The Social Network

by Melissa Silverstein on October 1, 2010

in Reviews,Sexism

If I take off my feminist hat, I am here to report that The Social Network is a very good movie.  It will be at the top of the Oscar heap and might go all the way to the finish line.  One reason is because it taps perfectly into the current zeitgeist of our culture.

There are great performances from an up and coming generation of actors that feel like they arrive on this film.  Jesse Eisenberg is great as Mark Zuckerberg the nerd anti-hero who every guy wants to be, and I can’t say enough good things about Andrew Garfield as his best and only friend Eduardo Saverin.

The script is done by a master – Aaron Sorkin – and it reminded me of the awesome patter of the early years of The West Wing.  TV is nowhere near as good since that show.  The barbs are fast a furious so good that at times I wanted to write them all down.  And director David Fincher continues to prove how good he is.

But…as a woman and a feminist, the film illuminates another instance of just how superfluous women are.

As laid out in the film, Facebook is born because Zuckerberg got dumped.  In a brilliant opening scene with his then girlfriend Erica Albright played by the soon to be seen Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Rooney Mara, Zuckerberg’s asshole of a personality is revealed quickly and she calls him on it and dumps his ass.  He’s pissed because she only goes to Boston University intimating that she is not worthy of dumping a guy from Harvard.

So he goes home pops a few beers, blogs some nasty stuff about her, and begins to exact his revenge which is a on-line game where people can vote on the hottness of the women at Harvard called Facemash.  He crashes the Harvard server, pisses off the women’s groups and gets a slap on the wrist by the school.

The smart thing about Jesse Eisenberg’s performance is that you can’t really tell if he is a deliberate misogynist and what I mean by that is that he really displays little emotional life at all beyond his attachment to his computer and the creation of “the facebook”, but nevertheless, misogyny is rife in this world.  He is in general a smug son a of a bitch who believes he can get away with anything because he’s a guy who goes to Harvard and is smarter than, well, everybody.  Zuckerberg seems to lack a moral center which is immediately evident from the start.  Eduardo tries to make him understand what he is doing, but Zuckerberg doesn’t care.  It’s all a game to him.

Once “the facebook” launches (and the film infers strongly that he stole the idea from other students who wind up suing his ass and winning) at Harvard he becomes a legend and girls fall at his feet.  But he really doesn’t notice and just burrows in and sets on expanding the site to other Ivy League schools and elite universities across the country and the world.

The film depicts a world where women are crazy groupies, there for amusement, to give you blow jobs in bathrooms at parties, and to snort coke off of, but not to be taken seriously.  The tech world has long been known as a world that favors guys, just this week twitter was all “atwitter” about a women in tech panel that occurred at the TechCrunch Disrupt event in SF.

I guess that is one reason why it is a perfect movie for Hollywood today.   I know there are women doing some seriously important and great jobs in tech, just like I know that there are women doing some seriously important and great jobs in the films business.  But we all know that the tech guys are more visible and the movie guys are more visible.  It’s not like the stakes aren’t too high.  Zuckerberg even after having had to pay out millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements for stepping on his friends and colleagues is still the youngest billionaire in the world.

I guess that the tag line of the film is right – “you don’t get to 500 million friends without making a couple of enemies.”  But the sad thing about the movie is that Zuckerberg, the man who created the way that most of us connect with friends and family (and lots of others we don’t really know but are our “friends”) has no real friends and can’t connect with anyone.  And even sadder is that really all he wanted was to be liked by a girl.  But, at the same time it’s hard to feel too sorry for him because as Rooney Mara’s Erica said when she dumped him “Don’t think girls won’t like you because you are a nerd.  They won’t like you because you are an asshole.”

The Social Network proves that assholes pretty much run the world.  As if we needed a reminder.


{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }

Chris October 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM

“Don’t think girls won’t like you because you are a nerd. They won’t like you because you are an asshole.”

