The Social Network scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin posts about the portrayal of women.(kenlevine.blogspot.com)
kenlevine.blogspot.com
The Social Network scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin posts about the portrayal of women.
http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-sorkin-responds-to-commenter-in.html
12 comments
I was one of the people who downvoted you (though it looks like the crowd is back on your side again), so here's an explanation:
First and mostly unrelated to your post: I have big issues with the Social Network's accuracy in its storytelling. Besides all the things that were completely made up, it's very telling that Sorkin in the OP states that the voiceover from the Facemash sequence was completely factual, with only minor things removed from Zuckerberg's blog posts. In fact, if you track down the original blog posts on Scribd, you'll find that Sorkin inserted several of the most offensive sentences, such as the crack about the Erica character's bra size, and also including the sentence "Do you think that's because all BU girls are bitches?", which Sorkin seems to be attributing as a quote in the OP but were not in the blog posts. So when I talk about Zuckerberg's misogyny, I'm talking about the misogyny of the character named Mark Zuckerberg that Aaron Sorkin made up for the movie, not Zuckerberg himself, as I'm convinced the two are mostly unrelated.
So all that said, the stuff movie-Zuckerberg does in the Facemash scene is blatantly and unambiguously misogynistic. He blogs about his ex-girlfriends bra size, he calls her and all other girls attending BU a bitch, and creates a site allowing you to publicly compare the hotness of various women using pictures obtained without their permission. These acts demean women, portray them as just sexual objects, and are essentially misogynistic.
What's bizarre about your post is that you didn't dispute any of those things. Instead, you presented an argument than women and men are equally petty and immature, and then an argument for how the feminist movement has led to an over-interrogation of male sexist behavior while ignoring similarly problematic female behavior. You can make those arguments, but the fact that you did so in reply to the paragraph you quoted strongly implies that you believe that the actions portrayed in the movie were not sexism and not misogynistic. You seem to be characterizing the things movie-Zuckerberg did as just "a bunch of 20 year olds drinking too much and jockeying for attention and being to mean to each other", as if those were the reasons why people saw movie-Zuckerberg as misogynistic.
I agree that feminists are often too quick to see male sexism in places were it isn't there, but that doesn't mean that male sexism doesn't exist. It's one thing to think that feminists go too far, and another thing to go on a rant about the excesses of feminism when confronted with a (fictional) example of actual sexism. The things movie-Zuckerberg did were sexist, and if you disagree with that, and it seems like you do, I'm honestly a little disturbed.
First and mostly unrelated to your post: I have big issues with the Social Network's accuracy in its storytelling. Besides all the things that were completely made up, it's very telling that Sorkin in the OP states that the voiceover from the Facemash sequence was completely factual, with only minor things removed from Zuckerberg's blog posts. In fact, if you track down the original blog posts on Scribd, you'll find that Sorkin inserted several of the most offensive sentences, such as the crack about the Erica character's bra size, and also including the sentence "Do you think that's because all BU girls are bitches?", which Sorkin seems to be attributing as a quote in the OP but were not in the blog posts. So when I talk about Zuckerberg's misogyny, I'm talking about the misogyny of the character named Mark Zuckerberg that Aaron Sorkin made up for the movie, not Zuckerberg himself, as I'm convinced the two are mostly unrelated.
So all that said, the stuff movie-Zuckerberg does in the Facemash scene is blatantly and unambiguously misogynistic. He blogs about his ex-girlfriends bra size, he calls her and all other girls attending BU a bitch, and creates a site allowing you to publicly compare the hotness of various women using pictures obtained without their permission. These acts demean women, portray them as just sexual objects, and are essentially misogynistic.
What's bizarre about your post is that you didn't dispute any of those things. Instead, you presented an argument than women and men are equally petty and immature, and then an argument for how the feminist movement has led to an over-interrogation of male sexist behavior while ignoring similarly problematic female behavior. You can make those arguments, but the fact that you did so in reply to the paragraph you quoted strongly implies that you believe that the actions portrayed in the movie were not sexism and not misogynistic. You seem to be characterizing the things movie-Zuckerberg did as just "a bunch of 20 year olds drinking too much and jockeying for attention and being to mean to each other", as if those were the reasons why people saw movie-Zuckerberg as misogynistic.
