Banned Birds

It is 2017 and this country is still banning books. It is 2017 and a book was just banned because it "made people uncomfortable". It is 2017 and in the United States of America "To Kill a Mockingbird" was just banned because people cannot handle the language contained in what is obviously a classic piece of literature. People in Mississippi, a place infamous for its racism and intolerance, just banned "To Kill a Mockingbird" because they cannot handle the "n-word".

To clarify, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (TKM) will no longer be TAUGHT in Mississippi schools, but will be allowed on library shelves. But the necessity for this book to be taught in schools, especially in high schools, is more and more evident every single day. When we live a time rampant with systematic racism, in a country whose leader took advantage of those preexisting prejudices and used them as a basis for his campaign, when African-Americans are being publicly mistreated by the law, when immigrants and DREAMers are being chased out of our country, we NEED this book.

In TKM we see time and time again, that no matter what, a person is a person. Nothing, and I mean nothing, changes this. Not skin color, class, age, situation in life, etc. This book is set in a time when the country was very clearly divided along racial lines, and in a southern state that widened this divide, in a time when anyone who wasn't white was treated as a second class citizen. Throughout the book we see Atticus, the father of the story's young narrator, Scout, treat everyone the same, from the destitute, to the addict, to the backwards thinking hillbilly's, to Tom, the African-American man whom Atticus must defend against rape accusations from a white woman.

It is through this narrative that we see that the law isn't always right, that some of us have a lot of privilege when it comes to how we are treated by the people who enforce those laws. It is through this narrative that we see that systematic racism is real, and it is wrong.

Teaching this book to people who have still developing brains is important, because we need those people to grow up and understand that everyone is equal. That as a country, we didn't handle things correctly for a long time, especially when it came to African-Americans. By teaching TKM, we show not only where we've come from as a country, but where we still need to go. By teaching TKM, we teach how to use white privilege as a tool to make the world a better place. By teaching TKM to high schoolers, you are teaching tolerance, compassion, understanding, empathy, and perspective. By teaching TKM to high schoolers, we are teaching an appreciation for diversity, a willingness to question society, and go against the norm.

The language (and violence) in this book is so incredibly important, because they illustrate where we were as a country in that time. The language frames a narrative that seems to be about coming of age in a turbulent time in American history, but is truly about the heroism contained within simply doing the right thing, even if the right thing goes against the status quo.

But most importantly, from this book, high schoolers will learn hope. Hope for a brighter tomorrow, for a better future for our country, hope for a better future for the people that live within its borders. And they will learn that they can make those hopes and dreams come true themselves, if they are willing to "climb in someone's skin and walk around in it".

There are messages in this book that cannot be taught in a better way. "To Kill a Mockingbird" stands the test of time because the reader connects with characters who touch on topics that America still struggles with today. How do we handle the mentally ill, those less fortunate than us, those of a different race? With grace, with compassion, and by treating everyone the same as you want to be treated.

Mississippi, you've made a mistake.

Alexis Olmstead is a 20something full time hot mess and part time diva living in Bellingham, Washington. When she's not defending the need for classic literature being taught in schools, she's taking photos, trying to find a job, and learning how to love herself. For more random updates, rants, reviews, and commentary on life with anxiety and depression, check back sporadically. 

Quit Telling Girls They Don't Need Makeup

"You're so pretty, you don't need makeup" is one of the more seemingly innocent things someone can use as a compliment. However, a compliment that puts down another group of people is not a compliment. I mean, think about the opposite of this phrase. Without meaning to, the people who use this phrase are saying that someone who doesn't fit their standard of beauty needs to wear makeup to cover up their obvious "ugliness". They're saying "if you wear make-up, you're ugly, because if you were pretty, you wouldn't need to spend an hour 'putting your face on' every morning".

But here is the thing: even the most beautiful women on the planet wear make-up. Women who fit Western standards of beauty to a 'T' still wear foundation, still hide freckles and bags under their eyes. They battle acne with concealer, cleverly plump their lips, and spend hours contouring to have the perfectly chiseled look. Looking a certain way is not a prerequisite to wearing makeup. Makeup is about enhancing your features to feel like the best version of yourself. And if that amount of makeup is no makeup, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.

What I'm saying here is: wearing makeup or not wearing makeup has nothing to do with the way one looks, and does not determine "prettiness". My whole life I've been told I would never need makeup because I was so pretty. So anytime I wanted to wear makeup, I felt ugly. Because if I was actually pretty, I wouldn't be getting red splotches all over my face that I had to cover up. It wasn't until college that I realized that I could wear makeup, regardless of what other people told me I looked like.

I constantly go back and forth on whether or not I want to wear makeup. Some days I don't want to go through the hassle, and some days I'm just going barefaced in order to let my skin breathe and appreciate my natural self. Other days I feel like getting glammed up, putting on my mauve lipstick, and werking a smokey-eye look. Either way, I'm still the girl my parental units called beautiful, right?

Also, who are we, as people, to tell others what they should or shouldn't put on their face. It's like showing up at their house and telling them what not to wear each day. Its kind of no one's business but theirs. No one should be taking ownership of other people's bodies or faces, even if it is meant with the best intentions.

We should be thinking more about what we are saying to each other, and about each other, even if unintentionally. And in regards to makeup, you do you, beautiful. Only you decide how you look best.

Dissociating From My Gender

Everywhere I go, no matter what I'm doing or who I'm around I hear some variation of the phrase "I'm not like most girls". And most people don't think anything of it. But that phrase really bothers me. Like, REALLY bothers me.

Why?

To me saying "I'm not like most girls" is an attempt at separating oneself from the female gender as a whole in order to be looked at in a more positive light, as if being a woman is bad. I mean, there are many reasons why we could be led to believe that, but it is really hard to choose which example to go with here, considering women get paid less than men simply because they are women, rape victims are blamed for getting raped because there is this weird belief that a woman is an object of sexual pleasure not an actual human being, we are seen as weak, fussy, needy, high maintenance, and countless other negative things. So I can see the need to make a statement and say "hey, I'm not all those bad things you think women are". But repeating the tired "not like most" cliche statement isn't the way to do it. Because saying that phrase implies that you believe that those are negative traits that a woman has. And that isn't true. Also, saying you're not like most girls kind of makes you just like most girls, reader. You're defeating yourself.

If you want to prove that you truly are a special snowflake, prove it by the way you act, show that women aren't these negative things to be used and thrown away or disrespected. Prove that you're just as worthy as a man and unique and wonderful in your own special way. Because like it or not, you are a woman/girl, and to make yourself different you needn't do anything but be proud of your crooked smile and less than perfect hair. Be proud of you for being you. But don't throw the rest of our gender under the bus in an attempt to make yourself look cooler in front of guys and/or other girls.

Here's the thing reader: if you're a girl, chances are, you're probably like most girls. Sorry. Humans are humans are humans and there are things that are just part of the human condition. But there are things that you do and character traits that you have that make you unique. And so no, you don't have to confine yourself to the box members of the patriarchy would have you huddle in, but remember just because one person thinks it bad to be a female doesn't mean it actually is.


Alexis Olmstead is a 20something living in Okanogan County, WA. She is a part time waitress and a full time diva who is currently playing Dorothy in Okanogan Valley Orchastra and Chorus's production of Wizard of Oz. For more rants and reflections on life, check back often. 

The Case Against School Dress Codes

When people ask me what I hated most about high school, I cannot usually give them an answer. Honestly, I have a hard time recalling moments or events from my high school career that I actually didn't like. But I got to thinking the other day, and one thing stood out. The dress code. I really did not care for the high school dress code. I understand, reader, that at this point you are probably thinking to yourself that my reasoning was because I was constantly in violation of it. You would be wrong. I never got in trouble for breaking the dress code because I exist in baggy sweaters and skinny jeans or pants. I always just thought it was unfair that as I female I was being punished and being held to this laundry list of rules dictating how I was allowed to address because apparently teenage boys are uncontrollable.