Oh my God, that is the most perfect quote ever. It needs to be copied and pasted all over the internet. There need to be blimps flying cross-country with it written on there. Seriously.

grrljock October 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

From your review and the New Yorker article on him, Marc Zuckerberg sounds exactly like you described him, a smug SOB who thinks he’s smarter and better than everyone else. I don’t think I’ll shell out $10 to be reminded of that assholes run the world, though.

mimi337 October 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I really want to see this movie but the ads are making me crazy!!! It’s because of the total disregard for women in the story — and yes, aaron sorkin is a great writer but quite frankly the guy is a woman-hating asshole himself in real life so it doesn’t surprise me that the girls in the film are all just “whores” — so depressing…every time i see the ad on TV with girls offering their bodies to the Jerk Billionaire Punk, i get so disgusted that I turn down the volume. Sigh…and AAAAAAGGGGHHHH!

jon October 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Great review … I’m like mimi337, I would like to see the movie but don’t want to reward this kind of sexism. Sigh and AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH indeed.

Andrew Sidhom October 1, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I respectfully, yet completely disagree with your points, Ms. Silverstein. The movie shows Zuckerberg’s world and it can’t get too far outside of it. It can’t have strong females characters. If it did, they’d be in constant clash with him. What I especially am opposed to though is calling him an asshole.

In fact, his girlfriend dumps him because he’s indeed a nerd (“an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit”). He’s troubled. His mind works too logically, he has no social talents (you can’t learn those) and he possibly has Asperger’s. He has a cold exterior, he’s not very nice to others but probably can’t help it. If people with this kind of problem softened down and relaxed, they’d lose all sense of purpose and confidence in themselves and the world; and the anxieties, depressions (and potentially panic attacks) would kick in. He NEEDS to know the rules of a certain game, his mind clings onto it, overthinks it, and he needs to own it. It’s obsessive compulsive. Socially, he deeply desires connection, but he’s unfit for it because he ‘s too rigid, jealous, he considers too many things, facts, details (he’s hyper-aware) like for eg. the fact that he’s from Harvard, he had a better education so he can’t allow himself to be treated badly by someone from Boston University. It’s only logical to him, and something’s wrong with this happening. He’s not laid back about stuff like this.

He wants girls and he does all he can to have social experiences but they’re all the wrong things to do because he can’t relax. He overthinks it, takes everything too seriously , and there’s not enough room for social cues, niceness, emotions, etc… in that world. Obsessive personality. People don’t realize how hard it is. They don’t realize that you have to be very flexible to be socially successful (and nice). When you love people, people love you back, then why doesn’t everyone do it? Because they can’t. They aren’t as flexible and easy going as you are, and because niceness is not always a choice. Some so called “assholes” are victims of the way their minds work.

This has nothing to do with gender. It’s relevant only in Zuckerberg’s case b/c the other gender is alien and unfamiliar to him, yet he desires it. But his feelings have a limited power in guiding him from the point of desire to that of getting to know someone, being nice, being gentle, being cool, establishing a relationship and loving his partner. We take these things as granted but it’s an anourmous challenge to him, and that’s how he tackles the subject of girls: as a need and a challenge. And as I said, when too many details cross your mind and you’re in social situations, you’re alerted by many things with negative connotations, hence “I have to respond in an adequate manner”. And that’s when you don’t respond so adequately. For example, he sees something that makes him jealous, or he’s told something that he percieves is adversary (even if, objectively, it’s mild) or belittles him (even if so slightly), he’s not gonna be able to act “cool” and let go. He doesn’t let go, that’s what he is. He has to play the game and come up with a better “code” (reply) than the other person. Even in simple conversations. Nothing is in fact simple. Everything is a code that needs to be solved and find a way to navigate.

As painful as this all sounds, such a person has all the right qualities to work in certain jobs that require high precision, logic, discernment of patterns, etc, like… computer science. Just like those people in class who can’t follow the lecture being taught turn to chatter, joking and flrting, Zuckerberg, who couldn’t find his way in the social world turned to programming – what he does best.

