on the shelf without even finishing the sentence. I know this topic is important and valuable and all, but, please. No more.

    18. Brown soda. Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, root beer — anything that’s brown and bubby, is just vile to me, and always has been. It’s just a color/consistency combination that does NOT work. Only time I ever tolerated coke was when it had Jack in it, and nowadays I don’t drink anymore, so.

    17. “Pink” (the musical artist). Listen, I’m sure Alecia is a perfectly lovely individual IRL, and I can’t deny that she has an objectively good singing voice. But as a performer, I just can’t. Something about listening to her music makes me feel like I’m gagging on a giant spoonful of Crisco.

    16. The 1970s. My least favorite decade of the 20th century. I feel like everything that came out of it was ugly and bad: fashion, decor, songs, buildings, Church reforms, you name it.

    15. Chewing gum. Simply disgusting and abhorrent. Also bad for you. It’s gross and dumb and makes you look gross and dumb, like a big dumb animal chewing its nasty, sticky, synthetic cud. If you need to freshen your breath on the go, suck on a mint.

    14. Minimalism in decor and art. I dislike clutter as much as the next person, but, I loathe the stripped-down, stark, cold, sleek aesthetic that makes a home feel like a contemporary art museum. I hate it in fine art, and in prose, too. This isn’t Twitter, it’s a novel. Give me lengthy descriptions and long, lush sentences I can sink my teeth into. Don’t talk to your reader like you hate them and can’t wait to get away from them; I mean, come on.

    13. Wearing fitted clothes, especially tight-fitting long sleeves. If I try on a long-sleeved top and the sleeves are tight, I will scream and rip it off and throw it across the room, dry heaving. The audacity of any garment to constrict my arms! But really anything tight. Sensory ick; also, immodest.

    12. Crude bumper stickers. Or anything you put on your vehicle that has visible profanities or obscenities. Nothing screams “immature” and “idiot” so much as a vulgar car ornament. If you want to be gross and trashy in private, fine, but don’t force me to have to explain to my young kids what your stupid sticker means.

    11. Car chase scenes, fight scenes, and sports game scenes in movies/TV. These bore me to tears! Just get to the point: who wins? Do they catch the guy or not? Because I am not enjoying this, I do not find this titillating.

    10. The band Maroon 5. I recognize that they have talent, and “This Love” and “One More Night” were both catchy AF, but, dude’s voice has this weird goose-like quality to me. There’s something greasy about his lyrics. Also, he was caught cheating on his pregnant wife, which makes him very repulsive to me. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Now, every time I hear his goose-like voice on the radio, I gag and cannot change the station fast enough.

    9. Puppets. I don’t mind the realistic-looking animal puppets you can buy at fancy toy shops. It’s the Muppety ones with the wide mouths and creepy noodly arms that I loathe. Kermit – hate him. Fraggles – hate ‘em. Any video with those hideous things in it immediately gets switched off in my house.

    8. Beer. It’s so gross. I was an active alcoholic for approximately twelve years, and an absolute whore for booze, but never once even touched a drop of this stuff. I’ve been to Germany twice and Ireland four times, and still, never once tasted beer. The smell, the appearance, the concept, the vibes: I just hate everything about it.

    7. Plastic. Now, I’m no “crunchy mom” – I like my Tylenol, vaccines, and fluoride toothpaste, don’t care for tea or meat, and am terrible at baking bread from scratch – but, plastic is an abomination! It’s actively poisoning us, and it’s everywhere, in everything, because it’s cheap. And plastic-free alternatives are prohibitively expensive. It’s a crime. Plastic garbage nauseates me, because you just know each little plastic bag or jar or jug you toss is going to outlive you and your grandchildren. Outlaw this filth!

    6. Eye contact and first names. This is an AvPD thing. I avoid eye contact and use of names with everyone except my own children. Using someone’s name feels like taking ownership of them in a way that I can’t get comfortable with. I also have certain long-standing issues with my own real first name, which I will not go into here.

    5. Merging on the highway. Or, other people merging onto the highway while I am driving on the highway. I have driving anxiety, which is for the most part pretty manageable, but these merging situations never fail to give me a mini heart attack. In fact, cars in general deserve to be on this list. Bring back horses.

    4. Bugs. I hate bugs. I hate wasps, ticks, hornets, gnats, mosquitoes, crickets, ants… all of them. Horrible. I live in a location that’s very buggy in the summer, and every summer, without fail, fantasize in detail about moving to Alaska or Siberia or the Swedish Lapland.

    3. The ocean. Shit is terrifying, yo. Sometimes I’ll just be sitting in my house or lying in bed and I’ll randomly think about the fact that the ocean is two and a half miles deep where the Titanic sank. And much deeper in other places. That much water just has no business existing! In my good Christian suburbs!! And some of the critters that live down there? Horrifying. Don’t even get me started on riptides and undertows and tidal waves. I feel this way about outer space, too, but, the ocean is closer to home.

    2. Chalk, and also dry paper. My biggest sensory ick. Not even gonna write about it cause just the thought is so extremely physically uncomfortable.

    And finally:

    1. People not listening. This is probably my biggest anger trigger, both as a mom and in human interactions in general. I’m a logic-based personality type (INTJ in MBTI, ILI in socionics), so when people refuse to listen to reason, it seriously tweaks me. This is part of why I get so heated about, for example, pro-choicers who deny science or throw emotional red herrings instead of listening to very basic, elementary logic; or, similarly, Catholic haters who stubbornly close their ears against the perfect rationality of Catholic teachings, because they simply don’t want to hear it, and instead do all kinds of mental gymnastics just to dodge the truth. Also, my toddlers when they ignore basic instructions; this, more than any other behavior of theirs, irks me to death. Or even adults, when they distort and misconstrue something I said in conversation, or grossly misunderstand my intentions (this typically me more anxious and sad than angry, though). Being understood and heard is among the pinnacles of human experience; maybe that’s why I like to write so much. “All the love in the world is useless when there is a total lack of understanding,” said Franz Kafka, and I felt that in my soul.

  • Mith’s Favorite Thing About “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” (2022)

    February 14th, 2025

    Caution: spoilers

    Here I am again, late to the party on a movie that came out in 2022. I am always slow to see new movies.

    But I’d been curious about this one for quite some time. I mean, the meme was one of the best of the last several years. Plus, as you may know, I’m unironically a huge fan of Nic Cage, solely because he starred in my personal favorite movie of all time, The Wicker Man (2006) (yes, I unironically love this movie; I have always thought it was creepy and beautiful and captivating, and better than the original (yeah I said it), and have always had a girl-crush on Kate Beahan’s character; this is one of very few movies that I can and do watch over and over again, which, as you can imagine, just delights my husband).

    But so I didn’t really know what I was expecting, when we started watching Unbearable Weight. I knew it was, like, meta, with Nic Cage playing himself, or something. Whatever; I will watch pretty much anything he’s in (the only movie of his that really disappointed me was The Pig (2021) – grim, boring, depressing, no redeeming qualities IMO; weirdly, I’ve heard that this is Nic Cage’s personal favorite of his movies?!).

    So I had zero expectations, and ended up very pleasantly surprised!

