And Just Like That - Women in their 50s are grandmothers who are obsolete

Five weeks ago, Sex and the City reboot, ...And Just Like That was released around the world to mixed reviews.

Aside from Big (Chris Noth) being written out in the first episode of the ten part series, Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) refusing to participate and Stanford (Willie Garson) being suddenly written out due to the actor's untimely passing I want to talk about the representation of different groups walking amongst us.

Charlotte and Harry's non-binary child

When Charlotte finally got pregnant she had a daughter named Rose, who now goes by the name Rock and is questioning their gender. As you would expect, Charlotte will always love her children no matter what happens to them. She will never desert them and she'll support them. She met with the school in the fifth episode and it felt like the story was glossed over. If this was back in the original series, Charlotte would've talked to Samantha and asked for her advice. She also would have talked to Rose/Rock to find out more. The storyline feels extremely rushed as if the writers are trying to cram too much into the show.

Steve's hearing loss

Steve Brady is the same age as Miranda, so he is in his 50s. According to Forbes, the average age of first time hearing aid wearers is 70. Even if you account for the fact that Steve owns a bar, you wouldn't expect him to start wearing hearing aids this young. It's as if the writers of the show want to age the 50 something cast before their time and are writing them as if they should be in rest homes.  

Miranda's alcoholism

Miranda has always had her issues and struggled in her marriage to Steve, since the very first time they met in Sex and the City but after the first movie it was implied that they had worked through their issues. Maybe they hadn't though. Maybe Miranda had been looking for an out for a while and during the pandemic she started drinking. As she said in episode five, "we all drunk in the pandemic and didn't stop". I have no doubt that is true. Some people did drink. Me, I ate during the pandemic because I couldn't go to the gym but that got fixed as soon as gyms reopened. Miranda's alcoholism was glossed over. I haven't known anyone who experiences alcoholism but I think it would take more than a month to notice that someone has an issue with alcohol.

Miranda and Che

It's one thing to be unhappy in your marriage but Miranda had such an issue with Steve's cheating in the first Sex and the City movie that her cheating with Che is out of character. Yes, it was always going to happen but it doesn't fit the character's back story. If she was unhappy in the marriage she could've at least divorced Steve first. Steve still could've been in the reboot with them sharing custody of Brady. There should have been more of a build up to it rather than it happening suddenly.

Carrie's hip surgery

And this is the storyline that really grated on my nerves. The one that got under my skin that I found quite offensive. Of course everyone ages and of course some people have physical issues but the way the show is carrying on you would think that the cast are all one foot in the grave and you would think that women become pathetic old ladies the moment we reach our 50s. Women over 25 have a hard enough time as it is without a show treating us as though we're invalids after 50. It goes against the tone of the original show. There is no way that Carrie would act like an old lady in her 50s. Even though she enjoyed married life until Big's death she would still be getting out there but instead she's feeling sorry for herself and acting way older than she actually is.

Samantha Jones

Samantha Jones was always older than the rest of the characters. I think she had a decade on them. In the first movie she talked about how much she loves Botox and in the second one she was on hormone replace pills to fight the signs of aging. Aside from her views on aging, which is that it's just a number (which it is) her presence is missed from the show. She was always open with her sexuality and loving men. She was accepting of others. She never judged Carrie for cheating on Aidan with Big or for being the other woman. She'd know how to deal with Miranda's alcoholism and Charlotte's child's gender doubts. It's become very clear that Samantha was actually the glue that held the group together and that without her the friendships don't really have a solid foundation.

I do hope that the show is renewed for a second season despite the allegations against Chris Noth, who to my knowledge has not even been charged with these alleged offences but if it is I really hope that Kim Cattrall can mend her feud with Sarah Jessica Parker. The show badly needs Samantha. Anthony Marentino however has been bumped up to a core cast member and that is a very welcome addition. He always stole the show in whatever scene he was in.

 Finally, I want to reiterate that if the show is renewed the writers need to stop treating women as if they're invalids the moment they hit 50. When Samantha went through her cancer battle in season 6 of Sex and the City she still rocked trendy wigs and wasn't afraid to party. She didn't let her birthday dictate who she was.

Of course time has passed but that doesn't mean the women should be treated as though they're one foot in the grave. 

