MiTHology (4.0)

Sobriety, sanctity, & St. Mark Ji Tianxiang

February 22nd, 2026

Ever since I first stumbled upon the story of the nineteenth-century Chinese martyr Saint Mark Ji Tianxiang, a month or so ago, I’ve been unable to get him off my mind.

Not only because he’s the patron saint of addicts & those in recovery, so a patron of mine automatically, and because his feast day, July 9, happens to be a very personally significant day for me (some sources say his feast day is July 7, but it’s officially July 9; he died on the 7th, but is celebrated in the new Roman liturgical calendar with his fellow Martyrs of China on the 9th), which is of course just a coincidence and nothing particularly meaningful in and of itself, but still grabs my attention… but also, because his life story, which is unlike that of any other saint I’m familiar with, shines some real light on a nagging Question That Keeps Me Up At Night (and has done so for years).

You can read about his life story here, but the tl;dr is: St. Mark was an opium addict who was never able to quit. He struggled for 30 years to get clean, and at the time of his death was still actively addicted. Because he was unable to stop, even while fighting valiantly against it by frequenting Mass and Confession, his priest denied him absolution and Communion, seeing as how he didn’t seem to have a firm purpose of amendment. So St. Mark lived without the Sacraments for 30 years. But he didn’t give up his faith. He died a martyr during the Boxer Rebellion, executed for refusing to apostasize.

And he’s a saint. Canonized by Pope St. John Paul II the Great in the year 2000. A canonized saint who died actively addicted, and hadn’t even been able to receive the sacraments!

Reading this kinda flipped my whole understanding of everything on its head.

.

“But for the Grace of God” & “One Day at a Time”

How does any addict get and stay clean/sober? I’m almost seven years sober myself. I don’t go to meetings anymore, but early on I went to a ton of them, and became quite fluent in AA. And one thing that I always heard at their meetings was the slogan: “but for the Grace of God, there go I”, meaning: when we see someone relapse, we must know that we too are vulnerable; no one is ever safe from slipping. We mustn’t trust in our own strength.

Only the Grace of God keeps us sober — only one day at a time. I heard that over and over and over, and tbh it always annoyed me a bit and I never understood it.

Because what do you mean it’s God keeping me sober? If that were true, wouldn’t it be easy — wouldn’t it feel like the work was being done for me? Instead of me working so hard to do it myself? Avoiding booze was hugely difficult, early on. It was strenuous. It would have been nice to feel like Someone Else was taking care of it for me, but it didn’t feel like that.

Only one day at a time: I kind of understood this then. Early on, it makes more sense to focus on twenty-four hours (or even the next hour, or half-hour, or five minutes…). If you try and think about staying sober forever, it’s way too daunting. But the next five minutes, I can do. The next twenty-four hours, maybe I can do.

But “one day at a time” begins to mean more than that, almost seven years in. Around the 3-5 year mark, I felt pretty invulnerable: “I’ve got this! I’ve figured it out. Welcome to the big numbers! I’m free! I really don’t need alcohol any more.” — But then, sometimes, I realize how easy it would be. I think about going back, and I know I’m still the same person, or even worse. A slight inconvenience and I’m thinking how nice it would be, all the sensations of the old routine. What’s stopping me? It’s like the feeling of standing on a very tall building looking over the edge. You could just do it. Nothing’s stopping you.

But for the Grace of God.

I think I begin to understand now, how it’s only grace that keeps us sober. People in AA talk about willingness — it’s another one of their keywords, along with humility, service, surrender, etc. Willingness is, obviously, crucial. You have to be willing to not pick up the drink. (Easier said than done.)

And from where do we get this magical thing, this Willingness? How do we find it? Some of us never do.

The thing is, I think only God can give you willingness. Not just to stay sober, but to do anything at all. People always applaud themselves for accomplishing hard things, for their motivation and drive and energy; but where did they get those attributes from? Everything that we think we worked for, is really a gift. That doesn’t make doing the work easy. It just makes it possible.

This is something I’ve only begun to get my head around in the last year and a half or so. Everything that we have really is from God. As with those other slogans, like “but for the Grace of God,” I used to hear this said, and frown, and not really understand it. Why do you say I can’t do anything without God? Like, sure, my life is a gift from Him, and my health is a gift from Him, but what I do with those are all me, right? I get out of bed in the morning and do my work. That’s no miracle. Because even if I don’t pray or ask God to help me accomplish my tasks, the tasks still get accomplished. Isn’t that me? Didn’t I do that?

I see now how silly it was of me to think that I was anything at all, that I could do anything at all, without God! That’d be like a single blood cell — nay, a single atom — a single subatomic particle! — thinking that it had any capability of accomplishing any real task on its own, independently of the human body.

All of our capabilities and dispositions, everything that makes up our soul and our consciousness (with the exception of sin, which God allows to exist even though He doesn’t like it) — all of this is from God. “God comes to you disguised as your life,” someone quoted. So, if we have the willingness to not drink: that is from God.

And when someone who is addicted to alcohol or some other substance, who is entrenched in that sin, is, through no merit of their own, granted the willingness to not commit that sin anymore — well of course that’s miraculous.

.

“It works if you work it” & God’s mercy

Which brings me back to St. Mark Ji Tianxiang.

Addiction is a bottomless pit, a fast track to hell. It’s a black hole. That’s how powerful it is. And whether we as addicts have the willingness to stop indulging is, basically, outside of our control. If we have the willingness, we can nurture it and try to make it fruitful. If we don’t have willingness yet, we can try, in different ways, to acquire it: by making ourselves open to grace. Maybe that’s by prayer or the Sacraments or going to meetings or meditation or whatever it is that you do. We should certainly keep doing all of that, persistently. And if you don’t even try, then that’s your fault. But whether God chooses to grant willingness is entirely up to Him. We can’t understand why He grants it to some and not to others — why some have to suffer so much or even die, and why others make it out relatively unscathed. Sometimes it seems unfair. “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.”

During his life, St. Mark did the right things. He fought courageously against the addiction. God didn’t set him free from it, not while he was alive. But he never gave up.

And now he’s a canonized saint. I’m still trying to get my head around this.

Because in AA, if you keep relapsing, that’s on you. Oh don’t get me wrong, no one’s going to banish you from meetings, no matter how many times you relapse. Even if you never successfully dry up, as long as you have a desire to stop drinking, you’re welcome and eligible for membership (that’s the Third Tradition). (Notice that “desire” is different from “willingness.”) You’re still welcome, you’re still a member — but if you’re messing up, that’s on you, as any sponsor will tell you. And if you keep relapsing, your sponsor will probably even fire you because you’re “not doing the work.” Or they might say something like “I must not be the right sponsor for you.” This is basically what St. Mark Ji’s confessor told him: try harder. As the slogan goes,“it works if you work it.”

But wasn’t St. Mark “working it”? He was devout and sincere. He may not have had a literal 12 Step group around him (which some die-hard AA/NAs will probably say was the problem, the missing piece of the puzzle, for him) — but, imo, as someone who no longer goes to meetings, St. Mark was doing all the right things. The Twelve Steps are really just a secularized, simplified version of the Sacraments, after all.

“But maybe if he’d had the fellowship of other addicts…” yeah, fellowship is another of those AA keywords. I dunno, in my experience you can be drowning in Fellowship and still not have Willingness. But maybe that’s just me. I have AVPD so fellowship doesn’t really do much for me; it doesn’t penetrate my shell, but just kind of rolls off of me like water off of a painfully awkward duck. So, I dunno, I’m not really a believer in the absolute necessity of fellowship, when it comes to sobriety at least. I still think St. Mark could have stayed clean without it, if God had allowed him to.

But so why is it that in AA I was taught that, if I couldn’t stop drinking, it’s because I was doing something wrong — I wasn’t working hard enough? Doesn’t St. Mark’s story tell us the opposite?

Or does it?

We don’t have the details. All the stories say “he fought bravely,” “he kept coming to Mass,” “he prayed diligently,” et cetera… but maybe he wasn’t doing all that he could have. We don’t know! Maybe the lesson here isn’t just that we addicts are completely powerless, but that saints are not necessarily perfect people who get everything right. Sure a lot of them are. Look at St. Thérèse, who never committed a mortal sin in her life. I admit that the first time I read Story of a Soul, I had a hard time relating to her. (Thankfully I’ve grown since then.) But the life of St. Mark Ji paints a very different picture of sainthood. Maybe he could have tried harder. He was human, and a sinner. Maybe some saints really are sinners who never gave up.

Or maybe the big takeaway here is about God’s mercy. God can make anyone a saint — even an addict who couldn’t stay clean.

St. Mark’s story reminded me a lot of another story I’d heard. My late friend “J” (may he rest in peace) knew a lot about Eastern Orthodoxy, and had considered converting — and anyway, he told me about an Orthodox “saint” by the name of Paisios of Mount Athos (1924-1994). Even though he was Orthodox, and as such held some really problematic beliefs, he was a very holy man, and said a lot of amazing and inspiring things.

There’s this story about Paisios and an alcoholic monk who lived at the monastery and couldn’t stop drinking. Apparently, when the drunk monk finally died, all the other monks were like “thank God he’s gone, right?! What a nuisance! What a loser!” but Paisios defended the deceased one, telling the other monks about how he (the dead drunk) had developed an addiction because of his traumatic past, and had worked hard over the years to reduce his consumption just a little, and had been fighting a heroic battle that no one else knew anything about; and how, at his death, Paisios saw a whole battalion of angels come to collect his soul.

I like to think that this story is true.

We hear all the time how no one can enter Heaven with any scraps of worldliness still clinging to them. How you must be free of all attachment to even venial sin. Which at a glance seems contradictory to the story of this drunk monk, and of St. Mark Ji. It’s true that addiction reduces culpability, when it comes to sin. But still — that someone could pass straight from active addiction through the gates of Heaven — that’s wild to me. I have confused/complicated feelings about the whole Divine Mercy devotion, but dang: God’s mercy really must be as ridiculously huge and expansive as St. Faustina told us. It really gives you hope.

The virtue of hope

That’s the the other thing that St. Mark Ji’s story sheds light on for me: hope.

Apparently, as he was being led to his execution, alongside his family members, one of them asked him: where are we going? To which St. Mark replied, happily: We’re going home.

Imagine the confidence! To be so sure that, after living as an addict unable to even receive the Sacraments, you were going to walk right into Heaven.

I never understood before. Faith, hope, and charity, the three theological virtues. Secretly, I always thought to myself: yes, charity is clearly very important, and I can see that faith is too; but what’s the big deal with hope? Why is it such a sin to despair of God’s mercy? Isn’t that just being realistic?, I thought, considering how many people go to hell and how miserable of a sinner I am. I’m naturally a pessimist, and prefer to set my expectations low, so that I’m always either correct or pleasantly surprised. But apparently that’s not the right attitude to have when it comes to our religion. And tbh I never really understood why not.

St. Mark Ji shows us just how necessary it is to have hope in God. Hope was what kept him going for three decades without access to the sacraments. Even when he didn’t have those, which are the very foundation of our faith life, he still had hope. Hope against all odds — what a cool thing! And joy! To go to his martyrdom with joy and hope after a life that any worldly person would call “hopeless.” St. Mark shows us that hope is actually essential to sanctity. Somehow, no one before him has ever been able to get this through my thick little pessimistic skull.

.

