The Myth of the Catty Female Part I: Why Do We Love Catfights?

They're everywhere- reality TV (where adults behaving like 5 year olds get rich for it!), action movies, romance novels. Female competition. Girl on girl hate. Drama queens. Whatever you want to call it, we as a society seem to love it. People pay to watch women fight and backstab on shows like those Housewives of _____ and everyone seemed to enjoy a good female fisticuffs in middle or high school at least once- usually over a guy who always seemed to be sitting back enjoying he show, didn't he?

That's just it, isn't it? It's usually to be seen as attractive, the coolest, the best, in some guy's eyes, while he feels like a rockstar for encouraging two girls or women to argue over him (not all guys do this, I realize, and obviously not all women argue just over a guy!). God told Eve she would always "desire her husband". I don't think He necessarily meant sexually. I think the curse of human women is that as a whole, we're unnecessarily driven to seek male approval and attention. And yes, I mean "curse". It is in no way a good thing to obsess or fight over anyone's approval, regardless of their sex.

Sometimes, as I stated, this leads some immature women to do immature things for a guy. I know it can be a huge ego boost when you're the lucky lady. Immature guys may attempt to compliment you by saying you're "not like other girls", which may make said immature woman feel special. While Nice Guys who aren't all aggressive, stupid, and macho like Those Other Guys and love to hear you talk about your feelings and life because they're so sensitive do exist, they seem to in smaller groups, and they aren't usually as discussed or valued as the Guy's Girl (which I shall refer to her as from now on).

Why? Why is it men's opinions seem to be valued over women's? Again, the Bible speaks the truth, though I also have to somewhat agree with feminists that society just tends to prefer masculinity over femininity in most ways, despite the very feminist direction the West is heading into.

So, back to the catfights. I don't know about you, but I hate them. I love other women and wish I had a ton of them as best friends. Female friends as just the best. I think our general dislike of conflict makes them good listeners who are less likely to judge, usually, and they can give some of the most soothing words and sensible advice without coming off as lecturing you. They're fun, and they get why staying up late making a junk food smorgasbord to go with a Disney marathon and window shopping and trying to make new desserts (sometimes unsuccessfully) and having those deep conversations about life at 3 AM are some of the best ways to bond. I, personally, just relate to other girls better than guys. I've tried befriending some guys, but it rarely worked. If they didn't move away, they turned out to be judgmental jerks or tried to date me instead. That's my experience though; I know many guy friends rock! Just remember men are no more perfect than women are. They judge, start fights, and break off relationships for petty reasons, too.

I forget where I read this, but in some book years ago the author mentioned how two girls who from different countries and shared no common language could bond within- what, an hour? Whether or not it's factually true, I've seen similar things happen. Women love to connect. Our bonds we form with one another can be some of the strongest on earth. Which is absolutely not to knock men as friends or friendships between men. But female friends at just at heart, different from men. And that's OK. They don't need to be the same because they're not.


So many self-contradiction stereotypes and opinions of women that don't match up. I've already written more than I'd originally planned and still havent gotten to some points, so I think a part II is in order. Because this is an issue that's angered me for quite some time, it's rarely discussed much less promoted, and it needs to be said, even if only a few of you will ever read my blog. If it changes even one person's mind, I'll be ecstatic.

Do any of you have female friendships you value? What are some of your favorite female friendships in history? Do you tend to prefer women as friends?

Do Christian Wives "Owe" Their Husbands Sex?

 I’m not usually one to get up in arms when another Christian thinks something I don’t, and normally I really think this lady is right on (and I do think her intentions are good) but this post just made me a little sick to read, and more so the comments section. I remember also once reading a very fundamental Christian guy flat-out saying on his site that it is indeed a sin to not have sex with your husband.

Because this is a pretty serious topic, I'm going to be blunt here. I don’t care if this offends someone: women and men, you do not “owe” your spouse sex. It is not a “sin” to not want to “pump them dry” as that lady’s husband encourages us to do. It’s not God’s will for you to be a sex slave of any kind. Marriage is about sacrifice and God first, enjoyment second. It isn’t godly to guilt people into sex, telling them they’re being a bad spouse if they don’t feel like hopping into bed every five minutes with you. That's flat-out emotional manipulation.