The Australian government is right on its border protection policy

As you know, after 13 years of waiting and working my ass off, I finally got Australian citizenship a week ago. When I wasn't an Australian citizen I always shared the same point of view as the Australian government, that if you aren't an Australian citizen you don't deserve the same rights as an Australian citizen. 

Sure, don't get me wrong. It annoyed me that I couldn't vote or join a political party and it was frustrating that I was still referred to as a New Zealander. Until 2016 it frustrated me that there was no pathway unless I retrained or married an Australian citizen but I never wanted to get citizenship based on who I was married to. I wanted to get it on my own merits. In 2016 when the new pathway was announced I did everything in my power to qualify for the Skilled Migration 189 NZ Stream and secured that visa before waiting another year to get my Australian citizenship.

Anyway, now that you know how I got my Australian citizenship I want to talk tonight about how the vast majority of New Zealand citizens do not take up Australian citizenship. Based on estimates that have been calculated using information from the Department of Home Affairs I have concluded that only about 1% of NZ citizens living in Australia apply for the 189 permanent visa and about the same number apply for Australian citizenship. The chances are high therefore that if you become a permanent resident you are doing so with the intention to become an Australian citizen.

Now let's talk for a minute about what Australian citizenship actually means because I don't actually think people understand. Yes, of course it means that you are recognised as being a member of the Australian community and yes you can participate in politics, get government help when in financial or other trouble, but there are also intangible benefits to holding Australian citizenship.

The first, and biggest one is a total sense of belonging. When your application for citizenship is approved the Australian government is saying that they accept you as an Australian. They're saying we've got your back. They're saying you're one of us. They're saying you're home and that you can stay permanently without any risk of deportation. They're putting their trust in you.

So my question is, why do NZ citizens who do not hold Australian citizenship feel that they can dictate to the Australian government and the Australian community how they should be treated? The reality is that a lot of New Zealand citizens whinging about the rules arrived before 2016 and they have had ample opportunity to naturalise as an Australian citizen but they chose not to. The ones who arrived before 2001 are even worse because they have a much easier process to go through than post 2001 arrivals. It just doesn't make sense to me that people expect the Australian government to go out of their way when they've refused to make a commitment to Australia and become an Australian citizen.

For people who've arrived after 2016 I can understand and the 189 NZ stream should be expanded to include post February 2016 NZ citizen arrivals. I can't see any reason why NZ citizens who arrived after that date and would otherwise qualify should be excluded just because of the date they arrived.

I do however see the point to the Australian government not backing down on deporting NZ criminals. It's not just NZ criminals who get deported. Any criminals get deported. I know someone who was a Scottish citizen who overstayed by a couple of days several years ago and she was banned from entering Australia. I'm unsure how long she was banned for. My point is that the Australian government is not unfairly discriminating against NZ citizens.

The government is actually saying: if you want to be treated as an Australian citizen you need to become one, otherwise you're a New Zealand citizen who is visiting Australia, and that's the other thing. Australia is actually very welcoming to NZ citizens. NZ citizens have a free pass to enter Australia whereas those on other passports do not.

The Australian government is right on its treatment of New Zealand citizens and if people really do consider Australia home then they need to become an Australian citizen. They can't have it both ways, with one foot in and one foot out. The NZ government also should not be interfering in Australia's border protection policy. The fact is they are trying to undermine the value of Australian citizenship and they are being disrespectful of Australia's generosity in even letting NZ citizens come over to Australia without having to apply for a skilled visa.

It's time the NZ government and public looked at it from the view of Australians and new Australian citizens.

Living the dream: My journey to Australian citizenship

Let's talk about immigration. There's a misconception in the media that life is easy for people who emigrate to a new country. Common statements that are made are things like they commit crime, they clog our prisons, they steal our jobs and they rely on the welfare system. These statements couldn't be further from the truth and in today's blog I want to share the story of my journey to Australian citizenship which was finalised on Thursday afternoon and bear in mind that being an NZ citizen I already had an advantage because I could just get a plane and live on a temporary working visa (this is a subject for another blog) unlike people from other nations who couldn't necessarily gain entry to Australia.