Holding students to a standard of wearing professional or semi-professional clothing to school makes sense. Demonizing the female body does not. And if you don't agree with me when I say that dress codes demonize the female body, then please continue reading. By telling girls and only girls that they have to wear certain clothing so that school can be a place of education free of distractions, you are telling them that their bodies are distracting and that is a bad thing. I'm sorry but if shoulder blades are so distracting that high school boys cannot control themselves any longer, then I think there might be a deeper issue. Like how shoulder blades became sexual. I'm not being ridiculous by using shoulder blades as a point. Most high schools (mine included) prohibit girls from wearing spaghetti strap tank tops. If I remember correctly I was once told straps on tank tops had to be at least an inch. Excuse me, but who is going to go around and measure that? "I'm sorry, Sally,  your tank top straps are too thin, and John over there is about to die from the sexual tension between him and your very arousing shoulder blades."

Screw. That.

Telling girls they have a responsibility to wear certain items of clothing versus other options is telling them that being ogled at and possibly assaulted will be their fault if they made the wrong clothing choice. Telling young girls who are just getting in touch with their sexuality and developing their self image that if they wear short skirts that they are "inappropriate" and thus "slutty" is not going to make them feel good, it isn't going to stop providing distractions in school, and if anything, it is going to create more distractions because people are constantly judging what other people are wearing and if it doesn't fit within this pre-constructed idea of "good" that the school has set forth, then automatically the person inside of the outfit is a rebel, a slut, a girl your parents don't want you dating. And if a girl wears a skirt and looks "sexy" without trying, why is that her fault? And if she isn't pole dancing in the classroom, why is being sexy a bad thing? Teaching girls to have a positive view of their bodies and their budding sexuality should be being stressed in schools. After all, isn't high school supposed to prepare students for the real world? After 12 long years of girls being told that mini skirts are bad and strapless shirts are bad, and anything too tight is bad, they go into the real world and feel judged and dirty and bad when wearing anything against those dress codes. Why can I make that generalization? Because I can't wear my jeggings anymore without feeling mildly skanky because once, in high school, a male teacher asked if I didn't think my "pants aren't a little too tight?"

I'm sorry - wait, no I'm not - if you thinks my pants are too tight but I can breathe and I am comfortable and I don't feel like I'm being overtly sexual...in fact I didn't think anything inappropriate until you brought it up, teacher. And really, most of the time girls wouldn't be thinking about whether or not their outfits were sexy if school administrators weren't constantly policing girls to make sure that anything even hinting at sexy was immediately removed so the boys didn't get distracted. 

Because after all, boys will be boys, right?

NO.

It is not my job to not be a victim. It is not my job to worry about whether or not a boy can control himself if he sees too much of my thighs. It is not my job to worry about getting raped. It is the rapists job to not rape. It is the rapists job to control themselves. It is the rapists to make sure they do not rape me. It is not my job to avoid being raped and ogled at. It is my body. I own it. And school dress codes remove ownership of the body by employing the "modest is hottest" method of shaming girls into robotically wearing and doing whatever the school wants them to do in regards to sexuality.

The female body is not sinful, it doesn't determine her character, and it is not any more sexual than a man's body.

AND THE FEMALE BODY IS NOT A SEXUAL OBJECT FOR MEN TO ENJOY.

Why is that being stressed? Because boys don't have dress codes. Administrator's don't worry about what girls will do if a boy wears a bro tank that is so tight that their abs are defined. They don't penalize boys for wearing pants so tight we can see their junk (ew) and I don't hear about kindergarten boys being forcefully removed from outfits deemed to inappropriate for school. For some reason administrators who write dress codes are still under the delusion that boys cannot control their penises whenever they see a girl in something that might be kind of sexual, such a short skirt, or a shirt that shows a tad bit of cleavage. But being a boy doesn't mean anything except they have a different body part and a different gender.

By ensuring they we aren't wearing anything that might make a boy want to rape me, the boys will be boys excuse is not only being reinforced, but their ill behavior is then condoned and excuse me, but why are we really marveling about the high rate of rape and sexual assault?

By telling girls that they have to dress a certain way because they are at fault if they become a victim, you are telling boys that they are somehow not to blame for raping a girl. In the same breathe you are are classifying girls as sexual objects and condoning bad behavior from boys.

This is how we have rape culture. This is how we have victim blaming. This is how come boys find rape jokes funny. I'm not saying dress codes are completely to blame, I'm saying they are part of the problem. I understand not wanting a distracting environment for learning, but not at the cost it comes with. Yes, it is bad to wear underwear to school. Spaghetti straps and mini skirts that are long enough to cover a girls ass? I think one could probably let that one slide.Students go to school to learn. If all we are teaching young girls is that their bodies are bad, and showing skin makes them even worse, what are we accomplishing?

Today I Found Out I Was Plus-Sized

Caption reads: "Plus-size supermodel Robyn Lawley..."

Dear Cosmo,

Thank you so much for posting this photo on your Facebook page of your "plus-sized" model, Robyn Lawley. Now normally, I would just appreciate this photo of this flawless human being who isn't stick thin making it in the fashion industry. However, today I learned that anyone who isn't 97 pounds and curve-less is a plus sized model. Today I learned that I am a plus sized human being. Today I learned that average females are plus sized. That the fashion industry thinks that I, a girl who is comfortable with how I look, because my body is pretty similar to that of the model in this photo, is larger than normal.

For too long, I have been shopping in the junior section of the store, and buying petite sized clothing from the women's section. I understand now why I have such a hard time buying clothing. I'm not picky, I've been shopping in the WRONG SECTION. Thank you so much, Cosmopolitan, for enlightening me.

I now know that size five is gigantic and no longer will I be comfortable with myself when I look in the mirror and see my touching thighs and tiny bit of a belly pooch. I have suddenly realized that I am, in fact, fat.

Let's be serious for a second. Robyn Lawley is anything but plus sized. She looks like an average sized female. And also, to clarify, there is nothing wrong with being a plus sized human being or model. Because there are women who make it in the world of modeling who are plus sized and they are gorgeous. I mean, look at the woman to the left. She is stunning. And just as good of a model as any other girl who is more petite. But I digress.

Society is so turned around when it comes to body size that an average woman is now "heavy set". Any girl weighing more than 120 weighs too much, apparently. But as most of you hopefully realize, all sizes are beautiful sizes. We have finally reached a point in time when we are starting to realize that big is beautiful, but at the same time many people have come to the conclusion that skinny girls aren't real women. And that's not true either.

But just because we are starting to realize that big isn't bad doesn't mean media like this isn't harmful. While there is no single cause of eating disorders, many studies have found that a leading contributor to body dissociation and eating disorders is the media and their unrealistic expectations of the way that women should look. This definition of what a "real woman" is is harmful to women in more ways than one. Either we're too fat or too thin and we can't make society happy, and that sucks.

Let's break this down really simple. All people who identify as female are real women. Calling a clearly average sized female a plus sized model is bad. It shames women for being the size they are, even if they are perfectly healthy. Cosmo is perpetuating the idea that average is wrong, and thinning is winning and things like that. But then again, if we all were happy with the way we looked and who we are, how would they make any money?

You've lost a customer, Cosmopolitan Magazine.

Sincerely, 

Alexis The "Plus Sized" and Proud Girl

An Angry Letter about Food Stamps

Dear House Republicans,

I am writing this letter to let you know that I am unhappy with you. We both know this a normal thing, I generally disagree with a lot of things you do, but this time you have gone too far. Your recent decision to cut $40 billion from the food stamp budget shows just how ignorant you are about the needs of anyone who is not in the upper middle class.

When I was growing up my mother would not have been able to afford any food at all if we had not had food stamps. She didn't have a job, and no, she wasn't interested in finding one (a decision which I don't agree with, trust me). The only way she could afford food was to use food stamps. Without food stamps me and my three brothers would have starved, which honestly, since we already got such little money we almost nearly did, wouldn't have taken much. I know from experience how invaluable resources like food stamps are to people who don't have any money to buy food with.

And what irritates me the most is imagining the 16 million children who live in households that are below the poverty line that are going to go hungry if the Senate passes this bill. How are we, the supposed richest nation able to justify allowing that? Furthermore, 210,000 students will lose free lunch, which parents who can't afford school lunch rely on to make sure their students can get three meals a day. For me, lunch was the only guaranteed meal for many years.

And why is this cut happening? "Too many people are abusing the system" says House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But why not push for a reform? Why not work to create a system that can't be abused versus taking away an invaluable system altogether? And then they rush in and cry "it's the hard working middle class that has to pay for your abuse!" but here's the thing. 2.1 MILLION people, a number which consists mainly of low income seniors will end up not being able to buy food. Seniors who probably contributed to the working class for most of their lives.

And furthermore, cutting money from SNAP (food stamps) doesn't even make freaking sense because the program basically pays for itself, jerk faces. The Center on Budget Priorities has been quoted as saying "Economists consider SNAP one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus....in a weak economy every dollar increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 economic activity." AND!!! Get this. Only 1 out of every 100 dollars is actually trafficked (abused) so the argument that the program needs cuts because of abuse is a giant lie.

House Republicans, why you gotta play a low class like that? And the fact that you think that everyone on food stamps is sitting on their couches expecting a middle class citizen to fund their food expenses is complete crap, considering for every three unemployed adults there is one job opening. Want to help out the economy? Work on creating more jobs, not punishing those who can't find one.

If you don't want SNAP around anymore, why not raise minimum wage? Oh wait. You had the chance to do that back in March, but unanimously voted it down, even suggesting the idea of eliminating minimum wage altogether! This is what happens when there is such a large disconnect in socio-economic classes between the people and those who are chosen to represent them. House Republicans, you need to learn what it is like to live in a low class neighborhood from paycheck to paycheck PRAYING you can afford more than a package of top ramen after bills are paid.

Here's some other facts: The new bill would limit the amount of time one could receive food stamps to three months. So good luck, you can work a minimum wage job for three months and feed your family but then you have to miraculously become qualified enough to work a better job. And again, this bill will hurt children, more than anyone.

Yes our economy is unstable. Yes, we have budget problems, but my 11 year old sister, my 9 year old brother, my 7 year old self, we didn't cause those problems and we don't deserve to be punished for them. And when children are not getting proper nutrition, they aren't able to grow mentally or physically like they should. If the bill is passed, the four million kept above the poverty line because of assistance from food stamps, and the millions kept from falling deeper into poverty would be screwed.

Here's the thing, I don't know how to fix our economy, and I don't know how to balance things out so that we don't have to punish CHILDREN for our country's budget problems. But what I do know is that starving the roughly 14 million people that would be cut from food stamps in order to provide a solution is wrong. And you should all be ashamed of yourselves for even thinking that this would be okay.

Alexis

FYI (If you're Mrs. Hall)

Dear Mrs. Hall,

I have a few things to say to you in reply to your extremely self-righteous and offensive post from a few days ago. First I would like to start off with a loud, resounding, HOW DARE YOU?

How dare you try to make me and other girls feel shameful about the level of comfort we have with our bodies? Is it really a bad thing to feel comfortable enough in my own skin to post a picture of myself online? And who cares if you can see my nipples through my shirt? Maybe its cold in my room? If your boys don't know that girls have nipples then there is a lot more to worry about than my nipples being visible through my pajama top. Like, oh...biology. And why are you enforcing the already negative stigma that surrounds females and their bodies? I mean, Mrs. Hall, if I assume correctly because you go by "Mrs." and not "Mr." you too, are a female. And I'm sure that you dislike being told what to cover up as much as I do. And also, do you not watch any television shows from the 90's in your house, because there be nipples everywhere in those.

Is it not okay for me to post a selfie before bed? And why am I supposed to hold myself to YOUR standards of propriety when I was raised by completely different people and have completely different morals than you? And also, how is it fair that you assume just because a girl likes to pose with an arched back in her photos she's not a woman of character? I can guarantee that there are some photos of you doing something mildly seductive that were taken in your teenage years, Mrs. Hall, because everyone goes through that phase.

I agree with you on the fact that it is never okay to view someone only as a sexual object, because people are people who deserve care and respect, even if/when they post things like (your definition of) sexy pout selfies online. However, it is not within my power to control how your sons view me. I could be wearing a parka and snow pants with everything but my eyes covered and someone, somewhere would still find me sexually attractive. Also...how is it my responsibility to make sure your sons are having honourable thoughts about me? It isn't. At all. It is my job to make sure that I am portraying the me to the world that I want to be known as. If I want to be the girl who makes the cute little pout in her pictures, I will. I get to choose what sexual encounters I do or don't have, I portray myself sexually to the world, and whether or not the world hears about my sexual exploits. Not you, Mrs. Hall. My sexuality, my online presence, and my life is in my control. Not your self-righteous, slut shaming, hands.

And what is all this bullcrap about us being the reason men have such a hard time keeping their thoughts pure? I mean seriously? Did you really say that? Did you really try to make that point? That is the same mentality that brought rape culture into the world. "Well, because he is a boy and can only think with his genitalia, it must be the girls fault for the wildly inappropriate thoughts he has about her, because one time five years ago he saw her nipples through her shirt in a picture on Facebook and now all he sees her as is a sexual object. That's why he raped her". That type of thinking is why women are afraid to seek justice after they are raped, because men and women like you tell them that they, the victim, are somehow to blame because of what they are wearing. As if my basketball shorts and tank top are inviting men to rape me. As if I'm causing men to have impure thoughts and making their lives "an uphill battle to remain pure" because I want to wear a skirt occasionally.

And also - looking at someone's facebook as a family is freaking creepy. Yes, Jimmy, you can have a facebook but every time you check it we're all going to sit around the table and look at all the posts with you, so we can block any girl who isn't up to our standards. We don't want any ratchet whores on your profile, if you're associated with them we might not be viewed as Christian enough for me to write my post about skanky teenagers.

Also, Mrs. Hall, you directed your letter towards teenage girls. These girls are just now learning to express themselves through make-up, hair, internet, and they are fighting a daily battle to become who they want to be, and then you come along and tear them down because some girl's nipples were showing in her picture and instead of being gracious and loving (like a Christian is supposed to) you block her. And then you tell her it's not too late for you to forgive her from you throne made up of crushed egos and self-righteousness as long as she deletes any inappropriate links she may have shared as well as the offending selfies.

Who is this girls parent, Mrs. Hall? Not you. Let her parents worry about her. Let her parents express concern, privately, for whatever girl you are addressing in your post. You do not need to go onto a blog (on the internet) and shame her in front of your peers. Do you feel better after you do that? After you humiliate the girls your sons know do you feel a little bit of a high? Is it lonely at the top of your perfect little tower? And if you think the girl posting the selfie is loving and also smart, you should look for those things in her photos. And I like how you said "we think you are usually smart" like once a girl posts a photo you deem "too sexy" for your teenage boys' eyes she loses on IQ point.

You seem like a wonderful mother who only wants the best for her boys, but we, the targets of your letter, know or are finding out who we are and what is best for us. Let us do that on our own without all of your negativity.

Alexis

The World is Dumb

At what point will people on this planet stop for a moment and realize that hey, maybe they are doing something that really isn't good at all? Recently I posted a list of things that prove humanity isn't doomed, but today I'm not so sure, because if it isn't doomed, I think I wish it was.

Why? Why have I suddenly become so cynical and/or pessimistic? the 2016 Olympics, and the ignorance of people online. 

Let me explain. 

The 2016 Olympics are set to take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In preparation for the XXXI Summer Games, Brazil is building venues for all the events, parking lots, and generally prettying up their city so that when the world tunes in to watch all the events on television and when competitors show up from all over the world, Rio doesn't look like a complete hell hole. Too bad the site of the planned car parks was already an indigenous museum that doubled as home to 20 Aldeia Maracana families who been living in the building for seven years after the building was retired. On March 22 all the families and supporters of the group, who fought to stay in their home and preserve part of their history, were forcibly removed or arrested. Are the Olympics really so important that indigenous people need to have another part of their existence erased from the face of the planet? I mean, honestly, isn't there somewhere else to put a damn car park? Let's think about this. The Olympics literally do nothing to preserve anyone's history. It is neat to watch the best of the best from around the world compete, but it is not necessary to preserve the history of any one group of people. However, this museum, which the people living in wanted to restore and use a tourist attraction during the Olympics to showcase their traditional way of life, did indeed preserve a group's history. It showed where they came from, the struggles they faced and overcame as a people and now, now it is gone so that some 16 year old prodigy can win a gold medal. The trade off isn't worth it, Brazil. Hop in your Deloreans and go back in time to reverse this stupid action. 