And what utter nonsense to pretend women have NO temptations! Are you kidding? Like we have never ogled shirtless men? We have temptations with sin, too. Christians, stop treating men as helpless babies who have no self-control and blaming women for them not giving their husbands “enough”. I say this to wives as well but frankly, as much as I hate to admit it, with a lot of Christians it’s usually women they see as responsible for this. And husbands, you, too, are not obliged to feel guilted into doing something you are not up for.

I am not married yet (though I hope one day to be), so I know some might say I have no experience to back this up. Do I really need it to point out sin? I don't think so. It is just selfishness and rigid legalism behind this attitude and I do not believe for a minute one should be married, divorced or single to have the authority to acknowledge this sinful attitude.

The Hatred of Big Families

I'm neither a mom nor am I married. But I can't wait to be. I know any kids, much less lots of them, aren't for everything. Even marriage isn't as popular an idea as it used to be, with the ever-growing divorce rates discouraging people out of commitment. But while we tell each other, "It's OK to not want a family and settle down. Chase your dreams! Do what YOU want and respect others for not wanting to be parents!" we sure don't seem to think that those of us who DO want that deserve to have our choice respected.

I like reading blogs about moms of large families, particularly ones who homeschool. It's so different from what I know and just interesting to learn about, though I personally don't plan to have more than three kids tops. I understand not everyone wants a big family or thinks they can afford one.

But a dislike of multiple kids and suspicion towards adults who want them in our culture has started and just kept growing, it would seem. I often hear mothers of these families talk about the kinds of comments they'd get from friends or even random people at the store:

"Are they ALL yours?"
"You're done having kids now, right?"

And so on.

Some questions are just curious, some are just plain rude and nosy. Strange, for a culture that's always quick to get defensive and say "Who are you to judge? It's none of your business what I do! It's not hurting anyone else!" we don't seem to hold that to big families also. Some people seem to just feel... offended by them.

Why? What's so offensive about many kids? Because unless they can be manipulated for political agendas to garner sympathy, our culture just plain hates children. They're too innocent for its obsession with sex, and most of all, they demand us to sacrifice our own wants for their needs which contradicts the me-first culture here.

Nobody's attacking anyone if they don't want a big family or even kids at all (though I realize some people do get bothered for not having any and they should be left alone too), so why don't we extend the same courtesy to big families?

Happy Father's Day 2015!

I wish I had thought to do this for Mother's Day... Maybe I can do a special moms post later on as a belated post. In honor of one of the least appreciated major holidays in the USA, here are some of my favorite fictional dads and grandfathers (in no order except for Atticus and Ned)!

1. Atticus Finch, To Kill A Mockingbird
2. Eddard Stark, A Game of Thrones
3. King Triton, The Little Mermaid
4. George Bailey, It's A Wonderful Life
5. Guido Orefice, Life is Beautiful
6. King Stefan, Sleeping Beauty
7. Wilfred Mott, Doctor Who
8. Pacha, The Emperor's New Groove
9. Maurice, Beauty and the Beast
10. James, The Princess and the Frog
11. Charles Ingalls, Little House series
12. Professor Trevor Broom, Hellboy
13. Pete Tyler, Doctor Who
14. Lord Archibald Craven, The Secret Garden
15. Mufasa, The Lion King
16. Edward Walker, The Village

Stealing Culture?

There's an idea floating around the 'Net that seems to have stemmed from liberal arts colleges and the like- that instead of America being a melting pot of cultures and traditions where we are free to share cultures and engage in others, that doing so is wrong and harms said culture. This idea is called "cultural appropriation".

