MiTHology (4.0)

(journal) a 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 actually an 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’ clothes 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.

16. “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.

15. “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.

14. “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.

13. “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.

12. “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).

11. “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.

10. “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).

9. “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.

8. “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.

7. “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.

6. “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.

5. “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.

4. “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.

3. “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.

2. “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.

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.
TOP 10: Instagram Accounts to Follow (Part Two)

January 29th, 2026

It’s been almost a year (already!?) since my last countdown of my Top 10 Favorite Instagram Accounts, so I figured it’s about time to write a new one. If you’re on that app and you don’t follow these yet, you might want to.

As with the first list, I’m limiting this to non-religious and non-political content creators. (You may notice that some of these do occasionally share their personal political beliefs; for the record, I do not necessarily agree nor disagree with any of them. I don’t follow them for their politics.) I wanted to compile a collection that anyone can enjoy; and because, honestly, imo, social media like IG should be for lighthearted fun and/or random curiosities rather than serious philosophical conversations.

Not that I don’t follow, and enjoy, some religious and political accounts. I do. I just also miss the days when we got our news from the local paper or radio station, and our religious instruction from our parish church or a good spiritual book, and that was that. I miss the days when the internet was just a novelty, something extra, a nifty toy to play around with. Not a necessity. A place for kicks and giggles. A place that you could drop in on, and then leave.

Social media: we all know that it is a cesspool. What is it even good for? Anything? I’ve said it before and will say it again: the best social media accounts are the ones that make you go: “yes! This, this right here, this is why I come to the internet. Surely this is what it was invented for!”

It’s in this spirit that I’ve compiled the following list. Without further ado,

Honorable Mention goes to @taylorrochemusic for his now-apparently-discontinued “cranking that soulja boy in songs it doesn’t need to be cranked in” series of reels. He appears to have deleted nearly all of them from his profile?! I wish he still made these. The joke never got old!

20. @getpovd. If you were to ask me to summarize my sense of humor, I’d just show you one of these reels, in which bro just approaches strangers on the street and, without saying a word, shows them physical, printed-out images of internet brainrot, and records their reactions. For some reason, the fact that he carries them around in physical form makes it so much funnier. Probably staged but oh well. Would place higher on this list if not for all the ads for some gambling app. (NSFW)

19. @bathfoods. Just random unhinged images of food in bathtubs.

18. @whatstacydid. Imagine being Stacy and getting paid to do this! She posts the most beautiful, atmospheric travel pics from the UK, guaranteed to make you want to move to the UK.

17. @ihearcanvas. When it comes to music, I’m generally not big on covers (unless they’re truly spectacular), but I love me some remixes and mashups. And this DJ, whom I’ve discovered only recently, creates some of the best. Linked here is his mashup of “Down with the Sickness” by Disturbed x “No Limit” by G-Eazy, which is better than the sum of its parts and probably the shiniest little musical gem that I’ve ever discovered on this godforsaken app.

16. @notreallywellness. Dude runs a random “5k a day” in the most absurd places, such as: on top of a fridge, in a bathtub, on top of his friend Noah, etc. You will not regret following.

15. @airromusic. Another cool DJ with fire mashups, but I love this account specifically because of his “Does It Creed?” series, in which he mashes up random songs with Creed songs. And surprisingly, most of them do, indeed, Creed.

14. @hessomid. A true hero. I’m obsessed with her “Men’s Response To…” series, in which she calls out and makes fun of the sleazy scumbags in the comment sections who say disgusting things about female celebrities. Very important, very enlightening (if only I’d seen these when I was a teenager!), also very hilarious (the way she’ll censor out the fish’s face, but not the guy’s, lol). “Nothing was being offered” — I need that on a t-shirt.

13. @coji_n. Not even sure how this content ended up in my algorithm, but I’m here for it. Just a really good photographer in Japan. These photos are always stunning, and always a little serene pause, a breath of cool fresh air, in my feed. I do not understand the captions, but the images speak for themselves.