    For one, the humor. I have a pretty weird, gen-Z type sense of humor (caused, probably, by overexposure to internet memes and shitposting), so I typically don’t find movies funny, especially not comedies. But this one was genuinely hilarious. The part where Pedro Pascal’s character, high on LSD, turns and laughs at the two men who are, supposedly, “watching them” — you just know they were having so much fun filming that. And just in general, you have to respect Nic Cage for making so much fun of himself in this movie. It was honestly such a brilliant career move, on his part; really the smartest thing he could have done, as an actor, at this point.

    For two, the story writing. I am always so in awe of a really smart, intricate, perfectly-assembled plotline, in which all the pieces are parts of a well-oiled machine. When no moment, no word of dialogue, is wasted, and things keep hearkening back to other things. I’m especially awed by mysterious and suspenseful or exciting stories; how do writers do that?! Like, the way the random monologue he recites at the beginning makes another appearance at the end, where it fits perfectly. And the way the movie that the two main characters are writing ends up coming true, and then becoming a movie again. It was just so freaking clever.

    But the best thing about this movie was not the humor, nor the story writing, but: the friendship.

    It really is, essentially, a Platonic love story. How often do you see those, in movies and shows? Especially about straight men? Almost never, right? I can’t think of any others, and I’ve been thinking for several days. I guess there was Napoleon Dynamite (2004); but I wouldn’t call that a Platonic love story, even though the friendship with Pedro was one of the biggest story elements; that was more of a self-discovery story. Can you think of any other movies that glorify male friendship, or, you might even say non-romantic soul mates, like this one does?

    If only there were more shows, movies, and songs about best friendship rather than romance! I feel like our culture would be so much healthier. Speaking as someone who is admittedly obsessed with drama, romance, and sexual tension in stories, I really think we as a society are way too obsessed with such things. An alien observing our pop culture would probably think that sex and romance are all humans care about, the whole purpose of our existence. I remember being a little kid of perhaps seven, asking my Dad “why is it that every song on the radio is about someone’s boyfriend or girlfriend?”, and he was like: “You’ll understand when you’re older. 😊” And yeah, I do now, but also, I don’t. We should celebrate and glorify best friendship more.

    .

    Friendship is such a fascinating thing to me, as someone with AvPD who doesn’t really have friends. I haven’t had a “best friend” of the Nic Cage/Pedro Pascal, Saweetie/Doja Cat variety since I was, probably like 14. I have some excellent friends with whom I correspond online, and I love them dearly, and those friendships are really all I need, in the way of a social life. But that type of close, intimate friendship where you do stuff like: share clothes, call on the phone whenever, get in an argument and then make up, talk about gross personal stuff, and call each other “bitch” for fun? I can only fantasize! That level of intimacy is so crazy, so terrifying.

    It’s scarier than a romantic relationship, IMO, because in a romantic relationship, there’s sort of a transactional element. The other person wants something from you, and you know what that is: affection, attention, sex; or, if you’re going about things the proper way, marriage. There are pretty clear expectations, usually, when it comes to romance. Whereas, with Platonic friends, it’s like… you want what from me? My company? Lol, why??! What could you possibly get out of that?! This is probably why, throughout my late teens and twenties, I had quite a few boyfriends, but almost zero girl friends (and of those few, none of them were what I’d call “close”).

    Friendship is so cool, because, in theory, a friend literally just likes you for who you are, and doesn’t want anything from you except to just be around you. That’s kind of wild to me. What’s even more wild is that, to lots of people out there, this kind of relationship apparently comes naturally! They don’t even need to think about it! 🤯

    Female best friendship is pretty well represented in the media, even if it’s usually portrayed only alongside a romantic relationship, like a background thing. But straight male friendship? An intimate and loving but completely non-sexual relationship between two grown men? I feel like you just don’t see it that much, in the mainstream media; am I wrong?

    It’s such a cool thing, and honestly a sign of a really healthy and secure man IMO, for him to have close male friends. This is one thing I’ve always found really attractive, and fascinating, about my husband: as a grown-ass man, now in his late thirties, he still has best friends that he hangs out with, for no reason, just for fun. They will seriously just go to each other’s houses, with no specific plans, and, do what? Hang out? Talk?? I don’t know! To me that is wild! They even go out to eat together and stuff, and, like, text each other for support when they’re having a hard time. To my AvPD-having ass, that kind of stuff is just unfathomable, lol. As much as I give my husband a hard time about abandoning me to go chill with his bros, I must admit that his ability to maintain friendships is one of the coolest things about him (don’t tell him I said that).

    But yeah, so, to get back to the point, Unbearable Weight represents beautifully this magical, fantastical phenomenon of human existence that deserves to be more celebrated and glorified in our society, and I love it for that reason. I’d love to see this become more of a thing.

  • Mith’s take on the “17 Diapers”

    February 12th, 2025

    I know: I am, as usual, late to this story. I have never had TikTok; I am too old for that, so I rely on reposts on Instagram to get my social media news. Over the past few months, I’ve occasionally read up on this “17 diapers” mom’s story, and I find people’s reaction to her pretty troubling.

    Now, as I said, I am not at all familiar with this influencer, whatever her name is – Nurse So-and-so. From what I’ve heard, she posted a lot of problematic content in addition to the video in question, like for example that she didn’t receive prenatal care during her pregnancy, or that she only changes diapers if they’re poopy, not just wet – both of which are, obviously, major red flags. I know there are also accusations of physical child abuse, based on certain behaviors that people observed in her videos. Which, I didn’t watch the videos, so can’t comment.

    But! All that other stuff aside, I just want to focus on the topic that she actually went viral for. The issue of the “17 diapers.” Let’s pretend, for the purposes of this post, that she’s an otherwise harmless mom, and consider this issue in isolation.

    In case you’re not familiar: Nurse So-and-so posted a video about her life at home when she was a few days postpartum, with a newborn and a toddler. Her husband had left to go on some kind of trip, abandoning her to solo parent both kids when she was fresh out of the hospital. Needless to say, she was struggling, and the house was a wreck. She posted this video, in which she says something like “let’s see how many used diapers are sitting around my house right now!” and proceeds to walk around her house counting them as she picks them up to take them to the trash for the first time in, presumably, several days. And, she ends up finding: seventeen used diapers. Just laying around her house, on the floor, on tables, in random places, not taken to the trash.

    And the internet lost their mind over this. In both directions.

    Half responded with: thank God! I can relate! Postpartum is so hard, thanks for being real and vulnerable and sharing, now I don’t feel so alone anymore!

    And the other half was like: shame on you!! You have time to be on TikTok but no time to walk a diaper to the trash?! Your kids are going to get sick! This is child abuse, your kids are going to be traumatized, you are disgusting and don’t deserve to be a mom, etc. etc.

    And it is this second group of people that really worries me.

    Because, to start: how is it that, in 2024-25, people are not aware of how hard postpartum is, for a mom? The internet these days is absolutely obsessed with boasting about “my depression,” “my anxiety,” “my neurodivegence,” “my struggles” to the point where people are competing in some sort of suffering olympics, gatekeeping their “mental illnesses” with such presumptuous accusations as “you’re not really depressed, you don’t know what real depression is! I once stayed in my bed for an entire week, not bathing, not eating, just pissing myself right there in the bed because I was too depressed to go to the bathroom – and if you judge me for that, then you just don’t understand my struggle!” And people wear these types of anecdotes like a badge of honor. Their gold medal in the suffering olympics.

