In conclusion...(Final)

Over the course of this project, I have looked at day to day life very closely and analyzed just about anything that comes into hand, which is completely against my nature.  I have absolutely torn apart some of my favorite movies and shows.  But despite all of that, I have learned a lot from the hidden message behind media and daily life.

There is a very strong relationship between daily life and media.  Media influences our lives in more ways than one, whether it be movies, music, TV shows, etc.  This, in turn, influences our daily habits and routines.  It also influences our expectations and views on certain issues.  This in itself is quite risky.  The way media manipulates messages is tricky and can be taken the wrong way.  They can target younger audiences and brainwash them by slipping subtle messages in to cartoons, persuading them to believe a certain value.  And because of that, their entire view on reality changes.  If a majority of the movies shown to children send the message that girls must be skinny and graceful at all times, that is what they will soon believe in reality. 

Are those the messages we want to send to our youth?  Do we want to lead them into a false sense of reality?  Do we want them to start falling for the cruel and illogical stereotypes that media has set up for us?

I believe that we let media make decisions about how things should and should not be.  We let them decide that women should be portrayed as weak, helpless people.  We let them decide that people of color should be looked down upon.  We can't let media decide what our reality is.  Our reality consists of a variety of personalities and people.  Our reality consists of women in all sorts of shapes and sizes.  Our reality consists of people of all sorts of shades and personalities who have become successful, despite their ethnicity or race.  Our reality should not depend on media's judgment.

               

 Media will always be a part of our lives, whether we want it to be or not.  But do we want it to influence our lives as much as it already does?  Do we really want to live with a false sense of reality?  Do we really want to give into the stereotypes and labels?  What do we truly gain by it?  What do we gain by labeling women or different people?  Aren't we all humans, at the end of the day?  Do we really need a preconceived idea of what someone should or should not be? 

So, do we? 

Loitering the Streets on the East Side of Stamford, CT (#3)

Although Stamford, as a whole, is quite diverse and populated, separation of classes are still evident.  It is observed that even though you may see wealthy North side folks exploring the Taco Bell on East Main St. or the lower middle class taking a peak at the Trader Joe's on High Ridge Rd., at the end of the day, they will always migrate back to where they belong, or should I say, where they can afford.

          It's no secret that if you drive through the streets of the East Side, you probably won't find a country club or five star restaurants, but why is that?  

          Well, observations show that most of the public restaurants on the East Side are fast food and take out places.  You won't find a Capital Grille in midst of Subways and McDonalds.  And as I enter these eateries, I can't help but feel a little out of place and uncomfortable with the many eyes staring back at me, judging my "North Side" appearance.  And as I explore further through the streets, I see that the number of eyes do not decrease.  And that is when I realize that this is where they reside.  These cramped apartments hold hundreds of them.  The gas stations and restaurants employ them.  The city buses give them rides.  And that's how you can tell the evident distinctions and differences in different parts of Stamford.

          On East Side, you most likely won't find a Mercedes Benz or a BMW.  On the East Side, you most likely won't find three car garages.  On the East Side, you most likely won't find houses with multiple acres of land.  On the East Side, you most likely won't find country club owners. 

          So, although we preach equality and diverse unity every day, we must not forget where we "truly" belong.  We must not forget that at the end of the day, some of us just can't afford a regular tank of gas or the massive bill at Napa & Company.  We must not forget the unspoken rules and laws in different parts of the city.  We must not forget that some of us will never have the three car garage or BMW.  But don't worry, we are still equal and united and diverse.  But with limits and distinctions.  

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state...(#2)

As a normal viewer, The Big Bang Theory seems to be a witty and compelling show, designed for pure entertainment and fun.  But, under the wittiness lies mistaken views and hair-rising realizations.  

Leonard: Once you open the box it loses its value.

Penny: Ya, My mom gave me the same lecture about my virginity. 

Penny is an aspiring actress who is portrayed as a clueless blonde with no future after dropping out of community college.  And clearly, her features show it all:

As cliche as it looks, you have the entire package right in front you.  Her appearance screams "dumb blonde" to anyone watching and much to our dismay, she lives up to it.  You expect someone like Penny to talk about her virginity or her hair products.  And that is exactly what she is doing.  CBS sells us the old-fashioned stereotype about a woman's place.  As if all woman who have not moved on to higher education and want to be an actress are destined to become waitresses at the Cheesecake Factory wearing skimpy clothing and caking on layers of makeup.  But that is only one end of the spectrum.

At the far end of the other side of the spectrum lies Amy Farrah Fowler, Ph.D, a neurobiologist who graduated from Harvard University.  And, once again, her features show it all:

Amy Farrah Fowler: This is us. Bernadette, you are the analytical, scientific left hemisphere. Penny, you're the creative, spontaneous right hemisphere. And where's Amy? She's right here. The sad little tumor no-one wants to go dress shopping with.

With her thick rimmed glasses, sweater vest, and make-up-less face, her demeanor screams "nerd".  And, as always, she lives up to it.  She is shown many times as the isolated girl that no one wants to hang out with: "sad little tumor".  Proving that if you have achieved the highest of achievements and been successful in life, you will end up still being a friendless loser. 