12. @existentialcrisiscakes. An amazing cake decorator who tops her lovely little cakes with rather unexpected quotes and phrases.

11. @x_emo_realtor_x. Genius-tier marketing concept!: as ’00s emo kids are attaining forever-home-buying age, this company in Portland (“rainy day real estate” lol) sure knows how to cater to their aching nostalgia. I’m almost tempted to move out there just to buy from them.

10. @beautiful.classic.world. The name says it all: they simply post beautiful classic paintings every day, most of which I’ve never seen before, all of which make me feel uplifted and soul-level refreshed and like I’m not just wasting my time on social media.

9. @that_girl_in_debt. My favorite “de-influencer” and favorite parenting account. As moms, social media can make us feel like we’re failing morally if we are in messy, chaotic living situations and/or financial situations. Megan here is on a mission to disprove that, and I love her for it.

8. @northvalleygrp. My other favorite parenting account on IG. Just relatable/funny reels about having kids, all of them 10/10.

7. @james_jelin, specifically for his reels that poke fun at diet culture, like the one linked here. We’ve all known this girl. We’ve all worked with her. We’ve all rolled our eyes at her. James’s impression of her is so flawless it’s actually aggravating, lol.

6. @legitpat. The accuracy, the nostalgia, the delivery. The poses! The reel linked here sums up how I feel every time I post on this stupid blog.

5. @equestrianvogue. Now this is what I call “lifestyle porn”, lol. Every post, I’m ogling it and fantasizing about living that sort of life.

4. @suckbagsart. My other other favorite parenting account! His little comics about life with a toddler and a baby are solid gold.

3. @there_i_ruined_it. The best musical account on the internet. He takes songs and turns them into… other songs. Every single post has me cry-laughing. (NSFW)

2. @celina52truckstop. This is actually a real place (!?!), but, you’ll be relieved to know that their content is made up. Nonetheless, I’m very invested in their deranged little story and all its recurring characters like Nevaeh Petty and Gay Manager Jacob. Just the weirdest and most surreal humor.

And finally, the award for Best Account on Instagram goes to:

1. @nutterbutter. If you’re not already aware of Nutter Butter’s social media presence… I can’t describe it for you. You just have to see it. Click on it, I dare you.
Baking Championship Next Gen Season 1 Episode 4: Mith Reacts

January 28th, 2026

CAUTION: SPOILERS for this episode of BCNG!

Puzzle piece cakes: this week, the teams were challenged to create cakes in the shape of puzzle pieces that fit together. Each team was assigned a different flavor, and each individual baker got to solo-decorate a piece of their team’s puzzle – so, for the first time, we got to see individual bakers’ talents shine.

My Silly Little Thoughts On This Week:

I love the idea of decorating a cake in honor of your sibling. It made me think: what would I do, if I were on this show and on a team with my sister? I hope we’d be assigned chocolate; Jovie and Lenore, who won the draw and got to assign flavors, chose the correct answer. IMO, if a cake’s not chocolate, it’s got some explaining to do: it had better be really interesting, and really special, and compensate in other areas. Chocolate covers a multitude of sins, and is a relatively hard flavor to get wrong.

But the decorations were the interesting part this episode; I liked seeing how each teammate chose to represent their sibling. I think if it were me, and if I had the skills to decorate a cake (which I absolutely do not; realistically, the only baking competition show I might have a chance on is Nailed It!) – I’d like to represent my sister with like a lace design of some sort, maybe using a stencil and powdered sugar, because my sister’s always been really good at dressing up, crafting, sewing, decorating, needlework, that sort of thing. To top it off, I’d try to do a wildflower arrangement in a mixture of ivory- and dusty-rose-colored buttercream, fondant, and modeling chocolate: wild roses, dogwood flowers, blackberry blossoms, mountain laurels – a nod to where we grew up and her love of the outdoors and native plantings. Then I’d probably try to place a chocolate ukulele on top of these, because my sister loves music as well – she also plays guitar and piano, and likes to sing. And maybe a little stack of fondant books to set beside it, if I had time, because she’s very literary. My sister is way cooler and more accomplished than I am, and also a much better baker, so no doubt her cake half would look better than mine, if we were on a team. All the younger siblings’ halves were messier, so I guess that tracks.

