MetaPost

The post that I'm most proud of, "Who Are You Voting For", was another one of the posts where I simply wanted to share my opinion and observations. I stumbled upon an image for the Obama Campaign featuring Michelle and for the post, I analyzed the messages that it sends for the campaign. My analysis, although not tied to an article, mirrors the activity we've done in class of "See, Think, Wonder". I tie the post to our discussions that were happening in class at the time about how politicians tend to frame their campaigns in a certain light to get more voters.

When I move to address the image, I point out how they use Michelle's first name, "[giving] off a certain casual air - as if you're talking about joining your neighbors" and I then explained how that makes them "more relatable and accessible". This is similar to our "See, Think, Wonder" exercise because I first isolated an aspect of the image and then explained what kind of message it might be sending. What struck me as strange about the image, which I addressed in the post, was that "Barak isn't even pictured" which serves to strongly associate Michelle with the campaign rather than the actual man running. This move suggested that by voting Obama, she would have some sort of influence in politics which simply isn't true.

I also really enjoy this post because it sparked somewhat of a discussion in the comments with Chrisanthy and Naomi adding their own opinions and pointing out things about the image and the message it projects that I hadn't even noticed before. This post served to show me how great of a forum blogging can be for sharing opinions and opening up a greater discussion about current issues. Another reason I think it shows improvement in terms of the art of blogging is it's length. In my metapost from last semester, I talked about how much I struggle with length and over-analyzing. I think this particular post is a good example of giving a thorough but not overwhelming analysis that the reader can digest (ignore the irony that this post is extremely long).

In terms of my blogging as a whole, what I ended up doing a few times is picking up where we left off in class discussions about certain books and continuing the conversation through a blog post. I pulled out quotes that represented larger American themes, like the flattening of experiences in White Noise or Gatsby's American Dream-esque self-improvement list. This gave me a chance to dig deeper into the text on my own time, allowing me to add insight to particular passages that I didn't get a chance to share in class.

By approaching posts as a chance to share my opinion, rather than trying to find a topic with an article connected to it which can feel overwhelming, it no longer felt like a task to blog. Instead of thinking about the evidence beforehand, I simply started out by explaining my opinion and the support came later. For example, in my post about the documentary "Race to Nowhere", I started out simply writing my own observations in terms of how it relates to New Trier but I remembered an article we read first semester about how Yale students can sometimes be "sheep" and that became a supplemental source to enhance my post.

I've really enjoyed this semester of blogging as a chance to extend classroom discussions into my everyday life and see it as a new place to explore my own opinions.

Response to Race to Nowhere

*Let me just preface this post by saying it's not exactly "rooted in evidence" as Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor generally prefer. It is more of my response to the documentary, "Race to Nowhere" in the context of our school.

The documentary, "Race to Nowhere", catalogues students, teachers, parents, and experts in education across the United States about the increasing level of stress among teens. Teenagers are not only over-scheduled and over-worked, they also face incredible social pressures to look and act a certain way.

The overarching question of the movie is: Where does all this lead? We take all of these classes and activities only to look good to colleges, none of this guarantees "success".

The messages our school and colleges send about managing this kind of stress are at odds with each other. Our school advocates for a well-balanced lifestyle and yet there is that unspoken stigma against taking the lower level classes. Not to mention, colleges recommend to take the most challenging courses offered while also being well-rounded members of our community, leading in sports and the arts, and giving back through volunteer work.

And you need to look pretty. It is high school, after all.

How are, as teenagers in all of our hormonal rages, expected to know how to deal with all of this pressure and stress? It's easy to talk about cutting some of it out...but when everyone seems to be going at the same pace, it feels impossible to slow down. 

It reminds me of a piece we read at the beginning of the year by Rob Reich (a faculty member at Stanford University) in which he quoted William Deresiewicz (former English professor at Yale). According to Deresiewicz, these Ivy League groomed kids were growing up to be "really excellent sheep" - we know how to follow the rules to get places, but, for example, are we really learning how to think critically?

We're jumping through all of these hoops to look like the perfect applicant to college so that we can go to the right college and look like the perfect applicant for a certain job so we can make the right amount of money to buy the right house...and so it goes on. It's an exhaustive series of conforming with an outcome we can't predict.

I don't have any solutions but I wonder in what other ways you see teenagers being affected by these kinds of pressures? How do you see it affecting the future?