I agree that feminists are often too quick to see male sexism in places were it isn't there, but that doesn't mean that male sexism doesn't exist. It's one thing to think that feminists go too far, and another thing to go on a rant about the excesses of feminism when confronted with a (fictional) example of actual sexism. The things movie-Zuckerberg did were sexist, and if you disagree with that, and it seems like you do, I'm honestly a little disturbed.
Another important inaccuracy to add to the catalog of accidental-on-purpose mistakes in the Facemash sequence: the actual Facemash was gender-blind. I'm sure in practice a lot of its appeal was for men looking at women, but male students' looks were rated and compared on an equal footing.
> These acts demean women, portray them as just sexual objects, and are essentially misogynistic.
How do you know that the real "Erica Albright" didn't make misandrist comments about the size of his genitalia or his inability to measure up to rowers? Those kinds of comments happen all the time to nerds (just look at any Jezebel discussion thread), and are exactly the equivalent of male dissing of female attractiveness.
In reality, women's groups fought what would become Facebook tooth and nail. Had Zuckerberg stopped doing what he did after the words of the strong womyn at Fuerza Latina, he'd have been a social outcast through college. Is the takeaway lesson here really to pay obeisance to the enforcers of conventional wisdom?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creato...
"Comments on the e-mail lists of both Fuerza Latina and the Association of Harvard Black Women blasted the site."
How do you know that the real "Erica Albright" didn't make misandrist comments about the size of his genitalia or his inability to measure up to rowers? Those kinds of comments happen all the time to nerds (just look at any Jezebel discussion thread), and are exactly the equivalent of male dissing of female attractiveness.
In reality, women's groups fought what would become Facebook tooth and nail. Had Zuckerberg stopped doing what he did after the words of the strong womyn at Fuerza Latina, he'd have been a social outcast through college. Is the takeaway lesson here really to pay obeisance to the enforcers of conventional wisdom?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creato...
"Comments on the e-mail lists of both Fuerza Latina and the Association of Harvard Black Women blasted the site."
> I'm talking about the misogyny of the character named Mark Zuckerberg that Aaron Sorkin made up for the movie, not Zuckerberg himself, as I'm convinced the two are mostly unrelated. So all that said, the stuff movie-Zuckerberg does in the Facemash scene is blatantly and unambiguously misogynistic.
You and I both know it's a fictional character, but Sorkin is acting like it's not:
"These women--whether it's the girls who are happy to take their clothes off and dance for the boys or Eduardo's psycho-girlfriend are real. I mean REALLY real."
> What's bizarre about your post is that you didn't dispute any of those things. Instead, you presented an argument than women and men are equally petty and immature,
Yes. In the real world, yes. But Sorkin's pretending his movie isn't fiction. That's the problem - he's saying it's really real, I'm saying his movie and righteous indignation doesn't reflect reality very well.
You and I both know it's a fictional character, but Sorkin is acting like it's not:
"These women--whether it's the girls who are happy to take their clothes off and dance for the boys or Eduardo's psycho-girlfriend are real. I mean REALLY real."
> What's bizarre about your post is that you didn't dispute any of those things. Instead, you presented an argument than women and men are equally petty and immature,
Yes. In the real world, yes. But Sorkin's pretending his movie isn't fiction. That's the problem - he's saying it's really real, I'm saying his movie and righteous indignation doesn't reflect reality very well.
Well OK, if your argument really was "Sorkin created a fake caracter that acts really misogynist in order to make a political point about feminism that I disagree with", and not "what was shown in the movie wasn't misogyny, just college boys being equally immature as college girls are!", then I must say I am more than a little surprised, but tone is hard on the web, so I'll give you be benefit of the doubt.
Immature female behavior? What, no, that doesn't happen. What are you, a sexist or something?
Immature female behavior is actually celebrated. Look at Sex and the City, which is all about four middle-aged, presumably successful women acting like vapid teenagers, and this is supposed to be empowering and inspiring.
Immature female behavior is actually celebrated. Look at Sex and the City, which is all about four middle-aged, presumably successful women acting like vapid teenagers, and this is supposed to be empowering and inspiring.