    And yet, in the midst of this idiotic internet culture that celebrates mental illness, why is it that a postpartum mom – literally, medically speaking, a person most vulnerable to extreme depression, due to the massive hormonal changes, on top of the lack of sleep, the physical pain that she’s in, and the constant demands on her – why is it that her mental health struggle is invalid? Why is her depression not seen as real?! I’d argue that hers is probably way more real than that of a lot of these attention-hungry kids on social media.

    To reiterate: it’s “cool” for some single twentysomething person to be so depressed they can’t leave their bed, and we don’t get to judge them – but, for a newly postpartum, solo-parenting mom to be so depressed that she has to prioritize keeping everyone alive, and doesn’t walk diapers to the trash? Unacceptable!

    And also, why are we attacking the mom, and not her husband, who abandoned her at literally less than a week postpartum? Can anyone who doesn’t have kids really understand what a dick move that was? Where is your feminism now, internet?

    Make it make sense.

    “But, Mith,” you may perhaps be arguing, “of course she deserves more judgment than that single twentysomething rotting in his bed. She chose to have kids. She has a responsibility. It’s not about her anymore. She has to put on her big girl pants and take care of the house, even if it’s hard!”

    First of all, yes, it is absolutely true that she has a responsibility. That is why she is up feeding her kids and changing their diapers when she would surely rather be rotting in her bed. I feel like, if you are judging her for not walking to the trash can, you have probably never been in survival mode.

    I don’t know about you all, but I have three kids five and under, and our main trash can has to live in the sunroom off the kitchen, behind a door that we can lock, because otherwise they get into it, like little raccoons. And I solo parent most of the time. So yes, there have been occasions, like when I’ve been very sick, or had a rushed morning, when a used diaper gets left on the floor for a few hours before I’m able to walk it out to the trash. So, although my floor diaper count has never reached anywhere close to seventeen (because I married a decent man who would never even think of abandoning me like that!!), I can relate to her video. I’ve had a c section before. I know how painful and crippling postpartum can be. You physically can’t move around and do chores.

    Second of all, let’s stop being hard on moms for choosing to have kids. Choosing to have kids should not mean subjecting oneself to judgment from strangers everywhere. Choosing to have kids is natural. It’s the most normal thing an adult in their 20s-30s can do. And it is a good thing, an objectively good thing to do, contrary to what all these sad antinatalists and misguided pro-choicers will try to tell you. Just because a woman chose to have kids, does not mean that she automatically has to be superhuman all of the time. (In fact, this expectation that moms have to be these enlightened superheroes, might be part of the reason why there are so many antinatalists and DINKs these days. Who wants all that judgment from everyone?!)

    And furthermore, to get a bit gross, let’s look at the actual issue of the diapers themselves. (Let’s pretend that they’re not all fully loaded poopy diapers, as some have said that they apparently were, which is an issue.) If these were mostly just wet diapers, changed at the stage when a normal parent would normally change them – and, if they were tightly rolled up and taped into one of those neat little diaper balls that seasoned parents know how to make – then, is this seriously a bad enough offense to merit the “abuse” accusations? Obviously, if the diapers were all soiled and left unfastened and open where little hands could reach, then yes, that’s vile and that’s a huge issue; but the mere fact of a closed, wet diaper existing in a room – I don’t think that’s that terrible of an offense. Yes, it’s bad, and icky, but, child abuse? Calling CPS? Really?

    Sometimes, I really think the internet just hates moms. Hates parents, hates babies, hates families – hates life. It’s a dark place.

    “You’re probably really gross, then, Mith, if you’re defending this situation. I sure wouldn’t want to come to your house! Anyone who doesn’t think it’s always a terrible crime to leave used diapers out, is simply a disgusting person.”

    We do have a moral obligation to keep our homes clean, especially if we have children. But the reason why we have that obligation is because we need to keep our families healthy and happy. We must take care of our families. Sometimes, in survival mode, taking care of our families means prioritizing the bare necessities: feeding, changing, clothing, washing. Cleanliness is important, but it’s not the be-all, end-all; it is not the deciding factor. You can have a clean house and still be a bad parent, just as you can have a dirty house sometimes and still be a good parent. Cleanliness of the house is only one of many things that factors into the quality of parenting.

    (And, btw, is my house sparkling clean? No. Do I have any used diapers on the floor right now? Also no. I clean daily, and my kids are healthy and happy, thanks for your concern.)

    And also: let’s not forget what this mom was actually doing, in her video. She was cleaning! Yes, it had been a few days, and she’s not pretending that’s okay. The thing is, just as soon as she was able, she cleaned up! It would of course be an issue if a mom left diapers around all the time, as a rule, and thought it wasn’t an issue. That would be really bad. But sometimes, a good, well-meaning mom goes through a hard time, and lets some things go; but, as soon as she’s able, she gets back up and improves things. She doesn’t let it become a pattern. The 17 diapers mom was not letting this become a pattern.

    “But, if she had time to be on TikTok, then clearly she had time to pick up diapers!!”

    This might be the most inane comment of them all, lol, and anyone commenting this immediately outs themselves as someone who has never met a newborn. A newborn wants one thing, and that is to lay on its mom, to snuggle with its mom 24/7. A mom with a new baby is, typically, couchbound, especially in the very early days – as she should be, as even the smoothest of births leaves a massive open wound inside your body and needs a lengthy recovery. What’s a new mom in 2024-5 going to do, while nap-trapped or nursing on the couch? Probably scroll her phone. It’s not that she’s loafing around when she could be cleaning. She cannot clean right now, so she’s scrolling to entertain herself while holding the baby. Which is also not a crime, and we all do it.

    As I was saying, I’m aware that, in the specific case of Nurse So-and-so, there was more going on. Most of the responses to the viral video didn’t go into all that, though – the main shock factor was simply the “17 diapers” themselves, so that’s all I wanted to address here. And that issue, in and of itself, does not merit the harsh reactions that some people out there were having. The internet needs to leave moms alone.

  • The fundamental difference between pro-life & pro-choice

    February 9th, 2025

    The other day, I saw an excellent little video from one of my favorite pro-life content creators (“secularprolife” on IG: although I’m not “secular” myself, and don’t agree with every word she says, I love how she proves that abortion is wrong not just from a religious POV, but for everyone, even if you don’t believe in God at all). In this video, she pointed out something very helpful to consider, for anyone who wishes to engage in meaningful debate about this topic: namely, pro-life people believe that abortion ends a life, whereas pro-choice people tend to believe that abortion prevents a life from beginning at all.

    I’m not here to delve into all of the reasons why it’s idiotic to believe that a baby in utero is not already alive (why would you need to abort it if it wasn’t alive?!). A quick biology lesson, or googling even the most rudimentary, basic info on the science of human reproduction, will fill you in on that, if you’re interested.

    No, I am actually here to point out something else that I believe is a fundamental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice philosophies. Possibly an even more fundamental one than the one just named, because there are plenty of pro-choicers who are fully aware that abortion ends a life, but they simply don’t think it matters (or matters enough).

    And that is because of this fundamental difference: pro-life folks believe that life is good, and pro-choice folks do not. To be more precise, the pro-life belief is that life is an objectively good and worthwhile thing, always, whereas pro-choice folks believe that life is only good under certain conditions.