The (American) List

In class, we've been discussing how The Great Gatsby is the American novel, delving into themes it explores about our culture and understanding how those themes are still relevant today. A particularly interesting detail is James Gatz's (Gatsby's former name) schedule (page 173)

We analyzed the list, deciphering how it portrayed American themes. What is important to know, however, is that the creation of the list itself is inherently American. Upwards mobility is an integral goal of the "American Dream" and by attempting to plan his future success he is following this goal.

We are always looking for the next best thing, be it a promotion or degree or relationship, and this list is a manifestation of how someone would try to reach that next station.

In addition, one classmate claimed that this list is like the making of the "All-American Male". Gatz plans to make himself a renaissance man of sorts by playing baseball (America's past-time) and studying inventions (rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit that launched America - a thirst for both money and discovery).

However, and perhaps most importantly, he spends the majority of his day working (from 8:30-4:30). The strong work ethic that defined American progress can be seen in both his dedication of time to working and also how he so allocates his time so purposefully.

There are many other ways in which Gatz's list shows deep-seated American values - which ones can you find?

Marching in the Streets

"Share this, facebook it, pinterest it, tweet it..."

These modes of social networking are fast becoming an integral part of connecting with others in our Internet-centered community. Celebrities use it as promotion, people use it to broadcast their personal lives...really, what can't we use the internet for?

Courtesy of Google Images

During an interview with Deborah Siegel, a leading feminist author, media correspondent, and blogger, she explained how activism, in particular, has been affected by the social expansion that the internet provides.

"It's the new way to march in the streets," she laughed, when comparing feminism today to protests and rallies like that of the Miss America Pageant of 1968.

Activism defined the second wave of feminism (1970s-1980s). When the movement was first percolating, women banded together during the Miss America Pageant to protest the objectification of women and ridiculous beauty standards. By throwing their "instruments of female torture" (bras, curlers, fashion magazines) into a "Freedom Trashcan", these feminists showed society that the days of sexism were coming to an end ("Sisterhood Interrupted" Siegel).

Nowadays, however, although feminism is alive and well, where are the protests, the rallies, the public dissent for social change? They're online. The feminist blogosphere has exploded as internet activism is being taken more seriously after events like the Arab Spring which occurred through internet organizing.

Countless examples, like feministing.com for the modern feminist, to rookiemag.com, an online magazine started by a high school girl who wanted a creative collaborative forum to empower young girls, show how the internet is changing the face of both feminism and activism. The power to reach many sitting at one computer has revolutionized what activists can accomplish in terms of awareness and magnitude of change.

How can such activism affect other realms of social change?

Behind The Scenes

Who are the people working behind the camera - the directors, producers?

Women's Media Center, an organization that advocates for women in the media, conducted a study on female representation in occupations considered "behind-the-scenes" work. It focused both on news broadcasting shows and TV dramas. The jobs included were among directors, producers, writers, etc.

The study found that women comprised only 25% of these jobs in the 2010-2011 TV season. With TV and movies being a primary source of media and heavily influential in our society, these statistics are worrisome.

The study found that movies or TV shows with at least one woman in an influential occupation, like director or producer, were more likely to have a more equitable representation of female characters. The way women are perceived through the media is highly influenced by the people producing the media and this study shows that having female representation is a vital factor.

How else do you think female representation behind the scenes might affect the media we consume?

That's A Man's Job

The debate over the place of women in the workplace has been going on since for centuries, evolving with the times but an issue that never seems completely resolved. Feminism during the 20th century was a strong social force, urging women to enter the workforce and end sexist stereotypes that women's only job was that of a homemaker. However, as more women did begin entering the workforce, the debate shifted from whether or not they should work, but which jobs they should hold.

Courtesy of Google Images

In Don DeLillo's satirical novel, "White Noise", he lampoons the stereotypical differences between men and women in the workforce through the jobs held by the character Jack and his wife, Babette.

Jack is a Hitler Studies Professor at the University. All of his academic peers are men and any of the academic programs the book discusses are all related to men: Hitler Studies, Elvis Studies, the Study of Car Crashes, etc.

However, Babette is another story. Jack describes her work, saying: "Basically, she is teaching them how to stand, sit and walk. Most of her students are old" (27).

The wife is relegated to the job of teaching old people, commonly stereotyped as infantile, how to do basic physical actions, such as walking (an activity mastered by a three year old). DeLillo is commenting on the stereotype that women should stay in "nurturing" positions, in which they put maternal instincts to good use.