Immature male behaviour is celebrated as well. Look at all the tv shows that portray some men as boys who haven't been able to put away their video games and other toys. They too act like vapid teenagers ;/
True, but if you criticize the 'Sex in the City' immaturity, you are lambasted. If you criticize the immature male behavior, you are celebrated. [in popular culture]
Sorkin explicitly agrees with you:
> (It's only fair to note that the women--bussed in from other schools for the "hot" parties, wait on line to get on that bus without anyone pointing guns at their heads.)
You seem to be pretty riled up over this subject but it doesn't seem directly relevant to the article in question.
> (It's only fair to note that the women--bussed in from other schools for the "hot" parties, wait on line to get on that bus without anyone pointing guns at their heads.)
You seem to be pretty riled up over this subject but it doesn't seem directly relevant to the article in question.
Please read the guidelines, where it says, "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good..." You're currently at 3 points, 15 minutes in.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The perspective you mentioned is well-known to anyone. (At least I hear it more often than I hear from actual feminists.) If people want to spend their time responding to you, they will; there's no need to generate long debate threads.
The perspective you mentioned is well-known to anyone. (At least I hear it more often than I hear from actual feminists.) If people want to spend their time responding to you, they will; there's no need to generate long debate threads.
> Please read the guidelines
You've been here 170 days? Well, welcome, but it's fairly standard practice to add a quick edit to let people know you're looking for discussion instead of trying to stir up trouble after attempting to write a thoughtful-yet-controversial comment. It shows you're looking to have discussion instead of just get a rise out of people.
> The perspective you mentioned is well-known to anyone. (At least I hear it more often than I hear from actual feminists.) If people want to spend their time responding to you, they will; there's no need to generate long debate threads.
Except the author of the article that was just posted, you mean? That's what I was commenting on. And anyways, discussion on a discussion site seems like a good thing, and not something to be discouraged.
You've been here 170 days? Well, welcome, but it's fairly standard practice to add a quick edit to let people know you're looking for discussion instead of trying to stir up trouble after attempting to write a thoughtful-yet-controversial comment. It shows you're looking to have discussion instead of just get a rise out of people.
> The perspective you mentioned is well-known to anyone. (At least I hear it more often than I hear from actual feminists.) If people want to spend their time responding to you, they will; there's no need to generate long debate threads.
Except the author of the article that was just posted, you mean? That's what I was commenting on. And anyways, discussion on a discussion site seems like a good thing, and not something to be discouraged.
I agree that banning meta-discussion and positing '[it] never does any good' is on the totalitarian side as a guideline.
1- If you put any teenagers actions under a microscope, you will find regrettable and petty things. Just because Zuckerberg founded a huge company doesn't mean he necessarily had to be a wise adult at 19 (or whatever age he was). Cut the man some slack for being like every other guy his age (at that time). He doesn't appear to have been the most mature guy at that time, so what? People can grow and change.
2- There's a lot of "trusting" Aaron Sorkin going on with his descriptions of things. Given that he didn't talk to several important people, one has to remember this is just the POV of the guy who has a vested interest in fabricating the greatest possible amount of controversy to push his movie.
2- There's a lot of "trusting" Aaron Sorkin going on with his descriptions of things. Given that he didn't talk to several important people, one has to remember this is just the POV of the guy who has a vested interest in fabricating the greatest possible amount of controversy to push his movie.
>These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now.
I'm finding Aaron Sorkin incredibly irritating lately. Jeff Jarvis called it 'revenge on the revenge of the nerds' and this absolutely is. The movie hasn't been released where I live yet, but I've read several interviews with him where he makes statements like this. It's complete nonsense. There is no us and them, no global jocks vs geeks battle being waged here.
If anything the cultural conflict is generational; media and communication is changing faster than some people can understand. And Sorkin is one of those that doesn't. He doesn't understand what facebook is for, why people like it, or what Zuckerberg wants. He claims that facebook is just the backdrop of the story he's telling - and movie maybe good as a movie, but it's a fictionalized account, by somebody who doesn't understand what backdrop was all about.
Disclaimer: I'm historically a fan of Sorkin's movies, and a vocal critic of Facebook's privacy policies.