What about you, what would you do for this challenge, readers?

My highlights of this week:

– Maci telling us that she was gonna let Emmett choose the shape of their cake, then immediately proceeding to shoot down his suggestions, and deign to offer to consider the last one. LOL. Siblings really are alike all over. Everyone thinks we youngests have it made (and we kinda do), but in some ways we do get the short end of the stick.

– Genesis and Akbar once again producing an incredible sponge – these two just can’t be stopped, with cake, apparently. Their flavors and textures never miss. Even though they were in the bottom two, they really stood out to me again this week; they pulled it back together and got the thing done even after one of their cakes dropped on the ground (!). And little Akbar did a really impressive job on his decorations – that golden hibiscus flower looked professional.

– Poor Harper and Holland! Their nice, girly, should-have-been-pretty-in-pink raspberry cake turned gray?! Due to some chemical reaction? I Googled it, and apparently it’s a reaction between anthocyanins (the raspberry’s natural pigment) and the cake’s alkaline ingredients (baking powder and/or soda). Wild! Note to self, never dump fresh raspberry puree in a cake batter. I felt so bad for these sweet girls, because they were already bummed about getting stuck with raspberry – a flavor they like, but just weren’t prepared to work with. Luckily they pulled through.

– Leila and Melody created one of my favorite cakes, visually. That little cookie pizza looked incredible, and it blended nicely into the beach scene of the other portion, matching the vibe while still standing out as its own section. I’m glad these two did well; I enjoy their chaotic banter.

– “Corn is our good luck charm,” – Kenneth and Abigail. I just love these two so much. Also – weight lifting at fourteen?! How are all these kids such overachievers! You know what I was doing at fourteen? Doodling in notebooks, and listening to divorced dad rock, and feeling sorry for myself. The diametric opposite of these two strong, wholesome rays of sunshine. Abigail and Kenneth’s parents should write a parenting book. I would read it.

– Jovie and Lenore also produced an incredible cake. Even though it wasn’t as technically flawless as Leia and Kiera’s, I actually liked its appearance a little better: it had so much personality, and so vividly captured the two sisters as characters.

– Speaking of Leia and Kiera: it’s not even fair anymore lol, these two are on a completely different level. Amazing work – that wood grain around the “garden box,” and those tiny little vegetable toppers? I strongly suspect these two have a future as Food Network stars. Because she is a child, I can even forgive Leia for pronouncing it “marscapone,” even though this peeves me when adult bakers do it.

– Bummed to see Abby and Cameron go home, though. (Where did their filling go?! It just seeped into the cake!) I’m especially going to miss seeing little Cameron – what a delightful child! He was so funny! So much positive energy and confidence. I just know he’s going to do well in whatever he does.

Superlatives from the judges: 0 today (running total: 2)

Kid who most deserved a hug: Melody, because she knew they needed to add more strawberry to their cake – more puree! More syrup! More powder! – but Leila straight up wouldn’t let her. Then, at the judging, Duff commented on how they needed more strawberry flavor. I see you, little sis!

Kid who most deserved a high five: Kenneth, for being so nice to Cameron after he got eliminated. “You did insane! Keep baking!” What a gem. I already commented last week on how Abigail was similarly encouraging to a competitor, so I really think these two are just proper Good Samaritans.

The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Leia and Kiera’s cookies and cream cake with mascarpone marshmallow whip. Duff seemed to think the filling was “too sweet,” but so be it; this was one of the boldest and most interesting decisions this episode. Well-deserved win.

Friends, what do we think?! If you’re watching, leave me your comments!
Real Names

January 24th, 2026

Daily writing prompt
Write about your first name: its meaning, significance, etymology, etc.
View all responses

As you know, dear readers, “Mith” is not actually my “real” first name — it’s not the name that I was given by my parents way back when in the fall of ’89.