In conclusion

So after all, I’m not sure if the life of St. Mark Ji Tianxiang contradicts anything that I was taught in AA; on the contrary, I think it supplements those teachings — it teaches us things that a secular (because make no mistake, AA is secular, even though they make you accept a “Higher Power” your HP doesn’t have to be the One True God, it can literally be a doorknob if you’re so inclined), human-founded organization cannot: about the actual hugeness of God’s power and mercy, and the importance of hope in Him.

Which is why, imo, it’s best to have both. You should at least be a practicing Catholic, but if you’re really in the trenches with addictive behavior, a 12 step group sure can’t hurt either, as long as you don’t get too caught up in the secularism, and keep your eyes on the real Higher Power, as St. Mark did. What a cool saint, what an awesome witness, what a story.

St. Mark Ji Tianxiang, ora pro nobis.
Justice for squirrels

February 20th, 2026

Sciurus carolinensis: the dreaded, pesky Eastern grey squirrel, so ubiquitous in this part of the US.

Everyone says you’re not supposed to like squirrels. Squirrels are a pest. They scare away the birds, which are smaller and prettier and less common and therefore morally superior and more deserving. How do you keep those damn squirrels away from your bird feeder so that the birds can eat??

I too fell for the anti-squirrel propaganda, having been raised by two avid bird-watchers and grown up in a very actively pro-bird, anti-squirrel household. When my husband and I moved into our house six-odd years ago, I got a bird feeder for the backyard, but soon got rid of it because all it managed to feed were squirrels, those plain old Eastern grey squirrels. Obnoxious rodents, I thought. Waste of time and effort, I thought.

But at thirty-six, I have realized that, actually: I love feeding the squirrels. This is one of those things that I would never have seen the beauty in if not for having kids.

It began with the book “The Secret Life of Squirrels” by Nancy Rose: a kids’ book that we checked out from the public library. If you’re not familiar with this book, it’s about a squirrel named “Mr. Peanuts:” a very cottagecore slice-of-life little story for small children. The illustrations are real photographs of a real squirrel, taken in little dollhouse-like arrangements and backdrops. It’s very precious.

So we read and loved this book. Then at some point afterwards, my younger daughter (age 3-4 at the time) noticed a squirrel, an ordinary Eastern grey squirrel, outside our dining room window, and exclaimed: “it’s Mr. Peanuts!”

How about we set some food on the ledge for him?, I offered.

Because see our dining room window has a busted screen, a hole in it big enough to fit your hand through. And at the base of this window, on the outside wall of the house, is a small brick ledge, just the right size for a squirrel. So we began setting little bits of food out there, through the hole and onto the ledge, for the squirrels. Mostly PB&J crusts (my kids’ diet is 75% PB&Js). But also bits of bread, pancake, waffle, crackers – pretty much anything that drops on the floor and is rendered inedible to humans.

And so “Mr. Peanuts” began coming right up to our window. We could sit there in our dining room and look at him, at eye level, up close and personal.

I think I love it even more than the kids do. Every time he hops up there, we all shriek with delight. I even started making him his own little treats sometimes. Like two corn tortillas sandwiched together with peanut butter and cut into wedges. A squirrel pizza, I called it. And when he took one of the wedges in his little hands and started chewing on it, we all screamed: he’s eating his pizza! It honestly made my day.

Here is a picture of Mr. Peanuts at our dining room window, looking for more snacks. He’s gotten used to finding them there. Excuse the kids’ peanut-buttery finger streaks on the glass. One day the windows in my house will be clean, but today is not that day.

I can sit there and watch him endlessly. He’s fascinating: his tiny little paws with their tiny bendy fingers, and the way they grasp a piece of food; his beady black eyes, the cloud of spindly silvery hairs on his curved tail. His twitchy little movements. It’s really marvelous, the way he eats and hops around.

Sometimes he and his little squirrel friends fight over the food. Squirrel battles ensue. It’s slightly distressing, but also very entertaining: a real-life nature documentary.

Sometimes I’m like: damn! These critters really just exist in my yard, all the time, and I just don’t even think about it?!

Why do people not like squirrels? Just because they are everywhere? Because they are able to live in all kinds of different environments, from the forest to the inner city? Isn’t that kind of cool?

Why do people hate squirrels? Is it because they’re always jumping into the path of oncoming cars and then zig-zagging down the middle of the road (a survival tactic meant to deflect a pursuing predator)? I admit that is very annoying. Sometimes I do gripe about it, if I’m trying to get somewhere in a hurry. But I also always brake or swerve to avoid them. My driver’s ed coach way back in the day docked points off my test, in fact, because I braked for squirrels.

Do people hate squirrels because they can carry diseases? – Like any wildlife? You know what else carries diseases? Birds! And you bend over backwards to invite those onto your property.

Is it just because they scare away the birds? The pretty, dainty little birds?I guess I can understand preferring a creature because it’s more beautiful than another. When I chose the flowers for my wedding, I chose the ones that I think are most beautiful (hydrangeas). When I adopted the dogs that I used to have, I favored them over the other available dogs mainly because they were cute. And Lord knows I’d rather have butterflies in my yard than creepy, ugly beetles and ants.

But I wonder if our quickness to prefer things that are uncommonly beautiful sometimes causes us to neglect the everyday beauty that’s sometimes right in front of us. If you narrow your definition of beauty to what’s uncommon, like the red-carpet celebrities in their custom gowns, then all the people around you in your everyday life are going to seem ugly and disappointing. And when we start to equate beauty with moral superiority, which we are naturally inclined to do without even thinking about it… that becomes problematic, especially if we have a distorted idea of what beauty is.

I understand being more impressed by something that you don’t see as often. The birds, the beautiful little delicate birds with their colorful feathers. All these anti-squirrel measures that people take in their backyards, the great lengths they go to to keep them away: I guess it’s the same way we weed our flower garden so that the beautiful flowers can grow.

Personally, I’m not much of a gardener. I’m not much of a maker, a doer, or a go-getter. I’m very passive, and have always just kind of taken what comes my way rather than fought to get what I want (for the most part, that is, with a few noteworthy exceptions). So I guess it’s characteristic of me that I gave up birdwatching, and have now just embraced the company of the squirrels.

And personally, I don’t think that’s so bad. It’s easy, it’s peaceful, and it’s fun. Que sera and all that. It’s been a surprise and a joy to stop fighting against nature and realize just how interesting the Eastern grey squirrel is. I guess sometimes you don’t realize, until you stop weeding your garden, that some of the weeds are lovely in their own ways.
Another stupid little layperson’s thoughts on the upcoming episcopal consecrations

February 19th, 2026

I hesitate to even post this, because the world really doesn’t need another uneducated layperson’s opinion, on matters of Church politics or anything else. There are too many stupid opinions out there, all day every day, and everyone seems to think that theirs matters. I’ve seen so many garbage opinions on this topic spouted all over social media lately, which is what prompted me to word-vomit this out in the first place. As a response. I should probably just keep my mouth shut. No one needs Mith to defend their cause, and I’m probably just an embarrassment to those I’m trying to defend: a fat little unkempt shih tzu trying to bark and growl like it thinks it’s a big fierce guard dog. And you just look at it like “is that even a dog?”

I hesitate also because of how incredibly unqualified I am to talk about such subjects. I’m not an expert by any means. I’m sure some of you actually-smart Catholic readers will see this and just laugh and go “yeah, you should’ve hesitated more.”

But, maybe it’ll reach someone who likes it.

When I was discerning all of this back in 2024, I scoured the internet for concise, dumbed-down answers to philosophical questions that I had, that made the answers digestible. I wasn’t looking for a million citations from lengthy, lofty Vatican documents that I didn’t particularly want to read. But, I also didn’t need another oversimplified “just obey Rome”-type message. I needed to actually understand the philosophy in a way that made sense, in a way that I could verbalize myself. I needed personalized answers for a simple but curious person.

So, the following shall be my response to the haters, and shall attempt to be the sort of post that I was looking for in 2024.

And maybe just maybe there are other people out there looking for similar content, now that the recent news has put the SSPX back in the spotlight and gotten everyone talking about them again.

And besides, this is my stupid little blog, and what else is it for if not for sharing my random unnecessary opinions.

.

The news of the upcoming SSPX episcopal consecrations: everyone on Catholic Internet has been talking about it, so I guess I’ll go ahead and throw my opinion out there too.

Which, I must emphasize, will be just that: an opinion. Mith is not qualified to speak knowledgeably about things like canon law, Church politics, or the liturgy wars. I am not a commentator. I’m just a silly little layperson who’s not even a very good Catholic, not very well-read, and has only been attending the TLM for sixteen months. This post will simply contain my reaction, my little musings, my own little personal experience/ opinion/ feelings about the matter. If you’re looking for useful, objective information, please seek elsewhere.

.

For me, it’s been funny and sad to see Catholic Internet all aboil with hatred toward the SSPX. All these voices suddenly crying out “schism! schism!!” and saying the most hateful, ignorant things, when they clearly haven’t done their research, nor paused to consider the issue from a logical angle, nor had a single second’s actual experience with the real-life SSPX.

If this had happened two to three years ago, I’d surely be all upset about it like all these other Catholics online. “How dare they!” “Disobedient!” “They think they’re more Catholic than the Pope!” Yes, I have been in their position before, making these same weak accusations – refusing to understand, refusing to think, because I’d been told I wasn’t allowed to.

Which is why I just kind of roll my eyes and sigh at such nonsense now.

In retrospect it’s truly embarrassing how much time I wasted waffling and fence-sitting. I wanted to go to the SSPX Mass, wanted to live a Traditional Catholic life, but I was afraid to, because of the way the modern Church treats Tradition. Like some sort of taboo. Don’t even mention it in polite company. Did you know they’ll ban you from r/Catholic if you dare to utter a single non-negative word about the Society?

“Any average Protestant on the street has a better shot at getting into Heaven than a Bishop of the SSPX,” someone Tweeted.

“They’re not Catholic,” someone told me, interrupting me mid-sentence when I dared to casually mention the nearby SSPX chapel in conversation.

And, when I broke the news to an acquaintance from my former, NO parish that I was defecting for the SSPX, she was horrified – literally aghast. “Do not trust them,” she urged me.

Normally I’m super impressionable – a real doormat. So you’d think that that interaction would have swayed me. But luckily, I’d already done my research, prayed about it relentlessly, and at last made up my mind, by that point.

Catholics are fed so much BS about the SSPX. And told not to question it. Shhh — don’t even talk about them! The mainstream Church literally treats Protestants and Orthodox as their “brothers in Christ” – but the SSPX? Who are fully Catholic, have apostolic succession, teach the fullness of the faith, and btw have the “official” faculties of confessions and marriages (which, how can you do those if you’re not a Catholic priest?!)? Oh no. We don’t talk about them.

It’s really a tragedy.

.

Back when I was debating whether or not to go the SSPX way, I found that all my painstaking research and persistent prayer left me at an impasse. I could understand the argument from both sides; both presented compelling cases. It became clear that I wasn’t going to be able to logic my way out of this one. I needed some real-world experience.

So I went out on a very scary limb, figuring that, if it were a mistake, God would have mercy on me because the sense of being called there would not relent, and I was earnestly trying to discern His will – and visited.

I wish more people would do that. I wish more of these NOrmie Catholics would just take some time to talk to a SSPX Priest and ask him questions. To see what it’s actually like.

But, to be fair, they’re taught not to.