Although DeLillo is stereotyping jobs held by women, a survey done by AOL shows that the top three jobs held by women are secretaries, nurses, and elementary school teachers. There are women holding top executive positions, typically "male" jobs. However, there are only 12 female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies.

Are DeLillo's satirical jabs hitting a little too close to home? Despite all the progress since the second and third waves of feminism, why are women still facing such challenges in the economic sphere?

I'm No Feminist

Why do women shy away from proclaiming themselves feminists?

This is a question that Deborah Siegel addresses in her book Sisterhood, Interrupted, analyzing second and third wave feminism and how politics and pop culture played a role in how they developed.

According to a TIME/CNN poll that Siegel cites, 94% of women said that the feminist movement helped women become more independent and 82% said that it was still improving the lives of women, but only 33% of women identified themselves as feminists (115).

Of the many factors contributing to public attitude that Siegel analyzed, one that kept jumping out at me was comments made by celebrity icons. She quotes Shakira saying: "I'm not a feminist, no. At least I wouldn't like to hang that sign around my neck" (23) and Jennifer Anniston, who reassured she wasn't a "bleeding heart feminist" (9).

Siegel also quotes a line from Bridget Jone's Diary, a highly popular and no doubt influential novel: "Nothing is more unattractive to a man than a feminist". Young women like to identify with celebrities and follow pop culture ideas. With all kinds of media pushing this negative feminist stereotype of crazy, undesirable women, this generation's women are bombarded with warped ideas towards feminism that are hard to break.

How can girls be expected for formulate their own opinions if popular culture is effectively deciding it for them?

Who Are You Voting For?

I recently saw this picture on the side of an internet page I was visiting:

Regardless of my own political opinions, I found this particular ad campaign intriguing. 

We've recently discussed in class how politicians (or anyone in the public eye) strategically construct a public image of themselves. Target audiences is a subject we've also discussed, and how companies will construct their image to appeal to a certain demographic.

Courtesy of the Obama Campaign

This image is promoting Barack Obama's run for presidency but the first real words are "Join Michelle". First off, the use of the presidential couple's first names gives off a certain casual air - as if you're talking about your joining your neighbors for some random event. This technique makes the presidential couple seem much more relatable and accessible. 

By telling the public to "Join Michelle", it is implied that she somehow has some influence in the political sphere. Interestingly, Barak, the one person who actually can change things, isn't even pictured. However, Michelle has no official power over the policies of our nation although she has been active with campaigns for social change like her "Let's Move" campaign against childhood obesity in addition to keeping up public appearances. It is important to remember, though, that voting for Obama does nothing more for Michelle's power except to keep her living in the White House. 

It is clear that this ad targets the female demographic of the Obama vote. He has done an amazing job characterizing himself as the family man by keeping his wife and children by his side throughout the campaign trail and his presidency. This ad further emphasizes that Obama can appeal to the female demographic because he has such a strong woman by his side. 

What other messages do you pick up from the picture?

Funding for the Performing Arts

For my junior theme topic, I'm thinking about researching why public schools cut funding for performing arts and the effect that that has on environment of the school and students. I recently read an article from Crain's New York Business that talked about New York City public schools that had to cut funding in 2010.

The Department of Education cut per pupil arts funding in 2007, according to the article, which was before the huge economic downturn that led to even less funding. With pressure for schools to excel on state math and reading tests, art programs were pushed aside. 

However, New York City Council Member Robert Jackson, chair of the education committee, said, "the real irony is that students with access to arts education have been shown to produce superior academic achievement on standardized test, the very goal that is being pursued". 

With so many reasons why there should be art programs in schools, it completely amazes me that schools continue to push these programs aside or isolate them from the core curriculum. Just like sports are a place for athletic students, and the math and science club is there for the academic kids, the arts are a home to those who participate in them. 

As I continue to do research on this topic, I wonder what other alternative programs that are important to the student population that might be cut back due to funding?

The 99 Cent Trick

The most recent JCPenny commercials featuring Ellen joke about how retailers commonly price things at $14.99 instead of just $15. But it got me thinking - does one cent less really make a difference to the consumer?

According to a BBC News article, "Why is a 99p tag so attractive?", there is such thing as the "99 effect", researched by Robert Schindler. He theorizes that "people overweigh the left hand number. When a price changes from a $30 to a $29.99, the change from three to two makes more of a difference than the value of that money". He likens this difference to when a 39-year-old turns 40 and the birthday feels like a tremendous leap. 

This practice originated, according to Schindler, from the same practice of department stores in the late 1880s to communicate discount or the impression that things are on sale - even when they are not. 

Nick Gladding, another contributor to the article, is skeptical that consumers are fooled the the "99 effect". However, as an avid shopper myself who knows basic math, I think there is some truth to it. Everyone wants a bargain, and if the price tag looks cheaper, then it makes sense that we associate the product with being a bargain. 

I wonder how easy it is to be a smart consumer, with retailers pulling out all the stops to lure in costumers?

Flattening of Experiences

In class, we're reading White Noise by Don DeLillo which is a novel that follows themes such as consumerism and media obsession and dependency.

Courtesy of TinyFarmBlog

One particular quote that stuck out to me was in Jack's description of the supermarket, a reoccurring location. As he's observing everything around him, the exotic fruits and P.A. announcements, he says, "Everything seemed to be in season, sprayed, burnished, right" (36).

What this speaks to is the flattening of experiences. This can apply on a global level, but I'll be focusing on the U.S. It's the idea that, no matter where you go, you will find the same products (Goldfish, Oreos, etc.) and fresh produce is sold no matter what time of year. You can buy raspberries in the dead of winter.

Because of this phenomenon, things that made certain areas of the U.S. unique - like the grapes in California or the citrus in Florida, are no longer unique to that area. Everyone can get oranges all the time and we're all eating grapes no matter if they're native to our area or not.

When something is no longer in season, the U.S. has another country growing that crop and shipping it over to us. Growing consumer demands for certain products has led the U.S. to rely on other countries for the their produce but, in the process, I see our country losing some of the characteristics that make it unique.

If we look at a map of the U.S., the wide array of different landscapes divides the country into quite dissimilar pockets of American culture. Living in Denver used to be wildly different than living in Boston, for example, because what products were available, among other things. The landscape differences have stayed the same but consumer habits have flatlined all over the country, leaving us with one "American" experience wherever you travel to.

Does this enhance our identity as Americans, living in a "melting pot", or does it erase that image?

When College Isn't an Option

On the North Shore of Chicago, it's common knowledge that you'll be going to college. We live in an area of highly concentrated wealth and a heavily-funded school district that provides us with a quality high school education...so why wouldn't you go to college?

This past weekend, my dad's best friend from high school visited us. His two children attended community college for two years in a small town in Kansas called Ark City so that he could barely scrape enough money together to send them to two years at Oklahoma State University to finish off their education. His son is in the Navy reserves and receives a stipend that also helps pay some bills.

I live comfortably knowing that my family will never have to make the same sacrifices so that each of my five siblings can attend a four-year college.

My dad and his friend came from the same town. And yet, their children are leading polar opposite lives.

According to Economic Policy Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, a low income can keep even the highest achieving students from attending college.

A longitudinal study (conducted over a period of 12 years) followed a group of students from their 8th grade years, charting their performance based on math scores from standardized tests and, of that group, who attained a college degree.

The article featuring the study said that, based on the figure, there are "great disparities in college completion based on socioeconomic status". I don't know if such a broad, sweeping claim can be made just on the figure alone - but it is clear that there is a correlation between college completion and socioeconomic status. This is evident even in our own neighborhood.

I don't have the answer, but I wonder: what can be done to help even the most low-income families receive a strong education?

TV Tokenism: Body of Proof

*

The series stars Dana Delany as Dr. Megan Hunt (the woman in the center), a medical examiner. The show focuses on Hunt's efforts to balance the demands of her professional life (working as a medical examiner) with her personal life (reconnecting with her estranged daughter). Hunt was a top-flight neurosurgeon until she was in a car crash that later led to ruined her career. This resulted in her resignation, and retirement from the profession altogether.

It premiered in September of 2011 and has gotten good reviews. The target demographic

seems women 30-50 (according to the ages of the people commenting on the show's forum).

We see tokenism coming into play with the two black characters who play generally one- or two-dimensional characters. Dr. Brumfeld accounts for the "authority minority" over Hunt, following the 'rule book'. However, he is constantly being sassed by her and undermined as she takes her own initiatives. He is deferred to subplots and witty comments. Detective Baker portrays another token character, the respectable assistant or 'side kick', facing a moral dilemma between which authority (Hunt or Morris) she prefers to work under. She is also delegated to subplots.

Hunt, on the other hand, along with Dunlop and Morris, are morally complex characters that get hefty screen time in comparison to their minority counterparts

Characters:

• Peter Dunlop is the man to Hunt's right, a former police officer and now medico-legal investigator because of a gunshot wound. As partner and confidant to Dr. Megan Hunt, Peter now finds himself investigating Philadelphia's mysterious medical cases.

• Dr. Kate Murphy is the woman to Hunt's left. She is the imperious Chief Medical Examiner and Megan's superior. She is the first female Chief M.E. in Philadelphia's history.

• Detective Bud Morris is the man on the far right and is a homicide detective. A hardheaded, straight-shooting veteran of the Philadelphia Homicide Division, he fights for justice on the streets of Philly while fighting a personal battle at home, mending a crumbling relationship with his wife who just kicked him out of their Center City brownstone. He often clashes with Megan at crime scenes over their different views.

• Dr. Curtis Brumfeld, the first man to Hunt's left, is the administrative glue that holds the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office together. As the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner he is technically Megan's boss but realizes no one is Megan's boss. Still Curtis is a capable and intelligent Medical Examiner whose bluster belies his love for his job. When Curtis isn't busy trying to rein in Megan, you can find him down in the dirt examining his life's obsession: Bugs

• Detective Samantha Baker, the woman to Hunt's right, is Bud's partner but while Bud finds Dr. Megan Hunt's methods irritating, Sam identifies with Megan's hands-on, take-no-prisoners approach. Sam must balance her allegiance to her partner Bud with her growing respect for Megan and the unconventional work of the M.E.O.

*This is an assignment by my American Studies class to analyze a TV network drama and the role of "TV Tokenism" (under a specific definition by our teacher) in the show. 

Reverse Tokenism

I'm a big Tyler Perry fan, despite not fitting into his typical demographic. Nonetheless, I love both this comedic and dramatic movies. I recently went to his newest movie, "Good Deeds", a drama about a highly successful black CEO, Wesley Deeds, who finds himself living the dreams of his family rather than his own. He gets wrapped into the saga of a single mom who recently got evicted for failing to pay rent and restores both her life and his own in the process.

In class, we recently discussed "TV Tokenism", which is defined as (within the context of a network prime-time drama) when the main character is white or white-looking, the center of the story line, morally complex, and receives most of the screen time. The supporting role is a "token" minority, maybe in a prestigious and/or "buddy" position, rarely complicated and with little screen time.

With that definition in mind, I found it hilarious that in a movie dominated by black characters, there were two white friends of Mr. Deed's fiancé and one white executive character that worked alongside Mr. Deeds.

We talk about how networks feel the need to have token black characters to satisfy the "diversity quota" but if the ratio of whites to blacks is so easily flip flopped with films like those of Tyler Perry, who's to say what really constitutes diversity? Can it be measured and calculated to appeal to all types of audiences or should some types of entertainment stay within a certain demographic?

When No One Cares

There is a surprising phenomenon popping up on Facebook after most of the "RIP" statuses regarding Whitney Houston's recent demise have fallen to the wayside. It is pictures that compare the magnitude of attention to Whitney's death to the attention paid to other tragedies happening at perhaps a larger scale.


The comparison is appropriate. Whitney was an extremely wealthy celebrity who squandered her money away on drugs, wasting both her talent and life, which led to her unexpected death. The other people pictured, like the starving children in Africa or people like Lt Michael Murphy, would give anything to keep on living.

However controversial the pictures might be, they're asking the right questions. Why, as a society, do we seem to care more about celebrities and the culture of entertainment than we do to more serious world issues like war and hunger? 


On the homepage of CNN as I am writing this blog, an article about Whitney is featured, titled: "Celebrating Whitney Houston". Just below it, in much smaller font, is the heading "Slaughter in Syria". In terms of which issue is more pressing to world issues, I would think that the Syria story should be more featured. But, the thing is, people don't like to be bombarded with the serious issues.

In 2010, CNN published an article in response to one of Paris Hilton's drug arrests, wondering why, in light of current issues like climate change and war, people were so eager to focus on the most recent celebrity mishap.

Among other things the article discusses, they interview Danny Bonaduce, a former child star, who comments on our appetite for celebrity news: "It's just way more fun than facing what is actually happening out there...The news is bad. Who wants to know that when we can watch Lindsay Lohan drown in a sea of Vicodin?"

How can we expect to combat the problems of today if so many of us are collectively caught up in the trivial and shallow issues of our celebrity culture?

It's Halftime in America

Half the fun of watching the Super Bowl is for the commercials. Companies spend millions of dollars on 30 seconds of airtime to cash in on the huge percentage of Americans glued to their television screens. Commercials can be witty, weird or just plain dull but one that caught my attention was Chrysler's half time spot. It only aired once, before the half time show, when most people are watching.

The commercial featured the gravelly voice of Clint Eastwood, first describing the two football teams discussing their plays for the next half of the game. He then goes on to talk about how America is in a similar situation: we've survived the financial crisis of 2008 and are now getting ready to build for a better "second half".

It reminded me of Obama's recent State of the Union speech. Obama spoke about our hardships as a country, the problems we face now, but most of the the speech was focused on potential plans for a better future. Encouraging businesses to bring back jobs to the the U.S. and stop outsourcing was a major plot point. There was immense patriotism and empowerment in his speech as he repeated that, if given the chance, America would always win.

Chrysler's commercial mirrored the optimism of Obama's patriotic speech, focusing specifically on the city of Detroit and how the auto industry is coming back after years of hardship.

Clint says of Americans, "we find a way through tough times and if we can't find a way, we make one". This patriotic sentiment is one of those 'core American values' that we've built our country on, that even after war and economic disaster, we have always been able to come back fighting. Without being politically bias, this hits home with every American that watched the Super Bowl.

The last image of the commercial were the words, "Imported From Detroit" which immediately harkens back to Obama's encouragement to bring business back to the U.S. When most of our goods are manufactured elsewhere, there's pride in anything that's made on our own soil by our own people. Chrysler targeted that patriotic pride and strategically named itself the "Made in America" car company through this commercial.

What other commercials did you see that targeted patriotic sentiments? What other strategies did the ads use?

What's Your Car Saying?

Bumper stickers say more than meets the eye. As we discussed in class, they can show political affiliation, where the driver is from, the success the driver has had (college/honor student stickers), in addition to hobbies and points of interest to the driver.

What it so meaningful behind a bumper sticker that inspires people to tack their opinions on their car?

At it's core, I think it can be related back to Maslow's Pyramid of Needs.

Publicly associating yourself with a group through bumper stickers strikes at the core of what we, as humans, need - according to Maslow. Once basic needs like food, shelter, and stability are met (Safety/Physiological Needs), we can seek to meet our needs at the next level: Belonging.

Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether it comes from a large social group or small social connections. At this level, our innate desire to love and be loved is met and we create our identities through the groups we associate with.

The bumper sticker actually comes in at the next level: Esteem. We have a group, we feel like we belong, and so we feel the need to show others that we belong as well. The Esteem level is defined as gaining respect from others and feeling a sense of achievement, among other things.

A public bumper sticker serves to cater to these needs quite nicely, validating one's achievements/social groups and, in theory, garnering respect from others as they learn about you as a person.

What other hidden meanings do you see in bumper stickers?

Meta-Blog Post

Mission Impossible: The Girl Fight

Last night, I saw Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol with my two younger siblings and, let's be honest: it's a total guy movie. That being said, I was still pretty surprised with how the movie portrayed the woman in their entourage, Jane Carter.

To start off, her lover dies at the beginning of the movie so she is emotionally damaged, dealing with her heartbreak and desire to avenge his death, which eventually clouds her judgement. She fits the role of the weak, emotional, and fragile sex object. 

Yes, our friend, Ethan Hunt, experienced some heartbreak as well, with the divorce/loss of his wife (to be explained in the movie) but he powers through it, without showing any signs of heartbreak or weakness despite his pain. 

This brings me to the scene in which Carter is face to face with the woman who killed her lover. In the movie, Carter was given specific orders not to kill her. However, after a crazy, emotionally charged fight, Carter throws the assassin off the building.

In contrast to all the male fight scenes, this one loses all sense of control and the girls stumble around the room, resorting to throwing vases and lamps at each other, pulling each other's hair. To top it all off, they're both wearing skin-tight clothing that accentuates their bodies and there is plenty of cleavage going on there. 

The outfit for a female fighting character is always the same: provocative, skin-tight outfits with heavy eye makeup and pouty lips, but she can throw a punch. More often than not, she is the accessory to her male counterpart, the girlfriend, sacrificing her life to be in his. 

The media plays a powerful role in manipulating how we think about gender and defining "normal". From movies, boys learn how to be macho and see the woman as constantly emotionally fraught or dependent. On the other end, girls watch chick flicks and action movies where, in the end, its all about the guy.

How else do you see the media defining what is "normal"?