    A pro-choicer might say that, if a child is going to be born seriously ill or disabled, it is better off not living. Or if a child is going to be born to a very young mom, or a very old mom, or a mom who is poor, or a mom who is herself sick or disabled, then that child is better off not living. Or if the parents aren’t ready to be parents. Or if the child simply isn’t enthusiastically wanted by both parents. They claim that a child is better off being killed than being born into a life of any kind of sadness or hardship.

    It is actually really very sad, when you think about it, to believe that life is only good in certain circumstances. Even if you don’t believe in God and His goodness, surely it’s evident merely from observing life, that life is an objective good. Why else would all living things strive to remain alive, to reproduce and create more life? I think it takes some real bizarre mental gymnastics to believe that life is not a good thing. It’s like finding some reason to believe that 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

    But, I guess not too many people believe in any objective truth anymore. In a society where all belief systems are supposed to be seen as equally good (except, ironically, the one that teaches that objective good exists), nothing is really true anymore, is it.

    I used to be an atheist, and I remember the moment when I began to finally see the flaw in this belief system. I was a junior in college, taking an upper-level philosophy course (because I guess I wanted to get as deeply and hopelessly into debt as I possibly could, lol) called Meta-Ethics. Early in the semester, our professor was asking us to think about what moral values actually are. Do they exist in the world, and if so what actually are they, and how can we identify them? I thought for a while, and took a look at my own idea of moral values: obviously they existed, because some things, like murder, were objectively wrong; but how did I know, really? Because it just felt wrong? I guess I had some vague concept of like an internal sensor that people must be equipped with; but to detect what? And if that were the case, why did people’s moralities differ so drastically? This philosophy, I began to realize, with a slight chill, did not hold water. (A couple years later I began converting to Catholicism.)

    In our modern world, everyone has their own truth. Which, btw, brings me to one of my pet peeves: the phrase “my truth.” As in, “speak your truth” or “I’m telling you my truth.” There is no such thing as “your” truth! There is only the truth. What you’re referring to is your experience, your feelings, your side of the story – what you, an imperfect and non-omniscient creature, believe to be true. All of which are valid and important, sure, but they’re not necessarily any kind of truth. Let’s stop saying “my truth” and start saying “my side of the story.” Ugh, every time I hear the phrase “my truth” I throw up a little in my mouth. But anyway, that was a tangent.

    People don’t believe in objective truth, nor do they believe in objective good. (Do we believe in objective beauty? I’m not sure if we do or not, that’s a different blog post.) Things are only “good” for a specific individual if that’s what that individual believes is good for them.

    Which is a super dangerous way to think about goodness. An underweight anorexic person might believe it is “good” for them to not eat today, or that they need to lose more weight; are we going to honor their beliefs and respect their personal values, or are we going to do what’s actually good for them and encourage them to seek help, because they are simply wrong? An alcoholic really believes it’s for the best if they get drunk (even if they fully acknowledge that it’s damaging their health, to them, the apparent “good” that is pleasure and relief outweighs the health risk); should we tolerate diversity of opinion here? Or would the more loving response be to intervene, to let them know that they are wrong?

    And if you admit that objective good exists in these situations, then you must follow that to its logical conclusion: so objective good does exist.

    Health, for example, is good. But why?

    Because, life is good.

    So yeah, subjective morality is a very slippery slope. Pro-choicers do not believe that life is a good thing, and that is deeply sad.

    I think you will generally find that people who are pro-choice tend to be less happy than people who are pro-life. And by “happy” I mean not “college educated, wealthy, healthy, successful” but rather “convinced that their life has an actual meaning and value regardless of their circumstances.”

    Realizing that most pro-choicers are really sad, helps perhaps to see them in a more compassionate light. For example, some individuals I know who are pro-choice were never taught about the value of their own body or the tragedies of sexual immorality, and had to learn about sex in public school or from TV or their peers – either that, or they had morality violently shoved down their throats at a young age, and their “liberated” philosophy is a retaliation against that violence. Some of them are SA victims who are still healing from trauma. And a lot of it is just exposure to our depraved culture; we’ve “normalized” way too much, and to be “not normal” is a terrible social sin. So people will try to be normal so that they’ll be seen as valid and worthy. It’s all really very sad.

    I wouldn’t call myself a “happy person.” I’ve always been gloomy, pessimistic, melancholic, negative, prone to bad moods and discontentment and periods of depression, and, as you know, I have diagnosed AvPD, which is chronic, and hardly a picnic in the park. But, in the grander sense of the word, I am deeply happy, because I know that there is hope of salvation.

    At some point, subjective morality becomes impossible to live with, if you really look it in the face. If there is no objective meaning to anything, and life is not objectively good, then, sure, absolutely, abortion is as good as anything else! Why not get an abortion! Why not kill anyone! When you arrive at that point, in all seriousness, suicide is the only option. It’s pretty much necessary. I am not trying to be dramatic, this is a simple fact. What pleasure you can milk out of life is just that, just a blip, just a few moments of sensory pleasure in an expanse of suffering, with an eternity of blackness stretching out on either side of it, if you don’t believe that pleasure means anything more than just pleasure. We are not built to live with the knowledge that life is that meaningless. So, what’s more likely, that this universe is all some kind of random, material, evolutionary accident, or that we are built this way because there actually is a greater meaning we’re supposed to find?

    But, ahem, that’s just my take, and I’m not here to try to prove the existence of God, lolol. I got way off track there! My point is, objective good exists, and life, more than anything else on earth, is absolutely objectively good. It’s kind of a no brainer, tbh. But I guess not for everyone, sadly.

  • Has anyone else noticed this about pop music?

    February 8th, 2025

    I wonder if anyone else has noticed this trend in pop music. Specifically, the upbeat, danceable kind of pop – I’m not talking about pop ballads, which have always been and will always be a thing. Since I noticed this, I can’t stop thinking about it, and pondering what it might mean.

    I write this not as any kind of critic or expert, or even that big of a fan. I’m just some random person who’s been alive in America for 30-some years, sometimes listening to the radio. It would be interesting to see if anyone who is actually knowledgeable about pop culture over the last few decades had anything to say about this, or if they could disprove my theory.

    Here it is: I’ve noticed that, over the last ten, fifteen years or so, pop song lyrics have become, in general, much more, shall we say, cocky. Overconfident, conceited, full of this spirit of “it’s all about me, I don’t need anyone.” “I’m so hot, everyone wants me, but they’re all just playthings to me.” A lot of talk about getting money and nice things. You see it in both male and female pop singers.

    Yes, obviously Madonna did “Material Girl” in the ‘80s, and BSB did “We’ve Got It Goin’ On” (which, while playfully boastful, isn’t even quite the brand of cockiness that I’m talking about) in the ‘90s; but I feel like these examples were just occasions, not indicative of the general voice of pop music at the time. Whereas today, you see it everywhere. “Espresso” and “Taste” by Sabrina Carpenter, “thank u, next” and “7 Rings” by Ariana Grande, “FRIENDS” by Anne-Marie and Marshmello, “I’m The One” by Justin Bieber, “Strip That Down” by Liam Payne (may he rest in peace), just to name a few that come to mind. Even Taylor Swift, over the course of fifteen years or so, went from “Love Story” and “You Belong With Me” to “Out Of Style” and “Ready For It” (which is, actually, my favorite of her songs/videos).