So it's 2008 and I've just finished my undergraduate degree at university - a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Politics and a minor in Film, TV and Media Studies. I had been thinking of moving to Sydney for two years - Sydney because it's a lot like Auckland - It has a sky tower (Sydney Tower) and it has a harbour bridge (the Coat hanger). Two of my friends from uni also moved to Sydney so after two years of deliberation I took the plunge and moved to Sydney. I lived in King's Cross from April until June and in that time was working for the NSW Department of Housing - now FACS) and I had a second part time job in the evenings as well. I missed my friends though so I moved back to Auckland but I always had the intention to move back to Sydney. When I was back in Auckland I started my post graduate studies in Communications.

I spent about 18 months in Auckland and then in December of 2009 I moved back after two of my other friends moved to Sydney. This time around I stayed for nine months but hated my job so I went back to Auckland to complete my Post Graduate Diploma in Communications. I stayed for a few months from August 2010 until December 2010 when I moved back to Sydney where I stayed until April 2011.

I stayed in Auckland until December 2013. The reason that time was so long was because I wound up getting a job I really loved that I didn't want to leave but when the company announced their intention to close the department I worked in that was my opportunity to come back to Sydney which had always been my goal.

I arrived back in Sydney on the 24th of December 2013 at about 6pm. I'm in communications and the work here has been incredibly unstable and after several casual jobs I had a really good job I liked but it didn't work out so I left that job in November of 2015. Luckily a couple of friends let me stay with them but it was only for a short time. Fortunately I had another friend who let me stay with them and I lived there for a few years. That was only supposed to be for a month but I really liked it there in Redfern so I stayed. 

In February of 2016, then Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced a new skilled migration pathway specifically for NZ citizens living in Australia. Under that pathway you had to earn a minimum of $53,900AUD plus super for four years prior to applying which I knew I probably wasn't going to do for that financial year.

I decided to earn money freelancing but due to some unfortunate circumstances the work dried up so I needed to go back to working for other people. Of course, a lot of employers in Sydney are incredibly dodgy and look for a scapegoat, or the work is good but it's contract work so it has an expiration date and means that the job hunt must continue. There were periods where if it hadn't been for friends giving me a place to stay I would've been homeless. It is because of this generosity that I was able to get Australian citizenship after 13 years and 28 days, which included 7 months and 1 day of processing time.

What a lot of people don't realise when you emigrate to a new country is that it's not actually necessarily smooth sailing. It took me FOUR attempts to emigrate to Australia before I was able to successfully do it. During that time there was a lot of uncertainty with casual or contract jobs and some periods in between. There were times where I had to freelance and was working 16 hours a day to earn enough money to qualify for the skilled visa pathway that Malcolm Turnbull and John Key introduced. There were periods where I couldn't pay rent. There were periods where I didn't know where my next pay was coming from. There were periods of so much uncertainty. So much uncertainty because when you move to a new country you're on your own. You're in a weird limbo land where you're still legally recognised by your old country but you're not yet recognised by your new country.

It's very hard for migrants in a new country. This could be why only 3.4% of the world's population have emigrated from their country of birth. 3.4% of the world's population is 272 million. The rest of the 9 billion people in the world live in their country of birth.

I was thinking about it a couple of days ago since becoming an Australian citizen, and the reality is, most immigrants struggle. You're away from your friends and family. You're away from your support networks and you're basically on your own. I think that's actually why we see so many immigrants setting up their own businesses. They simply have to in order to survive. I did it myself, and even today while I still work a casual job and hunt for a permanent job in the Australian Federal Government, I have my freelance writing business and I am hoping to build that up.

Instead of saying immigrants should go back home (and I've been guilty of this myself) take the time to find out their story and learn about why they decided to move to a new country because immigration is not as clear cut as people think it is. It takes a lot of hard work and determination. This blog is just a short snapshot of what goes into getting citizenship in a new country, and for me, it took 13 years and 28 days plus a lot of uncertainty and struggles along the way.

It is for that reason I am not just proud to call myself Australian, I am proud that I achieved something that not many people do. I successfully emigrated to a new country after multiple attempts. I'm very proud of that achievement in fact because along the way I had no idea if it was going to happen and in 2008 when I first decided I wanted Australian citizenship there was no pathway for me other than through marriage but I didn't want to get Australian citizenship based on who I married. I wanted to get it because of how hard I hard worked for it, and I did. There is a huge amount of satisfaction in being able to say that I achieved what I always set out to achieve - something that only 3.4% of the world's population achieve, and legally being recognised as an Australian by the government.

The other reason for this blog is to show that when things seem impossible you should never lose faith that if you persist you will get what you want and you will achieve your dream. My dream was to be an Australian citizen and I am.

Pros and cons of naturalising in a new country

Over the last few months while I was waiting for my Australian citizenship I had a few conversations with people about naturalising after acquiring permanent residency in a country that you emigrated to.  I had wondered why some people don't naturalise prior to this because the New Zealand media often publishes and broadcasts stories about New Zealand citizens being ineligible for Australian government assistance, the right to vote, and being at risk if they commit a crime that carries a prison sentence of more than 12 months. 

It truly seems bizarre to me that someone would move to a new country and not intend to naturalise. I had planned to naturalise as an Australian citizen since I first moved here 13 years and 29 days ago. It was always my intention. 

This blog today is going to assess all points of view- why some people do naturalise, why some don't and why you should naturalise in a new country.

Identity

Some people do not naturalise in a new country because they don't want to forgo their original nationality and they feel that doing so could diminish their identity but that's not the case at all. Most countries around the world allow dual or multiple citizenship so there is no need to renounce your original citizenship. You can be a citizen of more than one country and it doesn't diminish your identity at all.

Cost

Acquiring citizenship in a new country costs thousands of dollars and therefore it's something that you'd only do if you really wanted to. The price for permanent residency is often a few thousand dollars and if you don't see the value in holding citizenship then it's not a cost most people would want to pay. Then there is the cost of citizenship after that. It can be upwards of $10,000 if a family is applying and a few thousand dollars for an individual.

Paperwork

When you apply for permanent residency the process is relatively simple and straight forward depending on the visa that you are applying for. You may need to submit 20 documents. When it comes to citizenship the process is much longer. In Australia it can take people several years to obtain citizenship after applying and even a simple application may require 50 supporting documents in addition to the application form itself. 

Ineligibility

This is a big one. When you're a permanent resident you must satisfy certain conditions before applying for citizenship such as being resident in a country without breaks for a period of time. You must also satisfy identity and character requirements. You must also qualify for a permanent visa. If you do not qualify for a permanent visa then you will never qualify for citizenship. Some nations around the world have reciprocal agreements for example, NZ and Australia have an agreement that allows citizens of each nation to travel freely. Of course, what a lot of people don't realise is that NZ citizens going to Australia do so on a temporary visa. It is effectively a working holiday visa and does not lead to citizenship. There are however other ways to get permanent residency in Australia - The 189 skilled migration NZ stream visa, the partner visa or citizenship by descent if one of your parents was an Australian permanent resident or Australian citizen.

So now that I've talked about the things that may prohibit you from getting citizenship in a new nation I want to talk about why people should take out citizenship.

Being recognised as one of the nation's people

This is a really big one. When you naturalise, your new country has said, "yes, you're one of us" and you actually belong to that nation. You are no longer a visitor. You are one of their people. You've assimilated into the community. A lot of people have this misconception, myself included until I went through the process, that citizenship is easy to obtain. It's not easy to obtain, and that's in countries that have comparatively "soft" immigration policies. It often takes years of hard work, years of struggle, years of waiting to qualify, a lot of money, time on a permanent visa and then the wait while your citizenship application is processed. It's not an easy process at all and not everyone qualifies for citizenship, even if they did obtain permanent residency, for example, in Australia, you cannot get citizenship if you have a traffic offence because it is technically a crime and you will have a record. Getting citizenship means you are no longer a visitor.

Opportunities open up

Some nations allow permanent residents to hold public office and to vote in elections, but others do not. Citizenship means you can apply for jobs in the public sector, stand for parliament and vote in elections. It means you can participate as a full member of the community and that you get to enjoy the freedoms that every other citizen does.

Consular assistance

If you are in trouble overseas then it makes sense to get assistance from the country that you live in, so it is essential that you take up citizenship. If you don't then it could mean that your old country has to help you which may mean you struggle to get back to the country that you live in, and that could be a foreign affairs nightmare for authorities and yourself. Getting citizenship in the country you live in means you will never have to worry about that.

There are of course other advantages to naturalising in a new country but there are too many to write about here. Citizenship is extremely important, even if there's a possiblity you may move out of the country in a few years time. You never know what could happen and it is better to get it while you are still young and healthy because to get permanent residency you do have to pass a health test in addition to the character requirements.

And on that note, I gained my Australian citizenship on the 6th of May 2021 and I am now officially and legally Australian. I had been approved on the 19th of April and then had to wait for the final step which was making the Australian citizenship pledge (a requirement of the Citizenship Act 2007), and it definitely makes a difference, even though I had always identified as Australian, but now it's legal. I will be renouncing my New Zealand citizenship within the next few months, but my thoughts on dual citizenship are a subject for another blog.

Australian citizenship processing times

It’s been a while since I’ve written a blog, and I actually started writing this blog on the 11th of October 2020, so that means there was 7 months of inactivity. This post lay dormant for 7 months before I decided to come back to it, and that actually reflects the topic that I”m writing about today - the slow processing of Australian citizenship applications.

The processing time for Australian citizenship is anywhere from 3 months to 3 years. There’s no logic behind how the Department of Home Affairs processes citizenship applications. They say on their website that they’re processed in the order that they’re received and while that may be true to an extent, I think there’s more to it that the general public doesn’t know but Home Affairs will never reveal that information.  

An Australian citizenship applicant can’t even get information on their citizenship application without submitting a freedom of information (FOI) request which takes 30 days to process. 

There are however forums online where citizenship applicants can post and discuss the process (yes, I’m a member of one of them). That’s how I actually found out that it’s possible to submit an FOI to find out what’s happening with your citizenship application.  

As I mentioned, I first applied on the 5th of October 2020 and other than a couple of automated checks on the 8th of October 2020 my application lay dormant until the 18th of March 2021. Approximately two weeks later on the 8th of April 2021 I had received my citizenship test invitation. It was set for the 30th of April 2021 but I’d read about being able to reschedule for an earlier time if a slot was available so I did exactly that. I rescheduled for the 9th of April 2021 and got 100% in the citizenship test. I don’t remember what questions were asked but I do know it was very easy and that I was in and out of the Home Affairs office within 20 minutes. Your identity is verified and a couple of questions are asked before you’re allowed to sit the test and then afterwards you’re given a piece of paper congratulating you for passing the test and that processing will continue. 

I’ve hated waiting since I first applied, actually I’ve hated waiting for my Australian citizenship since I first moved here on the 8th of April 2008. Yes, you will notice it was exactly 13 years to the day that I got my citizenship test. The processing times are anywhere from 14 months to 19 months and currently there are approximately 146,000 people in the queue. When I applied back in October it was 156,000. I’m not sure if COVID has had a bearing on the numbers but they’re out of control and people should not have to wait so long for citizenship. 

The current rate to apply for Australian citizenship is a measly $285. It should be much higher. It should actually be closer to $1000. $285 is too low and could be a factor in why the citizenship queue has blown out from 30,000 under Tony Abbott to 146,000 under Scott Morrison. I think increasing the fee to $1000 would improve the legitimacy of applications and it would also allow the Department of Home Affairs the chance to invest more in citizenship officers. I’ve done the calculations and they’d be able to hire about 500 new staff members if it increased this month. They only actually need 100 staff members to clear the backlog within a reasonable time (though 6 months time to get the test is actually one of the better timeframes I’ve known of, some people wait three years which is excessive), but the wait for approval could be another 6 months on its own and then I have to wait another 3-4 months due to the City of Sydney Council’s current backlog.  

I don’t think I’ll have to wait that long but it’s starting to drive me crazy (this is not helped by the fact that my apartment looks directly onto the citizenship office - it's 1km exactly from my apartment). When I received the email for the citizenship test appointment it wasn’t on my mind at that particular point in time and I was busy with acting (the one time I wasn't thinking about it so I was shocked to receive it) but given I’m much closer to Australian citizenship I’m checking the Immi portal obsessively now.

It would be more reasonable if the time from citizenship application lodgement to the ceremony was 6-8 months rather than 14-19 months (though that does depend on how often you travel overseas and the documents you supply - I supplied 39 documents and added an extra 10 documents this week for a total of 49 documents because one additional document was requested at the citizenship interview. The application form itself is 21 pages as well. That is for a simple citizenship application. I can’t imagine how many pages it is for a complicated application. 

Anyway, it would be reasonable if it was say 3 months to get your citizenship appointment then no more than a month for approval and then no more than 2 months for your ceremony. The process needs to be more streamlined with case officers allocated applications from certain countries, and people should have the option to pay an extra fee for prioritisation if they want. Yes, a lot would take up this option but if it was say $500-$1000 extra for priority processing it would be okay. There’s priority processing for visas and for an Australian passport so why not for citizenship? Why should people be prevented from paying the government extra money for faster processing? 

In my research on forums (and let’s be honest, I’m trying to distract myself by reading about citizenship and I like hearing about other people’s stories) the fact is that some migrants are disingenuous. By that I mean they do not plan to live in Australia long term, but the majority of applicants, such as myself are putting their lives on hold while they wait for approval.  For example, when your citizenship application is being processed by the department you can’t leave the country after your test. Legally you can of course BUT, if you do then you will be pushed to the back of the queue and given how many are in the queue it’s just not worth the risk.  

So some people might wonder why citizenship is so important if you can live indefinitely in a country. 

There are so many reasons and these are just a few.

1. Belonging.
2. Carrying an Australian passport.
3. Applying for public sector jobs.
4. Standing for parliament.
5. Voting.

When you become a citizen of a nation you are officially part of that nation and pledge your allegiance. In Australia you do not actually become a citizen until you say the pledge at the ceremony, which you can do under God, but it is not mandatory. If you are already a citizen you can reaffirm your commitment to Australia at a citizenship ceremony however it has no legal standing. A lot of people don't realise but while you're in the process of waiting for citizenship you're in this weird limbo land where you legally belong to your country of birth but you don't legally belong to your new country.

As a citizen you have the right to carry an Australian passport. This means that you are recognised overseas as being Australian and if you were stranded overseas the Australian government would help you. You would be recognised as one of its people and if you’ve built a life who wouldn’t want that. 

You can apply for public sector jobs which can open up opportunities and advance your career. It also gives you the chance to give back to the Australian public.

Standing for parliament at local, state or federal level becomes an option when you’re a citizen. You must be enrolled to vote and on the electoral roll to stand for parliament. Permanent residents have no democratic voice (unless you write to MPs or complain to government departments - I’ve actually never written so many letters to MPs as when I haven’t had the right to vote).

And that brings me to the most important reason to become a citizen. You have the right to vote. You have a voice. I have missed two federal elections, two state elections and one local council election. I need my citizenship to be approved in the next few weeks to vote in this year’s Sydney City Council election. Given the time between approval and the ceremony if I’m not approved this month then I run the risk of missing out on voting in this year’s Sydney City Council election and I am at risk of missing next year’s Federal election however the chances are very slim that I will not be able to vote by then. Political participation and the importance of voting is another blog post all together though.

And that concludes my rant about the Australian citizenship processing times, and much like the Australian government, I took my sweet little time in writing this post.

Album review: Taylor Swift Lover

Okay, I know that my last three blogs, including this one have been about Taylor Swift, and I swear that my blog is not actually a Taylor Swift blog. I just can't help that she is where I'm drawing inspiration from right now.

A couple of months ago when The Archer was released I ripped into it as per my last blog post. I said it was a terrible song and that Taylor was codependent and needed to get a grip. Okay see here's the thing. I'd just been rejected by a guy a short time before and I was kind of bruised from that so I didn't want to admit that I was actually kind of gutted about it and Taylor just reminded me of that. It was also a bit slow for my liking.

However, now it's one of my favourite tracks on the album. I love the slow pacing of it and I love it lyrically, but also, why does it even have to be about a guy? What's to say it's not about career goals and aspirations? The lyrics, "easy they come/easy they go/help me hold onto you/who could ever leave me/but who could ever stay?"

That could easily be about your dreams. It's all about interpretation. Of course, I'm certain it is about a new love, probably Joe Alwyn, but it could honestly be about anything such as self belief. The song is what you make it. Taylor's vocal range and sincerity in the song really shines through. It is absolutely a stand out on the album.

Another stand out is Paper Rings. She reminds me of Avril Lavigne in the song but I also love the concept of, "I like shiny things/but I'd marry you with paper rings". It's so sweet that you can't help but fall in love with it and it has a great beat.

Now Cornelia Street is about a place that you love and will always remember. In Taylor's case it's Cornelia Street. In my case it's Onslow Road, Mount Eden. That place is one of my favourite places. The beat, lyrics and mixing of this song could have easily been on her album 1989. It's a soft song that's rather reflective and clear she wants to hold onto what she has in her life right now.

Soon you'll get better with the Dixie Chicks is a raw song about Taylor Swift's mother Andrea's battle with cancer. It's stripped back with light guitar strings. I understand that lots of people have written positive reviews about the song but I just don't like it. I like that it's accoustic. I don't like it lyrically. It doesn't really fit on the album and it's just a depressing song. I'm not a fan of it. I personally would've left it off the album.

Then there are the two songs, Miss Americana and the Heartbreak Prince; and You Need to Calm Down, which reviewers are trying to make political tunes. I don't know about you but I don't like when singers get political in their music. I immediately tune out. That said, I do like You Need to Calm Down but I could do without the political commentary. Miss Americana and the Heartbreak Prince also could've easily been on 1989 as well.

I'm an actress, writer and singer and of course I have political opinions and leanings but I keep my performing, writing and my politics separate even though I studied politics at uni. I don't like that the media is pressuring Taylor to talk about politics. We pay her to sing and write music, not to offer political commentary. Green Day did that with their album American Idiot though but again, music can be universal so songs are open to interpretation and I loved that album when it was released.

Afterglow and It's Nice to Have a Friend remind me of pre Red era Taylor. She shows her more sensitive side. In Afterglow she returns to Back to December where she's apologising to a former love. The song is like many on her album with sound effects of an echo. It's Nice to Have a Friend feels a little bit playful and cheerful, like she could easily be in high school singing it and the first lyrics are: "school bell rings/walk me home". This song could easily be about her mother, or her best friend Abigail who she met early in high school. I like that she is thankful in this song and lighthearted in her approach.

Now to talk about Me! This song was first released when I was into the guy who rejected me so I was optimistic about it, but then for a while I couldn't listen to it. Now that time has passed I completely relate to Taylor "I know that I went psycho on the phone/I never leave well enough alone". That is totally me. I do that, but then she sings, "Meeeeeeeee/I'm the only one of me/baby that's the fun of me" and now I would sing that song as a "your loss." When Taylor first released it she said the song was exactly that. It was supposed to be an uplifting song and it really is.

The title track Lover refers to previous songs and has a country vibe about it. It's clearly about her love of three years, British actor Joe Alwyn and how she'd do anything for him. I like the song, but being single with no love interests on the horizon (outside of pure fantasies) I can't listen to the song right now. When there is a new love interest, it will be high on the playlist.

The fourth track, The Man is a follow up to Blank Space where she's sick of everyone criticising her for having lots of relationships and she sings about how if she was a man then she'd be the man and everyone would lover her like they do Leo Di Caprio. The pace picks up and it has a strong drum beat.

The album's final track is more of a ballad where Taylor is again, taking responsibility for how she's been in previous relationships and singing that she doesn't, "want to look at anything else" now that she's seen "daylight". It might be another song to Joe Alwyn but it's also about how she's made peace with what people have said about her in the past. I'm sure we can all relate to being judged by others, or feeling judged. She seems to have made peace with it, but that appears to be because she's with Joe. It's an optimistic song and she seems very thankful for what the future holds.

High on the playlist like, I Forgot That You Existed. This is 100% my favourite song on the song. Anyone who has been wronged by a friend, former lover or anyone else will love this song. It's a follow up to Bad Blood except she simply doesn't care anymore, "I forgot that you existed/and I thought that it would kill me/but it didn't/and it was so nice/and it was so peaceful and quiet/it isn't love/it isn't hate/it's just indifferent."

The song is basically a "I would've done anything for you but you showed your true colours and now I don't care about you". It's the ultimate indifferent song. The beat of the song is pretty peaceful and nice to listen to. It really is one of those songs you can just listen to on repeat when you've been wronged by someone.

It's a song where Taylor takes back the power after the Reputation era and is leaving the past behind. It's a great opener for the album and really does set the tone that she's a lover not a fighter and doesn't have time to negativity.

Even the cover art shows that she is a lover. It may not be intentional but the Lover cover art is very similar to Katy Perry's Teenage Dream. She reportedly had a falling out with Katy Perry for a few years but Katy appeared in her You Need to Calm Down music video so Taylor and Katy are friends again, or at least on speaking terms.

Overall this is a great return to the spotlight for Taylor and it's great that she's back to positivity after the dark Reputation era. I loved Reputation but it was very dark, at least by Taylor standards anyway.

The best tracks on the album: I Forgot That You Existed, The Archer, Paper Rings, Cornelia Street, Afterglow, Me!, It's Nice to Have a Friend and Daylight.

I give the album a 4.5 out of 5 and I know I won't be the only one at her Lover Tour but I plan to be in the front row at her show.

Taylor Swift's new song lyrics irritate the hell out of me and here's why

I’m a huge Taylor Swift fan. I’ve been a fan of her music since she released Everything has changed with Ed Sheeran. There was just something about those lyrics and the songs, I knew you were trouble and We are never getting back together that really connected with me.

I’ve been a loyal fan since. I went to the 1989 World Tour (and it’s because of Taylor Swift that I’m still living in Sydney – there was something she said during the concert that connected with me) and the Reputation World Tour.

I buy her music as soon as it comes out and I can identify with most of the lyrics.

She’s just begun releasing singles for her seventh album, Lover.

I loved the first single, Me! Where she teamed up with Panic At The Disco’s Brendon Urie) and sung a song about how awesome she was. That song was great. It was upbeat and a song about anyone who has ever doubted themselves. It was a self affirming song and the positivity was welcome.

Her second single, You need to calm down completely missed the mark for me. It was a political song and that’s all I’m saying on the matter. Musicians and politics should not mix.

But her third single, The archer is such a depressing song and I’m not a fan. I mean it’s Taylor Swift so I’ve got it on repeat but that’s also because I’m writing this blog about it, so I kind of have to listen to it multiple times to really get the point and say everything I want to say.

Anyway, there’s a few lyrics in this song that really irritate the hell out of me.

I want to preface this by saying that a couple of months ago I was shot down by a guy I really liked and I’m only just getting over that so I’m all, “I’m great on my own and I’m awesome,” which is why I can identify with the lyrics to Me! I was trying to find specific lyrics I could identify with but the whole song describes how I feel right now.

The archer on the other hand is such a needy, desperate, clingy, co-dependant, whingy, whiney, depressing, wallowing song.

I want to draw attention to some specific lyrics:

Easy they come, easy they go

I jump off the train, I ride off alone

I never grew up, it’s getting so old

Help me hold onto you

The issue with these lyrics is that Taylor is saying she needs someone else to be happy and that she can’t handle being alone.

She’s also whining about never growing up, though I do appreciate the reference to her earlier song, Never grow up.

Why does she need to hold onto someone? Why can’t she be happy on her own? Why can’t she find happiness in other things?

Then there’s the self pity in the next lyrics:

And I cut off my nose just to spite my face

Then I hate my reflection for years and years

These lyrics are awful. Talk about low self-esteem and negativity. That’s just blaming herself for things that have happened and that’s ridiculous. She shouldn’t hate herself. Nobody should hate themselves and nobody should feel sorry for themselves. It’s not healthy.

But the lyric that really grates on my nerves:

All the king’s horses, all the king’s men

Couldn’t put me together again

Why does she even need someone to put her together again? She can put herself back together. She shouldn’t need anyone else to do that for her. She should be strong enough on her own. This song is awful lyrically.

I’m sure at some point I’ll like the lyrics of this song, but right now I don’t. I’m really disappointed in the weakness and co-dependency shown in this song. I just want to knock some sense into her.

And on that note I’m going to listen to Me! Because I’d rather celebrate self love than wallowing and self pity. And of course I'll be buying the album as soon as it's out but this song annoys me.

P.S. It wasn't intentional to have two blogs in a row about Taylor Swift's new music.