Tumblr, if you haven't heard of it, you are so streets behind because its basically the future of social

networking sites if they would ever get a bloody instant messaging system going. Anyways. On tumblr, people will post anything they have heard and think is vaguely true that other people will then read and just accept as true without doing much research. Today I "learned" that in Greece they were rounding up trans* people into concentration camp type facilities, the Church of England was going to ban same-sex marriage, and that Russia was spreading anti-gay propaganda that made it dangerous to be a homosexual in that country.

Let me tell you what is ACTUALLY going on.

Greece is putting all of its illegal immigrants in one location, which could be defined as camps, but they come with food, water, beds, and various forms of entertainment. The purpose of these camps is for illegals to sort out their paperwork and become legal citizens or to get them back to their country of origin. The Church of England dropped its opposition to the passing of the same sex marriage bill after they were extremely outvoted in the House of Lords. So, that's wrong, and it has been wrong for about a month now. Russia recently passed a bill that outlawed anti-gay propaganda so that it would be safer to live as a homosexual in Russia. Dear readers, you can't believe everything you read on the internet, least of all when it comes from tumblr.

You also shouldn't pay any mind to the senate when it comes to women's issues because they are completely incapable of discussing anything when it comes to women's bodies and what should be done with them. Here's what should be done about women's bodies, senate, nothing. Let women do whatever they want with their own bodies, especially when the senate is currently a predominantly male group who will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or birth control or worrying about whether or not they can get the morning after pill because they won't know whether its legal or not. Senate, stop making women stand for 13 hours without being allowed to use the bathroom, eat, lean on anything, sit down or use a back brace in order to strike down a debate directly related to our anatomy. Male readers, if you walked into a room full of women debating whether or not you should be allowed to masturbate into a sock or napkin or anything, really, because technically you're killing potential children, would you be upset? Yes, you would be. And why? Why would you be upset? Because none of those women have penises. My point being, no uterus, no opinion.

And then there is Supreme Court who did a really cool thing by defining DOMA as unconstitutional, but then went and struck down the key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which stated that nine specific states, mostly in the south, had to seek advance federal approval before changing voting laws. Obama has stated that he is very unhappy with his decision, as the first Black President, that means a lot. I honestly believe that the VRA probably helped a lot of the minorities who voted him into office have enough freedom, and confidence and general feelings of safety to vote for someone who wouldn't be so popular down in the southern states. I mean, this decision made such little sense that Justice Ruth Vader did a very rare and unusual thing and stated her disagreement from the bench, saying that Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy and America's commitment to justice had been "disserved by today's decision." And I can do nothing but agree. The VRA allowed for progress in racial equality in America, and until complete equality is achieved I believe that the Voting Rights Act is necessary.

While our planet continues to make leaps in bounds in certain areas, I find that usually these leaps and bounds are made by citizens who have no part or influence in our governing bodies. If the people who supposedly have "our best interests in mind" could maybe catch up to these outstanding individuals, I would be a happier human being with more faith in the future.

Alexis Olmstead is a part time armchair activist who believes very strongly in her opinion and will debate with you as long as you're respectful and intelligent

Racism Related Rant

I honestly don't get racism. I mean, especially when comes from those of the Caucasian persuasion. My fellow white brethren, I hope you realize that America is quickly becoming a country full of minorities, which would technically make them the majority and us the minority. So...pick on someone your own size and all that good stuff.

As of June 1st the population of America was reported to be 316,037,000. While White Americans (including those who reported as White+Latino) still make up 72% of the population, over 50% of the infants in America are minorities and 69% of the national population growth was from the Hispanic and Latino American groups. There are so many non-white people in the United States right now that immigrants, U.S. born descendants, and minorities are expected to contribute most of the countries population growth in the coming years. Why am I spitting random facts and figures your direction, reader? Because if White racists think that they can justify their beliefs based on the fact that "there are more of us than them" then they are wrong. And I like to prove stupid people wrong. Americans hate the fact that a small group of people decides so much of what goes on in our country, yet they then turn around and try to play the majority rules card when it comes to deciding how people of colour should be treated.

Sidenote: there are 3.2 million more females in America than men. Patriarchy also doesn't make sense on the "majority rules" scale.

White racists may enjoy thinking that this is "their country" and that "they were first" but they are quick to forget who they took this country from. How can someone be so angry that non-English speaking people come into America and refuse to learn or have a hard time learning English when Europeans came to America, absolutely refused to learn any of the 500 different Native languages and then forced the Natives to give up the traditional language of their people and learn English instead? I mean, are they just upset that people are tired of having one of the hundreds of the languages on this Earth forced upon them and are happy speaking Spanish or Russian or Chinese or French?

I mean, honestly, as far as racists go, they have NO room to talk about people of colour needing to "go home". Y'all are the ones who need to go back home, to Europe, where you came from. And take your ethnocentrism with you.

In all seriousness, though, racism towards other groups doesn't make sense at all because we're all equal and human and just because you are white doesn't mean you are entitled to anything except maybe my boot up your butt if you continue behaving in your racist ways, least of all a whole country which you stole from another people, who you then WIPED ALMOST COMPLETELY OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. But also, because when you say people like African-Americans need to go back home, you sound like an idiot. Who brought African-Americans to America? White people who were so lazy that they bought and enslaved an entirely different race so they wouldn't have to cook their own meals. Furthermore, if you don't like another human being solely based upon the colour of their  skin, you need to get your priorities straightened out.

Colour sorting is for laundry, not people. Also, if you're a racist Christian then there a few things we need to talk about. First, as a Christian, you are supposed to extend love to everybody, regardless of colour. Second, there is a widely believed theory that Jesus wasn't white, so if that turns out to be true, your spiritual life just got real awkward, real quick.

Stop colour sorting people in your life, if you're a racist and you happen to be reading this. I'm trying to be all deep and everything, but honestly, if you don't have respect for somebody because their skin colour is different than yours, then I don't have respect for you and neither do a lot of other people. And just for the record there is absolutely no excuse to be a racist, even if you are 100% native to the country in which you live. And if you are doing something racist and someone has the decency to correct you and tell you what you are doing is racist, you should definitely not get angry with them, you should thank them for being the kind, enlightening soul that they are. Because the only thing worse than being a racist is being an ignorant one.

Also, for the record, appropriating someone else's culture is indeed racism. I'm looking at you, headdress wearing hipsters, girls who wear their hair in braids and then say they are "being Pocahontas"and people who
wander around aimlessly in Hawaiian skirts. If White people took the right from people of colour to do/wear the thing you are doing/wearing then you shouldn't be do it.

Racism freaking sucks. A lot. Don't be a racist. Or I won't like you. And if you don't think that carries much weight, just remember I have a blog on the internet that people read and if I tell them not to like you, they won't. I think.

Alexis Olmstead is a part time hostess, failed poet, attempted children's book author, and a full time angry blogger. For more rants, reviews, and general words typed into a big blank box, check back often, such as every few days or so. 

Dear Disney, I Am Disappointed.

Once upon a time there was this company called Disney who had this elite group within them known as the "Disney Princesses". You know who they are, so I'm not going to take the time to list them.

Recently, however, Disney decided to do something really stupid and redesign their leading ladies. Now did they update their wardrobe or hair? No. They let a five year old armed with glitter loose on the princesses and then forced them to go on strict diets of only red apples and happy thoughts. So now, the princesses are ridiculously glittery and thin. And for what purpose?

I understand updating characters to make them relevant in today's world. Many companies and characters undergo these modernizations in order to maintain their competitive foothold in the entertainment industry. But it's not like the princesses needed modernized. The first Disney princess was Snow White. She has looked exactly the same since the Fifties and her character has yet to fade into obscurity. Thousands of little girls, heck, maybe even millions of little girls, dress up every year as the OLD Disney princesses. Now their costumes are going to come with a bedazzler and a corset.

Besides the fact that glitterfying even the non-fem princesses is insulting to their characters and goes against the whole "stay true to yourself" thing, advertising the princesses as thinner could end up being harmful to certain members of the Disney Princess audience, especially those who aren't, say, a toothpick. My showing young girls that average sized Cinderella isn't good enough to enjoy a consistent look, Disney is showing that if you're not a size zero and covered in glitter, you aren't good enough.

Now considering while I was growing up one of the biggest things Disney plugged away at was positive self image, I find it incredibly ironic that they would market a group of princesses that would show little girls that being yourself is okay as long as you're a size two.

Plus look what they did to Pocahontas. I am disappoint.

You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?

Those things on Facebook that people share that should be researched first or really thought about. Let's really talk about this, with a few of my favorite (least favorite) graphics that I've ever seen.

Let us look at this timeless classic that addresses the second amendment rights we are guaranteed through the Constitution. Now recently there has been a lot of posts showing up in my news feed stating that this right is being threatened. Why? Because recently Obama started pushing for high capacity magazines to be banned. Which means that civilians can no longer purchase them. Now why is that an issue? Let me see. It really shouldn't be an issue, because in reality, it would decrease fatalities in mass shootings or shootings in general since there are multiple cases where the shooter was stopped when they had to stop to reload. Now if they had to stop to reload after five rounds rather than 13, I think a lot less people would be dead. Also, let's take a second to realize that asking civilians to give up their rights is not asking them to hand over their rifles, which, in cause you don't know, dear reader, is a single shot firearm. Congratulations on being ignorant, and trying to whip America into a frenzy about our Constitution being "violated", original poster. You, creator, are an idiot.

Next up is this graphic that is about Brian Terry being murdered by Drug Cartels using weapons they acquired during Operation Fast & Furious. This operation did not result in a border war, and it also was not an attack on our second amendment rights. Seriously, people. Not everything is an attack on our second amendment rights, stop trying to make every person who dies a martyr for your redneck arguments about how the President is trying to take your guns. The purpose of Operation Fast & Furious was to track down Mexican drug cartels. Also, the Operation immediately ended after Officer Terry was murdered. Thank you.


This particular misuse of a Peanuts cartoon upsets me greatly as well. Let's talk about things here. First of all, yes, gas prices are going up, the job market is crap, and it costs a lot to heat houses. However, none of these things have to do with the fact that religion has been removed from places of public education, government, and a commercialized holiday. Want me to explain? No? Too bad. There is a good reason religion is no longer being forced upon students. Because people in a position of authority over other people should NOT be telling them what to believe especially when that person holds someone else's grades and success in their hands. Gas prices are also not determined by religion or belief in God or anything like that. Gas prices are determined, most basically, by supply and demand. In reality, the amount of prices that are determined by religion are probably zero. I mean, a strong argument for Bibles could be made, but I'm also sure that's supply and demand. Also, let's celebrate the separation of church and state, because belief in a higher power is important to a lot of people, like me, but then again, a large majority of people do not. I don't think its correct that people want to mix church and state when all it would cause is more fighting in the country as we would then have to choose which church governed America, and then had to deal with a whole lot of Atheists who don't want to be told what to do by a God they don't believe exists. Many people need a higher power in their life, but not all of them. Also, America, not God, can fix these problems. We have not fallen out of God's grace as this suggests, people have just resorted to yet another form of scapegoating.

If there is a point here, it would be that before you share random posts on Facebook, THINK FIRST BECAUSE USUALLY THEY AREN'T LOGICAL AT ALL AND THEY MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A HUGE IDIOT.

Things just got so serious I had to all caps lock. But I'm serious, folks. Think you before you post. It will save you a lot of face palming later.

Alexis Olmstead is a very frustrated individual who regularly posts about things that grind her gears. She would post a link here to that series, but chances are, if you're a human being or anything that is alive, chances are she has blogged about you. Especially you. For more YKWRGMG check out her blog more often. 

The 6 Phrases I Hate Hearing.

This isn't in any particular order, I just listed them as I got irritated.

6. "I'm not gay but I support gay rights."

What I actually hear: "Well, my friends are gay, but I don't want anyone to think I'm gay."

Just for the record, if you have to clarify that you're not gay before stating you support gay rights, how much do you REALLY support the lgbt community? I mean really, "I'm not a dog, but I support their right to have owners who don't beat them". "I'm not an AIDS patient, but I support AIDS research". Doesn't that sound ridiculous? It does. Almost as ridiculous as "I'm not gay but I support gay rights".

If you are so ashamed of a movement that every time you show support you have to add the disclaimer "I'm not actually part of this group" then you need to re-evaluate your support. Furthermore, god forbid people think you're a part of the group you show support for. Why not just leave your sexual orientation out of the equation when declaring your support, instead of adding an invisible #nohomo to the end of it. Believe it or not, injecting straightness into into the frame of gay rights actually HURTS the lgbt movement, rather than helping it.

If you are truly an ally that means you are willing to embrace the pains of people who support a cause that isn't supported by the majority. It means that you deal with people thinking that you're gay even if you're not, because why is that something to be ashamed of? Take your sexual preference out of your support statements and actually help the cause.

5. Rape Jokes. Any Rape Jokes at All.

What I actually hear: "I'm totally okay with the fact that every 2 minutes someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted. Also, I'm a giant ass."

I want to meet the guy who used the word rape casually for the first time. I want to go to the moment when he jokingly stated that he was raped by something and then shank him before he (or she) spreads this filthy trend throughout the world. Making jokes about something traumatic isn't funny. 

Making jokes about something implies that you think it is funny. If you think rape is funny, then make jokes about it, but know that you are a disgusting human being. If you don't think rape is funny, then don't make rape jokes, simple as that. 

Now please understand that this is not me being an "uptight female who has no sense of humour". In fact, I'm quite the opposite. However, I fail to find the funny part of unwanted, forced intercourse. And I doubt I ever will. 

Also, jokingly threatening to rape someone isn't funny in any context. In fact, if someone ever comes up to me and says they are going to rape me, joking or not, I will report them to police. Because rape is serious. And no one should ever joke about it. 

4. "Are you on your period?"

What I Actually Hear: "I can't think of any other reason as to why you might be upset other than the fact that you get hormonal and moody once a month due to your gender. Yes, I also equate all your other moods to your gender because I'm an idiot."

I'm sure a lot of girls can relate here, but when people attribute my bad mood to the fact that I may be on a period I get really upset. I'm sorry, am I only allowed to be in a bad mood 7 days out of every month? No. I'm allowed to be angry whenever I damn well please. And if any of you read my rant post, you'll know I get angry quite a lot. So attributing my revulsion of the human race to my period is not only insulting but also rude. 

Basic point here - girls can be moody when they aren't on their period! If you didn't know that before, you know it now!

3. "You ____ Like a Girl".

What I actually hear: "I still believe that women are the inferior gender. And I'm an idiot."

For the record, girls get stuff done. Like seriously, you can thank a woman for the internet you're reading this post on. You can thank a woman for being alive, because she gave birth to you, and you can thank a woman for the cellphone you use, anti-fungal antibiotics, and chocolate chip cookies. 

And for the record if you think that women are the weaker sex, let me remind you that the pain from giving birth is traumatic that the brain actually shuts out the memory. So women know it felt bad, like really, really bad and painful, but they will never EVER remember just how painful it was. What can men compare to that? Nothing except for getting shot. 

Want to hear more about how stupid this statement is? Read my post on it. 

2. "Just Get Over It"

What I actually hear: "I don't care that you're upset and it would be easier on me if you just moved on".

People get upset. That's a valid emotion - sadness or anger or whatever upset means. And if someone trusts you, they will confide in you as to why you're upset. Your response, as the person they have trusted enough to handle their feelings when they are at an emotional low should NEVER be "just get over it". 

Why? Because it immediately invalidates their feelings. Telling someone who is upset to just get over it won't help. If a friend comes to you for advice and you can't say anything except this, you're a terrible friend. There is always better advice to give. Or don't give any advice at all, just give them a hug. 

Be useful when people ask you for help, not a prat.

1. "You're Too Young".

What I actually hear: "I doubt your ability to achieve this thing because I don't understand how someone can achieve something at a younger age than what I achieved it at."

I understand that sometimes people are actually too young to do something. Such as my 11 year old sister being too young to date. She will also be too young to date until she turns 35. But that's besides the point. When a young person sets out to achieve something, don't dull their shine, or crush their hopes by doubting their capability because of their age. 

In fact, children are intensely capable. Akrit Jaswal from India performed his first surgery at the age of seven.  Mozart made his debut as a musical genius at the age of four. Chopin achieved notability at the age of 15. Micheal Kearney was a professor at a college by 17. All children. All amazing. 

Age isn't a limit on very many things. I know that I've listed some pretty big anomalies to child development, since most aren't ready to learn college material, let alone to teach it by 17. But that doesn't mean that they still can't do great things, or achieve smaller things on the path to greatness later on while they are still young. By telling a child now that they can't achieve something because of their age, you are starting them down a road filled with excuses as to why they can't achieve anything later on.

No one is ever too young. They just don't have anyone to believe in them.

Equal Rights ≠ Equal Treatment

      I once got asked out on a date by a guy everyday for two solid months. Every day I turned him down and explained that I was not interested in him. Without fail the next day after class he would ask me out again. And when I finally lost my cool because he wouldn't leave me alone and told that we would never ever go on a date (like ever) you know what I got called? A slut. Also a tease. And a few other words that were thrown at me that had nothing to do with my behaviour at all. Because the entire time I had not been rude to him, led him on, or done anything that would allow him to call me a slut, which even if I had he still wouldn't have had the right. But guess what happened the next day? He asked me out again. In front of an audience, which meant he played on my sympathies to get me to finally see a movie with him, knowing full well that I wouldn't turn him down in front of a large crowd because normally, public humiliation is not my thing. 
      Was he in the right? No, not at all. And if our roles had been reversed, I would be labeled as the creepiest female to ever walk the streets of Omak. Because if guys obsess over a female and refuse to take a hint and move on it's romantic and cute because they persevere and in the end they will be rewarded with a female of their choosing, because men don't have to actually deserve to have a female companion in their life or even necessarily need to woo women, they just get them because they are men and that's way it works, right? Oh. Wait. That's not how it works and it makes most of them pretty angry once they realize that women, contrary to movies and television endings, are not prizes that one acquires for being manly. Women are people too! (gasp. faint. fetch smelling salts etc.)     Now I know that women have equal rights as men and such, but lets just walk out on a limb and define equal rights as "equal rights". Because women can hold the same jobs as men, major in the same things and have the same rights and freedoms, but we aren't treated the same way, not at all. When I tell people I'm majoring in English the phrase "M R S degree" is mentioned in the conversation at least once, unless I'm talking to a fellow English major or someone with half a brain. If a man majors in English he is poetic, more attractive because he is insightful, yada yada yada. A woman can be a hairdresser, but if a man is a hairdresser, or a stylist, or in the fashion journalism industry (all things stereotypically feminine) he is more likely to rise to the top and be more successful than a woman in the same industry, with the same (and sometimes maybe even better abilities) and get paid more than said woman. 

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan

     On a semi-related note: his success will have nothing to do with how attractive or unattractive he is. I can feel people rolling their eyes at this sentence (and maybe even this entire post) as I type it. Seriously guys, stop rolling your eyes, it is rude. But I'm not joking. People (people meaning mostly men but also a large group of women and I'm not saying I don't occasionally do this either) tend to decide whether or not a woman is capable of a job based on how she looks. Is that right? No. The only field of work that I'm aware of that depends on its employees being attractive is the fashion industry and then again, only the people in front of the camera need to be hot (excuse me - haute). NOT I repeat NOT in other fields of work such as law, and honestly I don't care what oh, let's say the Supreme Court Justice looks like, but apparently some folks on the internet really don't think Elena Kagan is worthy of her job just because in their opinion "This person is so disgusting and I would never trust it's opinion on anything".  Because apparently, the way a woman looks is a tell tale sign of whether or not one can trust her. I'm not just talking about jobs in the corporate or law or medical fields either. Men who are less than attractive (I'm looking at you, Mick Jagger) can become famous. Females have to be drop dead gorgeous and ready to grace the cover of a magazine at any moment or its a no go for the whole fame thing (and then again they aren't pretty enough but I'll talk about that later). Overweight male actors get to have story lines free of anything to do with their weight (think Josh from Drake and Josh).  Larger female actors don't get the same treatment. As soon as they hit the screen the self depreciating humour begins. Think Rebel Wilson's "Fat Amy" from Pitch Perfect and Melissa McCarthy's "Megan" from Bridesmaids. 
        As far as I've been able to tell, in the past 19 years of my life women have gotten equal rights, but are still looking for equal treatment. I sick of the whole "but you're the fairer/gentler sex" argument and stuff like that. Seriously? We give birth, which causes pain so traumatic that we can't actually remember how bad the pain was because the brain won't allow us to. The only way men will EVER feel that amount of pain is if they get shot. Fairer/gentler sex my foot. I'm tired of all the excuses regarding why men get decide whether or not I can have an abortion or get birth control. Why are men making those decisions? Seriously? Are they THAT worried about not being able to produce heirs? Oh wait, this isn't the dark ages anymore. I'm tired of being told that I can do anything that I want with my life in any career path but hearing the unspoken phrase "you'll never make as much as a man" because even if I get a Bachelor's or a Master's degree, I would still make the same amount of money as a man who is one degree level behind me. Lovely. 
     I mean honestly, there's a reason that women used to write under male pen names. Because whatever comes from the hands of a woman is bound to be silly and romantic. I'm tired of women's achievements being boiled down to their sexuality and appearance when in reality we're just a big group of bad-asses with boobs. I mean, take Cleopatra for instance. Everyone talks about how she was an intense seductress and only recognize her for how much time she spent between the sheets, but in reality, she was actually a great ruler who controlled Egypt, most of the Mediterranean coast, and one of the largest fortunes in the world. But why is she remembered by her sex life if she was so awesome? Because she's a woman. 
    Men and women alike need to start giving women equal treatment. Men need to stop looking at the things women do as inadequate compared to their work and women need to stop viewing themselves as inadequate because they leave the load of malarkey that "its a man's world". The world is anyone's for the taking, and women need only be given a chance to prove that they are every bit as good as men and can do just as good at any particularly job as men can, and usually in heels. Cliche's aside, I'm actually quite serious. We have lived in this world with the mentality (even if its purely subconscious) that women are second rate. Let's all work together to create a world where everyone is given the same rights AND treatment, not just either/or. 

Fame

Who is more famous? Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson? I was recently asked this question by my two roommates who were asking for an opinion from someone who, as a citizen of this country, should be able to figure out the answer to such a question.

But how do you pit the King of Rock and Roll against the King of Pop? How do you honestly answer whether "Elvis the Pelvis" is more famous than the man who invented the moonwalk or vice versa?

You can't, because being famous during Elvis' day is much different than being famous during the time when Michael Jackson skyrocketed to fame. Elvis had television and Radio and records. Michael Jackson had television, radio, music videos, later on the internet, and he was adorable when he started out.

And to become famous in today all one has to do is be ridiculous or pretty or funny enough to achieve a small amount of fame, which could result in larger things. Take for example Darren Criss, who is best known among the general public as Blaine on Fox's Glee. However, Darren first became famous as Harry Potter, the boy under the stairs in his college production of A Very Potter Musical which was performed by a group known as "the Starkids" and made overnight stars of them all. Darren put covers of Disney songs on Youtube, starred in another Starkid musical and gradually became more and more famous until reaching Glee, starring on Broadway, and singing for the President.

Or Justin Beiber and Colbie Caillet, both discovered on the internet. People are getting famous for less, and staying famous for longer because of the internet. And honestly, they don't make 'em like they used to anymore.

Let's face it, Darren Criss is beautiful and has the voice of an angel but be's no Frank Sinatra or Marlon Brando. And Justin Beiber is certainly no Danny Kaye (partially because Justin can't act).

The definition of fame includes the phrase "notable achievements". If that phrase must be included why are there celebrities such as Honey Boo Boo, Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton? None of them have done anything worthy of being called "notable". A backwards little girl, a woman most famous for her sex tape and  the woman who inspired Kim Kardashian to make a sex tape have done NOTHING to be called notable and yet they are famous and me, who runs a blog who has 1,000 hits (go me!) and have won numerous academic awards am not famous yet.

Aren't my achievements notable? I need more people to recognize these things so I become famous for absolutely nothing as well.

I think what irritates me the most about the current lot of celebrities is that I meet more people in my day to day journey through life that would be better deserving of fame and fortune than a large portion of the people I see on the television. I met a man at the bus stop once who could sing classic jazz like nobodies business. Let's remove Snooki from television and replace her with a show about the man who stands at the bus stop and sings.

I don't quite remember what the original intention of this post was, but I do know this. While there are many great musicians, actors, and actresses in the spotlight today, there are so many people in everyday walks of life who dream of fame and will never achieve it, but should. If only people got famous for being talented like they did back in Elvis' day.

That would be the life.

Labels.

Our world is full of labels. There are labels that come from the lifestyles one leads, relationship statuses,  the hobbies one partakes in, and some unfortunate people are labeled only by the opinion the general populous has of them.

But lets take a moment and examine why these labels are necessary. I mean honestly, I already have a name. It's Alexis Olmstead and I would prefer it if that was my identifier. Not "that geeky cheerleader" or "theatre nerd" or "Wanda's granddaughter" or "Russell's daughter" or "Drew's girlfriend". Because while I'm all of those things and more, I feel like they simplify me down to one thing. I'm not only a cheerleader, or theatre brat or family member of more recognizable people or girlfriend of a very fortunate Mac Man, but I'm also bookish, eccentric (or just plain weird), outgoing, easily amused, moody, loud, quiet, the list of my qualities goes on and on. But too often people's qualities and hobbies become the box they are stuck in. This is also true of one's religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic class, and IQ. What once started out as part of a person become that whole being.

What happened to the whole sum of our parts thing? Sum, not exclusive choice of the most obvious one.

But what really irritates me the most about labels or identifiers, is that a lot of times they come from a negative direction and they are unwanted by the person they are thrust upon, like the nickname Lex Luther that some random guy plastered on me one day during study period. I mean, yeah, being labeled as a cheerleader sucks when the only connotation of it is a negative one with airhead being a synonym, but I can't imagine what being called a queer or something worse on a daily basis feels like.

Believe it or not, the labels we thrust upon people are very often the labels that make them decide to hate themselves. The girl you decide is a slut today could be the suicide case on page 5 tomorrow. Obviously I'm dealing in extremes here, but even the extreme has a possibility to happen.

So let's not label people, okay? Put the label gun down and see people for their qualities and not their identifiers.

A Criticism of Modern Day Colloquies and Literature

While at an international student event with my roommate and friends on Wednesday I encountered not one, but two really great conversations that led to this post. One was about literature, one was about conversation, and both of them were based off of the point that in today's world, words are quickly losing meaning. I could talk about this in one of two ways, eloquently and maturely, like the title suggests I might, or with children's stories that I make up on the spot. Seeing as I think everything can be explained with a good children's story, I think I shall choose the latter of the two.

Conversation: Back in the time before internet, computers, or modern phones, people really knew how to talk to each other. You may think that people talk now more than ever because there are things like texting and Facebook to keep the world connected, but really, that's not talking. That's people exchanging shortened versions of words back and forth that rarely mean anything. But back in your grandparent's time, a group of people could sit in a room together and have a conversation based on something besides what they saw on the internet. A conversation that meant something. And since there was no texting or emails or Facebook chat they wrote letters, and everything they said meant something because letters took so long to get from one place to another. Words were used and not wasted. But then along came internet and cellphones and basically modern technology and phrases such as "k" and "lol" were accepted as parts of conversation. When talking with people it was very easy to bring up Facebook in normal conversation, and social networking sites were impossible to stay away from in day to day exchanges. This would not necessarily be a bad thing, if a devolution of vocabulary hadn't simultaneously occurred. To show you what I mean, I present: a sample conversation. 

How R U?

Gr8. U?

Ok. 

Where u @?

skool. 

k c u in a sec. :)

 You may not believe me, but people really talk like that now. What happened to great conversations where all included parties departed with new wisdom? I'm not saying that these conversations still don't happen, but  they aren't as prevalent, and in my experience most conversation today is a contest who can talk the most and say the least at the same time. Let's change that, world. Let's bring back communication that doesn't exclusively happen through technology. Technology is a barrier to communication and the only way to break it down is through face to face interaction having a conversation about the news, the weather (it's snowing), sports, intellectual pursuits, life, and good literature. 

Speaking of good literature, let's talk about how bad writing has gotten recently. Since when is it okay for a poorly written BDSM Twilight fan fiction to end up topping the New York Best Seller list? In fact, it topped best seller lists around the world! Let me revise that. Since when is it okay that the entire erotic series be on the top of the NY Best Seller List? That spot used to be saved for books that actually meant something and were well written to boot. Think Ernest Hemingway, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, John Grisham, Kurt Vonnegut, J.K. Rowling, Tolkien, and that's only a sampling. What's more, how did Twilight end up on the best seller list? Okay, I know how, it sold a lot of books. But why? It's poorly written, with a sketchy, predictable plot, and a million other things that are just awful. People are accepting rot for literature, and it needs to stop. I am all for modern literature, don't get me wrong. Looking for Alaska is one of my favorite books, and I would think that it's pretty modern. The Harry Potter Series grew along with an entire generation of people world wide, and there are so many more examples of great novels that have been written with the "modern literature" category that was born between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

However, the "they don't make 'em like they used to sentiment" greatly applies here. Where literature is concerned, books should be written for quantitative purposes, not qualitative. It's wonderous if a particular author has published at least 154 sonnets, but if none of those sonnets are very good, why even publish them*? A good book should teach the reader something. Books have the power to inspire and teach, to leave the reader with a new perspective on life, and potentially to change a life. with the books being published recently, that's not going to happen.

Why do I say this? Well, here's my reasoning. Recently I watched a video about writing and how every new writer goes through a period of "sucking" or just generally being a bloody terrible author. As aspiring (or new) authors everyone needs to embrace that period of time and realize that even though you have a potentially great story doesn't mean you should just throw it out into the world poorly written and underdeveloped. Authors need to give themselves time to suck, and embrace the suckiness of their writing along with it. Practice, spend years developing books, ideas, plots, characters, doing research and then, THEN great modern literature will potentially be born.

These observations have been made through my literature snob lenses, but I can't help but thinking that there is some validity to them. As a community we can only hope to move forward with literature and conversation, lest the world ends up like a scene from Idiocracy. 

*If you realized I was referencing Shakespeare, find me. We're best friends now. Also, in case you were wondering, all 154 of those sonnets were golden.

So...About Taylor Swift....

She's pretty, she's got catchy music, parents want their little girls to look up to her because in interviews she preaches acceptance and being confident in oneself and yada yada yada.

But let's look at the More-Pop-Than-Country Princess from a different perspective. T. Swifty is actually a tad bit of a hypocrite. And by a tad bit, I mean, she's a big hypocrite, and also, she's a slut shamer, which isn't really that great either. In fact, I have a few reasons why I don't really like Taylor Swift and I know there may be a lot of disagreement

First let's look at the hypocrisy angle. On her album "Speak Now" her song "Mean" is all about being oh so done with a person with a person who is absolutely terrible to her, and making sure that they know someday they will regret treating her so badly and talking smack about her music. Yeah, cool. Empowering. But it is quickly followed by another song that is all about a girl who stole her boyfriend, and she's "better known for the things she does on the mattress." That's not nice, AND its slut shaming. Yeah, maybe she does have a lot of sex. But why do you care, Taylor? And also, if I recall, "You Belong With Me" is a whole song about how much you want to steal some girls boyfriend. So why is it okay for you to do it? There's this thing called "The Golden Rule" and you should look it up. Because you obviously forgot all about it, or never learned it or something, I don't even know.

Ugh. I can't believe you wore those heels. So terrible.

I don't know Taylor, those are awfully short

Also, on the "You Belong With Me" note, in that song she criticizes the other girl for wearing short skirts and high heels, as well as being a cheerleader. Let's take a moment to point out what Taylor Swift usually wears, because its not jeans and sneakers. In fact, in most of her appearances, Taylor is usually sporting a shorter dress and some very over the top heels. I actually don't care, because I think she has a cute style. But you can't criticize females for wearing something and then go and wear it....also. And why does what a girl wear and what activities she participates in determine her morality? Obviously the band geeky, glasses wearing, bench warming version of Taylor in the YBWM video is more deserving of male attention because you're not a harlot like that other girl....I mean, if its okay for you to be a girly girl, why can't she? I don't get it. I have many other issues with that song like how it casts cheerleaders in the negative role (again) as well as any girl who embraces her sexuality, but we'll let this argument go to bed.

I'm also just really sick of her music that is overplayed and all the same. She has made a living off of writing trash talk set to music and most of it involves the virgin/whore dichotomy. And in the chance it doesn't involve that, there is either a break-up involved, or she's demonstrating her superb clinginess as a girlfriend. And in the event that she's pining after someone, she writes music about stealing someone's man. But as stated before, she really doesn't like it when people do that to her. But I doubt she'll be finding a new song topic soon, so we're doomed to hear her make the same mistakes over and over again. As VH1 put it

"She’s like one breathless, blond version of Groundhog Day – every time we see her she’s doing the same exact thing, and it’s grown damn old real fast."

         - Kate Spencer for VH1

On a really nit picky note, she also uses being a homosexual as an insult in her popular song "Picture to Burn". Not okay. I mean, you could spread all sorts of rumours about this guy who dumped you, but why are you resorting to telling people he's gay? First of all, I don't see how that's an issue, and second of all, you could be coming up with an actual reason to stay away from him, like, he has crabs or something. Let's be creative here, Tay.

And say what you want, but when I like an artist, I expect them to be just as good live as they are on the album that I spend my hard earned money. But that's just not true with Taylor Swift. Does anyone recall the time when she sang with the legendary Stevie Nicks and was off-key the entire time? Or how about any concert that she has ever sung at and been flat. Seriously girl. You write the music. You should be able to sing it. ESPECIALLY when they stick Stevie Nicks behind you. I wasn't okay with that arrangement in the first place, but you just made it worse.

And how many times can she make that face? You KNOW what I'm talking about. Cool, you won an award, but once you win I don't know. twenty seven in the same night, the face gets a tad old. And not to mention, fake. It's like when the most popular girl in the school wins prom queen and acts surprised. Its a bit patronizing and I know I'm not the only who is tired of it. Well, that and you flipping your hair around. How many more times are you going to do that? Because I'm waiting for you to severely hurt your neck or something. Just be careful, and hopefully you have a person holding a neck brace on standby.

Essentially, my dislike of Taylor comes from deep seeded hatred of hypocrisy and monotony. There I said it. And that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The Truth? You Can't Handle The Truth!

Dear Ladies of the World,

I'm sure that you'll agree with much of this.

Dear Men,

If you didn't know something contained in this post, I'm sorry.

Love, Alexis.

So as a female there is a certain time of month where I eat more than usual, I cry more than usual, humanity is more annoying than usual, and a small alien tries to claw its way out of my uterus. I'm not even kidding about that last bit. I'm convinced that there is an alien in my uterus. Anyways. This time of the month is commonly known as "having ones period" and it happens to most females. This is not, I repeat NOT a happy time. However, that is not what advertisements would have the general non-period having public believe. It cracks me up. So today we will be examining some things that happen in period commercials and then what actually happens.

Always brand has a really famous slogan. If you can't quote it, chances are, you're not a female, or you don't have a television. Anyways, "Have a Happy Period." Has been the slogan of this popular tampon brand for ages. Along with print ads like this:

Now that's a metaphor. 

So the whole point of this ad is to let you know that always brand pads bend and twist with the wearer. They follow up by wishing women "a happy period". Yeah. No. First of all....I admire any female that can touch their toes on their period. I can pull my leg over my head and do all sorts of crazy things but the minute I start having cramps have fun trying to get me to even stand up. We don't really need a pad that bends and twists with us....we need a pad that isn't so visible...just saying. And of course, this is my chance to address the blue water. What the heck is with the blue water? I mean, I know its so that we can tell what is being absorbed and everything, but blood and water do NOT have the same consistency  So unless I'm going to wear a pad in order to use it like a diaper, that whole demonstration does nothing for me.

I hope your tampon doesn't leak
you'll get eaten by a shark!

And then of course, we have tv and print ads which show the magical activities a female will do while on their period, if utilizing a certain brand of tampons or pads. If I use Playtex Sport I'll be unstoppable, and if I use Playtex Pearl I can outsmart Mother Nature, which means no leaks, and then I can go on a vacation to Hawaii or meet the love of my life on a cruise! Always makes me super flexible and makes it so that I can go out dancing and have fun and laugh with all my super awesome model friends, and holy hell, are you telling me that if I use Tampex I'll stand out from the crowd and be individual? Just by using a tampon that the world will NEVER see because apparently its a taboo to whip those out? Because periods are a magical time of the month where we go surfing, and rollerblading and all sorts of strenuous but awesome activities that we normally don't do. Heck, by the way periods are advertised we should start calling it "The Fun Time of the Month". Because holy goodness, those ladies in the commercial look like they are just really happy with their lives and everything going on in it, despite the fact an alien baby is ripping its way through their uterus. So men, I'm really sorry if you EVER believed those commercials. Because after a certain age you realize that females are not to be reckoned with during their period. And to anyone who is beneath that age, don't expect an adventure filled week every month. Expect this all the freaking time:

I told you aliens were clawing their way out of our uteri. Oh, and on top of that, add a lot of eating and crying.

Basically, tampon ads are liars. And why? WHY? I used to really look forward to getting my period. I was like, that looks awesome! Oh, how wrong I was. Well the whole reason is because most western society has issues with anything resembling leakage from the body, from sneezing to breastfeeding and periods, so what happens? Euphemism filled commercials about periods. I wasn't kidding when I said you can't handle the truth, America really can't handle the truth about periods. And hence, a lot of men are confused as to what a tampon even LOOKS like, and watching them try to buy them is seriously the best thing ever. Honestly, there are so many different options in tampon and pad land that its embarrassing and difficult to go to the store and just grab a package of tampons. Don't believe me? Watch this video where a boy tries to buy tampons for his girlfriend and asks for advice from men AND women, and leaves most people stumped.


What's also really interesting is that tampon ads really like to skip the whole anatomy part of periods. Like, they show women being all fun and stuff, but the commercials are filled to overflowing with euphemisms for what's actually going on. And it's awesome. Tampax likes to use the whole "Mother Nature and her Unwanted Gift" angle, and many others don't even describe the situation at hand, you just know. Because there is a girl wearing all white and she's caught in an embarrassing situation. And then it ends with "at least your tampon didn't leak".

What's really funny though, is that tampon companies actually can't use the word vagina in marketing, even in America, where we pretty much use whatever language we want when it comes to advertising and television. This ad by UbyKotex was actually banned from television because of the use of the word Vagina, and then, when it was reshot to state "down there" which I mean, come on, my fourth grade sister says that, it still wasn't allowed on television. Which is a shame, because its probably one of the most hilarious period related commercials I've seen in a while. Here you can see what I'm thinking is that ad that they finally allowed on tv, with no mention of vaginas at all, which is ironic, since that's where tampons go...but whatever.

In conclusion: There are no happy periods. Ever. Any girl who tells you that they are always happy on their period is a liar. A dirty, dirty liar. And that's also what most tampon ads are as well.

In closing, I offer a couple of my favorite responses to tampon ads ever. And I also hope that advetisers keep moving forward with this whole issue. Because heaven forbid they come up with more ways to say "I'm on my period." Because honestly, period euphemisms are something the world needs WAY less of. I'm so sick and tired of hearing people say they are getting a visit from "Auntie Flo" or some other crap like that. We are women, we bleed. It happens.