They think we’re all crazy, Pope-hating sedevacantists, over here at the SSPX chapels. They think we think we’re the only real Catholics. None of that is true. Actually, I’ve never heard a single word of hostility or vitriol or blame or even dislike from any of the Society priests about the NO world. On the contrary, they speak of the modern Church with genuine compassion and sorrow. With fatherly concern for a flock led astray. I can’t say the same for the Novus Ordites.

.

I’m not going to go into all the reasons here why the SSPX is right about what they are doing. If you’re interested, you can do the research. But I’d advise reading about it from more than one angle. Don’t just read what the “popesplainers” (as they are humorously called) have to say. Listen to SSPX sermons, listen to their podcast. Think about it. You have to be able to think with your brain and not your emotions.

People are so angry. They make such assumptions about the mindset/thought process of those who support the Society.

But I think what’s really angering these haters, what’s really getting under their skin, is that they actually love Tradition. (How could you not?) They love what the SSPX is doing, and would love to go to their Masses and support them – but they just don’t feel like they can, because that’s what the NO world tells you – and so they get bitter. And it angers them when they see other people doing what they themselves wish they could do but are afraid to. So they start screaming “no! You’re not allowed to do that!”

It’s the exact same phenomenon as the one I pointed out in a recent post on a different topic: there’s a certain sect of working moms who love to hate on those stay-at-home moms who’ve chosen to sacrifice financial comfort in order to stay home with their kids. “Must be nice! To have the luxury!”, they snipe and gripe. “Stop telling the rest of us it’s okay to quit our jobs and stay home, because I simply can’t do it! I’d be too poor!” When in fact they could do it but simply don’t want to be a little uncomfortable, and so they’re mad at those women who prove that it can be done. It’s easier to get mad and tell yourself it’s impossible, than to do the hard thing.

Which is why these sacrificing stay-home moms live rent-free in these bitter working moms’ heads. The same way the SSPX lives rent-free in the heads of so many of these “blind obedience” NO Catholics. They’d love a return to Tradition – who wouldn’t! Most devout Catholics, no matter where they attend Mass, long to see the Church return to her former beauty and glory, and love the rigor of Tradition, and long for exactly what the SSPX offers. But they are deluded and believe they can’t go. And so they’re mad.

Which is why they’re out here spewing all this hateful content online right now. .

I’ll tell you a bit about my thought process, in case you’re interested. Keeping in mind that I’m not a historian, or an expert, or even that well-read, but just a slow little layperson who needs concepts dumbed down in very plain terms: these are some dumbed-down versions of the arguments that swayed me in favor of the SSPX.

Obedience is the big question here. What is meant by obedience? “As Catholics we must be obedient to Rome. That’s what unites us.” True.

But blind obedience is not the way. Yes, we must be obedient to Rome. But, just hypothetically now, what do you do if Rome becomes corrupted?

This was one of the things that finally swayed me, when I thought about it. How bad would it have to get? How much more modern and permissive would the modern Church have to get before I would say “okay, this isn’t right”?

Looking at the history, I saw the progression; I thought ahead to the future, centuries from now, when history books will probably tell of how, in the late 1900s-early 2000s, the Church endured a tragic crisis (foreseen by multiple saints), and it was only thanks to one brave Archbishop that the fullness of her teachings and liturgy were preserved. Which side of history would I want to be on? The side that just went along with it, or the minority that saw what was happening and did something about it, sooner rather than later? We all like to think we’d be the “good ones” in history: we’d be the abolitionists, the Underground Railroad custodians; we’d have sheltered Anne Frank. I decided to do something brave and trust my intuition – to try and land on what I believe is the right side of history. I saw all these other nice, normal families doing it, and that encouraged me. You can do it too. More and more of us are doing it.

“But Mith, roma locuta, causa finita est and all that!” I haven’t read all of the Archbishop’s writings, but I do know that he differentiated between physical, actual Rome and Eternal Rome. Which might strike you as absurd at first, as it did me, but think about it: you have to acknowledge the difference. Because if “Rome” simply equals “whoever’s currently in power,” then what kind of religion do we have? The people who are in power are there because they represent something eternal, something greater than them. It’s silly to think that we answer to the Pope because of who he is as an individual. No. We answer to him because he represents the eternal Catholic Faith.

So yes. Roma locuta, causa indeed finita est. Is my take.

“But Mith, ‘where Peter is, there is the Church!’” – The Society is not not where Peter is. They’re not in schism. “But they were excommunicated” – one: the excommunication was lifted years ago, and two: even if they’re excommunicated, if the source of the excommunication is corrupted, then maybe the “excommunication” should be taken with a grain of salt. And three: what even is an excommunication? It’s a severing of a connection, isn’t it? The SSPX does not see themselves as severed from Rome. They pray for the Pope and acknowledge his authority and supremacy. They cooperate with diocesan priests whenever necessary. They are still members of the family. Just members who dare to dissent.

If an American citizen complains about corruption in the government and tries to do something about it, do they stop being an American citizen?

Or, think of a nuclear family – a father, mother, and kids – and imagine the parents become mentally ill. They start telling the kids to do crazy things, and stop enforcing rules to protect the kids’ safety. If one of the older brothers takes the younger siblings under his wing and takes it upon himself to enforce rules and teach proper discipline the way he grew up with it before his parents fell ill – isn’t that very noble of him? Wouldn’t that be wise and loving of him, even if some of his other siblings accuse him of being disobedient to their father? The son in this case is not abandoning his family. He’s not denying that his mom and dad are his parents. He’s not even moving out of the house. He’s just trying to help his family, and to preserve the actual family values, lest they be forgotten – because if those values are forgotten, then what even is the family anymore? Just a group of people.

.

The news of the consecrations is encouraging and exciting, because new Bishops are needed — but also troubling. So far, there haven’t been any conclusive results or decisions from the Superior General’s correspondence with the Vatican officials. But, take note: the SSPX is seeking permission to do these consecrations. Because they are Roman Catholic, they are part of the Church, and answer to the Pope.

“But that’s meaningless, because they’re just going to go through with it anyway even if Rome says no!” – true, because if that happened, it would constitute a state of emergency, and canon law permits such consecrations in a state of emergency. It is troubling because no one wants it to come to that. No one wants to disobey the Pope. No one wants this to lead to an excommunication.

It’s like calling 911 when there’s a masked guy with a gun at your door trying to break in. You beg them to send the cops. “No, we can’t do that right now.” Or maybe they’re dawdling and don’t arrive fast enough. Do you just lay down and die, then, or do you defend your home, even if it means doing something technically illegal? State of emergency.

No one wants to get excommunicated. But the Society exists to preserve the Faith. The eternal Faith must come first, before obedience to mortal, physical structure. Objective morality exists, and these structures (Church, the law) are in place to represent that. But if they fail to represent it, then, well, a certain kind of “disobedience” is not only permissible, but required.

“Oh, so now Mith knows the Catholic Faith better than the Pope?!” Lol please. If the Pope told you the sky was green, would you believe it to be so? Because that’s not how this is supposed to work. I’m just using my little God-given senses and faculties of reason to determine that something’s not being done quite right in the modern Church, and my family’s salvation (which is my priority here) is better attended to by the SSPX.

“But bearing with the things we don’t like in the modern Church is the cross we have to bear for obedience! Jesus Himself taught us that sometimes obedience doesn’t feel good, but we still have to obey!” Is the state of the NO world something that we should tolerate? What if the Church told you to murder someone? Even if you didn’t want to do it, would that be your cross to bear for the sake of obedience? Doesn’t feel quite right, does it. That’s because the Church can’t tell us to do something that’s morally wrong. And attending an irreverent, disrespectful liturgy is morally problematic. As is raising our kids in a church that doesn’t offer them the fullness of the faith. That’s harming our kids.

We, the faithful, are actually entitled to good teaching and reverent liturgy. Just as a mother owes her child nourishment and instruction because of the nature of their relationship, our Holy Mother Church owes us good formation and undiluted sacraments.

“Obedience” is not what they’re making it out to be. “Obedience” doesn’t mean blind obedience to whoever’s in power. You don’t have to “know more than the Pope” to see that some things have gone wrong. It’s really very simple, if you think about it. It’s really just common sense, imo.

.

So yes. There’s a chance the consecrations will result in a formal or de facto excommunication. Even I can see that. Will that change things for me, if it happens?

It’d be sad, but no. It’d be sad because it would show just how far gone the modern Church is. But in a way, it’d be nice to finally have some clarity. All this murky “canonically irregular, “partial communion” (made-up term btw) business, is really confusing and off-putting. If an excommunication happens, at least we’ll all be able to see what’s really going on, in black and white. If the mainstream Church excommunicates the SSPX, I’ll be very sad, but I’ll still be sticking with the latter.

And I don’t imagine that much would really change, in practice. The Pope would still be the Pope. And I would still love him as my Holy Father. It’s not like the Society would elect a new Pope, because they literally don’t have that power (and they are obedient to Eternal Rome, so they follow such rules). There’s only one Pope. And they would continue to pray for him and see him as their Supreme Pontiff and Holy Father. They’d just have to wait and keep surviving as they’ve been doing, until Rome heals and embraces them fully again. Which will happen one day.

.

So that’s just my little thoughts. I don’t reply to tweets or IG/FB comments, nor really post on social media at all, so I just needed a chance to respond to all these ignorant commenters, to scream into the void a bit, after reading so much hatred online lately. I am praying for the consecrations and everyone involved, and for the healing of the Church. I hope you are too.
Baking Championship Next Gen Season 1 Episode 7: Mith Reacts

February 18th, 2026
CAUTION: SPOILERS for this episode of BCNG!

“Big and little” desserts: the big sibling had to create a big dessert, and the younger sibling twelve small, single-serving desserts. A cute theme for our five teams of big & little siblings.

Speaking of that, though – I only just realized this week: we haven’t had any big brother/little sister teams this season! We started off with:
- Big sister/little sister: 7
- Big brother/little brother: 1 (my favs, eliminated week one; typical.)
- Big sister/little brother: 4
- Big brother/little sister: 0
And now, going into the semifinal, the final four teams are:
- Big sister/little sister: 1
- Big sister/little brother: 3
No big brothers. What’s that about?

If I had to guess, it’s probably because baking is such a female-dominated field; it makes sense that we’d have more girls in general, and that most of the boy contestants would be “assistants” to their big sisters, who are the decision-makers. Still, if they do another season of this show, which I kinda hope they do, it’d be nice to see some big brother/little sister teams.

This was a good challenge though, didn’t you think? What would you have made if it were you? If I were on this show with my big sister, she would surely be the one to decide what we were baking, because she is the one who is good at baking, and is always the one who comes up with ideas and activities. Maybe she’d decide to do her coconut cake, in which case I’d do coconut macaroons to go along with it. I’ve never made coconut macaroons, but historically they are one of my favorite sweet treats, so that might be fun. My sister also makes a really delicious apple tart. So maybe she would do that, and I could do little apple tartlets to go along. But, I’d have to ask her. And get her guidance through every step of the way.

Like Leia and Kiera. Did you see the way Leia was giving Kiera instructions one by one, and Kiera was repeating them verbatim? As a little sister myself, who’s always looked up to and tried to copycat my big sister (even subconsciously!), this felt so real and relatable to me. As little sisters, we really do look to our big sisters to show us what steps to take, what to do when, and just how to exist in the world.

I didn’t see it happening at the time, but when I step back and look at the story objectively, it’s actually pretty funny to me: all through middle and high school, I tried to copy my big sister: her style and taste in music (but never made it look as cool as she did, and was always the “weird little sister”). As adults: I got engaged less than a year after my sister did, and my wedding was exactly eight months after hers. She went on to become a stay-at-home mom and a novelist. I did the same thing (minus the getting published part). She had two girls and a boy. I also had two girls and a boy… and then another boy, lol, so I guess that’s one original thing that I’ve done in my life. It’s funny how I copy her without even meaning to. Big sisters are trailblazers. What would we do without them? I don’t even know.

Anyway, this was an exciting week; loved seeing the little siblings work independently. Kiera and Lenore had the advantage of previous experience, but for the boys – Akbar, Emmett, and Kenneth – it was a new challenge (further evidence to support my theory about girls being the leaders in this competition).

But the boys all did really well! Really, the only team that did poorly at all was Jovie & Lenore. Sadly, the cookie was too try, and the peppermint blondie cake (which was an awesome idea, and could have been so delicious!) was messy, and too pepperminty. Peppermint is a really strong flavor. Alas, I saw their vision and really wanted it to work out for them. IMO it was a win in itself that Duff loved the texture of the blondie, because Duff is a blondie snob and very particular about his blondies.

Leia and Kiera absolutely crushed it this week; any tiny shadow of a doubt that I might have had that they are going to win this whole thing, was certainly wiped out. That macaron?! Duff said it was in a league with any of the macarons made by any adult competitor on Baking Championship, and Kardea said it was straight up the best macaron she’d ever had. That’s insane. These girls are fourteen and eleven. I’d bet good money that these two will be crowned the champions in two weeks. Do you agree or do you agree? It almost seems unfair to all the other teams.

Not that they didn’t do great as well. Maci and Emmett played the Dead Grandma Card to their great advantage this week – Duff was thoroughly “chocolated” and didn’t think he’d need to eat chocolate again for another week, lol. That custard tart looked incredible!

Genesis and Akbar went with a chocolate-strawberry theme. Akbar nailed the walnut brownie, but the tart that Genesis made had a crust that was literally thicker than the filling layer. Like “just butter held together with a little bit of flour,” Duff said. Still sounds pretty good though!

Abigail and Kenneth did a cherry theme: a family recipe for cherry cake (actually, more of a spice cake with cherries inside, and a cream cheese frosting; interesting), and cherry tartlets. Little Kenneth’s tartlets actually received better feedback than Abigail’s cake! Big cherry flavor. I see you, Mr. “I agree and understand” Kenneth! Stepping into the spotlight!

So next week’s the semifinal, and then I guess the final will be the first week of March… and then, apparently there’s another new Baking Championship starting less than a week later, on March 9^th?! Have y’all heard about this Ultimate Baking Championship? Jesse will be hosting, and Duff will be there, and the prize will be not 25k but 50k!

I’m kind of excited, because it sounds exciting and all, but also kind of bummed because I guess this means they’re not doing Spring Baking this year?! And that was one of my favorites!! I’m still mad that they cancelled Summer Baking in ‘25, and now they’re cancelling Spring too… not too happy about this, Food Network. Please. Keep the seasonal championships coming. I need them. Do you think there’ll be a Summer Baking in 2026?! Surely they wouldn’t get rid of Holiday… would they?! What do you think? Leave me your comments!

Superlatives from the judges: 2; Kardea told Kiera that this was the “best macaron” she’d ever had, and then she told Maci and Emmett that they had produced the “best example of cohesiveness” out of everyone this week. (Running Total: 6)

Kid who most deserved a hug: Kiera, when she was piping macarons and had a moment of struggle and her big sis kinda snapped at her. Leia is clearly a wonderful big sis and quickly corrected herself and said something encouraging. But even though she didn’t say anything, you could really see little Kiera fighting a battle there. But she certainly won that battle!

Kid who most deserved a high five: Emmett. In the beginning when he found out he’d have to bake independently, his exact words were “I’m dead meat” (a phrase I haven’t heard uttered since I was about his age!). But wow, those fudgy brownies he produced? Duff said you could frost a cake with them. “You just showed them to the oven,” lol. Sounded amazing.

The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Maci and Emmett’s chocolate custard tart + fudgy brownies. It was a tough call between them and Leia/Kiera, who did that “decadent” chocolate-coffee-caramel cake and macarons – but Maci and Emmett did some really next-level all-out chocolate indulgence here. Thanks, Maci and Emmett’s Mamaw.
(journal) Smooth criminal

February 16th, 2026

I fully admit that it was my fault. I was micromanaging. Water boiling for instant mac & cheese on the stove, and I had to rush out the door, so he was taking over the mac & cheese prep. & I was all “make sure you do it this way,” “don’t do it this way,” etc.

Because fr, have you ever made those annie’s white shells, in the purple box?! It’s trickier than you think. If you don’t sprinkle the powder just so and whisk it a certain way and scrape the pan a certain way, it clumps up and you don’t get a creamy sauce. You get a separated, vomitous mess. And my sweet husband, being a man, doesn’t like to follow instructions, and prefers to just feel his way through things. And i wanted our kids to have a decent dinner (because yeah, instant mac qualifies as a decent dinner, in our house).

So anyway that’s my excuse.

He took it as patronizing and condescending, like what, you think I can’t make instant mac?, you think i’m incapable of basic tasks?? which is fair; it’s true, i did not think that he was capable of making instant mac. For a few minutes we were doing this little semi-serious verbal dance like “i’m not mad, i just…” and half-joking “all I meant was…” and then i left.

he was still simmering when i got home an hour or so later, so we did a few more minutes of the “i’m not mad, i just” “all i meant was” and then he abruptly goes upstairs for a “shower”, which takes longer than usual. and when he emerges from the bathroom… his beard, his beautiful beard… is gone.

No shouting, no insults or profanities, just my husband’s pink chin, bare and smooth as a baby’s bottom.

Now, my husband is a handsome and healthy man of 40 years old, and normally, bearded, he looks maybe mid-thirties. but beardless he looks about 22. I’m 36 and look every minute of it. so when he shaves, it makes me look like a dirty cougar next to him. like a leonardo dicaprio.

He’s done this once before, shaving his beard out of spite. That was years ago, in that townhome, in the before-kids era. I don’t remember what that fight was about. I’m sure i deserved it that time too.

Both times he’s insisted he didn’t shave out of spite. He insists it was just a coincidence. It was just time for the beard to go.

but I know better.

“Irrational,” he calls me. I call it highly intuitive. He says I make up stories and bend logic to suit my imagined order of events. I call it seeing obvious connections. We actually love each other very much.

I did admit that i am a control freak and a micromanager. He did admit that the instant cheese sauce clumped up and separated because he wasn’t listening. Apologies were exchanged.

But apologies cannot bring back the beard. Some wounds, only time can heal. Sometimes you just have to let the instant mac be clumpy.
Is it ok to dress frumpily?: on whether fashion sense is a moral issue

February 15th, 2026

This post will be related to my previous posts “is it okay to be ugly” and “is it okay for women to wear pants”; but, we’re getting a bit more specific here. Really narrowing the focus. Now, the Question That Keeps Me Up At Night is: is it okay for me, as a woman, to dress “frumpily”?

.

The Post That Inspired This Post:

You all already know I’m a big fan of the work of the contemporary Traditionalist Catholic writer Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. He’s a hero; he’s the coolest. I follow him on social media and read his website regularly, and pretty much every sentence he writes makes me want to stand up and throw my hat in the air and applaud, because he’s so brilliant and so eloquent and makes his points so beautifully. Never before had something he posted made me pause, frown, raise an eyebrow, and go “hmmm, now wait just a moment there, Dr. K” – never, until yesterday.

The post in question is promoting a new book – not his, but someone else’s: a book written by a female author about how clothing/fashion has changed in recent decades, how it’s gotten uglier and poorer in quality and design, how we can return to dressing nicely, and why this should matter to us, especially as Catholics. Specifically talking about women’s fashion.

One of the main points of the book/post seems to be that, these days, women who dress modestly tend to sacrifice beauty — dressing like pioneers or in unflattering trash bag-like outfits. Frumpily. And it’s saying that, actually, women should try to dress both beautifully and modestly.

Almost everyone in the comments seemed to agree with the message. One commenter even said something like: “yes! Women should look like beautiful flowers and men should look like tall trees.”

Meanwhile, here’s me in my shapeless maxi skirt and loose, soft tee and long baggy cardigan, reading this and going: “Excuse me? Now you’re saying I have a moral obligation to try and look like a beautiful flower?? WHAT??”

Now, you don’t have to rehash the argument to me. I get it. It’s very true that fashion used to be beautiful and classy and now it’s not. I’m aware of that.

Recently, my husband and I watched “11/22/63” on Netflix, and one of my favorite parts of that show was seeing the beauty of everyday life in the early ‘60s: the clothes, the interior design, the cars, everything; beauty was important, back then. It’s not like that anymore. (There’s actuallyan IG account I really like that explores this cultural shift from a Catholic POV — you should check it out.) Historically, up until like the late ‘60s, women did dress like beautiful flowers and men like tall trees. It is sad that we as a society have stopped doing that. I agree. As a mom, I especially wish kids’ clothing still looked the way it did in the ‘50s. I’d love it if cute little lacy dresses and crisp little outfits with buttons were as easy to find as the cheap stretchy synthetic technicolor stuff kids wear these days.

However, I take issue with this post. I take issue with being told that I should dress prettier, that I have a moral obligation to wear fitted, frilly, fussy, fancy, “flowery” things.

.

Is my objection a logical one, though? Do I have a legitimate argument, or am I just reacting emotionally because I’m offended and don’t like being told what to do? I’m not sure. Let’s unpack it!

Mith’s Backstory:

Quite possibly, it’s just an emotionally touchy topic for me. Clothes and I have a complicated relationship. I hate the way my body looks. Dressing the meat tank is a chore, neither fun nor satisfying. I especially hate anything form-fitting, and anything snug around my waist. I feel my best, the most comfy and confident, and the most “me,” when I’m wearing some baggy old jeans and an oversized hoodie that’s long enough to cover the butt, and combat boots. That’s my favorite look; that’s Mith in her truest form.

However, being Catholic, I knew I had to stop dressing like that. I knew I had to make an effort to look somewhat more feminine – to look like I cared a little bit. So I threw out all my jeans, and now only wear skirts or dresses. The skirts must be long enough to cover my ankles. Not because of modesty – I’m well aware that a skirt can be modest and still show some lower leg – but because I hate my ankles most of all.

Combine this with my inability to tolerate snug-fitting tops, and the result is: loose and baggy all over. My favorite article of clothing is a hippie-ish shapeless, flowy tiered maxi dress that I own in five or six different colors and patterns. It makes me feel like I’m “wearing a dress” and thus doing my duty to be feminine and traddy, while also essentially wearing a trash bag.

Do I feel great in this look? No, but at least it’s comfortable and easy to wear and serves its purpose of concealing the meat tank in a modest, age-appropriate way.

Suits me fine. I don’t want to show off my shape. I don’t want the meat tank to be perceived.

.

Islamic Fashion Mini-Rant:

To be honest, I kind of dig Islamic women’s fashion. I kind of wish Catholic modesty standards were more like theirs – that Western Christian lay women dressed in loose-fitting, floor-length garb and covered their hair. That, to me, seems more truly modest.

Before you come at me, I know full well that modesty is not about pandering to weak men. Modesty standards do not exist to make women bend over backwards to accommodate men who don’t know how to practice self-control. That’s not what a proper Catholic understanding of modesty is about. It’s about dressing ourselves with dignity, honoring the beauty of our God-given bodies without cheapening it.

But don’t the abaya and hijab serve that same purpose? They’re not trash bags; some of them are really pretty and feminine.

Not to mention more comfortable, and more accommodating for those of us who have sensory or other issues with fussy, snug-fitting clothes.

I honestly wish Catholics subscribed to this view of modesty. I’d seriously wear a niqab if it were socially acceptable for a white Christian woman in America. I think it’s a really cool idea, and sounds so freeing to wear.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not converting to Islam. And you don’t have to explain it to me, I understand the philosophy behind Catholic modesty standards: the human body is good, God created it good, and rather than just conceal it under a ton of fabric, we ought to celebrate it and honor it. Dressing in aesthetically-pleasing, form-flattering clothes is a gesture of respect for ourselves, our work, and our neighbors. I know. I hear you.

But like I said, Islamic women’s attire doesn’t communicate a negative message about femininity. On the contrary, dressing that way seems to say that the female body is so good and so sacred that, like the tabernacle, it should be concealed, only seen by those who have a God-given right to it. How is that not beautiful?

Modesty means different things in different cultures, and I guess both understandings are valid. Whether you choose to showcase the body with flattering clothes that cover it well, or conceal it beneath forgiving drapes of loose fabric — both can be considered modest. But, selfishly, I kinda wish Western culture erred more on the side of concealing.

.

Mith Has a Temper Tantrum

I don’t want to be the arrogant little twat that I was back in 2012; I’m not going to come onto WordPress and post my weak arguments and lame excuses for being a bad Catholic. Maybe I should just tap out of this one. Maybe Dr. K is right. Maybe I really don’t have an excuse for dressing in trash bags. As a wife and mom, maybe I ought to dress in a way that shows respect and celebrates the body that God gave me, for which I ought to be grateful.

… All of which makes me just want to throw in the towel and say “fuck it” and just go back to my jeans and hoodies.

Because I gave them up to be a good little tradcath, even though I didn’t want to – but now, now you tell me that’s still not good enough?, that I have to switch to tight little prissy button-up numbers that will constrict me physically and mentally?

I’m honestly so tired of trying to larp as someone I’m not.

Yes, Catholicism is the truth. I believe and profess everything that the Holy Catholic Church teaches. But nowhere does she dictate a certain aesthetic or lifestyle. Nowhere does she say that, if you’re a woman, you must be a girly-girl fashion plate.

I’m not the archetypical sweet little feminine tradcath stay-at-home mom with her apron and sourdough starter. I never will be. That just ain’t me, and I’m so tired of forcing myself into what basically amounts to a poorly-executed cosplay.

“If you respected yourself, you’d dress like it” – well, you know what? I don’t! I don’t respect my body! It sucks! I accept it, but I don’t like it, and I don’t want to show it off. I don’t want to look like a beautiful flower, because I don’t want to be seen as something to “pick” or “pollinate.” Tbh I don’t want to be seen at all.

Shit like this, this whole “should, should, should”, lifestyle extremist traddy attitude (traditude?), makes me want to give up and cut my hair short again. Honestly, I love the way it feels to have super short hair — but have been gritting my teeth and forcing myself to keep some length because “fEmiNiNiTy” and “bEaUtY stAnDaRds.” But, if even my efforts thus far aren’t good enough, and I’m not allowed to dress like a Muslim (because that would be highly unusual for a Christian in our society, and call undue attention to myself, so it could be seen as immodest or even prideful), then literally, F it. I’m done.

I’m tempted to go full Revenge Ugly again.

But, I must admit: Revenge Ugly is not a healthy attitude to have. The part of me that wants to be Revenge Ugly doesn’t come from God, I’m pretty sure.

Because if I really respected my body and liked it and were comfortable in my God-given skin — if I were free from disorder, basically — then yes, of course I’d dress like a beautiful flower! Wouldn’t we all?

Or would we?

Self-hatred analogy

I read something once on a Catholic social media page that compared a woman who dresses “badly” – chopping her hair short, dying it blue, wearing ripped jeans and tattoos and piercings and all – to the way Catholic architecture changed after Vatican II. Catholic churches lost their grandeur and beauty and meaning, and became uninspiring and drab.

The OP claimed that both of these – the modern woman and the modern Church – are acting from a place of self-hatred. Modern Catholicism hates Catholic Tradition, which is the actual essence of real Catholicism, and that’s why modern churches look like the way they do. Similarly, the woman who chops her hair and wears ripped jeans and gets tattoos, is a woman who hates herself, hates what she is at her core, even if she doesn’t realize it (according to OP). She hates her body and her God-given femininity. She lacks a healthy self-respect and respect for the One Who made her, and that’s what her style communicates.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know it’s true for me. I dress like trash, and I do struggle with self-hatred. So I’m afraid I can’t prove OP wrong.

“But Mith, maybe if you tried dressing better you’d stop hating yourself! Sometimes you have to fake it till you make it! You have to pretend to be asleep before you can fall asleep, ya know?, and that’s how life works.” — Bold of you to assume I haven’t already tried this zillions of times in my thirty-six years! Bold of you to assume that I don’t always naturally, gradually revert back to baggy hoodies, having wasted a bunch of money on clothes that I never wear! And even bolder of you to assume that my self-hatred is so ephemeral as to be cured with something like a change of clothes!

.

Now I finally get to the argument

“Women should look like beautiful flowers and men like tall trees” – really? I dunno about that.

“Can”, sure. But, “should”? Not so fast.

I’m still not convinced that we as women have to look like that. Yes, it’s nice when a woman dresses beautifully. And a beautiful, well-composed outfit does communicate something about God’s design for woman and her purpose. Which is beautiful, maybe even the most beautiful thing in the world.

God designed woman to nurture, to care for, to welcome, to receive, to host, to self-sacrifice, to be soft and gentle and lovely like a flower. And God designed man to provide, to be strong, to protect, to shelter, like a tall tree.

But, does that really mean that all men and all women have to dress like flowers and trees, respectively?

Because it’s also cool, isn’t it, when women are buff tomboys. And when men are pretty and good at makeup. It may be unconventional, but, there’s nothing sinful about that. Some people have real gifts that don’t align with traditional gender roles.

People are all so different. People have different personalities, different strengths and weaknesses, and it’d be dumb to pretend we don’t – to try to force every woman to be ultra-feminine and every man to be hyper-masculine.

For whatever reason, some women are not very feminine, and some men are not very masculine. So what? Are those men and women failing morally? Are their style choices proof that they hate themselves?

That may be true of Mith, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true of everyone.

As I said in my other post: buff tomboy women and effeminate pretty men may not look the part of the “ideal candidates for marriage” in the traditional sense – but that doesn’t make them less valuable as humans. A human’s value is not dependent upon their marriageability.

And, as I said in my other post: yes, of course we as women should all strive to imitate the Blessed Mother. But, it seems to me that imitating her virtues — humility, obedience, charity, patience, mercy, generosity — ought to be more important than dressing like a girly-girl. A buff tomboy could obviously still excel in all of those virtues.

Do I wish nicer clothes were widely available and affordable, like back in the ‘50s, for those who care to dress that way? Absolutely. That would be a major improvement for society.

But do I also like that there are other options for those of us who have preferences or issues that make that sort of dress highly uncomfortable? Absolutely.

Why can’t we do both? Isn’t there room for all of us, here on God’s green earth?

.

An Adjacent Complaint

But wait, I’m not done yet!

Another issue that I have with these traddy lifestyle extremists is this: they tend to be very well-off financially, and they are quick to assume that everyone else is too.

“Only shop at these special shops I’m recommending that sell nice, quality, beautiful clothes” – okay, but what if I’m on a Goodwill/Walmart budget? Not all of us can afford to have an ~aesthetic~.

“You can shop secondhand and still dress beautifully” – yeah, maybe if you make a whole time-consuming hobby out of it, spending hours and hours of your life scouring the racks at stinky Goodwill for a rare “nice” find (which I acknowledge some people out there love to do, it’s a legit hobby and they call it “thrifting” and I respect it). But not everyone has the time or the energy to do all that!

And even if we did, not all of us have an eye for fashion! Even if I spent hours finding a decent piece at Goodwill that also happened to fit me (odds of both at once are slim to none) – I wouldn’t know how to style it.

“Just make your own clothes, then, like they did in olden times” – um, no. Zero interest, sorry. I’m an ILI, not an SEI. I’m not going to spend precious free time at a sewing machine doing some mindless task when I could be reading or writing or doing something else that’s mentally enriching for me.

“Well, Mith, if this were the olden days, you’d just have to suck it up and sew your own clothes and wear beautiful dresses, even if you were uncomfortable – you wouldn’t have the luxury of choice!” Yeah, true, but, guess what! It’s 2026! Technological advancements exist, and not all of them are bad. Our ancestors wanted an easier life for us, which is why we have options now that they didn’t. We don’t have to pretend it’s the 19th century to be good Catholics.

Do we?

Is it so bad to take advantage of modern conveniences, as long as we do so without sinning? Is it so bad to acknowledge that people have different personalities, different dispositions, and to allow them to act and dress accordingly, as long as they do so without sinning?

.

In Conclusion

Now that I’ve had my little tantrum and calmed down, I think what Dr. K was trying to say was: beautiful clothing needs to become the norm again. But, actually, he never said that it’s wrong to not be normal.

So you know what? I agree with him. Beautiful clothes should be the norm. We should bring them back.

But even if we do, I’m still gonna dress in trash bags. I will look around me at all the beautifully-dressed people and go “hurray! Nature is healing!” and keep right on dressing in a trash bag, because evidently I am not done healing yet, and (ugh, gag me, but) maybe that’s okay. Not ideal, but permissible.

So, imo, it is okay to look frumpy. Not ideal, but okay.

Because it’s okay to not be entirely well, and it’s okay to not be normal.

Feel free to try and convince me otherwise in the comments, though.

In the meantime, I think I’m gonna go try to dig up my old jeans and a hoodie.
TOP 10: Love Songs for Sad People (with Suggested Crying Locations): A Valentine’s Day Playlist

February 14th, 2026

I should say first of all that, actually, I probably don’t qualify as a “sad person”, not anymore. In fact, at 36, I’m the happiest I’ve ever been. I’ve been married to my #1 person for almost nine years now, and we have a really fun, healthy, almost suspiciously good relationship, and four kids together. And no drama to speak of. This is the first healthy relationship that I’ve ever had, and the only one that’s lasted longer than six months! It’s great.

However, as a melancholic and an intuitive introverted personality type and someone with AVPD, I’m just kind of a sad person by nature. Maybe that’s why I love tragic love stories so much — way more than the kind with a “happily ever after.” A love story is just so much more delicious, more tantalizing, more moving, when it’s unfulfilled somehow — when there’s something to long for. When they can’t be together, when circumstances (tragic or otherwise) keep them apart.

My husband thinks it’s funny how, when we’re watching a movie or show with a romantic plot thread, I’ll always be like: “wow, those characters have such chemistry! I hope one of them dies. 😍”

Why are we like this? Obviously, I don’t actually like it in real life, if someone I know loses a partner or a relationship ends tragically. I think in fiction there’s something cathartic about it — I mean, there’s a reason humans seek out sad stories, scary stories, dark and grisly stories. It’s a safe way of experiencing intense emotion.

And we all know the forbidden fruit effect. Something is all the more alluring when you can’t have it. It’s similar to the way I feel about dessert. The longing for a thing is often more satisfying than the thing itself. So that’s probably got something to do with it as well.

It’s in this spirit that I’ve compiled the following list of my top ten favorite sad love songs for sad people. I’m including some suggestions for places where you can listen to these while crying, to really maximize the effect.

18. “We Both Go Down Together” by The Decemberists. But is it tragic because they’re in love and willing to die together, or is the singer actually abusive and insane and the girl is his victim? I know it’s been hotly contested. I prefer the first interpretation. Suggested crying location: the Cliffs of Dover, obviously, but if you don’t have the Cliffs of Dover at home, your nearest precipice will do.

17. “Back Of My Mind” by Two Feet. This one’s more about longing than tragedy I guess, but it’s still definitely a sad song for sad people. Suggested cry spot: in a dimly-lit bar late at night.

16. “The Highwayman” adapted and performed by Loreena McKennitt. We all know the poem by Alfred Noyes. It’s one of my favs. The quintessential tragic romance, basically. Suggested cry spot: outside, at night, when the weather is misty and no warmer than 60°F.

15. “I Will Follow You into the Dark” by Death Cab for Cutie. Remember this one? It’s too sad even for me. Suggested cry spot: public transport.

14. “My Last Breath” by Evanescence. No one has ever made death sound as sexy as Amy Lee makes it sound in this song. This whole album rocks and I will die on this hill. Suggested cry spot: at your desk (you are wearing headphones).

13. “Existentialism on Prom Night” by Straylight Run. Remember this one, too? I actually bought the CD because of how much I liked this song, but the rest were not as good. Still just as freaking sad as it was back in the days of buying CDs. Suggested cry spot: on your bed, supine, looking up at the ceiling. Your bed should be unmade and your room messy.

12. “9 Crimes” by Damien Rice. This song is about infidelity, which is, in all seriousness now, extremely sad — but, I’m obsessed with it. Suggested cry location: in a busy restaurant at lunchtime, or alternatively: standing by the side of the road (in broad daylight).

11. “High Flying Seagull” by Dougie MacLean. Just a pretty little love song about a sad guy and his girl. Suggested cry spot: the beach (when it’s overcast). If you can’t get to the rocky coast of Scotland, your nearest beach will suffice.

10. “Lay Your Head Down” by Peter Bradley Adams. This one haunts me. It’s just a brutal work of art. Suggested cry spot: the floor.

9. “Thief” by Our Lady Peace. I think I remember reading somewhere that this was written about a friend, not a partner, but it’s still a love song and could very well be about anyone you love who’s suffering and there’s nothing you can do to help them. Suggested cry spot: waiting room.

8. “Sahara Love” by Above & Beyond feat. Zoë Johnston (Seven Lions Remix). Tfw you have so much more to say to someone but you can’t. You MUST cry to this in the car, at night, driving fast, like maybe over a bridge, with the stars and/or city lights streaming past you making you feel like you’re in outer space.

7. “Where Are You” by Déanta. An anthem of unrequited love. When I was a junior in high school, the lines “I have built for you a tower of love and admiration/ I see you so high, I cannot reach myself” hit me like a ton of bricks. Suggested cry spot: gazing out a window toward the horizon. There should be trees.

6. “Wake Up, Open The Door And Escape To The Sea” by blaqkaudio. Oof. The feels hit so hard that I can excuse the absent Oxford comma. Suggested cry spot: in the snow, but it’s not actively snowing, it’s like yesterday’s snow or the day before.

5. “Endlessly, She Said” by AFI. Yup, Davey again. His lyrics are my favorite, because they’re so full of metaphor and poetic allusion that it becomes very personal, subject to your own interpretation. The desperation and loneliness in this song, it gets me every time. Suggested crying locale: on the roof of a parking garage at night.

4. “Attached at the Mouth” by Loudermilk. This song is a whole movie. Suggested cry spot: basement.

3. “Eclipsed” by Evans Blue. This song was introduced to me by a fellow Sad Girl in ca. 2006-07 (hope she’s doing okay now). I’m still not sure exactly what it’s supposed to be about, but I know what it’s about in my heart. Suggested cry spot: in a burning building.

2. “The World Has Come Between Us” by Stage. This is not the first time I’ve mentioned this song on here. The real tragedy though is that this band kind of disappeared into obscurity. Suggested crying location: field of wildflowers on a warm sunny day.

And finally, what is quite possibly the most heartbreaking love song ever:

1. “Between the Bars” by Elliott Smith. This song! Whether you’ve never heard it before, or you’ve heard it a million times: brace yourself. As a teenager, I always assumed this was a love song about a person, but now, I hear it as a song about alcoholism (like from the pov of the addiction, singing to the addict). Which is still a love song — I mean, that’s the most intense and toxic love relationship that there is. But, you know what, it could also be about a person; these lyrics are so brilliant. Crying location: wherever you happen to be when you hit play, but ideally somewhere deserted, in the very early morning, while the rest of the world is asleep.

.

Let me know if you try crying to any of these in any of the suggested locations. Hope you enjoy. Happy Valentine’s Day.
Should I fast for Lent if I have a history of EDs?, Part Two

February 13th, 2026

And now it’s almost Lent again, and, as always when a penitential season comes around, I am once again asking myself: what should I, as someone with a long history of EDs, do about the whole fasting thing?

I addressed this in a previous post, the tl;dr of which is: most people say that, if you have an ED, you shouldn’t fast from food, but find a different way to fast; to which the voice in my head replies: why? Isn’t it wimpy for me, as someone who struggled for 15+ years but is currently physically fine and in maintenance mode, to claim exemption from fasting? Isn’t that cheating? Wouldn’t the great ascetic saints, the ones who subsisted off Holy Communion alone, scoff at me? Wouldn’t the desert fathers laugh and roll their eyes? “My poor wittle mental health!, fasting might hurt my feewings!, I don’t wike myself, wah wah 🥺”, isn’t that pathetic of me?

(And for the record, as I’m sure anyone with an ED will understand: the voice in my head is only this critical with me — it is not talking about you (it’s like, “other people are allowed to exist, eat, feel, and be vulnerable, but NOT you!!, it’s lame and gross when you do it!”, etc., etc.; we’re all familiar with its double standard, aren’t we?). So I’m not making fun of anyone else, or calling anyone else pathetic — just narrating my own little weird mental process, which maybe some of you can relate to. If you have an ED history, I do NOT think that YOU should fast from food — you are obviously exempt. It’s only me who’s the fat pathetic loser, according to the inner voice.)

So: I’m always wondering: should I fast or no? Am I being hard on myself, or being too soft? What do I do??

Thankfully, I heard a really great sermon on Lenten practices recently, which shed some light on the matter. So here I am to write a follow-up to the post linked above, and to hopefully put this Question That Keeps Me Up At Night to rest once and for all.

In his sermon, this priest clarified some things about Lenten practices. For most of you Catholic readers, these will probably not be news, but I am an idiot and a bad Catholic who needs things boiled down to the basics and spelled out and at like a fourth grade reading level, so for me it was groundbreaking. I had never heard it explained this succinctly before.

Penance and mortification: both are things we resolve to do during Lent. Up until now, I’ve had a pretty nebulous idea of what these were. I thought that they were the same thing, essentially, and tbh never considered that that might not be true.

But actually, if I understood this priest correctly, there are differences between “penance” and “mortification.” The former is a work that we do to atone for past sins. The latter is a discomfort or inconvenience that we voluntarily take on in order to fight ongoing sin/temptation — to counteract a disordered tendency in our current life.

And he went on to explain that, to really have a fruitful Lent, we should practice these in a targeted, specific way, unique to our own personal situation. It’s not just “oh, I’m a sinner so I’ll give up sugar to make myself uncomfortable.” Lent is not about just being uncomfortable for the sake of being uncomfortable. It’s about removing obstacles to God’s grace. Which means that it’s much more useful if we look at our unique sins, imperfections, and bad habits, and tailor our Lenten practices to work against those.

Wow! No one had ever explained it to me like this before. W/r/t Lent, I’d always just been told “prayer, fasting, almsgiving.” Which is obviously good advice. Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are things we should do more of, especially during Lent. But, this priest explained in his sermon, for maximum spiritual benefit, each individual should practice them in an intentional, specific, targeted way.

I’m just a stupid layperson, so what do I know, but: I feel like that’s a really important addendum.

It’s not necessarily a great idea to just tell everyone, in general: “you should fast.” Because what if someone is breastfeeding, or has a history of EDs (it’s me, I am both), or something else like that. “Just fast” is not good advice for that person. Similarly, “just give alms” might not be the best advice for someone with no money to give. Obviously we are all obligated to give money, but “just give more” isn’t always an option for everyone. Some people have to find other ways to be charitable. Humans are messy creatures and life is weird. So it’s complicated sometimes.

Which is why I asked in my previous post: what should someone in my situation do for Lent?

Thanks to this good priest, I see now that our penances and mortifications not only may, but should be tailored to our unique spiritual state, our unique weaknesses.

Maybe not every mortification is equally spiritually beneficial for every person. Someone who struggles with sloth might want to try waking up early and being productive every morning; someone who struggles to sit still in silence and solitude might want to schedule a block of quiet prayer time daily.

Fasting from food is a good practice for someone who has trouble practicing self-control with food. But if someone has the opposite problem, and has trouble letting go of control around food — well, it probably wouldn’t be spiritually beneficial for that person to fast from food, would it?

Which is not to say that I personally intend never to fast from food again. One day when I’m not pregnant or nursing, I look forward to fasting from food in some kind of way (a part of me looks forward to it a little too eagerly, if we’re being honest). But as it is right now, nursing a baby who has a sensitive gut, while also trying to sort of normalize after pregnancy, my diet and body image and mental health are such a touchy balancing act, which I am managing very carefully by only eating safe things at safe times — it’s just a real precarious tower of cards situation, right now — that I wonder if fasting from food just isn’t the wisest idea.

So what will I do then? Well, that will require me to look at myself and my life and figure it out.

But I’m glad that I can stop stressing about this particular question — at least, for this Lent. You’ll probably catch me yakking about it again come Advent.
Baking Championship Next Gen Season 1 Episode 6: Mith Reacts

February 11th, 2026

.

“COOOOORN!” – Emmett

“Now, we need to figure out this corn situation.” – Maci, panicking

“Who’s scared of corn? It’s just corn.” – Duff, observing

“Friendship bracelet” cream puffs. Apparently, friendship bracelets are trending right now? I had no idea. I can’t even keep up with what’s on trend anymore; I think I stopped noticing ten or fifteen years ago. Apparently, skinny jeans, side parts, and ankle socks age you now. Trends come and go so quickly. Like, Kardea was wearing bell-bottoms in this episode. Those were big in the ‘90s, when I was a kid! And I guess they’re back again now?

Aging millennial rant moment: I vividly remember how popular 1960s style was in the ‘90s: bell bottoms, door beads, inflatable furniture, lava lamps, daisies and peace signs, et cetera. When I was a kid, thirty years ago was ancient history! Comparable to like the Civil War or the invention of the automobile. How funny it was, that trends from thirty years ago were popular again. Now, I’m thirty-six, and trends from thirty years ago are resurfacing once more, but this time I remember the last time they were around. It’s so dizzying.

A couple years ago, I was walking through the mall with my kids, and saw a teenage boy wearing a “My Chemical Romance” t-shirt, and I thought to myself: “wait! That band belongs to my teenage years!” and then I realized that, back when I was a teenager, kids were wearing “Nirvana” and “Metallica” t-shirts, which at the time felt like a very “old” and “vintage” thing to like. Bands from the ‘80s! How retro, how cool! Because Metallica was big in the eighties and Nirvana was big in the early ‘90s → I was in eighth/ninth grade in 2003-05 → so an approximately an twenty-to-eleven-year difference. Similarly, MCR was big in 2004-08 → this kid at the mall was rocking a MCR shirt in 2024 → a sixteen-to-twenty-year difference there. It’s no different from the trends when I was a teen. Wait. Wait, wait, wait. WHAT?!

Getting old is so whack!!

Anyway, back to the youths, and the baking.

Friendship bracelet cream puffs. With a “choux your own adventure” twist, announced halfway through the bake.

I have a love-hate relationship with the Twists on these Baking Championships. Love them because they keep it interesting and keep us on our toes. Hate them because they tend to ruin the flavor combinations that I was already looking forward to. And this week, it was definitely more of a “hate it” scenario. Because most of the teams changed their plans pretty drastically. So instead of a twist, it felt like a completely new challenge was introduced halfway through.

I thought Abigail and Kenneth’s plan for a coconut cream puff with white chocolate ganache sounded stupendous! And I like dates (more than the average person, actually, I really like dates), but adding the date paste and changing the topping to royal icing completely threw them off. Jovie and Lenore did a 180 from passionfruit to ube. Maci and Emmett were going to do London Fog cream puffs (not my cup of tea, but interesting flavor choice, I was here for it!), but then they got stuck with corn as their twist ingredient?! Wisely, they decided to change plans entirely, because a tea-corn cream puff would just be weird. I guess with a cream puff, unlike in a cake, you don’t really have room for more than one or two flavors, so you have to be discerning.

The “corn situation” was, imo, the great drama of Episode 6. Corn was definitely the most adventurous ingredient out of the six on that table. Emmett seemed really excited to have received corn as their twist ingredient (lol), but it did require them to completely regroup. It was nice to see little Kenneth, the midwestern farmer kid and resident Corn Expert, inspecting the kernels for Maci and Emmett and advising them about the flavor profile of corn – that might have been my favorite moment this week! They ended up making it work, albeit at the expense of their decoration. I’m just glad they pulled through.

And glad to see Genesis and Akbar win this week! We knew, going into this week, that they were masters of cake, so I was curious to see how they’d do with a non-cake challenge. And they nailed it! Their décor was actually some of the most effective out of all the teams’ (the way they did white topping and black letters for the “letter bead” cream puffs made it read very authentic; I was surprised that they were the only team who did this).

But, sad to see the Bow Gals Harper & Holland go home. I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of them; they have real star quality. I was so not surprised to learn that they are Swifties who’ve attended the Eras tour not once, but twice. So cute. And the way they cooperate so seamlessly as a baking team is really impressive, especially for kids that young. What even happened to their filling, though? Am I crazy, because I swear I did see Harper filling those cream puffs. Where did it go? The case of the disappearing ricotta chantilly. I guess it will remain unsolved.

Oh, and can’t not mention Leia and Kiera! They did great with their flavors this week, which was nice to see. Strawberry pastry cream and yuzu curd sounds like a delicious combination – I actually like that better than their original plan to do strawberry-mango. For once, their flavors got better feedback than their decoration! Clearly, they can do both. I still think these two are going to win the whole thing.

I haven’t yet written about what I would do for this challenge if I were on this show, which has apparently become a thing that I do, so here goes. I’ve never made cream puffs, but, being me, I’d probably want them to be filled with chocolate. If my sister and I were baking together, we’d probably do either chocolate or coffee flavor, since we’re both coffee drinkers, and for the twist ingredient – I think ricotta would have been the most fun to work with. You could do like a tiramisu flavor.

Each team also had to do a little “slogan” written out on their cream puffs, something to represent their team (we had “wolf pack” for Kenneth and Abigail; “rock rats” for Jovie and Lenore; “luv 2 bake” for Leia and Kiera; “soul sibs” for Genesis and Akbar, etc.). What slogan would my sister and I put on cream puffs, if we were on this show? The only thing that comes to mind is “Twilight Zone” lol, because that was how we used to refer to our family home, back when we still lived at home with our parents in our teens and whenever we’d come home during our college years. Like, whenever someone in our family did or said something weird, awkward, annoying, or triggering, one of us would look at the other and just start humming the Twilight Zone theme song. Growing up in the Twilight Zone was a pretty defining aspect of our lives and our sibling relationship.

What would you guys do?! Tell me!! On to this week’s Stats:

Superlatives from the judges: 0 (Running Total: 4)

Kid who most deserved a hug: Maci, when she was panicking about the corn situation.

Kid who most deserved a high five: Also Maci, for finally managing to create a delicious, sweet, cereal-milkish pastry cream out of fresh corn, even though it took two tries.

The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Genesis & Akbar’s winning tahini-strawberry cream puffs. In my family, we’re really big on PB&Js, and I personally love sesame flavor, so this sounded like a really great one to me. I also appreciated that they opted to keep the strawberry flavor they’d originally planned, and swirl the two pastry creams together. Very bold choice, and it paid off well.

What do we think?! Leave me your comments!
(journal) Having ocs is fun because

February 6th, 2026

yesterday i was in the checkout line at the [name of grocery store redacted] and in front of me there were these two dudes, about my age, one taller and broader with a messy ponytail and head-to-toe Carhartt, and his slighter, slicker, short-haired friend (brother? I mean basically) wearing khakis and black pullover (and the cute little girl in the shopping cart coulda been either of theirs; still works) and they were just out grocery shopping together and i was just 🤭🥰😄 bc in my peripheral/through furtive glances the situation read very “just dudes being bros on a thursday” (but come to think of it, maybe they were a married couple (which, c’mon, they basically are 😉)), but then one of them (idk which, i was too busy trying too hard not to stare) was so courteous as to retrieve that little plastic divider strip (which was up by the cashier, out of my reach) and place it on the conveyor belt behind their stuff so i could start putting my stuff down, and he just looks my way and goes: “here ya go” and i was just 😮😳😶 and i’ve been giggling/cringing about it ever since. And would you believe I am thirty-six.
Baking Championship Next Gen Season 1 Episode 5: Mith Reacts

February 4th, 2026

CAUTION: SPOILERS for this episode of BCNG!

Breakfast imposter challenge: at first, I wasn’t too excited about this episode. Just like Genesis, as all the kids were jumping about and shrieking with glee upon hearing the theme, I was nonplussed. Imposter desserts are not my favorite thing. I like cakes that look like cakes, and imo the whole “is it cake?” trend has gone way too far. But, this was honestly really impressive. These kids did way better than I expected them to. It was cool to see what they could do.

What would I do for this challenge if I were on the show?: No one did a bowl of cold cereal. A cake made to resemble a bowl of Froot Loops or Fruity Pebbles would have been fun. You could do a white confetti cake for the sponge, and top it with rainbow feuilletine, or like miniature cookies or something, then a vanilla glaze to look like milk. For the two side dish desserts, I think a soft-boiled egg bonbon would be really cute: like a vanilla mousse with a truffle center, inside a white chocolate shell. All of which sounds really fancy, so I’d probably do something simple for the last item, like a slice of pound cake “toast” with coffee flavoring (for the surprise coffee flavor twist that the kids had to do) and like yellow buttercream “butter.”

What would you guys do??

Also, I know I’ve said before that I’m not really as into the kids’ version of these shows – but, I’ve realized, one thing I really like about the kids’ baking championship: no one bakes with booze! Not a drop! As a non-drinker, it’s always disappointing for me to see how much alcohol gets used in dessert-making: couldn’t eat that, couldn’t eat that either. But on this show, all the desserts are fair game!

My silly little thoughts:

– Leila & Melody: When Melody was dumping the coffee flavoring into their apples, and Leila was freaking out screaming at her to stop, I was sitting there going: “let her cook!!” because last week when Melody had a crazy idea and Leila tried to stop her, Melody ended up being on the right track and actually should have done even more. Unfortunately, this week, Leila’s instincts were right; the coffee flavor in the apples just didn’t work out. I am bummed to see these two go home, because their little interviews were always so entertaining; I loved their chaotic energy. But it did seem fair; their cake tasted burnt, and their “sausage” treats were “too sticky.” I’ll miss you, girls!

– Maci & Emmett: Their second win?! These two are ones to watch. Their desserts aren’t as visually spectacular as Leia and Kiera’s, nor are their flavors as outstanding as Gensis and Akbar’s, but they have that magic ingredient of consistency that judges on these shows always love. Their three desserts were all really good; Maci and Emmett were, in fact, the only ones who served three good desserts. Although, I will say, big thumbs down to Duff and Emmett’s little comedic back-and-forth about vegetarian bacon being so “gross.” The Morningstar Farms soy bacon is actually really delicious, and objectively way less “gross” than strips of greasy fatty swine flesh, thanks very much. Emmett gets a pass for this because he’s a child (and a sweet, adorable one at that!), but Duff, as a foodie adult – come on now.

– Abigail & Kenneth: Abigail so wanted to win! And they came so close. Sweet little Kenneth did such a good job on that “parfait” all by himself, and Abigail’s “avocado toast” with the two-tone green buttercream was astounding. She’s not messing around anymore: I fully expect this team to win next week, with how determined Abigail is. Jovie agrees with me – she said this week that she thinks Abigail and Kenneth are her fiercest competition.

– Harper & Holland: Crisis averted! Harper accidentally dyed their rice pudding an unfortunate shade of pink! It looked nothing like oatmeal – more like raw ground turkey. Little Holland was pissed, lol. Then Harper had the idea to add just a drop of black food dye. Black?! “NO,” I was shouting at the TV, “not black!! what are you doing?!” but, lo and behold – it worked! That dish came out looking exactly like oatmeal! Just goes to show I know absolutely nothing about baking and cake decorating! Way to go, Harper! These two are so precious, I love to see them do well – and their flavors sounded delicious too.

– Genesis & Akbar: Massively impressed with these two once again. They weren’t even looking forward to this challenge, but their “stack of pancakes” cake looked so good – and so real! And the way they got those sugar cookies to look like sausage patties – I did not see that one coming. Too bad they forgot to put the coffee glaze on one of them, and too bad they didn’t have time to do the meringue for their egg; but the rest of their work was outstanding.

– Leia & Kiera: Once again, blowing everyone else out of the water with their decorating skills. That “bagel breakfast sandwich” was a work of art, visually, and their milk jelly + coffee ganache “sunny side up egg” was technically insane work! How on earth did kids this young learn to do that?! Unfortunately, their donut was underbaked, and the fondant filling didn’t add much to the flavor. They do err on the side of pretty rather than delicious. These two need to team up with their friends Genesis and Akbar – with their powers combined, these four would be unstoppable!

– Jovie & Lenore: Another good week for these two. That pate a choux bun looked exactly like a cinnamon roll! And their cheesecake “parfait” sounded delectable. Keep it up, Jovie and Lenore. This is my husband’s favorite team – he has a soft spot for “weird” people (obviously, considering that he married me). So I kind of hope they win, because he’ll be heartbroken if they get eliminated.

Stats:

Superlatives from the judges: 2: one was Duff to Leia and Kiera “best egg imposter ever”; and the other was Duff to the whole group, “some of the bet I’ve ever seen”. (Running Total: 4)

Kid who most deserved a hug: Kenneth, when he and Abigail came in second instead of first. “I dreamt of winning,” he said wistfully, but with resignation. Poor thing! Next week, Kenneth. My money’s on next week.

Kid who most deserved a high five: Genesis, for producing yet another “phenomenal” sponge. She mentioned adding buttermilk and sour cream to her lemon-blueberry cake, to make it extra moist. They have not baked a bad cake yet. She may not have quite the decorative finesse of Leia and Kiera (no one does), but what’s more important is, that girl seriously knows what she is doing with cake!

The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Harper and Holland’s “oatmeal” imposter: coconut rice pudding with crumbled coconut macaroons and coconut-macadamia brittle. Or maybe Jovie and Lenore’s cheesecake “parfait.”

What do we think?! Leave me your comments!
Is it ok for poor people to have kids?: Part Two

February 1st, 2026

I know I’ve already addressed this topic in a previous post, but I saw a reel today that brought the question once again to the forefront of my mind. (Here it is, if you’re curious.)

The gist of the reel is this: a young mom posted a sweet little video clip of her husband playing with their toddler, and wrote something along the lines of: “I wish more moms knew that it’s possible to have a family on a single income.” She explained in the caption that she’s a stay-at-home mom, and in order to make that work they make a lot of sacrifices. As new parents, she and her husband had faced financial hardship, even resorting to a local food bank once or twice when times were especially hard — but that it was all worth it. Basically, encouraging young women to stop fearing financial hardship, because family is the real wealth.

Lovely, right? I thought so.

But who do we find in the comments but the inevitable crowd of social media mom-shamers: “newsflash, if you need to go to a food bank to feed your kids, then you actually can’t afford kids!” “get a job! By going to the food bank, you’re stealing from people who have no other option! You could get a job but you’re selfishly choosing to stay home with your kids!” “Sure, it’s fine now while he’s a baby, but what happens when that kid grows up and asks for Disney World vacations and the trendy new sneakers like all his classmates are wearing?” Basically, telling her that she should not have had this child.

Wow! Teeth and claws came out. Some of these arguments are more interesting than others. Let’s break them down, shall we.

Keeping in mind this one truth that most people on social media, and in our world today in general, seem to have forgotten: having kids, and raising them well, is a good and important thing to do!

.

Argument One: “If you need to go to a food bank to feed your kids, then you actually can’t afford kids!”

She fed her child, didn’t she? For him, it doesn’t matter if the food came from her own paycheck or a food bank (which she only used once or twice anyway, as a last resort). Now, if assistance were unavailable, and there were actually no food to be had (like, I dunno, an extreme wartime ration situation or something), that’d be different. Then maybe it would be unwise to have a kid, because there would be literally no way to legally feed it.

But (and Americans might really need to try and stretch their brains to comprehend this): it is okay to receive help. We should, in fact, help each other. Americans really suffer from this obsession with self-reliance, this isolationist notion that we shouldn’t have to help anyone and shouldn’t accept help from anyone — unless, perhaps, we are literally on the brink of death. Humans in a society are meant to help and support each other.

Moms these days, especially in modern America, don’t have a village around them the way they used to historically. Family units are islands now, expected to do it all themselves. It’s unnatural. It’s not supposed to be like that. People, especially new parents, are supposed to receive help. That’s just how the human race has always functioned.

Caveat here: obviously, a family shouldn’t have a child expecting not to have to work to provide for it. The parents should have a plan for how they will provide for it, doing as much as they reasonably can to be self-sufficient while still prioritizing the wellness of all family members. (There’s a difference between, e.g., an already-exhausted parent taking on a second full time job and sacrificing their sleep, which is probably not an overall good choice for the health of the family, and a parent sacrificing something like hair appointments, “fun” money, vacations, streaming services, etc.: sacrifices that don’t adversely affect the family’s health.) Parents absolutely should plan on making sacrifices and working as hard as they can to feed their kid. You must not start a family with the mindset that “oh, it’s fine, I’ll just go to the food bank or get food stamps or whatever.” That would be absolutely deplorable.

But knowing it’s there for you to use in a real pinch, if plans A and B fail — that’s totally fine and good! That’s what it’s for.

Accepting help in a pinch is not a crime — and, as some wise commenters pointed out, is actually beneficial because it keeps the “help” system running. Food banks are there to be utilized; they only exist if people continue to use them.

This mom did nothing wrong by using her local food bank when she needed to.

And she’s right: parents should be okay with accepting help if they need to. That’s part of being a parent, and one of the reasons assistance programs exist. Having kids is good and important (especially nowadays, with drastically-declining birth rates). It is something that our society should encourage by offering things like food banks and government assistance for parents.

.

Argument Two: “Get a job! By going to the food bank, you’re stealing from people who have no other option! You could get a job but you’re selfishly choosing to stay home with your kids!”

This accusation is a bold one!, but, I can tell it’s coming from a place of hurt and frustration, so I will try and be gentle here.

“Selfishly choosing to stay home with your kids.” Let’s think about that. What is the best thing for a child? To be with its mom. You can’t argue with that.

“But Mith, little kids need socialization” — no, they don’t. Not in the form of daycare, at least. That much is certain. Going out to play groups and such with mom, sure! But daycare is neither good nor necessary.

Being around its mom is what a little kid needs, more than luxuries, more than toys or vacations or a big house or whatever. A mom who chooses to stay home is doing the best thing for her kid. She’s not being selfish.

I think people mistake this decision, the decision to stay home, for selfishness, because it is appealing. It is the thing that most moms would like to do. And of course they would! That’s because it’s natural! A mom naturally wants to stay with her kids and take care of her home and husband. That’s the dream job, and the most important job in the world! As C.S. Lewis said, the homemaker’s job is the job that all other jobs exist for.

But sadly, most moms think they “can’t” stay home. And these moms who are suffering from a misguided belief that they “have” to work, get very angry when they see another mom doing the thing they wish they could justify for themselves, but are too afraid to, too hung up on financial comfort.

But the mom who made this post is exactly right. Barring extraordinary situations (like a husband who’s unable to work for health reasons, or a husband whose job pays minimum wage), most moms could stay home with their kids if they were willing to be financially uncomfortable.

And the other thing is, do the people making this accusation realize how expensive daycare is? Do they realize that, for many moms, the cost of daycare would eat up the entire paycheck that they’d be bringing in if they got a job, so literally what’s the point? Net zero gain, or maybe a couple dollars, and a ton of lost time with their kids, not to mention the psychological burden of the separation on both mom and kid. (Even if you’re a mom who likes to be away from your kids, you can’t deny that it’s scary sending your kid to daycare; all these horror stories in the news about kids getting abused and neglected, or worse, at daycare. If you’re a mom and that doesn’t scare you… I dunno what to tell you. Daycare is always a risk.)

Staying home with mom is the best thing for a little kid. Families should do everything they can to make that arrangement work. I daresay they have an obligation to try and keep mom home.

“But what if mom actually thrives at her job, Mith? What if she has a really meaningful career, or even a divine calling of sorts?” Totally valid. Doctors, pediatricians, midwives, teachers and professors, anything, you name it — all meaningful jobs that I can understand a woman feeling called to. But I would argue: can this career really not wait five years? Is it really more important to you than your child’s early years? Can’t you at least cut your hours back? It’s important for moms to stay home with their kids, especially before age six or so.

Which is why it’s anything but selfish for the mom in question to choose to stay home with her kids. She’s doing the best thing for her kid. Her kid needs her more than anything else. That is her duty, her obligation that takes precedence over any other.

“But she technically could get a job! She has the option! Which means that, when she takes from a food bank, she’s stealing food from people who, through no fault of their own, cannot work!”

Let’s be real now. I don’t have a source to back this up, but I’m willing to bet that most people who use food banks probably have, or could have, some kind of income. I don’t think it’s true that the only people who use (or should use) a food bank are those who are completely incapable of working any job. (For those people, there are disability benefits and SNAP, anyway.) If that were the case, food banks would be a lot smaller and less prevalent a thing than they are, and there would be much stricter regulations about who could use them. As we discussed above, food banks exist for anyone in a pinch.

And let’s be realistic here: I seriously doubt that this one mom was stripping the food bank shelves bare. They don’t even let you do that — they have limits on how much each household can receive (at least, the church food pantry where I used to volunteer had such limits, and enforced them strictly). I’m sure they have enough supplies to go around. How likely is it, seriously, that some other family somewhere went hungry because this one mom took her share that day? Come on now.

“But Mith, it’s the principle.” You know what: fair. I agree with that. If we were talking about a lazy mom with no work ethic, no plan to become more self-reliant, no goals, and no remorse, just waltzing into the food bank week after week and scooping up as much as she possibly could, then yes, that would be deplorable and shameful, and would even amount to stealing from the needy. But that is not the same as a motivated mom accepting help in a pinch here and there. Let’s stop reacting emotionally and making ridiculously extreme assumptions about people, just because we’re frustrated about our own situation.

.

And, Argument Three: “Sure, it’s fine now while he’s a baby, but what happens when that kid grows up and asks for Disney World vacations and the trendy new sneakers like all his classmates are wearing?”

This is the dumbest and saddest of all the arguments, and one that I already addressed in the aforementioned previous post, but I’ll touch on it again since folks are bringing it up.

Seriously? You think a person’s life is not worth living because that person couldn’t afford the trendy sneakers or the Disney World vacation? You really think a person with financial hardship is just better off not existing? That their entire life and future is automatically a waste? If you genuinely believe that, then I really dunno what to say to you, but I’ll keep you in my prayers.

It’s a sad world where people really think the point of life is to have nice things and be comfortable.

“But Mith, when poor people have kids, it just perpetuates the vicious cycle: the 1% filthy rich minority are in control; this world is their resort, and the rest of us are just their underpaid staff. If poor people stop breeding, the rich won’t have laborers anymore. You are in fact morally obligated to not breed, if you’re poor, for the good of the world.”

Interesting take — I appreciate the commitment, taking the philosophy all the way to its logical conclusion. Because sure, if you really believe that life is only about getting what you want, if that’s really true, then yeah! Absolutely stop breeding and let humanity die out. In fact, let’s all go ahead and kill ourselves right now, because it’s all meaningless.

It’s such a sad and cynical way to think. Thankfully, it’s simply wrong.

My life, my identity, and my purpose are not defined by what my job is. So what if I am a pawn in the billionaires’ game; as long as I’m getting paid my fair wages, it frankly doesn’t matter. Because I care more about my divine Employer than any earthly one. And in God’s eyes, we all have great value. The purpose of life on earth is not to get what we want and be comfortable. It’s to get ready for eternal life. (Which, btw, we can’t do without help. We have to learn to be okay with accepting help, people.)

But even without putting a religious spin on it, you surely can see that anyone who’s not a total nihilist can find value and meaning, joy and beauty and fulfillment, in their life even if they are “just a pawn.” If you really think that life is pointless and you’re better off never being born unless you’re ultra-rich with no day job… then once again, I’m sorry, I dunno what to say to you.

.

So to wrap this up: a woman who’s doing something good and important for society and her child by being a SAHM, accepts a bit of help in a totally legal, above-board way, in order to be able to continue doing this thing that’s good for society and her child… and people are attacking her for this? Saying she shouldn’t have had a kid at all? Seriously?! Fuck it, that’s enough internet for today. I’m done.