    I’m comparing these kinds of contemporary songs to the ones that were hugely popular when I was a kid, in the true Golden Age of pop. Yes, I know, everyone says pop music peaked in their youth, but in the case of my generation, who were kids in the late 90s, that is actually true. Britney’s “…Baby One More Time” and “Oops I Did It Again,” Spice Girls’ “Say You’ll Be There” and “Wannabe,” BSB’s “Millenium” and “I Want It That Way,” NSYNC’s “Bye Bye Bye” and “It’s Gonna Be Me,” even your less well-remembered pop hits like “Candy” by Mandy Moore and “Another Dumb Blonde” by Hoku – all of these had an emotional, sincere, vulnerable, well-meaning tone to their lyrics.

    Yes, they were sexual, and by no means “that innocent” (lol), but, they tended to talk about relationships with an individual, desiring one individual, or trying to express something important to someone, or to express sadness about a failed relationship.

    And yes, sure, you still see these kinds of lyrics today – but not in the flashy, hot pop songs. You tend to see them in the more subdued, soft-rock flavored brand of pop (like Maroon 5 or Teddy Swims or Ed Sheeran), not the fun, danceable ones. Vulnerability and sincerity seem to have lost their sex appeal. It’s like having a conscience is lame now. Caring has become cringe.

    I wonder why this is.

    Part of me wonders if it is the influence of rap and hip-hop. Mainstream rap and pop are merging, in a lot of ways. You see a lot more crossover these days than you ever did in my youth: rap stars featured on pop tracks is really normal nowadays. (The same thing is happening with country and rap right now, interestingly – look at this Morgan Wallen guy, featured on that new song by Moneybagg Yo. I actually am very much here for this flavor of crossover; in my neck of the woods, there’s a huge market for it, and I’ve been waiting for it for a long time.) Rap lyrics do tend to have this cockiness that I’m talking about: “I’m the best, everyone wants me, I’m so good at what I do, I get so much money,” etc. Now, as my loyal readers know, I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop, and am not at all belittling that genre or its themes. I just think it’s interesting to see how rap culture has become more and more influential on pop culture.

    Or, is it caused by something else? Is it just that this younger generation loves irony more? Is it just that they are more sad, more jaded, more scarred by early exposure to the toxins of social media and modern life? They are growing up too fast (ever seen those “13 year olds today vs. me at 13” memes?). It seems like this generation has seen too much, too soon, and doesn’t have time or energy for feelings. Judging from their internet humor, they’re the generation who collectively wishes they’d never been born, and is filled with dread about their future, and copes via irony and brainrot; so, I guess this kind of jaded music speaks to them in a way that the sugary, enthusiastic lyrics of early Britney or BSB would not.

    Maybe this is the crotchety old lady in me, but, I feel like this younger generation is also more self-centered in general. Not in bad way, necessarily: it’s just that these kids have grown up chronically online, and were isolated during their formative years thanks to COVID; not to mention the explosion of the “self care” movement, and the related pop psych trend of adult children going no-contact with their families of origin as a way to “set boundaries” and “protect their own mental health.” These kids have it easy, in a way; they never had to pick up their family telephone to call their friend on their friend’s family phone, and endure the mortifying ordeal of asking their friend’s mother if so-and-so was around! Much less approaching a person of interest irl and asking them out! Nope, nowadays you can just text “wyd.” These kids are lonely, jaded, and simultaneously too soft and too hard for their age. At risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I really think all of this has contributed this “all about me, fuck everyone else” attitude that we see in their pop music.

    When did this become a thing? Like I said, it’s not completely new, but as far as I can tell only very recently seems to be the norm. I wonder if the turning point wasn’t in the late ‘00s, when Lady Gaga rose to power. She was obviously really innovative, as a pop star. Her lyrics weren’t quite “2020s cocky” yet, but she definitely had this brazen, IDGAF, galvanized, “queen bitch who won’t slow down for no man” kind of quality, that vanity and self-celebration that’s fueled by a deep sadness. Because that’s what it really is, I think: this attitude is the fruit of emotional trauma, of a deep sadness. Sia, who’s probably my favorite pop singer ever, addresses this sadness head-on in her lyrics more than anyone else I’ve heard on mainstream radio. The Weeknd does it, too.

    But anyway, Lady Gaga – I remember when “Just Dance” came out, it was a huge deal. It spoke to so many of us kids at that time: “I’m sad, I don’t want to think about my problems, I just want to get wasted and hook up with strangers to numb my pain.” And then, “Poker Face” and “Bad Romance:” both songs about, not being in love, not caring about the other person, but about a manipulative but sexy “situationship,” about people using each other. The lyrics acknowledge how sad this is, while also glamorizing it: the message is, basically, “fuck it, I can’t afford to care anymore.” Lady Gaga was saying these things out loud, in a fun and catchy way, and made it cool. I think it’s generally true that people who really love and idolize her are deeply sad people.

    Sadness has really become much more mainstream, these days. When I was a kid, it was weird to be in therapy or on antidepressants. Today, all the cool kids are depressed and on meds and in therapy, or self-diagnosing with all kinds of mental illnesses; it’s actually weird not to be mentally ill now. Which is itself a glaring symptom of a broken culture, IMO, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms and a way bigger problem than pop music.

    But, this mental illness trend probably underlies the tonal shift in pop music. So I think it’s all of these things – the convergence with rap culture, the jadedness and sadness and self-centeredness of the younger generation – which fuel what I’ve come to think of as 2020’s cockiness in pop music.

    None of this is meant in any way as a jab at pop artists or at today’s youth. I remember when I was younger, I hated listening to older people bitch about millennials; I hated that they’d assume something to be true of me just because of what was popular among other people my age, none of whom I even really related to. It wasn’t until I was older, and began to have some more perspective, that I identified strongly as a millennial, and could begin to see what was funny and sad and cool about millennials at large.

    Anyway – what I mean is, I’m not trying to say that every individual born after the year 2000 is selfish and immature; nor am I trying to say that music has gotten worse.* I respect Sabrina, Ariana, Taylor, and all the rest; I think they’re talented and cute and good at what they do. I’m just idly observing what I see as an interesting, and perhaps telling, trend.

    *That being said, though, early ‘90s pop will always be superior to all other eras, as previously stated.

  • Is NFP birth control, and is its use ever justified?

    February 6th, 2025

    Revised April 2025

    Is NFP birth control? I’ve already touched on this question in another post, but am feeling a need to delve into it more specifically.

    You’ll see a lot of folks, especially the more modern-leaning, Christopher West-informed Catholics, who believe that using NFP to avoid counts as being open to life. It’s perfectly fine to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, they say, as long as you use NFP. Because that way you’re still having sex the appropriate way (i.e. no birth control or “pull-out” or anything like that).

    But are you really being open to life?

    Some of the “rad trad” types believe that controlling your fertility at all — that trying to avoid (TTA) ever — is always wrong. Because approaching sex in such a way that you are trying to avoid conception, is, in fact, having a contraceptive mindset. It is corrupting the true purpose of marriage, not to mention, it shows a lack of faith in God.

    Is NFP birth control? As far as I can see, yes, it definitely is.

    Because it seems pretty obvious that you’re not being “open to life” if you’re intentionally avoiding using fertile days. To say that TTA using NFP constitutes being open to life, is literally the same as saying that using condoms or any other birth control method is “being open to life,” because these methods are also never 100% guaranteed!