I'm finding Aaron Sorkin incredibly irritating lately. Jeff Jarvis called it 'revenge on the revenge of the nerds' and this absolutely is. The movie hasn't been released where I live yet, but I've read several interviews with him where he makes statements like this. It's complete nonsense. There is no us and them, no global jocks vs geeks battle being waged here.
If anything the cultural conflict is generational; media and communication is changing faster than some people can understand. And Sorkin is one of those that doesn't. He doesn't understand what facebook is for, why people like it, or what Zuckerberg wants. He claims that facebook is just the backdrop of the story he's telling - and movie maybe good as a movie, but it's a fictionalized account, by somebody who doesn't understand what backdrop was all about.
Disclaimer: I'm historically a fan of Sorkin's movies, and a vocal critic of Facebook's privacy policies.
>There is no us and them, no global jocks vs geeks battle being waged here.
And you think the Engineers vs. sales is really all that different? I mean, being as we are adults now we can largely avoid oneanother, but as far as I can tell, the style vs. substance battle continues apace.
And you think the Engineers vs. sales is really all that different? I mean, being as we are adults now we can largely avoid oneanother, but as far as I can tell, the style vs. substance battle continues apace.
Engineers and salespeople generally have different personalities, don’t enjoy hanging out with one another, and look down on one another’s interests, but that doesn’t make it a versus thing. As adults we are no longer competing directly with one another for status.
As adults we are no longer competing directly with one another for status.
As an adult engineer, I feel myself in status competition with other engineers: I want to be recognized as a better engineer than they are. The salespeople just aren’t on my radar.
> The salespeople just aren’t on my radar.
That is one reason why salesfolk typically make more than engineers....
That is one reason why salesfolk typically make more than engineers....
You might not be competing, but I am certainly competing for status, mates, sex, money and all that. Yes it is definitely a vs. thing. I compete against every adult male in my proximity, whether he be sales, engineering, or janitor.
This Slate article claims that Facemash had pictures of men and women:
http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
It seems that most of the specific evidence Sorkin cites is fictional. If Slate is correct, the site was egalitarian. If the transcripts of Zuckerberg's blog are believable (Google them if you want; they're not hard to find), then Sorkin wrote most of the inflammatory material.
It is interesting that people who don't know the story very well still zero in on the fictional details Sorking added as the most upsetting. In a way, it must vindicate Zuckerberg. Unfortunate that those readily-identifiable details are so memorable.
http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
It seems that most of the specific evidence Sorkin cites is fictional. If Slate is correct, the site was egalitarian. If the transcripts of Zuckerberg's blog are believable (Google them if you want; they're not hard to find), then Sorkin wrote most of the inflammatory material.
It is interesting that people who don't know the story very well still zero in on the fictional details Sorking added as the most upsetting. In a way, it must vindicate Zuckerberg. Unfortunate that those readily-identifiable details are so memorable.
It would probably have been difficult to separate the photos by gender.
I see far too many distortions and exaggerations in Sorkin's script for this to be credible. Some are already noted in this thread, but to add a few more:
- In this rebuttal Sorkin says that the party sequence is something Mark is imagining and seems to suggest that's right out of Mark's blog. I don't see how this can be supported by what was in the film; it is depicted as a real event. I don't see anything in Mark's blog (at least those few pages commonly quoted on the web) to support the contention it's Mark's fantasy.
- For most of the period the movie covers, the real Zuckerberg has a girlfriend and is an athlete himself -- he's a fencer. The movie Zuckerberg is a dateless wonder who believes athletics are beyond him.
- In a sequence that only a Hollywood screenwriter could have invented, interns are tested by hacking into a "python webserver running SSL (??)" while being forced to drink shots according to highly implausible rules. The script actually has stage directions for HOT ASIAN WOMEN pouring shots to be stationed a pace behind (!!) each male hacker.
Sorkin defends himself in this rebuttal by noting that the Erica Albright character, and the unnamed lawyer at the end, are Mark's moral superiors. But that's a form of sexism too, when you only have "good girls" and "bad girls".
The movie is clearly setting these two kinds of women in opposition and had to wildly exaggerate things in order to get there. The movie Mark Zuckerberg is frustrated he can't win the respect of "good" women like Erica as a peer, so he attempts to rise above the entire social system by creating Facebook, and thus enters a more narcissistic world (embodied by Sean Parker) in which "bad" women are mere accessories.