I’m not going to talk about my “real” first name. It doesn’t suit me — never has. Its vibe, its sound, its style, even its meaning (nay, especially its meaning) — nothing about it is me. And I wonder if this doesn’t have something to do with the way I’ve always felt so not at home in my own skin, so at odds with myself, so insecure about who I essentially am.

It’s not a bad name. It’s actually very pretty, and I like it, especially because it’s a family name going back several generations on my mother’s side. However, it has a serious issue that’s been a significant problem for me my entire life. And that issue is: pronunciation.

Where my mom’s family’s from, it’s pronounced one way; the vast majority of America pronounces it a different way; but neither of these are actually the “correct” pronunciation; but the differences between the three are subtle enough, that it remains vague and inconclusive what’s the right or wrong way to say it. The sound in question is a single syllable, a vowel sound. All the different versions are shades on a spectrum.

(By now, I bet you can guess what the name is.)

So, ever since I started kindergarten, I have not known how to say my own name. Which was very jarring, to a five-year-old. “Why does everybody say my name wrong?” But not wrong enough for me to correct them, because it was clearly me that they were addressing, and the difference was subtle — just wrong enough to tweak a nerve.

To this day, if I say it the way my parents say it, people get confused and think I’m saying a different name. “Can you spell that for me?” If I say it the way most of America says it, it just feels gross and wrong; it feels like I have a whole unpeeled tangerine in my mouth; I feel like I’m lying, giving a fake name (and my discomfiture must be evident, because people still ask me to repeat myself and/or spell it out; and this is a really common name). And the “correct” pronunciation? It just feels unnatural to me, like trying to achieve a very delicate balance, like trying to speak a foreign language — I literally have to rehearse it under my breath a few times before saying it out loud.

So at thirty-six I still hate introducing myself. I never know how to say it, just like I don’t know how to say much of anything coherent in social situations. Hello, I am a person, but which exactly I can’t really say, and I don’t know how to convey the fact of this person to you because I don’t really grasp it myself. Perhaps thus began my obsession with communication, with attempting to make my thoughts understood through writing.

I do know, however, that whenever a stranger meets me and pronounces my name the way my parents always said it, I automatically, subconsciously warm to that person, and presume that they are Nice and Good. Which might be a sign that maybe I should just buckle down and own this as my pronunciation. This is the way I say it. People do that with all kinds of names nowadays, don’t they? “It’s spelled Jane but I pronounce it jah-NAY! Get it right!” If people can get away with random stuff like that, surely I’d be perfectly justified in insisting upon my preferred vowel sound, in a name that can legitimately be pronounced any of several ways! Maybe I should have done this all along, starting in kindergarten!

But I’ve never had the guts. I’ve always let other people tell me, I guess. And now it’s way too late, even if I suddenly miraculously developed the guts to assert my will like that, which I haven’t yet and don’t expect I ever will.

Which is not even that big a deal, frankly. Virtually everyone, even my number one person, my beloved husband, pronounces it the “wrong” way. And it’s not like it bothers me. I don’t even think about it ninety-nine percent of the time. It’s just a fact of life.

.

Do you like how I said “I’m not going to talk about my ‘real’ name” and then proceeded to write all of that? Sorry. That was not the post that I intended to write. No, I came here to tell the origins of my “nom de plume”/ handle / alias / whatever you want to call it: my assumed name: Mith. In case you’re curious, kind reader. Here, at last, is the post that I came here to write:

It goes back a quarter century, to early 2001. I was eleven years old, and, like most kids do at some point, going through a “change my name” phase. Not in a serious way — as mentioned, I’ve tried, but never had the guts to tell other people what to call me — but just in a playful way, as a game with my little fifth grade friends. We all had pretend names. And mine, the name that I wanted to go by, was: you won’t believe this, but: Kim.

