Emil and I are in agreement that the “American Dream” is still alive. However, we think it has had a sort of paradigm shift because of how much the world has transformed. As the article “What’s Up With the American dream” stated, the dream itself is this idea of going to school, studying, getting jobs, and working hard will lead to financial security or maybe even great wealth. It is what anyone would consider rising from the bottom and arriving to the top, or in other words a dream come true.
This is a great picture of how the American dream was mostly visualized as during the 1940’s-1950’s. It shows the happy family in a quiet neighborhood. It appears that the husband surprising his wife with a new car for the family.
The dream back then was marrying into a happy couple and having children. The men would aim to hold titles such as businessmen and work hard to support his family, while the women would dream of taking care of the children at home.
In today’s world, the American dream for most women is definitely not the “stay at home mom” job. Women are getting in fields that used to be traditionally men only, such as medicine and engineering. Things have also changed much since then because our culture has developed a lot since then. People today dream of becoming rich and famous more than ever. With the help of what we have been given the privilege to grow up with technology wise, this has grown more and more. There are people today who are living their American Dream being Instagram and Twitter famous. They have thousands and thousands of followers, making money advertising and blogging on these social media sites starting as young as sixteen years old. This form of entrepreneurship or achieving the “self-made” success was not available until recently, and it has skyrocketed many people’s dream.
Emil and I believe the American Dream is still alive without a doubt, however, we think it has transformed drastically and will continue to do so forever.
Writer, Guest. “The American Dream of the 1940s & 1950s.” Ultra Swank RSS. 19 Oct. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
I remember watching CSI: Crime Scene Investigation consistently throughout the ages of twelve to sixteen. At the age of seventeen up until now, I’ve became a regular binge watcher of Prison Break and White Collar whenever I get any amount of free time. I would say I’m definitely attracted to the mystery/thriller genre and I have been for quite some time now. These are all influential in the sense that it allows the viewers to think outside the box.
For example, Prison Break is constantly throwing surprises your way as more and more conflict piles up, interrupting the planned escape. For example, there was a certain pipe that the protagonist managed to melt through (essential for the escape) that was actually replaced for one that is indestructible. The problem comes in when the viewers are unaware of this until the episode that the initial escape takes place, surprising both the characters and the audience! This of course sets the escape date back and you are left guessing what is going to happen next. This calls for thinking outside the box for the obvious reason that escaping from a prison is clearly not a simple task, whether it be in real life or on a screen of a show that is in charge of making it as realistic as possible. It is apparent that whatever will happen next won’t be something predictable, or else the show would not doing a good job under the thriller aspect. I could not possible count how many times I was left to create an alternate escape plan using what I already knew about the prison and prisoners from the previous episodes until the next week.
White Collar is another television show that calls for its viewers to subconsciously think outside the box. The show is about an incredibly intelligent and multitalented con artist working as a criminal informant for the FBI. Considering it revolves around highly wanted criminals, and the FBI, it is no surprise that the plots of each episode have intense climaxes.
Steven Johnson argues that the growth of TV shows and its level of complication that has increased over the last couple of decades has lead viewers to be intelligently effected. His argument is that the human mind to be effected in a positive direction whereas Dana Stevens explains the “ridiculousness” behind this attempted explanation of the influence behind television. Though I would not necessarily say TV has “made me smarter,” I don’t think my train of thoughts would be as creative as they have became if it weren’t for these mysteries and thrillers. I think my interest for problem solving has increased while watching a certain genre, however I could not say that it is the reason behind it
Though there are not many things I can easily recall about my childhood, I do remember surfing through channels after school in hopes I’d come across an episode of my favorite show, whether it be a new one or a rerun.
This show was called Codename: Kids Next Door and I could never get enough. It was about a group of ten year old kids who practically lived in a giant secret treehouse. They would build elaborate contraptions using anything they can get their hands on, from chewing gum to spare tires. Each kid had a specialty and worked with the rest of the group to win silly “battles” with adults. I think my obsession with this show acted as an introduction to the field I found myself majoring in today, nine years later. I would watch in awe as the kids were always creating cool new machines to assist in all kinds of challenges. Being impressed by this is no surprise considering that as I grew up, I became more and more interested the creation of all the new things I was being introduced to. I’m now majoring in a technology field, in hopes of learning about what already exists and the progressiveness of what could. I would not say that watching this silly show as a kid made me “smarter,” but I definitely think it opened my mind to creativity. Seeing as though I was merely hitting the double digits age-wise, I clearly could have not came up with the cool new widgets the kids were making on each episode. It pulled me in and absorbed all of the attention I had to offer.
I think that my interest in this show influenced the shows I got into later on as well. Codename: Kids Next Door was a show where there was always conflict needing to be resolved and I feel as though that type of storyline stuck with me through my teenager years. I grew interested in shows like CSI, White Collar and Prison Break. All of these tie into one another due to the fact that they all belong to the problem solving and thoughtful TV genre.
In my opinion, both sides of the argument present valid points. I agree with Mott about the benefit of increasing the level of maturity in relationships between both sexes, yet at the same time Morrow makes the good point that turning these organizations into coed ones defeats the purpose of why students join in the first place. Morrow also mentions the fact that these groups are more than just their universities, and if the idea was brought to the national offices, it would be immediately rejected as it does not follow tradition. New York is not allowed to have Greek houses, therefor I dorm with a couple of girls who are founding sisters of their sororities. I was able to ask them some questions, and it turns out that Morrow makes an incredibly valid point because both national and international office are indeed extremely strict regarding even the smallest things, let alone a complete transformation.
My feelings on the issue are mixed. I agree with Mott about the benefit of increasing the level of maturity in relationships between both sexes, yet at the same time Morrow mentions that turning these organizations into coed ones defeats the purpose of the reason students join in the first place. This is not to say that the idea is entirely out of the question, but rather that it carries multiple pros and cons. Morrow brings up the good point that these groups are more than just a part of their universities and that the idea would be rejected immediately if presented to national offices. To make a case in point, the state of New York is not allowed to have Greek houses; therefore I dorm with a couple of girls who are actually founding sisters of their sororities. I was able to ask them some questions regarding the process they had to go through in order to begin the sorority at this university, and it turns out that Morrow makes an incredibly valid point. Both national and international offices are indeed extremely strict regarding even the smallest things, such as following tradition with recruiting, hosting events and organizing charities. If this is something the offices do not offer even the slightest bit of freedom on, it is highly doubtful they will give any leeway on other things, let alone a complete transformation like going coed.