    In fact, NFP instructors trying to sell their method will boast of its effectiveness: “more effective than birth control when done correctly!” And this is true. Personally, if I were really seriously TTA for some extreme, life or death reason, I’d absolutely prefer to use NFP rather than contraceptives, because it’s more reliable! It is more effective! If you use a condom on a fertile day and it breaks… yikes, vs., if you simply avoid the days when there is any possibility of conceiving, you literally cannot get pregnant. People really struggle to understand that, that biology works that way. People tend to think that, because ejaculation occurs inside of a vagina, there is always a chance of pregnancy. (This stupid misinformation is drilled into our heads in public school health class, as well as by most healthcare providers.) But, literally, that is only the case 5 or 6 days out of the month. NFP is extremely reliable when done correctly.

    But that’s the catch: correctly.

    You hear that NFP babies are super common, and that scares some avoiders off of NFP. People will always say “oh but I got pregnant using NFP” or “my sister got pregnant twice using NFP” – well, that is because you were doing it wrong. You either made a mistake somewhere, or you are not being honest with yourself about how thorough you were. No shame in this. I’ve been there. Doing NFP correctly is hard. It is a cross to bear. People mess it up either because they don’t have the patience to track accurately, or they don’t have the willpower to abstain during fertile days. Or, they are not being entirely honest with themselves (I like to think I’m pretty honest with myself, but, the temptation to be like “oh, surely this isn’t really a fertile day” is real, sometimes). NFP is also highly unnatural. Everything about it is contrary to a healthy, happy marriage. That’s why it’s so easy to mess up.

    People who claim to be “open to life” while using NFP probably say that because what they mean is, if a slip-up were to happen, they would still keep that baby no matter what. But, if they’re really working hard to prevent slip-ups… I don’t know if they can properly call themselves “open to life,” at least not to the extent that someone who does not practice NFP is open.

    What level of openness are we required to practice? Are we required to be radically open? Or are we allowed to plan, but required to accept God’s “veto” of our plans, if He chooses to do that? I’m honestly not sure about this one, which is why I’m writing this post.

    All of that being a tangent to say that NFP is extremely effective, so much so that I think it actually is birth control.

    .

    NFP is birth control. That much is pretty plain. But, on to part two of this post. Is use of NFP ever justified? Some say yes, it’s absolutely fine. Others say no, never.

    “Grave reasons” or “serious reasons” is typically what you hear. If you have a “grave” or “serious” reason to avoid, then use NFP. But, IMO, the instructions from Rome are really, really vague regarding what a grave or serious reason actually is. They allude to financial or health reasons (although some other sources say financial reasons are actually not valid), but, they don’t really elaborate. I guess, to be fair, it would be hard to do that, since each family is so unique. I will do my best to thoroughly consider potential financial and health-related reasons below.

    Financial reasons

    In a perfect world, all married couples would be able to freely trust God with their fertility. But let’s be real. Life in this part of the world today is simply not what it was pre-industrial revolution. Lifestyle, for most people, is very different than it was two hundred years ago. We don’t live in synch with nature like we used to (and many of us simply don’t have that option). We have things like student debt, cars, car payments, mortgages, credit scores. The whole health care and insurance situation is fucked. Self-sufficiency is not the norm, it’s a luxury for those who can afford land and livestock. Living by today’s standards (with electricity and running water and climate control) costs a lot. It would probably be different if you lived like the Amish, but in our world, for most of us, it seems pretty unrealistic, and even unwise, to throw caution completely to the winds w/r/t conceiving children.

    And society expects us to provide certain things for our kids, beyond just education, food, and shelter. We are also expected to provide them with material comfort, security, opportunities, and enrichment. People will go so far as to accuse you of child abuse if you cannot afford such things as family vacations, a college savings fund, or one whole bedroom per child.

    Is there any weight to these accusations? Is it actually unethical to have kids if they’re going to have to share a bedroom, or never go on vacation, or have to work a job to save for college?

    Personally, I’m a minimalist about these kinds of things. Vacations, to me, are fun but unnecessary. I don’t really feel I need a lot, materially – I did not grow up financially comfortable by any means, but my childhood was happy and not lacking. I always think it is so bizarre and alien when someone feels a college savings account is a life or death necessity. Yes, it would be awfully nice to have, sure – but, is my life worthless because I have student debt? Would I be better off never having been born? I don’t think any good Catholic will agree with that take!

    Perhaps it’s not fair to generalize from my own experience. Just because I don’t require nice things, doesn’t mean all kids don’t… or don’t they? Does anyone really require those kinds of things?

    Our modern society thinks life is meaningless if it’s not comfortable. That you’re better off dead if you don’t have nice things, if you have to struggle. A pretty twisted and sick mindset, IMO.

    So, in general, I personally really don’t think finances are a pressing enough reason to avoid having a baby. In general.

    But, when it comes to finances: I think there actually is a really pressing reason why use of NFP might be not only justified, but necessary. And that is: debt. If the parents have debts that they’re truly unable to pay, that’s a serious problem. Not debts that they are making timely payments on— I think it’s totally fine to go ahead and be open to life, if you’re able to manage your debts responsibly — but if you’re drowning in debt and have no way to start paying those debts off, then probably don’t have another kid.

    It’s pretty simple, after all, isn’t it? We have an ethical duty to pay our debts. It is a sin not to do that. Having children in this day and age, unfortunately, costs a lot of money: you have to pay the hospital or midwife, you have to pay the pediatrician, and you have to feed them and educate them, all of which cost money if you’re doing it right. Intentionally having another child when you know full well that it would make you unable to pay your debts, might even be a sin — right? (Even if those debts are stupid; because it should not cost this much to have a kid, or to get basic health care: unfortunately, those are the circumstances that we’re in, and stamping our feet and wishful thinking will not change that.)

    And we know that in Catholic moral philosophy, the ends do not justify the means. Even such a very good end as having a child does not justify the means of committing a sin. We’re looking for “grave reasons” to avoid here, and nothing is more grave than sin, right? Not financial insecurity, not even physical health. I’d have to check with a priest about this, but this seems to make sense to me.

    Living in hardship is not an ethical failing. Your kids sharing a bedroom is not an ethical failing. Not being able to afford vacations, horseback riding lessons, a college savings plan — none of those are reasons not to have kids, IMO. But failing to pay debts is a sin, and sin is a pressing matter. (Now, if someone conceived on accident, and it was an honest mistake, that’s a different story, and the life of that child is obviously more important than any financial debt. I’m talking about intentionally conceiving, or being irresponsible and allowing it to happen when you know you ought not to.)

    Health reasons

    And so but what about health reasons? Are those serious? Obviously, if someone has life-or-death physical health reasons, such as cancer treatments or whatever, that is a good time to TTA using NFP. I think that goes without saying. Yes, there are cases of healthy babies being born in such situations, but it’s risky, and I think we have a responsibility to protect our own health.

    Or, if a mom has a c-section for one baby, and wants to allow her body the recommended eighteen months-two years to heal so that she can plan for a natural birth for subsequent pregnancies (because, after all, if she can have natural births, her body will be better able to handle many pregnancies and births!) — isn’t that a valid reason? Or, should that mom just accept that, if she has another baby in the near future, she’s going to be a c-section mom forever?