“Kim?! But why? That’s so not you, Mith!” I know. I didn’t have any ideas or prejudices about the name back then; I hadn’t yet heard of the Kardashians, or Eminem’s baby mama, or any of those Hollywood associations. I just heard the name somewhere and liked it. I liked the way it sounded. I liked that it was easy to say, impossible to mispronounce. Best of all, I liked that it rhymed with “Zim,” as I was, at the time, intensely obsessed with Invader Zim (not just the show, but Zim the character; I saw him as my soul mate or something). So the name Kim was totally meant to be, for me, as I saw it.

So that became my assumed name, for a year or so, even after the Zim obsession waned. It was the name I wished I had, the name I used in my self-insert fiction, the name I used in games with my little friends. You know how kids do.

Then it evolved. In sixth grade, I met the girl who would become my middle school BFF, and one of the main characters of my life story. (If she ever somehow stumbles upon this blog and sees this: hey girl, hope you’re doing well.) She and I were the same flavor of weird, back then; we had the same weird sense of humor, and were two weird peas in a pod. We became very close, and developed all manner of inside jokes — one of the most enduring of which was a secret “language” in which all words ended with the suffix “-ith” or “-eth.”

That was how, after approximately two years of being Kim, I became “Kimmith.” Which will forever be my full name in my heart.

But, among my little friend group, Kimmith was soon abbreviated to: Mith.

And that was what my friends called me, and what I began to call myself in my head, and it just stuck. Soon there were nicknames of the nickname: Mithius, Mithiana, and Mit were all things that I went by at some point. But Mith, that was the one that stuck. It became my online handle everywhere. When my little friends and I all got Livejournals, I thought I was being very clever indeed when I named mine “MiTHology.”

And I guess the rest is history.

In case you were wondering whence the “k”: I keep the “k” as a nod to the original full name. In my mind, it also stands for the name of my patron saint, Saint Kevin, whose name I was given at my Baptism in 2013. It’s like K is just my letter. It has to be there. I don’t know.

To have weird friends who are close enough to you, who have enough ownership of your life to bestow weird nicknames upon you: that is such a beautiful thing. I don’t miss school, not at all, but I do miss having a group of friends around me. Alas! Those days are long gone — but the name will remain forever.

.

So what then even is a “real” name, then? Define real. Is it your legal name? Or the one you call yourself in your head? And which version of you is real: the one you are in the privacy of your own mind, or the one that other people see? Naming anything, especially a person, is such a complicated and daunting thing. Language being this thin barrier that we construct to mediate between our brains and the huge whirling vortex of unknowable chaos. How can we say what a thing, or a person, is?

At 36, I still sometimes think about changing my name. Maybe even to Kim. Or something else that’s easy to say. But for now, it’s satisfying enough to have this little online space where I have a bit more control over how you perceive me — where I get to tell you who I am, on my own terms. Where I get to name myself. Why else do we write things, right? If you’ve made it this far, thanks for being here, and for listening.

.
A Defense of “PAW Patrol”

January 21st, 2026

PAW Patrol: parents love to hate it. It’s the worst! It’s so ubiquitous. It’s so annoying. It’s so bad for kids’ brains. I used to feel this way, too.

Since I’m apparently now in the business of defending TV shows that other people hate, allow me, if you will, to make my little case here for PAW Patrol.

.

My kids were never supposed to watch PAW Patrol. As a new mom, I found it revolting. I never wanted them to see it, or even know about it. Nowadays, I love it; I’m a big fan, and we watch it together on the regular.

So what happened?

It started with string cheese. At their grandparents’ house, my kids were given string cheese sticks that had images of PAW Patrol characters printed on the packaging. Thus, they began to learn the different characters’ names and colors. Soon they could identify them on sight when they saw them in other locations. Putting cartoon characters on food packaging really is a genius marketing move.

My kids’ intensifying fascination with these characters from the packaging on string cheese (and diapers, and graham crackers, and kids’ shampoo, and pretty much everything else for kids), led to me at last, begrudgingly, allowing them to view clips of the show in our own home. Then, when I was in the first trimester with my fourth baby, and sick 24/7, I finally gave up the fight and just let them binge-watch full episodes on Paramount+. Just all day long: PAW Patrol!, PAW Patrol!, be there on the double!