That's the thing.  There is no in-between.  You either have "clueless airhead" or "lonely nerd".  It gives us a very distorted image of women, as if there are only 2 kinds out there, both giving off a negative connotation.  Who's to say all women with no college degree become waitresses?  Or that women with college degrees become isolated?  Can there not be women who have not received a college education and are still well off?  Or that women with college degrees do have friends?  Why does it have to be one way or the other, black and white? 

While creating an enthralling and hilarious sitcom, CBS has also encouraged unhealthy stereotypes about women, never letting us forget where we belong.     

How to Train Your Dragon: An Analysis on Child Entertainment (#1)

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, the lanky, awkward protagonist is portrayed as a weak, useless kid to the Vikings of the Isle of Berk.  Unable to handle the slaying of dragons, he is shoved into the back office to make weapons for the "cooler, stronger, and better" Vikings.  But, like any typical adventure movie, Hiccup bends the rules of staying away from dragons and ends up befriending them, against his father's wishes.  But in the end, he ends up saving his society from getting killed from the vicious, monstrous dragons (non-violently, of course), becoming the hero of the entire village, and getting the prize: a girl.  Somewhat cliché, don't you think?

                Astrid Hofferson, Hiccup's potential love interest, breaks just about every female stereotype in a hero's journey; she is headstrong and independent.  Yet, she is still not realistic.  Her body shape defies nature and in real life, she would be considered anorexic.  Her hair seems to fall perfectly over eyes and she is still graceful while fighting.  Although Astrid is portrayed as strong and capable, her personality is interpreted as mean and rude, almost like a bully.  She doesn't accept Hiccup because of his physic and inability to protect himself.  DreamWorks is sending a message to young girls that you can be courageous and tough but in order for you to be accepted that way, you still need an hour-glass body shape, perfectly tamed bangs, and radiate perfection at all times.  However, in the midst of perfection, you must remember that to be tough, you have to be mean to others.  If you come off as mean, people will take you more seriously as a girl.  What's that all about?  Do we really want girls, between the ages of 5-11, to feel ashamed because there bangs stick up or that they are nice to people?  And why should we lead them on to think that a man's love waits at the end of the tunnel?  Are these realistic messages?  Why are we convincing girls to starve themselves and bully others in order to be taken seriously? 

                Even though Astrid tries to break out of the girly shell and prove her capabilities, her male friends seem to try to push her back in.  Although subtle, there are a couple of moments in the film that prove to hint the true standing of the female stereotype.  DreamWorks, at times, goes against the anti-female stereotype by slipping in sayings such as "girls like flowers" or "watch out babe, I'll take care of this".  So what are they trying to prove?  Are they actually saying that despite being shrewd, clever, determined, competent, rude, and perfect, you will NEVER actually be taken seriously by males?  Are they convincing boys to believe that girls should always be known as the Damsel in Distress?  Are we, women, Damsel in Distresses?  

Apparently we are.

What Does it Mean to Own Something?

            According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of "own" is "belonging to oneself or itself —usually used following a possessive case or possessive adjective" or "used to express immediate or direct kinship".  But this definition seems too right, or correct.  Like many and most things in life, things aren't always black and white.  There are always gray areas.  In this definition, you have a very concrete answer given to you.  It is also objective, not a hint of emotion or opinion.  This makes it hard to find some sort of view on what the word means.  But, like some philosophical words, we must find the definition ourselves.  Ownership means being responsible for yourself and your actions.  Ownership goes much deeper than owning physical objects because owning those physical objects is what defines who you are and your actions.

            Owning your capabilities and actions creates a relationship with your values.  Bill Gates, former CEO of Microsoft, was once known as one of "the richest man alive".  He was ranked number two.  However, instead of using his money for selfish reasons, he created a foundation in 2000 and donated over 20 billion dollars to charity, regardless of all the power and money he had.  In this example, Gates was OWNING his capabilities but evidently doing something for the community with his own money rather than for himself; he was capable of doing something for somebody else and owned that capability.  This reflects on his values and personality because by looking at this, you can tell that he is passionate about not only financial success but also about common welfare of citizens.  Owning the satisfaction of helping others was clearly more important to him than owning billions of dollars. 

            Everyone has heard of the cliché saying "money can't buy you happiness".  But is it all that cliché?  When you go to the mall and buy those new Uggs or a new TV, does it really bring you true happiness?  Once again, the answer lies in relationship with capabilities and values.  No doubt, buying new materials creates a sense of excitement but the duration of that excitement depends on the person.  Someone who has very materialistic values may find permanent joy in having a collection of valuables at all times.  However, there may be someone else who only finds temporary joy in buying a new shirt or a watch.            

            What does this mean, though?  What idea this conclude?  Well, this proves my first point that not everything is black and white.  Through this analysis it has been hard to make a certain judgment on ownership because of the variety of personalities.  And to say that one person is wrong over the other would be incredibly invalid.  So, to conclude this thought process, ownership tends to grow deeper than objects to the  extent of how one person treasures them.  Ownership is more about how someone displays their values, capabilities, and actions when in the possession of these physical objects.