    What about if pregnancy is really hard on a mom, physically? Maybe she has hyperemesis gravidarum, or some other nasty symptom that makes pregnancy really hard on her, and takes away from her ability to care for her existing children or accomplish her daily tasks. Is she still required to keep being open?

    I know that, personally, I used to feel like NFP was never, ever justifiable. Now, being pregnant with my fourth at 35, while I have a 5, 3, and 2 year old to take care of, as well as a house, and my nausea and fatigue have been harder this time around — I really begin to see why some feel the need to TTA. I was basically incapacitated for three months, and my kids suffered because of it. I don’t have a “village” around me to really help out, so it’s all on me. I admit, for months, my kids watched TV literally morning to night, ate no home-cooked meals, only processed snacks, and only had a bath every three or four days, while the house around us went to absolute shit and we had to wade through clutter everywhere we went. I did what I could, but I had no help. Pregnancy sickness is real.

    Should I keep on doing this again and again, forcing my kids to miss out on months of their life? Does the good of having another sibling outweigh the bad of that lost time? Which responsibility is more pressing, my responsibility to take care of my kids and home (beyond just the bare basics, that is), or my responsibility to trust God and “be fruitful and multiply”? I really, honestly don’t know.

    It’s hard.

    Which brings me to mental health reasons. What about mental health? God made people with different personalities, different energy levels, different capacities for expending vs. conserving energy. Someone who is an introvert and requires a certain amount of quiet and “conservation” time, simply would not thrive with more than five or six kids!

    Or, could they? Wouldn’t God grant them the grace to make it work, if they trusted Him? After all, kids get older and more self-sufficient. Not that they don’t still require attention, but, as they grow up it does get easier on Mom, strictly physically speaking. She will have more opportunities for “me time” when her kids grow up, no matter how many of them she has, right? It’s just a brief period of her life, when her kids are little; shouldn’t she sacrifice her peace, for the good of bringing kids into the world? Maybe some would say yes. After all, worldly happiness isn’t everything, right?

    Personally, I’m a slow-moving type of person who requires a lot of time with my own thoughts. I can’t just rush around accomplishing tasks all the time nonstop. If you’re not of this personality type, you might just say I’m “lazy,” but that’s not it, because I’m actually pretty disciplined and productive. I simply need to plan for periods of time during the day when I can sit still and read or write or whatever, like I’m doing right now. My mental health suffers if I never get to pause. My mood suffers, and I become unpleasant and eventually snap. Is this a valid reason to stop having kids? I honestly don’t know. If I were holier and more saintly, I guess I wouldn’t require “me time.” But, I’m not that advanced.

    Or what about those women who suffer from debilitating postpartum depression? Or, God forbid, postpartum psychosis? For some women this is incredibly real and even dangerous. I can’t see how God would be offended if such a mom avoided or at least postponed pregnancy — right?

    Or maybe there are family reasons. Maybe one spouse wants to keep having kids, but the other doesn’t. We can’t just disregard the feelings of our spouse, even if we think they are wrong. Sometimes, in marriage, we have to sacrifice our vision of the picture-perfect, most morally-unimpeachable family life, to accommodate our spouse’s feelings (because it’s not really a perfect or ethical family life if you disregard your spouse’s feelings, is it).

    Maybe some couples are more spiritually advanced to the point where they truly aren’t bothered by any worldly concerns at all. They don’t care if they don’t have free time; they get all the mental health support they need from the Sacraments. They are basically saints already. That’s awesome! God has been generous to them, and they should absolutely return that generosity by having lots of kids.

    But, not everyone is that spiritually advanced. Some of us are just doing our best. We shouldn’t pretend to be further along than we are. We have to accept and be at peace with the degree of sanctity that God has permitted us to reach. If we simply don’t have the emotional/spiritual/mental capacity to be good parents to lots and lots of kids, then, isn’t it prudent and responsible to avoid having more of them?

    I’m inclined to think that yes, in such cases, it is actually good and necessary to TTA. I’m not sure about this, but it seems to make the most sense to me.

    I am sure of at least one thing: no couple who has the privilege of financial abundance, freedom from debt, great physical and mental health, and a “village” around them to make family life easier, should ever look down their nose at NFP users who are doing their earnest best. You are in that position because you are lucky. (True, maybe you worked hard to get to this point, but, Who gave you the grace to be able to work that hard? Nothing that we have comes from us, after all. We’re not all built the same, and you truly don’t know what it’s like inside someone else’s head, or to have their life.) Being lucky and blessed does not make you morally superior to anyone else.

    .

    So, as you can see, I’m still conflicted, but I do believe that there are sometimes pressing reasons to use NFP. Even though it’s birth control and not “open to life,” NFP is definitely superior to other methods of birth control, because, like I said earlier, it doesn’t corrupt the sexual act itself in any way. You’re not mutilating your body or messing with your hormones or placing a barrier between you and your spouse. It still sucks (it really sucks), but, you can see why the Church does OK its usage in certain scenarios.

    But I’m definitely open to having my mind changed on this (believe me, I’d love to have more kids!), so if you have a strong argument to the contrary, please, send it my way!

  • Mith’s one issue with the movie “The Whale”

    February 3rd, 2025

    Warning: this post contains what I’d consider “spoilers” for the plot of the movie The Whale (2022). If you haven’t seen the movie already, definitely go watch it ASAP, then come back and read this if you want.

    I’m late, I know. I’m always slow to see new movies. Even before I had children, I pretty much only ever went to a movie theater if someone else invited me. The last time I set foot in a movie theater was a rare occasion in September of 2022, when my husband and I went to see Nope for our birthday (we have the same birthday, four years apart, and we’re both big fans of Key & Peele, and loved Get Out, so we were pretty stoked about Nope; IMO the chimpanzee scenes were better than the alien ones, and creepy as heck).

    But so anyway, true to form, I only just watched Darren Aronofsky’s highly-acclaimed film adaptation of the play The Whale a couple of nights ago, even though it’s apparently been out since 2022?!

    What finally inspired me to watch it was: well, for one, my husband recently decided to delete Netflix because they keep hiking their ridiculous prices up (guess we’ll have to temporarily resubscribe in the fall for GBBO), so, since we canceled our subscription but still had the service for a few days, and we didn’t have a show to watch that night, we decided to just scroll Netflix like “well, let’s see if we can get anything out of this while we still have it.”

    And, for two, I love Brendan Fraser as much as any other millennial, and had read that this movie was like his big comeback after Hollywood did him dirty and tried to ruin him. And, for three, as we were scrolling Netflix and I saw that they had this Brendan Fraser movie that I’d read a bit about, I noticed in the description that it was directed by Darren Aronofsky, of whom I’ve been a huge fan since I first saw Pi in like 2009 or ‘10 (it was shown to my class one day during an elective I was taking called “Magic, Science, and Religion”). Black Swan was huge for me, as I’m sure it was for anyone with an ED. In fact, that was one movie that I did go out to the theater alone to see (one day when I was desperately trying to find some reason to get the hell out of my house because it was a really bad ED day, so it was perfect). So already when I saw that name I was sold.