But I hated it. I hated the lazy animation style, the skull-piercing voices, the brainless music, the sheer idiotic absurdity of the plotlines, and above all, the way my kids were so obsessed with it. Just ask the internet: they say that PAW Patrol was basically lab-created (that’s laboratory, not Labrador retriever) to hypnotize your kids and get them addicted.

What garbage. I resented it, but permitted it anyway because for a couple months there I was too sick to do much of anything at all, and by the time the sickness faded around week 20, my kids were hopelessly hooked.

As time went on, I occasionally tried to banish PAW Patrol from our house, thinking it was in my kids’ best interest. I’d pack up all the plastic toy pups and their plastic vehicles, the plastic cups and plastic placemats and all the plastic merch and chuck it in a plastic trash bag and hide it in the basement because I didn’t have the heart to just throw it away entirely.

“From now on, we will only watch wholesome shows like Little Bear and Puffin Rock,” I told myself firmly. “If I just never show them PAW Patrol again, never buy any more PAW Patrol shit and never breathe another word about it from this moment forth, they have to forget about it at some point, right? From this day on, we will be a proper old-fashioned Catholic family, cleansed of the stains of all that worldly garbage!”

Inevitably, the merch would come back out several weeks or days later, because my kids asked for it and I am a softie.

Recently, I got sick of this cycle, and decided to just let go ahead and let them have their beloved PAW Patrol.

Why? What happened?

I think the biggest factor in this decision was my realization that my oldest is about to turn six, and pretty soon, she won’t even be interested in PAW Patrol anymore. She will outgrow it, probably within a year or so. My nephew, who’s only nine months older than she is, is already over PAW Patrol, and on to more mature six-year-old things. Those days will soon be upon me. And it’s actually heartbreaking: the passage of time, how quickly your baby grows up. I’ll wake up tomorrow and none of my kids will care about PAW Patrol anymore. And I’ll look back on these days and wish for just one more minute of their precious innocence.

Because that’s what PAW Patrol is. It’s innocent. I mean, come on: it’s a show about superhero puppies. If you actually sit down and watch it, you will see just how innocent it is. The music, the animation, the way the characters dress and talk: it’s all very childish, very clean and simple. It lacks the glossy flashiness and Hollywoodesque aspirations toward tweenhood that you see in something like Super Kitties (which I abhor, and nipped that obsession in the bud without a trace of guilt) or KPop Demon Hunters. It also lacks the purely hypnotic, mindless, brain-numbing singsong quality of something like Cocomelon. PAW Patrol is just simple, colorful, back-to-basics animation with childlike stories and dialogue. There’s nothing sinister, nothing suggestive of anything more mature, and the “jokes” are painfully simple; that’s exactly why kids age out of it around six or seven.

And the stories in PAW Patrol are all about helping people. That’s the whole gist of the show: cooperation is fun, you can do hard things, and helping others is cool. Literally what is the issue?

“Lab created to hijack your kids’ brains and stupefy them” – blah blah, enough with that. Sure, it’s not high quality edifying stuff, but PAW Patrol isn’t going to make good kids bad. Like most worldly pleasures, PAW Patrol can be enjoyed responsibly, in moderation. My kids are not iPad kids. They have never owned a tablet. They love reading books, drawing, playing pretend, and going outside; they’re decently well-behaved; and all of them are highly intellectually advanced for their ages. And they also happen to love PAW Patrol.

So, I’m not convinced that all of the paranoia about PAW Patrol “ruining our kids’ minds” isn’t just a bunch of tin foil hat-type blathering. I really think people love to hate things that are popular. Back in the days when novels were a recent innovation, people thought those were brainrot and a waste of time, too. Probably thirty years from now, PAW Patrol will be considered vintage and cool and “crunchy” the way Little Bear is now. Hating PAW Patrol is just as much a trend as the show itself; change my mind. Being rational: there’s simply not sufficient reason to banish PAW Patrol entirely.

.

Admittedly though, my change of heart about PAW Patrol was not entirely rational. My decision was based, about 75, maybe 80 percent, on emotion.

For one, there was the aforementioned realization that my sweet babies are growing up quickly, and all too soon will no longer care a whit about PAW Patrol. You ever feel homesick for a place while you’re already there?

And for two: after a year to eighteen months or so of PAW Patrol being part of our lives, it’s gradually become, well, just that: a part of our lives. It’s weird. In the beginning, PAW Patrol felt to me like this malignant force that encroached upon my family from without. But now, for better or for worse, it has become part of us, woven into the fabric of our family life. And I like our life. The citizens of Adventure Bay have become good friends of mine, by now.

“You’re just being a lazy mom, Mith! If you really cared about your kids’ well-being, you wouldn’t show them this filth at all, much less let it infiltrate your lives to such an extent.”

Ah, the “lazy mom” accusation. Yes, this one gets thrown at moms on the internet all the time, whenever they have the audacity to try to make life easier. I honestly think people just hate moms and want them to suffer (and sometimes it’s moms who hate on other moms in this way, which imo just betrays a very-thinly-veiled self-loathing and a deep frustration with their own lives). As moms, we are, believe it or not, actually allowed to choose the easy way sometimes. Like most things, it’s not black and white (“giving screen time at all means you’re a failure!” “You don’t love your kids if you don’t cook them three meals a day from scratch!” etc.); it’s a matter of moderation. “Lazy” because sometimes I want my kids to sit still and be quiet so that I can give one of them a bath, or clean the house or, God forbid, sit down and drink a cup of coffee or something? Sure, why not. Call me lazy if you want. My kids are happy, healthy, intelligent, and loved; I’m solo parenting and homeschooling them (four five and under) on a tight budget, with no village around me, but, sure, go off I guess.

Not trying to say that I have it harder than anyone else. Parenting is hard, no matter what your situation. This is not the suffering olympics. PAW Patrol makes things a bit more fun and easy at times. And as far as I can see it does no harm. So try again to explain to me why it’s so bad.

.

Finally, just for fun: being a Catholic mom and a PAW Patrol mom, I’ve taken the liberty of assigning a patron saint to each of the pups:

Chase: St. Michael the Archangel, the Prince of the Heavenly Host and defender against demons.

Skye: St. Joseph of Cupertino, obviously: famous for levitating during prayer.

Rocky: St. Joseph the Worker: quiet, responsible, happy to be in the background, good with tools.

Marshall: St. Lawrence, who was a comedian and, like Marshall, associated with fire.

Zuma: St. Brendan the Navigator, famous for sailing across oceans and exploring the world.

Rubble: St. Thomas Aquinas: bit of a counterintuitive choice, maybe, but Aquinas was a chunky fellow who was nicknamed “the dumb ox,” so I think he might actually identify with Rubble the most out of all the pups.

Is PAW Patrol a good Catholic show? No, of course not. It’s very secular. In their holiday special, they even said some cheesy line like “the real meaning of Christmas is giving!” – thankfully, my five-year-old heard that and exclaimed “no, the real meaning of Christmas is the Birth of Jesus!” Which led to a good conversation about how we need to share the Gospel with those who haven’t heard it. See? It may not be a good Catholic show, per se, but it can be part of a good Catholic life.

That’s the thing. It’s not good. It’s not bad. It’s just (if you’re a toddler parent in 2026 who doesn’t literally live under a rock) a part of life.

.

I imagine one day when I’m old and gray and an empty nester, I’ll be sitting alone in my clean, quiet living room, reminiscing, and I’ll look around at the emptiness and lack of clutter and toys, and sigh, and pick up the remote with my withered, liver-spotted hand and switch on some PAW Patrol, just for old time’s sake, and probably sing softly along with the songs, PAW Patrol!, PAW Patrol!, in my creaky lonely old-lady voice: be there on the double! And I like to think that I won’t have too many regrets.