As a movie it works. As a programmer I am disturbed that so much innocent tomfoolery as well as brilliant creativity are dismissed as embodiments of misogyny.
For the record, I'm not a fan of Facebook or even Mark Zuckerberg. But many people, even smart people, are taking the movie at face value as a depiction of the real Mark Zuckerberg. I've seen feminist writer Naomi Klein quoting this "Facebook was born in a night of misogyny" thing too. It looks like this is destined to be part of Zuckerberg's legacy, whether he deserves it or not.
- In this rebuttal Sorkin says that the party sequence is something Mark is imagining and seems to suggest that's right out of Mark's blog. I don't see how this can be supported by what was in the film; it is depicted as a real event. I don't see anything in Mark's blog (at least those few pages commonly quoted on the web) to support the contention it's Mark's fantasy.
- For most of the period the movie covers, the real Zuckerberg has a girlfriend and is an athlete himself -- he's a fencer. The movie Zuckerberg is a dateless wonder who believes athletics are beyond him.
- In a sequence that only a Hollywood screenwriter could have invented, interns are tested by hacking into a "python webserver running SSL (??)" while being forced to drink shots according to highly implausible rules. The script actually has stage directions for HOT ASIAN WOMEN pouring shots to be stationed a pace behind (!!) each male hacker.
Sorkin defends himself in this rebuttal by noting that the Erica Albright character, and the unnamed lawyer at the end, are Mark's moral superiors. But that's a form of sexism too, when you only have "good girls" and "bad girls".
The movie is clearly setting these two kinds of women in opposition and had to wildly exaggerate things in order to get there. The movie Mark Zuckerberg is frustrated he can't win the respect of "good" women like Erica as a peer, so he attempts to rise above the entire social system by creating Facebook, and thus enters a more narcissistic world (embodied by Sean Parker) in which "bad" women are mere accessories.
As a movie it works. As a programmer I am disturbed that so much innocent tomfoolery as well as brilliant creativity are dismissed as embodiments of misogyny.
For the record, I'm not a fan of Facebook or even Mark Zuckerberg. But many people, even smart people, are taking the movie at face value as a depiction of the real Mark Zuckerberg. I've seen feminist writer Naomi Klein quoting this "Facebook was born in a night of misogyny" thing too. It looks like this is destined to be part of Zuckerberg's legacy, whether he deserves it or not.
"More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now."
This is a gross overgeneralization, and also the biggest fault of the movie. That Zuck's drive to build Facebook is nothing more that petty revenge against women (Erica) and jocks (the Winklevoss twins) is completely unrealistic.
All people who create things, whether it's a website or a screenplay, do it for the love of creating that thing. Creation is its own motivator. Sure, there may be scores to settle in the process -- that's human nature -- but it's never the driver. It's puzzling that Sorkin never made the connection that Zuckerberg is a creative just like him.
This is a gross overgeneralization, and also the biggest fault of the movie. That Zuck's drive to build Facebook is nothing more that petty revenge against women (Erica) and jocks (the Winklevoss twins) is completely unrealistic.
All people who create things, whether it's a website or a screenplay, do it for the love of creating that thing. Creation is its own motivator. Sure, there may be scores to settle in the process -- that's human nature -- but it's never the driver. It's puzzling that Sorkin never made the connection that Zuckerberg is a creative just like him.
All people who create things, whether it's a website or a screenplay, do it for the love of creating that thing.
How do you know this? Is there some research to back this up or have you talked to everyone who creates things? Motivation (and conversely demotivation) comes from all sorts personal factors. "Love of creating" is just one of many factors that drive people to do what they do.
How do you know this? Is there some research to back this up or have you talked to everyone who creates things? Motivation (and conversely demotivation) comes from all sorts personal factors. "Love of creating" is just one of many factors that drive people to do what they do.
Did you create this comment exclusively for the love of creating a comment?
I completely agree, the way I've always perceived mark zuckerberg is as someone just pretty obsessed with building & tinkering.
Sure maybe the initial spark that seeded the first build of facebook could have had something to do with emotions, but that couldn't possibly motivate someone long enough to continue running & noodling with a product long after its proven to be a multi-billion dollar company.
Sure maybe the initial spark that seeded the first build of facebook could have had something to do with emotions, but that couldn't possibly motivate someone long enough to continue running & noodling with a product long after its proven to be a multi-billion dollar company.
You forgot to mention his friend getting into a final's club and he didn't.
The whole movie really did make it out as a revenge move. Which I think is bullcrap. The Winklevoss might have had the idea first but zuckerberg probably saw it more as, I'm going to make it happen and they can't why should they get any of this.(Pure speculation) Not saying it's right but it's not like he was doing it to screw them.
The whole movie really did make it out as a revenge move. Which I think is bullcrap. The Winklevoss might have had the idea first but zuckerberg probably saw it more as, I'm going to make it happen and they can't why should they get any of this.(Pure speculation) Not saying it's right but it's not like he was doing it to screw them.
Hasn't the Zuck been dating the same girl since just before or just after he started building the whole thing?
Yes, I believe they are engaged now (can't find a confirmation link though).
Also, I think a lot of people need to remember the movie only goes through 2005-ish when they got their 1,000,000th member and Sean Parker was forced out after the cocaine bust (which I gotta believe did not happen in the same day like the movie portrayed). This movie does not touch anything about current day Facebook and all the recent privacy issues or anything. It focuses on the ramp up and all the hurdles Zuck crossed to get there (regardless of whether he created those hurdles for himself or not).
Also, I think a lot of people need to remember the movie only goes through 2005-ish when they got their 1,000,000th member and Sean Parker was forced out after the cocaine bust (which I gotta believe did not happen in the same day like the movie portrayed). This movie does not touch anything about current day Facebook and all the recent privacy issues or anything. It focuses on the ramp up and all the hurdles Zuck crossed to get there (regardless of whether he created those hurdles for himself or not).
I think this is one of those arguments where its really hard to find the line between art and reality, which has the effect of simultaneously making The Social Network an amazing and controversial film.
I'm a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin and I think he takes the screenwriting craft to a whole new level. When he's writing something I don't think he just creates a "story" in his head, I think he crafts a whole society as a canvas. He has the ability, like many artists, to craft an extremely vivid picture in his mind and then translate that vision and eventually the story to his writing. So when he's telling the "Zuckerburg" story he creates an alternate reality but with some small basis in truth. A world where women are treated in a misogynistic manner, in a world inhabited by socially inept genius and an out of touch upper crust.
In this case he bases a lot of what he's built on the books and stories written, quite frankly, by the losers of the Facebook battles. These inform and lead the story but by the time its complete the villains, attitudes, and societies have been morphed into something quite more archetypical then their corresponding reality. Small quirks he finds interesting get expanded into large issues. Molehills are turned into mountains.
And really he's done a great job. The level of discourse on HN alone testifies to his ability to tell a story - like it or not.
I'm a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin and I think he takes the screenwriting craft to a whole new level. When he's writing something I don't think he just creates a "story" in his head, I think he crafts a whole society as a canvas. He has the ability, like many artists, to craft an extremely vivid picture in his mind and then translate that vision and eventually the story to his writing. So when he's telling the "Zuckerburg" story he creates an alternate reality but with some small basis in truth. A world where women are treated in a misogynistic manner, in a world inhabited by socially inept genius and an out of touch upper crust.
In this case he bases a lot of what he's built on the books and stories written, quite frankly, by the losers of the Facebook battles. These inform and lead the story but by the time its complete the villains, attitudes, and societies have been morphed into something quite more archetypical then their corresponding reality. Small quirks he finds interesting get expanded into large issues. Molehills are turned into mountains.
And really he's done a great job. The level of discourse on HN alone testifies to his ability to tell a story - like it or not.
I find the depth of his analysis the most telling aspect of the entire affair. If I were to go to wikipedia right now and look up his article, for example like I just did, I might easily come up with a life story that I could easily understand through my own perspective, disdainful as I am of his chosen occupation and its associated culture.
BA in Musical Theatre lives pointless life as just another starving artist desperately trying to get noticed. His treatment at the hands of a world that values art as perhaps the cheapest commodity in existence leads him to cast around for his own personal pariah and he finds it in the hacker archetype that seems to be taking over the world he inhabits; about the furthest from himself it is possible to get. Finally lucks into success in chosen vapid field. Spends better part of relatively successful career making plain old fashion television in an age where such is being rapidly torn from its roots by the very archetype he's building up a dislike for.
Hits out with poorly researched and much assumed dreck with high production quality at a phenomenon he neither understands, respects, nor has any desire to and fights bitterly against any accusation that his perception may diverge significantly from reality. Throw in the drug habits and the card carrying democrat political affiliation and the story almost writes itself.
He doesn't know Zuckerberg, he's the antithesis of the hacker mindset, he's a typical "artist" and everything in his world is tinted through that view, it's easy to parody an archetype the exact opposite to yourself.
Disclaimer; This is not to say that I know him either, the above is a purposefully shallow analysis. I make it in the interests of pointing out how easy it is to descend into plausible sounding narratives that have little bearing on objective reality when you're dealing with something so far outside your own sphere of experience. Your points of reference become stereotypes and staple characters, and you bend the reality of the people you're attempting to analyse to fit them.
BA in Musical Theatre lives pointless life as just another starving artist desperately trying to get noticed. His treatment at the hands of a world that values art as perhaps the cheapest commodity in existence leads him to cast around for his own personal pariah and he finds it in the hacker archetype that seems to be taking over the world he inhabits; about the furthest from himself it is possible to get. Finally lucks into success in chosen vapid field. Spends better part of relatively successful career making plain old fashion television in an age where such is being rapidly torn from its roots by the very archetype he's building up a dislike for.
Hits out with poorly researched and much assumed dreck with high production quality at a phenomenon he neither understands, respects, nor has any desire to and fights bitterly against any accusation that his perception may diverge significantly from reality. Throw in the drug habits and the card carrying democrat political affiliation and the story almost writes itself.
He doesn't know Zuckerberg, he's the antithesis of the hacker mindset, he's a typical "artist" and everything in his world is tinted through that view, it's easy to parody an archetype the exact opposite to yourself.
Disclaimer; This is not to say that I know him either, the above is a purposefully shallow analysis. I make it in the interests of pointing out how easy it is to descend into plausible sounding narratives that have little bearing on objective reality when you're dealing with something so far outside your own sphere of experience. Your points of reference become stereotypes and staple characters, and you bend the reality of the people you're attempting to analyse to fit them.
Wow. He doesn't hate women, he hates geeks.
Indeed. That's the group he feels comfortable slagging off in the post.
Aaron Sorkin interviewed on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/10/17/...
source: Follow up post by Ken Levine: http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-sorkin-on-cnn.ht...
source: Follow up post by Ken Levine: http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-sorkin-on-cnn.ht...
The rules for all of this are already described in John Fonte's Why There is A Culture War:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/780...
The movie was not sufficiently critical of hegemonic values to reach the threshold of cultural acceptability.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/780...
The movie was not sufficiently critical of hegemonic values to reach the threshold of cultural acceptability.
What a bunch of pretentious self important nonsense. Fact is, from age 12 to age 25 or so, both men and women are incredibly superficial and petty and immature in their relations to each other. There's probably a lot of reasons why, but I think one big reason is that young people spend these days spend very little time on things that actually really matter, thus aren't relating to each other on topics that actually matter. So both genders descend into social pettiness pretty quickly and easily in their younger years.
Young men and young women both act petty. But these days, it's very fashionable to point out all the sexism... on men's parts. Applause lights go on. "Yes, fight that evil male sexism!" It's like, okay, there's a bunch of 20 year olds drinking too much and jockeying for attention and being to mean to each other and then throwing up for all the liquor... neither men nor women at that age seem particularly enlightened to me, but people like to be very grave and serious about "this horrible sexism among men today." It's seems like feminism succeeded at all its objectives, but was doing so well that it just kept going. Nowdays any immature male behavior is portrayed as a sign of some deep cultural problems. Immature female behavior? What, no, that doesn't happen. What are you, a sexist or something?
Edit: Reply instead of downvoting. I disagree with the author's perspective and think he's spouting cliches that don't match reality or improve things. I listed a counter perspective. You're welcome to disagree with me, share your thoughts.