Though I guess I should specify: it only counts if it's white people doing it, apparently. Especially white Americans (the young Social Justice Bloggers who spout all this seem to not realize there are countries beyond America but you wouldn't know that with how US-centric they all are). If a white person eats a taco, by golly, the entire history of Mexico is being erased. If a white person wears dreadlocks, Jamaicans everywhere cry out in anguish (never mind that dreads are neither a 'black thing', they're religious, nor did blacks invent it; Romans and Vikings, for example, wore them too). And so on.

If a Chinese woman wears a dirndl for Halloween, however, this doesn't count as stealing culture, apparently. A black man can riverdance and it's not hurting anyone. Someone of Mestizo descent can study ballet and Russians don't suffer from it. Hmm. It's almost like a single individual participating in a foreign culture isn't actually hurting it. It's almost like, yes, cultures should be respected, but they're also meant to be shared, generally. Don't get upset over this:

If you have no problem with this:

I don't think either of the wearers were being disrespectful or trying to "steal" culture.

Hmm. It's almost like this is just another pathetic attempt to drive the wedge between races and ethnicities down a little harder. Listen, if a non-white person can celebrate Oktoberfest or St. Lucia's Day or St. Patrick's Day or eat pierogis and such, a white person can buy a kimono, eat dim sum, and celebrate el Dia de los Muertos as well. Whole histories and civilizations are not going to collapse because Becky in Florida or Ling in Hong Kong are eating foreign foods and buying traditional attire from different countries.

We can share and learn from other cultures. That's what America was meant for. And you don't even have to be American to appreciate that.

Too Wise For God

I finally made some much-deserved time to study a Bible verse that caught my eye this morning as I flipped open the sermon pamphlet my dad had given me from last Sunday-

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18

I read Matthew Henry's commentary of it, and he as usual made good points:

"Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jews. They could not get over it. They had a conceit that their expected Messiah was to be a great temporal prince, and therefore would never own one who made so mean an appearance in life, and died so accursed a death, for their deliverer and king. They despised him, and looked upon him as execrable, because he was hanged on a tree, and because he did not gratify them with a sign to their mind, though his divine power shone out in innumerable miracles."

 "[The Greeks] laughed at the story of a crucified Saviour, and despised the apostles’ way of telling it. They sought for wisdom. They were men of wit and reading, men that had cultivated arts and sciences, and had, for some ages, been in a manner the very mint of knowledge and learning. There was nothing in the plain doctrine of the cross to suit their taste, nor humour their vanity, nor gratify a curious and wrangling temper: they entertained it therefore with scorn and contempt. What, hope to be saved by one that could not save himself." 

Does this sound familiar to you? Much like our modern society, does it not?

The Jews to me are reminiscent of the watered-down Christians (or "Water Christians" as I call them) who have submitted to the world instead of God. The Jews back then wouldn't accept a Savior of such humble birth, who hung out with rabble, despite His many miracles that proved He was indeed the Son of God. They just wanted a magic prince cloaked in splendor.

The Greeks remind me of both atheists and some other Water Christians. Not always the same kind as above who are too vain to truly accept the Gospel, but ones who are too arrogant to, which is definitely the problem with most atheists today as well. The Greeks scorned the Savior who (supposedly) couldn't even save Himself. Why, they were so advanced in the arts, sciences, and knowledge in general. Clearly they knew better than some guy who lived simply, told his friends to give away their worldly possessions, and preached revolutionary yet simple sermons. Nothing about this plain gospel appealed to them, exactly how the anti-Jesus atheists and so-called Christians of today are, the former of whom pats themselves on the back for their religious-like faith the vague, monolithic Science deity; the latter of whom sneers at true believing Christians trying to follow the Word even when it clashes with society's opinions to do so. These worldly 'Christians' might actually have a faint belief in God or go to church to hear a nice sugar-coated sermon that doesn't challenge them to live a different life than the comfortable one they're used to, but they have no interest in serving Jesus and tackling obstacles the world throws at anyone who will do so.


These people think themselves too wise to believe in or follow God wholeheartedly. They're too good for that. They know better.

Keith Krell also made a point I'd like to quote:

"The Word of the cross is that salvation is freely granted by God's grace, not human merit or intellect. Furthermore, salvation is extended to all people. This levels the ground at the foot of the cross. Everyone comes to God through faith, based upon the work of Jesus Christ. This offends man’s pride."

Unbelievers and false Christians who shun the Gospel do not want to be equal with people they dislike (especially followers of Jesus, but this can apply to anyone). They're better than them. Those losers are lesser than they are. It also means they're no excuse to not accept God if it's free- and they don't want to. They want to worship themselves, the world, money, anything that appeals to their pride but God.

So it all just comes down to human pride getting offended. And as such, these groups will be left to perish in their own stubborn pride.

Mourn for a Confused Child's Thrown-Away Life, But Don't Blame the Wrong Parties

I'm tired of fueling the fire this issue is made up of, but I'm going to say it. The Alcorn parents had a mentally unwell child who chose to kill himself. If it didn’t happen now, those problems would’ve manifested in other ways some other time, because that very sadly is the case with those who struggle with depression or other mental illnesses. I don’t say all this without sympathy; I say it because nobody forces anyone to commit suicide, so this "If the parents had just accepted her, she wouldn't have killed herself!". That's acting like they pointed a gun at him and said, "Kill yourself, or we'll do it for me". That’s absolute nonsense to the utmost, at best, and at worst and most offensively, takes Joshua's agency away making him a helpless victim who just didn't know better (can you really get any more condescending than that?) and shifts the blame onto two people who had no part in Josh’s/Leela’s death, two people who are currently grieving their lost child on top of dealing with the flooding of hate mail and death threats from the side that, ironically, condemns them for not accepting “her” while not accepting the parents themselves.

Photo from cnn.com.

Lots of things don’t get accepted by others that you don’t end your life over, some things much worse than your parents not calling the son the mom gave birth to a girl because that’s how he feels like being called. And as his parents, whatever you think of their theological beliefs, they make the rules, and until he was a legal adult, he had to respect their decisions. Once he was a legal adult, he could have gone out and gotten surgery or anything he wanted (not that I am encouraging this idea, just stating that all he would have had to do was wait).

I also don't understand how so many people seem incapable of feeling more than one thing at once. Have we all morphed into J.M. Barrie's Tinkerbell, who was so tiny she could not hold in more than extreme emotion at a time? You can feel sorry for Joshua and still not hate on his parents. I do feel bad for him. He was confused, but at the same time, I don't excuse his choice to end the life God gave him, and especially not selfish way he chose to do it- by jumping in front of a moving truck. The poor driver might well be scarred for life and already has people blaming HIM for what happened!

Do you feel a burning desire to lat blame at someone's feet? Why not the LGBT community? They have no problem encouraging sexual immorality in young children by telling them whatever feels good is right, which is a blatant lie and just childish thinking anyway. Many of these people are also bullies themselves, though sending threats to Mr. and Mrs. Alcorn is far from being their first victims of that. They crave validation to be assured that what they're doing is right (because, again, "it feels good") and not immoral at all, and when anyone refuses to not tell them what they want to hear, they lose all sense of reason and lash out at the person, instead of just accepting their views- something the preachers of 'tolerance' claim to want themselves- or maybe even stopping to consider if that person is right not to. Feelings prevail over logic or even basic biology sometimes. Kids like Josh can't accept their fate, the fact that he was a boy born as a boy, and this leads to anger, depression, and other negative things we'd all do well to keep out of our lives if we were just honest with ourselves.

But slowly, surely, some people have started to speak out against the bullying the parents are receiving, saying that even though they think the parents were wrong, they don't deserve to be harassed. This should be seen as a little ray of light in a society where far too many embrace this “bully everyone we don’t agree with” attitude, which is just disgusting, and especially prevalent on the Internet where the LGBT community tends to reign supreme on issues. It doesn’t matter what anyone else says you don’t agree with- you do not defend or condone harassment and bullying. If you claim to just want love and tolerance and in the same breath condemn those for not agreeing with you, for not supporting your lifestyle choice, for accepting biological facts over desires, you're as bad as the people you're claiming to fight against.