    But also, for four, I saw that, obviously, the movie deals with the issue of weight/fatness, which, as you know, is an endlessly fascinating topic to me. And it was about a writer – a writing professor, actually, and I have a fair bit of experience with those (believe it or not). Plus, it sounded like one of those quiet, character-driven stories that I’m such a simp for. So, seeing all of this in the Netflix description, I told my husband to hit play immediately.

    What I did not realize before watching The Whale was that it takes place in northern Idaho, as do pretty much all of this playwright’s works. I haven’t read the play – I’m not huge on reading plays, tbh, and have never really enjoyed reading one – but I looked up Samuel D. Hunter, and I guess he lives in and writes pretty much exclusively about the Idaho Panhandle. Which, if you know me, you know I absolutely flipped out about, because a certain fictional character of mine also hails from the Idaho Panhandle (his hometown even got a mention in the movie!). In fact, some years ago, I was so intent on learning about this character’s backstory in this location, that I once flew out there solo (a long flight, from where I live) and spent two weeks just hanging around the town, exploring, sleeping at a motel, getting a feel for the place – which was super weird, objectively, because it’s not really a tourist town, and I was just a lone 25 year old woman who didn’t know a single (real) person in that town, and it was just seriously super weird, but super interesting for me. I was delighted to find that the place was exactly the way I’d seen it in my imagination – even more so, if that makes sense. The whole time I was there I kept looking around at the most mundane things and going “but of course!!”

    So, yeah, I kind of have a weird passion for that whole area, and one thing I loved very much about The Whale is that it manages to capture a very strong sense of northern Idaho without once leaving that little apartment. In college, one of my most memorable courses was one called “Writing About Place,” and the professor (whom I idolized, and whom I’ve mentioned on this blog before) once said something along the lines of – I paraphrase roughly – every story is irrevocably tied to a place. It must always be true that that story could only happen in that place. You really feel that, about The Whale and northern Idaho.

    The other thing I did not realize before watching this movie, but that pleasantly surprised me, was that it is very much about God and religion, as well as the ethics of sexuality and marriage: both favorite topics of mine. However: this brings me (finally) to the actual point of this blog post.

    This movie was perfect, IMO. I could not stop watching it. My husband and I always watch something on TV at night after the kids are in bed, and always, if it’s a movie or a longer episode of TV, anything longer than like an hour, I need to pause it halfway through and go to bed, because I am old and tired and a mom of young kids. But this one, I could not pause. I stayed up stupidly late to finish it, and felt it the next day, but had no regrets. It was riveting and wildly entertaining and also brilliant, and forced me to experience Emotions, which I simultaneously love and hate. To say nothing of the obviously-stellar acting. All in all, flawless.

    But actually there was, for me, just one flaw. And it’s not even so much a flaw of the movie itself, so much as perhaps a flaw in the understanding of the individual(s) who created it.

    It’s in that scene right near the end, when Thomas shows back up to the apartment all excited because he believes he’s finally figured out why God brought him to Charlie’s place. Thomas explains to Charlie that he (Charlie) is suffering because he’s living according to the flesh (accurate), and that God wants him (Charlie) to turn to Him and allow Him to help him. And Charlie calmly debates him on this, and the conversation turns to Charlie’s deceased lover Alan, who died tragically, and it ends up reaching a point where Charlie asks Thomas: do you really think God turned His back on Alan because they (Alan and Charlie) were in love? And Thomas, with whom I’ve pretty much loosely/tentatively/conditionally agreed this whole time, thinks about it, and admits: Yes.

    That’s the flaw!! I feel like the filmmaker was hereby trying to represent the POV of religious folks in general, and failed. Well, maybe certain sadly misguided Protestants out there think this, that God turns His back on sinners – but well-formed Christians know that’s not true. God never turns His back on us. As we see in the story of the Prodigal Son, God is a loving father, always waiting for us with open arms! In His mercy He has given us free will, so that we can choose to love Him. He could have just created us to be robots with no choice but to love Him, but that wouldn’t be meaningful, would it – it’d be dumb and sad, the same way it’d just be depressing and sad to be married to a robot you’d built yourself for the express purpose of loving you. I don’t know about you, but I want my spouse to freely choose me with his whole heart and mind, just as we are free to choose, or not choose, God. God does not turn His back on us. If we go to hell, it’s because we chose hell, and God in His mercy is honoring our free will, even though it saddens Him greatly when we turn away from Him. I’m clearly no catechist or apologist here, but I think this more or less sums up the correct, Catholic POV of God’s attitude toward sinners.

    It’s unfortunate that the filmmaker(s) seem to think we Christians believe in a God who would abandon us for making mistakes. No wonder they resent us so much! I find myself wishing that Charlie had been approached by a Catholic, instead of whatever weird sect Thomas was supposed to belong to (in the play, he was actually Mormon, apparently, and was called Elder Thomas. How weird is that, a nineteen year old “Elder!”).

    I feel like the creators have perhaps not been exposed to any real Christians. Which is sad, but unsurprising, considering that I’m pretty sure the SSPX presence in the Idaho panhandle is approximately zero. 😀

    But, perhaps I misunderstood what they were doing here. Maybe they were not actually trying to comment on religion as a whole. Maybe Thomas only spoke for himself, and for that weird Mormonish flavor of Protestantism in which he was formed. Maybe, since this story is so firmly grounded in northern Idaho, it was only commenting on the particular brand of religion that’s widely available out there. But, somehow, I really got the impression that his character was meant as a symbol of Christianity in general. I wonder what you all think.

    And to be fair, Thomas was, in spite of all that, portrayed pretty sympathetically, as a realistic, fleshed-out, sincere and smart human being, albeit somewhat naïve. You don’t often see that in anti-religion stories – usually, they’ll portray religious folks as shallow, stuck-up, two-dimensional idiots – so, I appreciated that. But they seemed to imply that he will eventually “outgrow” his religion. And I got the vibe that that’s what the writer(s) think about religion – that it’s something to be outgrown. Which is unfortunate.

    However. I think, in trying to show that religion is wrong and bad, they actually managed to show us something true and beautiful about religion and God.

    Because they did a great job of portraying sinners sympathetically, too. Charlie obviously epitomizes “living in sin” – I mean, he left his wife and child for “love,” which is an irrational, unreliable, and flesh-driven phenomenon, regardless of your sexual orientation – and yet, he is a smart, wise, and compassionate guy, and you really feel for him, and see where he is coming from. It could be said also that he is gluttony incarnate, but, I don’t think he can be held accountable for gluttony, because he’s clearly an addict and emotionally unwell. It’s like how someone who commits suicide when they’re very depressed cannot be held accountable for this terrible sin, due to their disrupted mental state. Although Charlie, like any addict, obviously carries some responsibility for getting himself into this position in the first place. But, you can understand why he did. You completely relate and sympathize (at least, I did).

    And for that reason, this movie actually does a really good job of portraying God’s mercy. When a story causes you, the viewer/reader to see things from God’s POV, and you see the goodness and spark of divine in a character, no matter how disgusting that person’s behavior – you start to see them through the lens of God’s mercy – that is, I think, the mark of a really worthwhile story.

    So perhaps they might have messed up in trying to portray religion, but, regardless, I personally think they did a really good job (whether intentionally or not) of making a movie that shows us something about God: something edifying and true and beautiful.

←Previous Page
1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14
Next Page→

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • MiTHology (4.0)
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • MiTHology (4.0)
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar