-
A reel popped up on my IG feed today that gave me a moment’s pause. I don’t like to link to social media here, plus I didn’t follow or save or anything; so, let me describe it for you. This twentysomething Catholic girl influencer, who’s trying to promote her content I guess, goes: “I was always a tomboy. This is how I always dressed,” and she shows us photo after photo of a girl in jeans and t-shirts. “Then,” she says, “I became Catholic. I saw in Mary how beautiful femininity is.” She tells us how she started trying to present as more feminine: first with just one dress, then gradually, “through the grace of God,” came to a point where she now wears dresses exclusively, all the time. She showed photos of herself gardening, driving a tractor, and doing yard work in pretty dresses.
Now, I have mixed feelings about the message that this is sending.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m very pro-modesty and pro-dress. Myself, I wear dresses and long skirts exclusively (except when I’m in my PJs, because I have been wearing the same pair of Eeyore PJ pants from Walmart since 2017 and it’s just my thing now, no other PJs are comfortable anymore, I will probably be wearing them on my deathbed). Modest attire like this is what is comfortable for me – although, tbh, that has more to do with my issues with my body appearance than with me being super “devout” or “feminine.” If I were skinny and toned, I might be more tempted to dress immodestly.
But all that is just to say, I myself am a believer that dresses are superior for women and girls. I wish it were the norm, instead of the weird and gross things that females are expected to wear these days. I am generally anti-pants (although in 2025 America, some allowances have to be made, because many women are required to wear pants at their jobs, which is too bad), and definitely anti-leggings as pants, anti-crop tops and booty shorts and all that. I do believe women ought to be charitable towards men and cover up decently. True, it’s a man’s fault if he looks at a woman with lust; but there’s truly no reason why women need to make it more difficult for him by going around showing it all off. (Even as a straight female, I find it super distracting when women go around in practically their underwear.) I know a lot of more feminist-leaning readers will disagree with me here – “it’s not my problem if men can’t control their urges!” – correct, but, as a Catholic I believe we have a duty to be charitable to our neighbor, and that certain parts of the body should only be seen by your spouse. To me, this includes legs, so I personally would not wear something that shows off the legs.
Thus, I am by no means mad at this influencer for preferring to present as feminine. She pointed out that “God has set women apart as something sacred and special,” so we ought to dress like it, not like a man. I think that’s generally true.
But I take issue with the suggestion that being a tomboy is bad and something to be overcome.
We need to stop saying shit like this. Assertions like this are what lead people to question their gender identity, these days. It’s okay to be a tomboy! You are still a female! Just because you don’t love doing stereotypically girly things, does not mean you are “actually a man!” If your biology is female, you are a woman.
A friend of mine who is an expert on systems of personality typology has recently gotten me interested in that topic. And I’ve found it very liberating to study, as someone who has always been insecure about my own personality.
God created us all with different personalities. In His creative genius, that’s how He made us: varied and diverse. Some personality types are more inclined to feminine traits (emotional, warm, caring, good housekeepers, good dressers); others, to traditionally masculine traits (logical, cold, reserved, uninterested in hosting parties or decorating or shopping). Are we going to tell all women with these latter types of traits that they are a failure? That they need to overcome or change the way God made them?
I can totally see how a traditionally feminine woman would be preferred by men as potential wife material. But that doesn’t mean that tomboys are broken or bad or need to fix themselves. And someone’s value as a human is not determined by their desirability as a spouse.
I’m what most would probably call a “rad trad” Catholic extremist, because of my beliefs and where I attend Mass. But one thing about Tradland that I’m not so sure about, that I sometimes take some issue with, is this obsession with femininity and masculinity.
Sure, masculine men are great, and I can see why a woman would prefer one as a husband. But that doesn’t mean that a man who is thin or small, who doesn’t care to lift weights or chop wood or fix cars, who perhaps prefers baking or painting or fashion design, is any less of a man. If he has male biology, he is still a man. His value as a person should not be determined by how traditionally masculine he is.
“But Mith, femininity is the essence of womanhood, and masculinity the essence of manhood! When a woman is feminine, she’s being the best version of what God made her to be!”
But not every woman is, or should be, the Platonic form of a woman. That’d be a pretty boring world, wouldn’t it! People are varied, and imperfect, and diverse. God designed us, as I said, with all different temperaments and natures. A person in perfect shape exemplifies the image of good health, and that is a good thing, and we should all strive to be healthy… but we should also honor the way that God made us. Some people have naturally bigger bone structure. Some people have physical handicaps. Should a person born with only one arm live their life in constant distress because they aren’t the image of an ideal human? I don’t think God wants that for them.
“But a handicap like that is not a choice. Behaving like a feminine woman is a choice!”
Is it? I mean, sure, I guess a woman with no interest in baking or hostessing or sewing could force herself to learn these skills, if they’re necessary for her or would make her life easier. She could try to change her personality, to act more sweet and sensitive, if she feels called to or if it would benefit her existing relationships. But should she force this just for the sake of being feminine? Couldn’t she better spend that time doing what she’s actually naturally inclined to do, like read, write, exercise, analyze data, ride horses, whatever it may be? What if her gifts go to waste because she’s so busy trying to be someone she’s not? Maybe she’s called to be a researcher, or to be the perfect partner for a more emotional and sensitive husband. God might be calling her to something great, who knows. What if St. Joan of Arc had dismissed God’s call to go to war because, well, that wasn’t a very feminine thing to do, so surely it couldn’t be God’s will?
“If a woman is inclined to be tomboyish, she should work to overcome that. Our natures are bad, and we must not submit to them, but conquer them!”
Our nature is bad insofar as it leads us to sin. If, by nature, someone prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla – that is a natural preference, not a sin. Similarly, tomboyishness is not a sin, nor is it a sin for a man to have feminine traits; and it’s absurd to think that it is.
Honestly, some members of the online trad community have an obsession with masculinity/femininity that feels kinda fetishy and gross to me at times. Like, you just know these people who post this stuff are sitting there at their computers, salivating and squirming in their seat while they type out some rant describing in detail their fantasy sexual partner – creating and sharing those idiotic AI images of huge, burly bearded men chopping wood while their delicate, doe-eyed, pregnant wife looks on in adoration, five or six small children at her feet. It’s cringe AF. Sure, that type of femininity/masculinity is an attractive ideal, and we can probably all benefit from borrowing some things from that ideal; but, most people in the world do not fit that stereotype perfectly and never will. So please, let’s stop shaming people for not being TradCath Barbie & Ken.
Plus, I mean, you can be a tomboy in modest dresses. Dresses come in all different styles and colors. You don’t have to be pink and frilly and made-up.
“By the grace of God I exclusively wear dresses now.” That feels slightly weird to me, and smacks of ego-driven perfectionism, puritanism, and privilege, doesn’t it? Not everyone can afford those “workout skirts” or swim dresses, which are only to be found at cute little specialty modest boutiques online, while sweatpants are like $9 a pair at Walmart. I can’t imagine that God is disappointed in a woman for wearing a pair of loose-fitting sweatpants to the gym or in the garden if that’s all she has or if she can’t afford to buy a special “workout skirt” right now, right? What do you think?
(In all conversations about modesty, societal norms must be taken into consideration. Modesty is, to an extent, conditional on the society we live in. Certain native cultures wear less clothing because of their lifestyle and traditions and the climate they live in. For a woman in one of these cultures, it’s obviously not a sin to show her belly or legs. In fact, it would be weird, and call undue attention to herself, to dress in a long skirt like an Amish lady. Similarly, in certain Middle Eastern countries, it’s expected to cover all the way up, and attire that would be considered modest in the West could be scandalous there. We have to consider these things. Given that we live in the West, I really don’t see how it would possibly be a sin for a woman to wear a pair of sweatpants in the garden or to the gym. Maybe an imperfection at the worst, but, I’d have to get a priest’s opinion here.)
“I want my daughters to have a good woman to look up to.” This was another thing this influencer said that kinda irritated me. So you’re only a good woman if you wear a dress 24/7? Are we sure about that? One of my most beloved friends IRL is a good Christian lady who’s a tomboy, almost never made-up, usually in casual attire like t-shirts and modest shorts, because she’s outdoorsy and practical. And she is a wonderful woman, with many feminine gifts, who would be an amazing mom if she had kids. Does this mean I think t-shirts and shorts are good? No, but nor do I think I’m a “better woman” than her because I only wear dresses!
I want my daughters to not feel forced into some mold that’s not them. I want them to have parents who are authentically answering God’s call in their lives – who don’t think living the faith can be boiled down to these external habits like sewing or chopping wood. It’s much deeper than that. I want them to know that there is a place for them in God’s kingdom, no matter what their personality or taste or foibles; they don’t have to change the morally-neutral things about their nature in order to have value.
But do femininity and masculinity carry moral weight? That, I think, is the core of the question.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they do? Because I’ve never seen an Examination of Conscience anywhere that asks, “have I been sufficiently masculine/feminine?”
Maybe those are a good thing to strive for, just as good health and fitness are good things to strive for… but are they? Are they an objective good, like health? Let’s think about it. Health is something that’s always good for everyone. But, being very stereotypically feminine might not be good for every woman. As I said, she might have different gifts, a different calling. And she shouldn’t try to be something she’s not called to be. A nun shouldn’t spend her time stressing about not having a vocation to marriage, just as a wife shouldn’t worry that she’s inferior for not being called to the religious life.
For exhibit B, there’s this other content creator I follow who comes to mind. She’s a health and fitness influencer, and a very masculine lesbian (at a glance you could mistake her for a man), and also very conservative and outspoken against the transgender movement. Occasionally she posts pics of herself as she was in her “before” era; she used to present as feminine, with long hair and a softer body. Now she’s really buff. And you can just see in the before and afters that she’s so much more confident and happy and thriving now. And, I kind of can’t help but love that for her?! Because there’s nothing sinful about simply looking more masculine, is there? Sure, she dresses in pants and menswear, which is not something I think women should do, but in theory, there’s nothing wrong with just having masculine traits, with being a tomboy.
In her videos, this influencer often makes the very point that I’ve been trying to make: being a tomboy does not make you a man. Your biology is what makes you male or female. Let’s stop telling girls they can’t be girls if they don’t like girly stuff! As a Catholic I do of course believe in chastity, sacramental marriage and all that, but at the same time, I honestly love non-traditional gender expressions. God made us all so different! We don’t have to be ultra-feminine to be great and awesome women!
And I guess the same applies to men — to an extent. I don’t think it could ever be considered modest for a man to wear a dress or noticeable make-up, because it violates societal norms in a way that would call undue attention to himself. But, if he wants to do certain traditionally feminine things like wear long hair, buff his nails, have a skincare regimen, get his brows waxed, or talk in a ladylike voice, then those are all morally neutral, aren’t they? Maybe weird and quirky, and probably not going to make him the most eligible bachelor at church, but not a sin, right? He’s still a man, and as long as he’s modest and living chastely and not claiming that he’s actually a woman, then I assume it’s not a sin.
The exclusively dress-wearing Catholic influencer says that she wants to imitate our Blessed Mother. As we should! We should all strive to imitate Our Lady’s humility, charity, love of God, modesty, and purity. But I don’t believe that we women are all required to embody the epitome of femininity. Femininity is good, but it’s not the only way for a woman to be good.
“But Mith,” you may be arguing, “you said in your other post that we have a moral obligation to look good! Now you’re saying t-shirts and pants are okay?”
No, I’m not saying t-shirts and pants are okay. I do think women should cover their legs. As I said, you can be a tomboy in modest and simple dresses or skirts/skorts. She doesn’t have to wear make-up or style her hair or try to look very “pretty,” but she does need to be well-kempt and modest.
In short: I kind of feel like some of these “mad trads” out here need to stop shaming tomboys and effeminate men. I think this tendency is perhaps a defensive reaction against the rise of “Pride” and transgenderism and gender confusion and all that, which is totally fair. But, let’s not let the pendulum swing so hard to the other side that we become as narrow-minded and shallow as the liberals accuse us of being.
-
I’ve talked a lot on this blog about things I love, and frankly, you’re probably sick of hearing me go “absolutely captivating,” “brilliant,” “truly a masterpiece,” etc., etc. Listen, I’m actually a super negative and grumpy person. Let me prove it. Plus, everyone in my house has the flu right now, and I’m in a shitty mood about it, so, now feels like a good time to vent about things that I hate.
27. Raw celery. Cooked celery in a recipe is fine, but, what is even the point of raw celery? It’s at once peppery, hairy, and watery, none of which are good flavors. Carrots are definitely the superior dipping veg.
26. Complicated board games or card games. Anything with a massive set of rules to remember. My sweet husband has, in the past, tried to introduce me to some of his favorite “nerdy” tabletop games. Learning all those arbitrary rules, I just get so bored I could literally cry. A game should be simple in theory, like Scrabble, or Apples to Apples.
25. Pandas. Did you know that, if a mother panda gives birth to twins, she just straight up abandons one of them? Also, they like to express their anal glands and rub them on things. Overrated creatures. Least favorite animal (besides #4).
24. Weddings. If you’re one of my loved ones and you’re getting married? Love that! Please, count me in! But, weddings in general, with all their fuss and fanfare and formalities, not to mention the expectation of blowing thousands and thousands of dollars, are so dumb.
23. The writings/podcasts of Brené Brown. She’s a talented writer, and a savvy businessperson, and clearly deserves her millions! But, I just can’t with the whole modern pop-psychology “self love” “self forgiveness” “self compassion” thing. All that soft, warm-and-fuzzy, 21st century egotistical “me first” philosophy. It just turns my stomach.
22. Sex scenes in novels/movies/TV. The only one I can think of that was not complete cringey fanservice was in the show The Outsider; it revealed a relevant plot detail we could not have otherwise known. If you’re not sharing an important plot detail that you can’t fit elsewhere, LEAVE IT OUT. Fade to black. Be an adult.
21. High Fantasy and sci-fi. Anything with extensive “world-building” involved… I just can’t. There have been exceptions, like a couple of Brandon Sanderson’s standalone novels, and the LoTR movies, even though I really struggled to follow them – but, generally, my brain is highly resistant to this genre, and I just tune right the heck out.
20. Corduroy. Gives me the sensory ick; touching it makes me want to moisturize my hands stat.
19. War movies/war novels. Another genre that I just can’t with. I will fall asleep. I feel like I had so much war fiction forced upon me in public school English class, that now, if a novel’s back cover blurb mentions a war, I put that sucker right back on the shelf without even finishing the sentence. I know this topic is important and valuable and all, but, please. No more.
18. Brown soda. Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, root beer — anything that’s brown and bubby, is just vile to me, and always has been. It’s just a color/consistency combination that does NOT work. Only time I ever tolerated coke was when it had Jack in it, and nowadays I don’t drink anymore, so.
17. “Pink” (the musical artist). Listen, I’m sure Alecia is a perfectly lovely individual IRL, and I can’t deny that she has an objectively good singing voice. But as a performer, I just can’t. Something about listening to her music makes me feel like I’m gagging on a giant spoonful of Crisco.
16. The 1970s. My least favorite decade of the 20th century. I feel like everything that came out of it was ugly and bad: fashion, decor, songs, buildings, Church reforms, you name it.
15. Chewing gum. Simply disgusting and abhorrent. Also bad for you. It’s gross and dumb and makes you look gross and dumb, like a big dumb animal chewing its nasty, sticky, synthetic cud. If you need to freshen your breath on the go, suck on a mint.
14. Minimalism in decor and art. I dislike clutter as much as the next person, but, I loathe the stripped-down, stark, cold, sleek aesthetic that makes a home feel like a contemporary art museum. I hate it in fine art, and in prose, too. This isn’t Twitter, it’s a novel. Give me lengthy descriptions and long, lush sentences I can sink my teeth into. Don’t talk to your reader like you hate them and can’t wait to get away from them; I mean, come on.
13. Wearing fitted clothes, especially tight-fitting long sleeves. If I try on a long-sleeved top and the sleeves are tight, I will scream and rip it off and throw it across the room, dry heaving. The audacity of any garment to constrict my arms! But really anything tight. Sensory ick; also, immodest.
12. Crude bumper stickers. Or anything you put on your vehicle that has visible profanities or obscenities. Nothing screams “immature” and “idiot” so much as a vulgar car ornament. If you want to be gross and trashy in private, fine, but don’t force me to have to explain to my young kids what your stupid sticker means.
11. Car chase scenes, fight scenes, and sports game scenes in movies/TV. These bore me to tears! Just get to the point: who wins? Do they catch the guy or not? Because I am not enjoying this, I do not find this titillating.
10. The band Maroon 5. I recognize that they have talent, and “This Love” and “One More Night” were both catchy AF, but, dude’s voice has this weird goose-like quality to me. There’s something greasy about his lyrics. Also, he was caught cheating on his pregnant wife, which makes him very repulsive to me. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Now, every time I hear his goose-like voice on the radio, I gag and cannot change the station fast enough.
9. Puppets. I don’t mind the realistic-looking animal puppets you can buy at fancy toy shops. It’s the Muppety ones with the wide mouths and creepy noodly arms that I loathe. Kermit – hate him. Fraggles – hate ‘em. Any video with those hideous things in it immediately gets switched off in my house.
8. Beer. It’s so gross. I was an active alcoholic for approximately twelve years, and an absolute whore for booze, but never once even touched a drop of this stuff. I’ve been to Germany twice and Ireland four times, and still, never once tasted beer. The smell, the appearance, the concept, the vibes: I just hate everything about it.
7. Plastic. Now, I’m no “crunchy mom” – I like my Tylenol, vaccines, and fluoride toothpaste, don’t care for tea or meat, and am terrible at baking bread from scratch – but, plastic is an abomination! It’s actively poisoning us, and it’s everywhere, in everything, because it’s cheap. And plastic-free alternatives are prohibitively expensive. It’s a crime. Plastic garbage nauseates me, because you just know each little plastic bag or jar or jug you toss is going to outlive you and your grandchildren. Outlaw this filth!
6. Eye contact and first names. This is an AvPD thing. I avoid eye contact and use of names with everyone except my own children. Using someone’s name feels like taking ownership of them in a way that I can’t get comfortable with. I also have certain long-standing issues with my own real first name, which I will not go into here.
5. Merging on the highway. Or, other people merging onto the highway while I am driving on the highway. I have driving anxiety, which is for the most part pretty manageable, but these merging situations never fail to give me a mini heart attack. In fact, cars in general deserve to be on this list. Bring back horses.
4. Bugs. I hate bugs. I hate wasps, ticks, hornets, gnats, mosquitoes, crickets, ants… all of them. Horrible. I live in a location that’s very buggy in the summer, and every summer, without fail, fantasize in detail about moving to Alaska or Siberia or the Swedish Lapland.
3. The ocean. Shit is terrifying, yo. Sometimes I’ll just be sitting in my house or lying in bed and I’ll randomly think about the fact that the ocean is two and a half miles deep where the Titanic sank. And much deeper in other places. That much water just has no business existing! In my good Christian suburbs!! And some of the critters that live down there? Horrifying. Don’t even get me started on riptides and undertows and tidal waves. I feel this way about outer space, too, but, the ocean is closer to home.
2. Chalk, and also dry paper. My biggest sensory ick. Not even gonna write about it cause just the thought is so extremely physically uncomfortable.
And finally:
1. People not listening. This is probably my biggest anger trigger, both as a mom and in human interactions in general. I’m a logic-based personality type (INTJ in MBTI, ILI in socionics), so when people refuse to listen to reason, it seriously tweaks me. This is part of why I get so heated about, for example, pro-choicers who deny science or throw emotional red herrings instead of listening to very basic, elementary logic; or, similarly, Catholic haters who stubbornly close their ears against the perfect rationality of Catholic teachings, because they simply don’t want to hear it, and instead do all kinds of mental gymnastics just to dodge the truth. Also, my toddlers when they ignore basic instructions; this, more than any other behavior of theirs, irks me to death. Or even adults, when they distort and misconstrue something I said in conversation, or grossly misunderstand my intentions (this typically me more anxious and sad than angry, though). Being understood and heard is among the pinnacles of human experience; maybe that’s why I like to write so much. “All the love in the world is useless when there is a total lack of understanding,” said Franz Kafka, and I felt that in my soul.
-
Caution: spoilers
Here I am again, late to the party on a movie that came out in 2022. I am always slow to see new movies.
But I’d been curious about this one for quite some time. I mean, the meme was one of the best of the last several years. Plus, as you may know, I’m unironically a huge fan of Nic Cage, solely because he starred in my personal favorite movie of all time, The Wicker Man (2006) (yes, I unironically love this movie; I have always thought it was creepy and beautiful and captivating, and better than the original (yeah I said it), and have always had a girl-crush on Kate Beahan’s character; this is one of very few movies that I can and do watch over and over again, which, as you can imagine, just delights my husband).
But so I didn’t really know what I was expecting, when we started watching Unbearable Weight. I knew it was, like, meta, with Nic Cage playing himself, or something. Whatever; I will watch pretty much anything he’s in (the only movie of his that really disappointed me was The Pig (2021) – grim, boring, depressing, no redeeming qualities IMO; weirdly, I’ve heard that this is Nic Cage’s personal favorite of his movies?!).
So I had zero expectations, and ended up very pleasantly surprised!
For one, the humor. I have a pretty weird, gen-Z type sense of humor (caused, probably, by overexposure to internet memes and shitposting), so I typically don’t find movies funny, especially not comedies. But this one was genuinely hilarious. The part where Pedro Pascal’s character, high on LSD, turns and laughs at the two men who are, supposedly, “watching them” — you just know they were having so much fun filming that. And just in general, you have to respect Nic Cage for making so much fun of himself in this movie. It was honestly such a brilliant career move, on his part; really the smartest thing he could have done, as an actor, at this point.
For two, the story writing. I am always so in awe of a really smart, intricate, perfectly-assembled plotline, in which all the pieces are parts of a well-oiled machine. When no moment, no word of dialogue, is wasted, and things keep hearkening back to other things. I’m especially awed by mysterious and suspenseful or exciting stories; how do writers do that?! Like, the way the random monologue he recites at the beginning makes another appearance at the end, where it fits perfectly. And the way the movie that the two main characters are writing ends up coming true, and then becoming a movie again. It was just so freaking clever.
But the best thing about this movie was not the humor, nor the story writing, but: the friendship.
It really is, essentially, a Platonic love story. How often do you see those, in movies and shows? Especially about straight men? Almost never, right? I can’t think of any others, and I’ve been thinking for several days. I guess there was Napoleon Dynamite (2004); but I wouldn’t call that a Platonic love story, even though the friendship with Pedro was one of the biggest story elements; that was more of a self-discovery story. Can you think of any other movies that glorify male friendship, or, you might even say non-romantic soul mates, like this one does?
If only there were more shows, movies, and songs about best friendship rather than romance! I feel like our culture would be so much healthier. Speaking as someone who is admittedly obsessed with drama, romance, and sexual tension in stories, I really think we as a society are way too obsessed with such things. An alien observing our pop culture would probably think that sex and romance are all humans care about, the whole purpose of our existence. I remember being a little kid of perhaps seven, asking my Dad “why is it that every song on the radio is about someone’s boyfriend or girlfriend?”, and he was like: “You’ll understand when you’re older. 😊” And yeah, I do now, but also, I don’t. We should celebrate and glorify best friendship more.
.
Friendship is such a fascinating thing to me, as someone with AvPD who doesn’t really have friends. I haven’t had a “best friend” of the Nic Cage/Pedro Pascal, Saweetie/Doja Cat variety since I was, probably like 14. I have some excellent friends with whom I correspond online, and I love them dearly, and those friendships are really all I need, in the way of a social life. But that type of close, intimate friendship where you do stuff like: share clothes, call on the phone whenever, get in an argument and then make up, talk about gross personal stuff, and call each other “bitch” for fun? I can only fantasize! That level of intimacy is so crazy, so terrifying.
It’s scarier than a romantic relationship, IMO, because in a romantic relationship, there’s sort of a transactional element. The other person wants something from you, and you know what that is: affection, attention, sex; or, if you’re going about things the proper way, marriage. There are pretty clear expectations, usually, when it comes to romance. Whereas, with Platonic friends, it’s like… you want what from me? My company? Lol, why??! What could you possibly get out of that?! This is probably why, throughout my late teens and twenties, I had quite a few boyfriends, but almost zero girl friends (and of those few, none of them were what I’d call “close”).
Friendship is so cool, because, in theory, a friend literally just likes you for who you are, and doesn’t want anything from you except to just be around you. That’s kind of wild to me. What’s even more wild is that, to lots of people out there, this kind of relationship apparently comes naturally! They don’t even need to think about it! 🤯
Female best friendship is pretty well represented in the media, even if it’s usually portrayed only alongside a romantic relationship, like a background thing. But straight male friendship? An intimate and loving but completely non-sexual relationship between two grown men? I feel like you just don’t see it that much, in the mainstream media; am I wrong?
It’s such a cool thing, and honestly a sign of a really healthy and secure man IMO, for him to have close male friends. This is one thing I’ve always found really attractive, and fascinating, about my husband: as a grown-ass man, now in his late thirties, he still has best friends that he hangs out with, for no reason, just for fun. They will seriously just go to each other’s houses, with no specific plans, and, do what? Hang out? Talk?? I don’t know! To me that is wild! They even go out to eat together and stuff, and, like, text each other for support when they’re having a hard time. To my AvPD-having ass, that kind of stuff is just unfathomable, lol. As much as I give my husband a hard time about abandoning me to go chill with his bros, I must admit that his ability to maintain friendships is one of the coolest things about him (don’t tell him I said that).
But yeah, so, to get back to the point, Unbearable Weight represents beautifully this magical, fantastical phenomenon of human existence that deserves to be more celebrated and glorified in our society, and I love it for that reason. I’d love to see this become more of a thing.
-
I know: I am, as usual, late to this story. I have never had TikTok; I am too old for that, so I rely on reposts on Instagram to get my social media news. Over the past few months, I’ve occasionally read up on this “17 diapers” mom’s story, and I find people’s reaction to her pretty troubling.
Now, as I said, I am not at all familiar with this influencer, whatever her name is – Nurse So-and-so. From what I’ve heard, she posted a lot of problematic content in addition to the video in question, like for example that she didn’t receive prenatal care during her pregnancy, or that she only changes diapers if they’re poopy, not just wet – both of which are, obviously, major red flags. I know there are also accusations of physical child abuse, based on certain behaviors that people observed in her videos. Which, I didn’t watch the videos, so can’t comment.
But! All that other stuff aside, I just want to focus on the topic that she actually went viral for. The issue of the “17 diapers.” Let’s pretend, for the purposes of this post, that she’s an otherwise harmless mom, and consider this issue in isolation.
In case you’re not familiar: Nurse So-and-so posted a video about her life at home when she was a few days postpartum, with a newborn and a toddler. Her husband had left to go on some kind of trip, abandoning her to solo parent both kids when she was fresh out of the hospital. Needless to say, she was struggling, and the house was a wreck. She posted this video, in which she says something like “let’s see how many used diapers are sitting around my house right now!” and proceeds to walk around her house counting them as she picks them up to take them to the trash for the first time in, presumably, several days. And, she ends up finding: seventeen used diapers. Just laying around her house, on the floor, on tables, in random places, not taken to the trash.
And the internet lost their mind over this. In both directions.
Half responded with: thank God! I can relate! Postpartum is so hard, thanks for being real and vulnerable and sharing, now I don’t feel so alone anymore!
And the other half was like: shame on you!! You have time to be on TikTok but no time to walk a diaper to the trash?! Your kids are going to get sick! This is child abuse, your kids are going to be traumatized, you are disgusting and don’t deserve to be a mom, etc. etc.
And it is this second group of people that really worries me.
Because, to start: how is it that, in 2024-25, people are not aware of how hard postpartum is, for a mom? The internet these days is absolutely obsessed with boasting about “my depression,” “my anxiety,” “my neurodivegence,” “my struggles” to the point where people are competing in some sort of suffering olympics, gatekeeping their “mental illnesses” with such presumptuous accusations as “you’re not really depressed, you don’t know what real depression is! I once stayed in my bed for an entire week, not bathing, not eating, just pissing myself right there in the bed because I was too depressed to go to the bathroom – and if you judge me for that, then you just don’t understand my struggle!” And people wear these types of anecdotes like a badge of honor. Their gold medal in the suffering olympics.
And yet, in the midst of this idiotic internet culture that celebrates mental illness, why is it that a postpartum mom – literally, medically speaking, a person most vulnerable to extreme depression, due to the massive hormonal changes, on top of the lack of sleep, the physical pain that she’s in, and the constant demands on her – why is it that her mental health struggle is invalid? Why is her depression not seen as real?! I’d argue that hers is probably way more real than that of a lot of these attention-hungry kids on social media.
To reiterate: it’s “cool” for some single twentysomething person to be so depressed they can’t leave their bed, and we don’t get to judge them – but, for a newly postpartum, solo-parenting mom to be so depressed that she has to prioritize keeping everyone alive, and doesn’t walk diapers to the trash? Unacceptable!
And also, why are we attacking the mom, and not her husband, who abandoned her at literally less than a week postpartum? Can anyone who doesn’t have kids really understand what a dick move that was? Where is your feminism now, internet?
Make it make sense.
“But, Mith,” you may perhaps be arguing, “of course she deserves more judgment than that single twentysomething rotting in his bed. She chose to have kids. She has a responsibility. It’s not about her anymore. She has to put on her big girl pants and take care of the house, even if it’s hard!”
First of all, yes, it is absolutely true that she has a responsibility. That is why she is up feeding her kids and changing their diapers when she would surely rather be rotting in her bed. I feel like, if you are judging her for not walking to the trash can, you have probably never been in survival mode.
I don’t know about you all, but I have three kids five and under, and our main trash can has to live in the sunroom off the kitchen, behind a door that we can lock, because otherwise they get into it, like little raccoons. And I solo parent most of the time. So yes, there have been occasions, like when I’ve been very sick, or had a rushed morning, when a used diaper gets left on the floor for a few hours before I’m able to walk it out to the trash. So, although my floor diaper count has never reached anywhere close to seventeen (because I married a decent man who would never even think of abandoning me like that!!), I can relate to her video. I’ve had a c section before. I know how painful and crippling postpartum can be. You physically can’t move around and do chores.
Second of all, let’s stop being hard on moms for choosing to have kids. Choosing to have kids should not mean subjecting oneself to judgment from strangers everywhere. Choosing to have kids is natural. It’s the most normal thing an adult in their 20s-30s can do. And it is a good thing, an objectively good thing to do, contrary to what all these sad antinatalists and misguided pro-choicers will try to tell you. Just because a woman chose to have kids, does not mean that she automatically has to be superhuman all of the time. (In fact, this expectation that moms have to be these enlightened superheroes, might be part of the reason why there are so many antinatalists and DINKs these days. Who wants all that judgment from everyone?!)
And furthermore, to get a bit gross, let’s look at the actual issue of the diapers themselves. (Let’s pretend that they’re not all fully loaded poopy diapers, as some have said that they apparently were, which is an issue.) If these were mostly just wet diapers, changed at the stage when a normal parent would normally change them – and, if they were tightly rolled up and taped into one of those neat little diaper balls that seasoned parents know how to make – then, is this seriously a bad enough offense to merit the “abuse” accusations? Obviously, if the diapers were all soiled and left unfastened and open where little hands could reach, then yes, that’s vile and that’s a huge issue; but the mere fact of a closed, wet diaper existing in a room – I don’t think that’s that terrible of an offense. Yes, it’s bad, and icky, but, child abuse? Calling CPS? Really?
Sometimes, I really think the internet just hates moms. Hates parents, hates babies, hates families – hates life. It’s a dark place.
“You’re probably really gross, then, Mith, if you’re defending this situation. I sure wouldn’t want to come to your house! Anyone who doesn’t think it’s always a terrible crime to leave used diapers out, is simply a disgusting person.”
We do have a moral obligation to keep our homes clean, especially if we have children. But the reason why we have that obligation is because we need to keep our families healthy and happy. We must take care of our families. Sometimes, in survival mode, taking care of our families means prioritizing the bare necessities: feeding, changing, clothing, washing. Cleanliness is important, but it’s not the be-all, end-all; it is not the deciding factor. You can have a clean house and still be a bad parent, just as you can have a dirty house sometimes and still be a good parent. Cleanliness of the house is only one of many things that factors into the quality of parenting.
(And, btw, is my house sparkling clean? No. Do I have any used diapers on the floor right now? Also no. I clean daily, and my kids are healthy and happy, thanks for your concern.)
And also: let’s not forget what this mom was actually doing, in her video. She was cleaning! Yes, it had been a few days, and she’s not pretending that’s okay. The thing is, just as soon as she was able, she cleaned up! It would of course be an issue if a mom left diapers around all the time, as a rule, and thought it wasn’t an issue. That would be really bad. But sometimes, a good, well-meaning mom goes through a hard time, and lets some things go; but, as soon as she’s able, she gets back up and improves things. She doesn’t let it become a pattern. The 17 diapers mom was not letting this become a pattern.
“But, if she had time to be on TikTok, then clearly she had time to pick up diapers!!”
This might be the most inane comment of them all, lol, and anyone commenting this immediately outs themselves as someone who has never met a newborn. A newborn wants one thing, and that is to lay on its mom, to snuggle with its mom 24/7. A mom with a new baby is, typically, couchbound, especially in the very early days – as she should be, as even the smoothest of births leaves a massive open wound inside your body and needs a lengthy recovery. What’s a new mom in 2024-5 going to do, while nap-trapped or nursing on the couch? Probably scroll her phone. It’s not that she’s loafing around when she could be cleaning. She cannot clean right now, so she’s scrolling to entertain herself while holding the baby. Which is also not a crime, and we all do it.
As I was saying, I’m aware that, in the specific case of Nurse So-and-so, there was more going on. Most of the responses to the viral video didn’t go into all that, though – the main shock factor was simply the “17 diapers” themselves, so that’s all I wanted to address here. And that issue, in and of itself, does not merit the harsh reactions that some people out there were having. The internet needs to leave moms alone.
-
Disclaimer: Mainstream rap and hip-hop are bad for you. I know this. A good Christian ought not to listen to this stuff, under normal circumstances. Why then do I do it? Well: I don’t listen to it that often anymore. And when I do, it’s because, as far as I can honestly tell, it’s not an occasion of sin for me, personally, and doesn’t tempt me to sin. It’s just fun and lighthearted and sometimes funny, and it lifts my mood a bit, as I explored in a recent post. There are some songs that are too lewd and sinful even for me, and I’ve stopped listening to those ones; so I do have some standards. Still, I’m aware that I should not listen to this stuff. It’s not ideal to pour this kind of content into my brain. I try to be cautious about it, and not to listen to it too often. This is, for me, like dessert, if you will. It has no nutritional benefit, and in excess would certainly be unhealthy; but a little here and there is probably fine, as long as you don’t have like diabetes or celiac or some condition that makes it dangerous for you. Which I don’t. So yes, I’m aware this stuff is not good to listen to, but sometimes I admittedly still do. In the following post, I will speak from the part of my brain that loves this shit. Let’s just indulge her for a minute. But for my more sober and serious POV on this topic, see my post on “bad” music.
So let’s continue with this dessert metaphor, shall we?
There’s this fun little thing that my brain likes to do, which is imagine what people would be if they were other things. Colors, scents, weather patterns/seasons, songs, animals, foods, etc. etc.
Like, I used to love going to the candle store and buying votives in scents/colors that reminded me of my fictional characters, then burning these all at once while I was writing; also, going to the hardware stores and collecting paint chips in colors that reminded me of my characters, to bring home and make a collage. (For example, in the fiction junk that I’ve posted on this blog, the four main characters are: brick red, indigo, mauve, and pistachio; and if you can guess who is what, you win Reader of the Year!)
I have always done this. I figure it must be related to my synesthesia. I know, I know, everyone claims to have synesthesia, and everyone is sick of hearing about it; and perhaps everyone really does have it. I think it’s probably not as uncommon as we think. I’m no expert on synesthesia; all I know is, mine is undeniable; I’ve always had it, most noticeably with colors/numbers (7 is burnt orange, 9 is yellowish tan), colors/letters, and colors/songs. Although also to an extent with certain textures and tastes, or sounds/tastes (like, the German language has always been very delicious to me, with a nutty/chocolatey crunch like a Snickers bar, whereas Spanish is more fruity). This tendency to associate things with other things can be a fun little mental game.
Typically, in music (not just hip-hop, but any and all music), I prefer to listen to male voices; I haven’t yet figured out why or what this says about me, but I generally find women’s voices to be a poorer vehicle for daydreaming – meaning, I can’t easily tune out the artist and forget about who they are and think my own thoughts while listening.
But sometimes that’s okay. Sometimes it’s really fun to just bask in the presence of an artist and enjoy how cool they are. That is how I feel about a lot of female rappers.
Going back to the synesthesia stuff: as I was saying, sensory experiences tend to overlap for me with other sensory experiences. And because listening to female voices makes me less prone to zone out, and more prone to just bask in the experience of the artist’s voice and persona, I often kinda tune into their character and get these kinds of fun synesthetic vibes from their music. And, as I’ve already said, this whole genre feels like dessert to me.
So, without further ado, here are my current favorite female hip-hop and rap stars, and the desserts that their music feels like:
12. Coi Leray. She is so freaking cute, and her voice has this girlish quality that contrasts so delightfully with her lyrics and attitude. And apparently she’s expecting her first baby now?! I’m so happy for her! She has a toughness and a tartness about her, so her music reminds me of gummi candy; perhaps the sour kind.
11. Ice Spice. She is captivating: a unique beauty, such an innovative and fresh vibe all around, and so effortlessly cool. She has serious talent but also seems to have a sense of humor. Her music has a really refreshing quality, and thus feels to me like shaved ice, with a bright, tropical syrup flavor.
10. Big Boss Vette. I think the song linked here might be one of the catchiest of all time; show me someone who doesn’t love this song, and I will show you a liar. She seems very classic, and also very sleek and beautiful and fierce, so for her I’m thinking like a chocolate-raspberry torte with some kind of mirror glaze.
9. Kreayshawn. She was really popular when I was in college; from the first time I heard “Gucci Gucci,” I was fascinated by her clever lyrics and her original style. She really created her own niche within the genre. Her songs are fun and not too serious, but also really delicious and rich and satisfying. They remind me of a Cosmic Brownie, with those little rainbow candies on top.
8. Tinashe. I am not a fan of “Nasty,” but, still glad Tinashe made it big. I’ve been listening to her since 2016 and always thought she was so underrated. She’s girly and poppy and cool but also a rascal, so for me the vibe is totally chocolate milkshake with whip and a maraschino cherry.
7. Ciara. I may be showing my age with this one, but, so be it; her reign is endless. Ciara was the princess of hip-hop back when I was a freshman in high school. I love that she’s a NFL wife now; such a queen. To me, her music is like a high-end strawberry mousse, served in a glass with a stem.
6. Keri Hilson. Another throwback, I guess, as it’s been awhile since I heard her on the radio, but, such a classy singer, I’ve always loved her voice and vibes. Her style has a sweetness and warmth about it, so it’s giving crème brûlée, or maybe like a bougie version of bananas foster.
5. Latto. I adore Latto. I think she’s got to be one of the most talented women on the radio these days, and one of the hottest, plus she’s a cousin of one of my other favorites, 2 Chainz, so talent must run in the family! She’s Southern, and everything about her style feels decadent and rich, so to me it’s gourmet cheesecake with like caramelized peaches and bourbon.
4. MariahLynn. I so wish MariahLynn had made it big! She deserves so much more fame than she ever got. In case you’re not familiar, she was on the show Love & Hip-Hop in the same season as Cardi B, back when they were both trying to get famous. Her music is definitely hard candy, like fruity flavored Dum-Dum pops, or maybe even Pop Rocks or Pixie Sticks or something.
3. Tay Money. She’s creative as heck, and adorable. Her whole ‘00s colorful aesthetic is so much fun to look at, and her accent is just a delight to listen to. I love that she’s so sassy in her music but when you hear her interviewed she’s super chill. As a dessert, her music has got to be cherry pie, warm and gooey and tart.
2. Saweetie. Imo, the beatifulest girl in hip-hop. Even the way she pronounces words is cute. She looks like a Disney princess; it’s ridiculous. And, from what I’ve heard, really lovely, humble, and kind, too, – she doesn’t talk shit about other women the way some rappers do. Her songs are definitely chocolate-covered strawberries.
And #1 could obviously only be:
1. Nicki Minaj. Who else?! I mean, as far as I can tell, Nicki pretty much invented every other female rapper these days. Her level of talent is insane! The intricacy and poetry and wordplay of her lyrics, plus all the different vocal techniques she can do – every song with her on it is a feast for the ears. She can do literally anything; pure genius, undisputed greatest. Because she’s so versatile and impeccably cool, her music has got to be a big, exquisite ice cream sundae, with a lot of different toppings and hot fudge sauce, so there are fun textures and flavors in every bite.
-
The other day, I saw an excellent little video from one of my favorite pro-life content creators (“secularprolife” on IG: although I’m not “secular” myself, and don’t agree with every word she says, I love how she proves that abortion is wrong not just from a religious POV, but for everyone, even if you don’t believe in God at all). In this video, she pointed out something very helpful to consider, for anyone who wishes to engage in meaningful debate about this topic: namely, pro-life people believe that abortion ends a life, whereas pro-choice people tend to believe that abortion prevents a life from beginning at all.
I’m not here to delve into all of the reasons why it’s idiotic to believe that a baby in utero is not already alive (why would you need to abort it if it wasn’t alive?!). A quick biology lesson, or googling even the most rudimentary, basic info on the science of human reproduction, will fill you in on that, if you’re interested.
No, I am actually here to point out something else that I believe is a fundamental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice philosophies. Possibly an even more fundamental one than the one just named, because there are plenty of pro-choicers who are fully aware that abortion ends a life, but they simply don’t think it matters (or matters enough).
And that is because of this fundamental difference: pro-life folks believe that life is good, and pro-choice folks do not. To be more precise, the pro-life belief is that life is an objectively good and worthwhile thing, always, whereas pro-choice folks believe that life is only good under certain conditions.
A pro-choicer might say that, if a child is going to be born seriously ill or disabled, it is better off not living. Or if a child is going to be born to a very young mom, or a very old mom, or a mom who is poor, or a mom who is herself sick or disabled, then that child is better off not living. Or if the parents aren’t ready to be parents. Or if the child simply isn’t enthusiastically wanted by both parents. They claim that a child is better off being killed than being born into a life of any kind of sadness or hardship.
It is actually really very sad, when you think about it, to believe that life is only good in certain circumstances. Even if you don’t believe in God and His goodness, surely it’s evident merely from observing life, that life is an objective good. Why else would all living things strive to remain alive, to reproduce and create more life? I think it takes some real bizarre mental gymnastics to believe that life is not a good thing. It’s like finding some reason to believe that 1 + 1 does not equal 2.
But, I guess not too many people believe in any objective truth anymore. In a society where all belief systems are supposed to be seen as equally good (except, ironically, the one that teaches that objective good exists), nothing is really true anymore, is it.
I used to be an atheist, and I remember the moment when I began to finally see the flaw in this belief system. I was a junior in college, taking an upper-level philosophy course (because I guess I wanted to get as deeply and hopelessly into debt as I possibly could, lol) called Meta-Ethics. Early in the semester, our professor was asking us to think about what moral values actually are. Do they exist in the world, and if so what actually are they, and how can we identify them? I thought for a while, and took a look at my own idea of moral values: obviously they existed, because some things, like murder, were objectively wrong; but how did I know, really? Because it just felt wrong? I guess I had some vague concept of like an internal sensor that people must be equipped with; but to detect what? And if that were the case, why did people’s moralities differ so drastically? This philosophy, I began to realize, with a slight chill, did not hold water. (A couple years later I began converting to Catholicism.)
In our modern world, everyone has their own truth. Which, btw, brings me to one of my pet peeves: the phrase “my truth.” As in, “speak your truth” or “I’m telling you my truth.” There is no such thing as “your” truth! There is only the truth. What you’re referring to is your experience, your feelings, your side of the story – what you, an imperfect and non-omniscient creature, believe to be true. All of which are valid and important, sure, but they’re not necessarily any kind of truth. Let’s stop saying “my truth” and start saying “my side of the story.” Ugh, every time I hear the phrase “my truth” I throw up a little in my mouth. But anyway, that was a tangent.
People don’t believe in objective truth, nor do they believe in objective good. (Do we believe in objective beauty? I’m not sure if we do or not, that’s a different blog post.) Things are only “good” for a specific individual if that’s what that individual believes is good for them.
Which is a super dangerous way to think about goodness. An underweight anorexic person might believe it is “good” for them to not eat today, or that they need to lose more weight; are we going to honor their beliefs and respect their personal values, or are we going to do what’s actually good for them and encourage them to seek help, because they are simply wrong? An alcoholic really believes it’s for the best if they get drunk (even if they fully acknowledge that it’s damaging their health, to them, the apparent “good” that is pleasure and relief outweighs the health risk); should we tolerate diversity of opinion here? Or would the more loving response be to intervene, to let them know that they are wrong?
And if you admit that objective good exists in these situations, then you must follow that to its logical conclusion: so objective good does exist.
Health, for example, is good. But why?
Because, life is good.
So yeah, subjective morality is a very slippery slope. Pro-choicers do not believe that life is a good thing, and that is deeply sad.
I think you will generally find that people who are pro-choice tend to be less happy than people who are pro-life. And by “happy” I mean not “college educated, wealthy, healthy, successful” but rather “convinced that their life has an actual meaning and value regardless of their circumstances.”
Realizing that most pro-choicers are really sad, helps perhaps to see them in a more compassionate light. For example, some individuals I know who are pro-choice were never taught about the value of their own body or the tragedies of sexual immorality, and had to learn about sex in public school or from TV or their peers – either that, or they had morality violently shoved down their throats at a young age, and their “liberated” philosophy is a retaliation against that violence. Some of them are SA victims who are still healing from trauma. And a lot of it is just exposure to our depraved culture; we’ve “normalized” way too much, and to be “not normal” is a terrible social sin. So people will try to be normal so that they’ll be seen as valid and worthy. It’s all really very sad.
I wouldn’t call myself a “happy person.” I’ve always been gloomy, pessimistic, melancholic, negative, prone to bad moods and discontentment and periods of depression, and, as you know, I have diagnosed AvPD, which is chronic, and hardly a picnic in the park. But, in the grander sense of the word, I am deeply happy, because I know that there is hope of salvation.
At some point, subjective morality becomes impossible to live with, if you really look it in the face. If there is no objective meaning to anything, and life is not objectively good, then, sure, absolutely, abortion is as good as anything else! Why not get an abortion! Why not kill anyone! When you arrive at that point, in all seriousness, suicide is the only option. It’s pretty much necessary. I am not trying to be dramatic, this is a simple fact. What pleasure you can milk out of life is just that, just a blip, just a few moments of sensory pleasure in an expanse of suffering, with an eternity of blackness stretching out on either side of it, if you don’t believe that pleasure means anything more than just pleasure. We are not built to live with the knowledge that life is that meaningless. So, what’s more likely, that this universe is all some kind of random, material, evolutionary accident, or that we are built this way because there actually is a greater meaning we’re supposed to find?
But, ahem, that’s just my take, and I’m not here to try to prove the existence of God, lolol. I got way off track there! My point is, objective good exists, and life, more than anything else on earth, is absolutely objectively good. It’s kind of a no brainer, tbh. But I guess not for everyone, sadly.
-
I wonder if anyone else has noticed this trend in pop music. Specifically, the upbeat, danceable kind of pop – I’m not talking about pop ballads, which have always been and will always be a thing. Since I noticed this, I can’t stop thinking about it, and pondering what it might mean.
I write this not as any kind of critic or expert, or even that big of a fan. I’m just some random person who’s been alive in America for 30-some years, sometimes listening to the radio. It would be interesting to see if anyone who is actually knowledgeable about pop culture over the last few decades had anything to say about this, or if they could disprove my theory.
Here it is: I’ve noticed that, over the last ten, fifteen years or so, pop song lyrics have become, in general, much more, shall we say, cocky. Overconfident, conceited, full of this spirit of “it’s all about me, I don’t need anyone.” “I’m so hot, everyone wants me, but they’re all just playthings to me.” A lot of talk about getting money and nice things. You see it in both male and female pop singers.
Yes, obviously Madonna did “Material Girl” in the ‘80s, and BSB did “We’ve Got It Goin’ On” (which, while playfully boastful, isn’t even quite the brand of cockiness that I’m talking about) in the ‘90s; but I feel like these examples were just occasions, not indicative of the general voice of pop music at the time. Whereas today, you see it everywhere. “Espresso” and “Taste” by Sabrina Carpenter, “thank u, next” and “7 Rings” by Ariana Grande, “FRIENDS” by Anne-Marie and Marshmello, “I’m The One” by Justin Bieber, “Strip That Down” by Liam Payne (may he rest in peace), just to name a few that come to mind. Even Taylor Swift, over the course of fifteen years or so, went from “Love Story” and “You Belong With Me” to “Out Of Style” and “Ready For It” (which is, actually, my favorite of her songs/videos).
I’m comparing these kinds of contemporary songs to the ones that were hugely popular when I was a kid, in the true Golden Age of pop. Yes, I know, everyone says pop music peaked in their youth, but in the case of my generation, who were kids in the late 90s, that is actually true. Britney’s “…Baby One More Time” and “Oops I Did It Again,” Spice Girls’ “Say You’ll Be There” and “Wannabe,” BSB’s “Millenium” and “I Want It That Way,” NSYNC’s “Bye Bye Bye” and “It’s Gonna Be Me,” even your less well-remembered pop hits like “Candy” by Mandy Moore and “Another Dumb Blonde” by Hoku – all of these had an emotional, sincere, vulnerable, well-meaning tone to their lyrics.
Yes, they were sexual, and by no means “that innocent” (lol), but, they tended to talk about relationships with an individual, desiring one individual, or trying to express something important to someone, or to express sadness about a failed relationship.
And yes, sure, you still see these kinds of lyrics today – but not in the flashy, hot pop songs. You tend to see them in the more subdued, soft-rock flavored brand of pop (like Maroon 5 or Teddy Swims or Ed Sheeran), not the fun, danceable ones. Vulnerability and sincerity seem to have lost their sex appeal. It’s like having a conscience is lame now. Caring has become cringe.
I wonder why this is.
Part of me wonders if it is the influence of rap and hip-hop. Mainstream rap and pop are merging, in a lot of ways. You see a lot more crossover these days than you ever did in my youth: rap stars featured on pop tracks is really normal nowadays. (The same thing is happening with country and rap right now, interestingly – look at this Morgan Wallen guy, featured on that new song by Moneybagg Yo. I actually am very much here for this flavor of crossover; in my neck of the woods, there’s a huge market for it, and I’ve been waiting for it for a long time.) Rap lyrics do tend to have this cockiness that I’m talking about: “I’m the best, everyone wants me, I’m so good at what I do, I get so much money,” etc. Now, as my loyal readers know, I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop, and am not at all belittling that genre or its themes. I just think it’s interesting to see how rap culture has become more and more influential on pop culture.
Or, is it caused by something else? Is it just that this younger generation loves irony more? Is it just that they are more sad, more jaded, more scarred by early exposure to the toxins of social media and modern life? They are growing up too fast (ever seen those “13 year olds today vs. me at 13” memes?). It seems like this generation has seen too much, too soon, and doesn’t have time or energy for feelings. Judging from their internet humor, they’re the generation who collectively wishes they’d never been born, and is filled with dread about their future, and copes via irony and brainrot; so, I guess this kind of jaded music speaks to them in a way that the sugary, enthusiastic lyrics of early Britney or BSB would not.
Maybe this is the crotchety old lady in me, but, I feel like this younger generation is also more self-centered in general. Not in bad way, necessarily: it’s just that these kids have grown up chronically online, and were isolated during their formative years thanks to COVID; not to mention the explosion of the “self care” movement, and the related pop psych trend of adult children going no-contact with their families of origin as a way to “set boundaries” and “protect their own mental health.” These kids have it easy, in a way; they never had to pick up their family telephone to call their friend on their friend’s family phone, and endure the mortifying ordeal of asking their friend’s mother if so-and-so was around! Much less approaching a person of interest irl and asking them out! Nope, nowadays you can just text “wyd.” These kids are lonely, jaded, and simultaneously too soft and too hard for their age. At risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I really think all of this has contributed this “all about me, fuck everyone else” attitude that we see in their pop music.
When did this become a thing? Like I said, it’s not completely new, but as far as I can tell only very recently seems to be the norm. I wonder if the turning point wasn’t in the late ‘00s, when Lady Gaga rose to power. She was obviously really innovative, as a pop star. Her lyrics weren’t quite “2020s cocky” yet, but she definitely had this brazen, IDGAF, galvanized, “queen bitch who won’t slow down for no man” kind of quality, that vanity and self-celebration that’s fueled by a deep sadness. Because that’s what it really is, I think: this attitude is the fruit of emotional trauma, of a deep sadness. Sia, who’s probably my favorite pop singer ever, addresses this sadness head-on in her lyrics more than anyone else I’ve heard on mainstream radio. The Weeknd does it, too.
But anyway, Lady Gaga – I remember when “Just Dance” came out, it was a huge deal. It spoke to so many of us kids at that time: “I’m sad, I don’t want to think about my problems, I just want to get wasted and hook up with strangers to numb my pain.” And then, “Poker Face” and “Bad Romance:” both songs about, not being in love, not caring about the other person, but about a manipulative but sexy “situationship,” about people using each other. The lyrics acknowledge how sad this is, while also glamorizing it: the message is, basically, “fuck it, I can’t afford to care anymore.” Lady Gaga was saying these things out loud, in a fun and catchy way, and made it cool. I think it’s generally true that people who really love and idolize her are deeply sad people.
Sadness has really become much more mainstream, these days. When I was a kid, it was weird to be in therapy or on antidepressants. Today, all the cool kids are depressed and on meds and in therapy, or self-diagnosing with all kinds of mental illnesses; it’s actually weird not to be mentally ill now. Which is itself a glaring symptom of a broken culture, IMO, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms and a way bigger problem than pop music.
But, this mental illness trend probably underlies the tonal shift in pop music. So I think it’s all of these things – the convergence with rap culture, the jadedness and sadness and self-centeredness of the younger generation – which fuel what I’ve come to think of as 2020’s cockiness in pop music.
None of this is meant in any way as a jab at pop artists or at today’s youth. I remember when I was younger, I hated listening to older people bitch about millennials; I hated that they’d assume something to be true of me just because of what was popular among other people my age, none of whom I even really related to. It wasn’t until I was older, and began to have some more perspective, that I identified strongly as a millennial, and could begin to see what was funny and sad and cool about millennials at large.
Anyway – what I mean is, I’m not trying to say that every individual born after the year 2000 is selfish and immature; nor am I trying to say that music has gotten worse.* I respect Sabrina, Ariana, Taylor, and all the rest; I think they’re talented and cute and good at what they do. I’m just idly observing what I see as an interesting, and perhaps telling, trend.
*That being said, though, early ‘90s pop will always be superior to all other eras, as previously stated.
-
Revised April 2025
Is NFP birth control? I’ve already touched on this question in another post, but am feeling a need to delve into it more specifically.
You’ll see a lot of folks, especially the more modern-leaning, Christopher West-informed Catholics, who believe that using NFP to avoid counts as being open to life. It’s perfectly fine to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, they say, as long as you use NFP. Because that way you’re still having sex the appropriate way (i.e. no birth control or “pull-out” or anything like that).
But are you really being open to life?
Some of the “rad trad” types believe that controlling your fertility at all — that trying to avoid (TTA) ever — is always wrong. Because approaching sex in such a way that you are trying to avoid conception, is, in fact, having a contraceptive mindset. It is corrupting the true purpose of marriage, not to mention, it shows a lack of faith in God.
Is NFP birth control? As far as I can see, yes, it definitely is.
Because it seems pretty obvious that you’re not being “open to life” if you’re intentionally avoiding using fertile days. To say that TTA using NFP constitutes being open to life, is literally the same as saying that using condoms or any other birth control method is “being open to life,” because these methods are also never 100% guaranteed!
In fact, NFP instructors trying to sell their method will boast of its effectiveness: “more effective than birth control when done correctly!” And this is true. Personally, if I were really seriously TTA for some extreme, life or death reason, I’d absolutely prefer to use NFP rather than contraceptives, because it’s more reliable! It is more effective! If you use a condom on a fertile day and it breaks… yikes, vs., if you simply avoid the days when there is any possibility of conceiving, you literally cannot get pregnant. People really struggle to understand that, that biology works that way. People tend to think that, because ejaculation occurs inside of a vagina, there is always a chance of pregnancy. (This stupid misinformation is drilled into our heads in public school health class, as well as by most healthcare providers.) But, literally, that is only the case 5 or 6 days out of the month. NFP is extremely reliable when done correctly.
But that’s the catch: correctly.
You hear that NFP babies are super common, and that scares some avoiders off of NFP. People will always say “oh but I got pregnant using NFP” or “my sister got pregnant twice using NFP” – well, that is because you were doing it wrong. You either made a mistake somewhere, or you are not being honest with yourself about how thorough you were. No shame in this. I’ve been there. Doing NFP correctly is hard. It is a cross to bear. People mess it up either because they don’t have the patience to track accurately, or they don’t have the willpower to abstain during fertile days. Or, they are not being entirely honest with themselves (I like to think I’m pretty honest with myself, but, the temptation to be like “oh, surely this isn’t really a fertile day” is real, sometimes). NFP is also highly unnatural. Everything about it is contrary to a healthy, happy marriage. That’s why it’s so easy to mess up.
People who claim to be “open to life” while using NFP probably say that because what they mean is, if a slip-up were to happen, they would still keep that baby no matter what. But, if they’re really working hard to prevent slip-ups… I don’t know if they can properly call themselves “open to life,” at least not to the extent that someone who does not practice NFP is open.
What level of openness are we required to practice? Are we required to be radically open? Or are we allowed to plan, but required to accept God’s “veto” of our plans, if He chooses to do that? I’m honestly not sure about this one, which is why I’m writing this post.
All of that being a tangent to say that NFP is extremely effective, so much so that I think it actually is birth control.
.
NFP is birth control. That much is pretty plain. But, on to part two of this post. Is use of NFP ever justified? Some say yes, it’s absolutely fine. Others say no, never.
“Grave reasons” or “serious reasons” is typically what you hear. If you have a “grave” or “serious” reason to avoid, then use NFP. But, IMO, the instructions from Rome are really, really vague regarding what a grave or serious reason actually is. They allude to financial or health reasons (although some other sources say financial reasons are actually not valid), but, they don’t really elaborate. I guess, to be fair, it would be hard to do that, since each family is so unique. I will do my best to thoroughly consider potential financial and health-related reasons below.
Financial reasons
In a perfect world, all married couples would be able to freely trust God with their fertility. But let’s be real. Life in this part of the world today is simply not what it was pre-industrial revolution. Lifestyle, for most people, is very different than it was two hundred years ago. We don’t live in synch with nature like we used to (and many of us simply don’t have that option). We have things like student debt, cars, car payments, mortgages, credit scores. The whole health care and insurance situation is fucked. Self-sufficiency is not the norm, it’s a luxury for those who can afford land and livestock. Living by today’s standards (with electricity and running water and climate control) costs a lot. It would probably be different if you lived like the Amish, but in our world, for most of us, it seems pretty unrealistic, and even unwise, to throw caution completely to the winds w/r/t conceiving children.
And society expects us to provide certain things for our kids, beyond just education, food, and shelter. We are also expected to provide them with material comfort, security, opportunities, and enrichment. People will go so far as to accuse you of child abuse if you cannot afford such things as family vacations, a college savings fund, or one whole bedroom per child.
Is there any weight to these accusations? Is it actually unethical to have kids if they’re going to have to share a bedroom, or never go on vacation, or have to work a job to save for college?
Personally, I’m a minimalist about these kinds of things. Vacations, to me, are fun but unnecessary. I don’t really feel I need a lot, materially – I did not grow up financially comfortable by any means, but my childhood was happy and not lacking. I always think it is so bizarre and alien when someone feels a college savings account is a life or death necessity. Yes, it would be awfully nice to have, sure – but, is my life worthless because I have student debt? Would I be better off never having been born? I don’t think any good Catholic will agree with that take!
Perhaps it’s not fair to generalize from my own experience. Just because I don’t require nice things, doesn’t mean all kids don’t… or don’t they? Does anyone really require those kinds of things?
Our modern society thinks life is meaningless if it’s not comfortable. That you’re better off dead if you don’t have nice things, if you have to struggle. A pretty twisted and sick mindset, IMO.
So, in general, I personally really don’t think finances are a pressing enough reason to avoid having a baby. In general.
But, when it comes to finances: I think there actually is a really pressing reason why use of NFP might be not only justified, but necessary. And that is: debt. If the parents have debts that they’re truly unable to pay, that’s a serious problem. Not debts that they are making timely payments on— I think it’s totally fine to go ahead and be open to life, if you’re able to manage your debts responsibly — but if you’re drowning in debt and have no way to start paying those debts off, then probably don’t have another kid.
It’s pretty simple, after all, isn’t it? We have an ethical duty to pay our debts. It is a sin not to do that. Having children in this day and age, unfortunately, costs a lot of money: you have to pay the hospital or midwife, you have to pay the pediatrician, and you have to feed them and educate them, all of which cost money if you’re doing it right. Intentionally having another child when you know full well that it would make you unable to pay your debts, might even be a sin — right? (Even if those debts are stupid; because it should not cost this much to have a kid, or to get basic health care: unfortunately, those are the circumstances that we’re in, and stamping our feet and wishful thinking will not change that.)
And we know that in Catholic moral philosophy, the ends do not justify the means. Even such a very good end as having a child does not justify the means of committing a sin. We’re looking for “grave reasons” to avoid here, and nothing is more grave than sin, right? Not financial insecurity, not even physical health. I’d have to check with a priest about this, but this seems to make sense to me.
Living in hardship is not an ethical failing. Your kids sharing a bedroom is not an ethical failing. Not being able to afford vacations, horseback riding lessons, a college savings plan — none of those are reasons not to have kids, IMO. But failing to pay debts is a sin, and sin is a pressing matter. (Now, if someone conceived on accident, and it was an honest mistake, that’s a different story, and the life of that child is obviously more important than any financial debt. I’m talking about intentionally conceiving, or being irresponsible and allowing it to happen when you know you ought not to.)
Health reasons
And so but what about health reasons? Are those serious? Obviously, if someone has life-or-death physical health reasons, such as cancer treatments or whatever, that is a good time to TTA using NFP. I think that goes without saying. Yes, there are cases of healthy babies being born in such situations, but it’s risky, and I think we have a responsibility to protect our own health.
Or, if a mom has a c-section for one baby, and wants to allow her body the recommended eighteen months-two years to heal so that she can plan for a natural birth for subsequent pregnancies (because, after all, if she can have natural births, her body will be better able to handle many pregnancies and births!) — isn’t that a valid reason? Or, should that mom just accept that, if she has another baby in the near future, she’s going to be a c-section mom forever?
What about if pregnancy is really hard on a mom, physically? Maybe she has hyperemesis gravidarum, or some other nasty symptom that makes pregnancy really hard on her, and takes away from her ability to care for her existing children or accomplish her daily tasks. Is she still required to keep being open?
I know that, personally, I used to feel like NFP was never, ever justifiable. Now, being pregnant with my fourth at 35, while I have a 5, 3, and 2 year old to take care of, as well as a house, and my nausea and fatigue have been harder this time around — I really begin to see why some feel the need to TTA. I was basically incapacitated for three months, and my kids suffered because of it. I don’t have a “village” around me to really help out, so it’s all on me. I admit, for months, my kids watched TV literally morning to night, ate no home-cooked meals, only processed snacks, and only had a bath every three or four days, while the house around us went to absolute shit and we had to wade through clutter everywhere we went. I did what I could, but I had no help. Pregnancy sickness is real.
Should I keep on doing this again and again, forcing my kids to miss out on months of their life? Does the good of having another sibling outweigh the bad of that lost time? Which responsibility is more pressing, my responsibility to take care of my kids and home (beyond just the bare basics, that is), or my responsibility to trust God and “be fruitful and multiply”? I really, honestly don’t know.
It’s hard.
Which brings me to mental health reasons. What about mental health? God made people with different personalities, different energy levels, different capacities for expending vs. conserving energy. Someone who is an introvert and requires a certain amount of quiet and “conservation” time, simply would not thrive with more than five or six kids!
Or, could they? Wouldn’t God grant them the grace to make it work, if they trusted Him? After all, kids get older and more self-sufficient. Not that they don’t still require attention, but, as they grow up it does get easier on Mom, strictly physically speaking. She will have more opportunities for “me time” when her kids grow up, no matter how many of them she has, right? It’s just a brief period of her life, when her kids are little; shouldn’t she sacrifice her peace, for the good of bringing kids into the world? Maybe some would say yes. After all, worldly happiness isn’t everything, right?
Personally, I’m a slow-moving type of person who requires a lot of time with my own thoughts. I can’t just rush around accomplishing tasks all the time nonstop. If you’re not of this personality type, you might just say I’m “lazy,” but that’s not it, because I’m actually pretty disciplined and productive. I simply need to plan for periods of time during the day when I can sit still and read or write or whatever, like I’m doing right now. My mental health suffers if I never get to pause. My mood suffers, and I become unpleasant and eventually snap. Is this a valid reason to stop having kids? I honestly don’t know. If I were holier and more saintly, I guess I wouldn’t require “me time.” But, I’m not that advanced.
Or what about those women who suffer from debilitating postpartum depression? Or, God forbid, postpartum psychosis? For some women this is incredibly real and even dangerous. I can’t see how God would be offended if such a mom avoided or at least postponed pregnancy — right?
Or maybe there are family reasons. Maybe one spouse wants to keep having kids, but the other doesn’t. We can’t just disregard the feelings of our spouse, even if we think they are wrong. Sometimes, in marriage, we have to sacrifice our vision of the picture-perfect, most morally-unimpeachable family life, to accommodate our spouse’s feelings (because it’s not really a perfect or ethical family life if you disregard your spouse’s feelings, is it).
Maybe some couples are more spiritually advanced to the point where they truly aren’t bothered by any worldly concerns at all. They don’t care if they don’t have free time; they get all the mental health support they need from the Sacraments. They are basically saints already. That’s awesome! God has been generous to them, and they should absolutely return that generosity by having lots of kids.
But, not everyone is that spiritually advanced. Some of us are just doing our best. We shouldn’t pretend to be further along than we are. We have to accept and be at peace with the degree of sanctity that God has permitted us to reach. If we simply don’t have the emotional/spiritual/mental capacity to be good parents to lots and lots of kids, then, isn’t it prudent and responsible to avoid having more of them?
I’m inclined to think that yes, in such cases, it is actually good and necessary to TTA. I’m not sure about this, but it seems to make the most sense to me.
I am sure of at least one thing: no couple who has the privilege of financial abundance, freedom from debt, great physical and mental health, and a “village” around them to make family life easier, should ever look down their nose at NFP users who are doing their earnest best. You are in that position because you are lucky. (True, maybe you worked hard to get to this point, but, Who gave you the grace to be able to work that hard? Nothing that we have comes from us, after all. We’re not all built the same, and you truly don’t know what it’s like inside someone else’s head, or to have their life.) Being lucky and blessed does not make you morally superior to anyone else.
.
So, as you can see, I’m still conflicted, but I do believe that there are sometimes pressing reasons to use NFP. Even though it’s birth control and not “open to life,” NFP is definitely superior to other methods of birth control, because, like I said earlier, it doesn’t corrupt the sexual act itself in any way. You’re not mutilating your body or messing with your hormones or placing a barrier between you and your spouse. It still sucks (it really sucks), but, you can see why the Church does OK its usage in certain scenarios.
But I’m definitely open to having my mind changed on this (believe me, I’d love to have more kids!), so if you have a strong argument to the contrary, please, send it my way!
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
MiTHology (4.0) 