Elizabeth October 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM

It can’t have strong females characters. If it did, they’d be in constant clash with him.

As opposed to everyone else in the movie who he totally gets along with? Ridiculous.

Chris October 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM

lmao @ Elizabeth

Natalie October 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM

I completely and utterly agree with Andrew. I’m a mid twenty something woman and just came back from this movie. I thought it was awesome and perfect the way it was made. The movie isn’t PC, its not about women at all, in fact there is not one black person in the movie… are we going to start calling it racist as well? It’s about telling a story about a few guys starting a company and the situations they were put into. Additionally, this movie is unauthorized, meaning Zuckerberg and everyone else’s roles were all heresay. This movie is made 100% for entertainment. And if you see the movie, they never paint women as the assholes. They exaggerate college girls as Hollywood does, but no girls played too much of a role.Additionally, Mark continues to think about his gf from the first scene throughout the entire movie.

Mimi, as far as not wanting to see it because you assume its going to be sexist is extremely close minded and you’ll be missing out on a great movie. Please know in this case, ignorance isnt bliss.

For everyone out there, please don’t think you are giving someone your $10 or supporting sexism or any nonsense like that. It’s hollywood.. it’s a movie and that’s it. No big conspiracy, just a well done movie from the screenplay, cinematography, acting and directing. How many movies can you say have all of those aspects nailed, not to mention its about something we are all connected to. For goodness sakes, out of everything that came out of the first decade in the 21st century, including recessions, bad or black presidents, 9/11, hurricanes, bailouts and Five Guys, Facebook is the one thing that has made the most impact to the world. So go enjoy a great movie and leave out the need to complain.

Noticed October 2, 2010 at 1:05 AM

I’m with grrljock, don’t need to be reminded of who runs the world. It sounds like this movie would make me seethe. I’m very disappointed in Sorkin.

Good on Stephen Colbert for asking him why there weren’t any women of substance in this movie.

dani October 2, 2010 at 2:33 AM

oh Andrew, poor Andrew

Male characters don’t clash with him, but it’s OK to not respect 51% of the population or even consider their existence outside of how they can service cock?
Are you high?
If so, do yourself a favor and get to a meeting- fast.

Like all women and girls, I am a human being. I’d like to see women and girls depicted as characters with complexity, just as male characters are.

@ Natalie
“They exaggerate college girls as Hollywood does”
You are an idiotic, complacent fool.

Andrew Sidhom October 2, 2010 at 7:08 AM

@ Elizabeth
Forget about gender for a moment and consider that people with different attributes populate Zuckerberg’s world. The ones that stand out from where he stand are:
- competitors, capitalists, etc…
- Friends who crossed him or that he got jealous of
- Girls
Whether the first type of people were men or women in suits wouldn’t make a difference. But those people were men in real life (the twins, Eduardo, Sean Parker…) so no need to change that. The second kind, just by the nature of the word “friend”, have to be guys, b/c like I said, he’s not too familiar with the other gender, he’s unable to interact with them in a healthy way. The third type of people has to be seen as he sees them: a need to connect, a desire to experience, and a challenge to overcome. And that’s exactly how they’re portrayed. As for the title character, as far a we know – could have been a girl. But the movie is an adaptation of a book, and in the book it’s Mark Zuckerberg – a guy. That’s all there is to it.

@ dani
You’re clearly the poorer person here since you clearly didn’t get anything of my post. Or maybe you didn’t bother to read seriously, in which case don’t expect me to take you too seriously either. Your comment “it’s OK to not respect 51% of the population or even consider their existence outside of how they can service cock?” misses the point by a country mile. I’ll attempt a quick reply:
Yes it’s ok for a character in a movie to have a view of women that’s incomplete and unhealthy if said character didn’t get a chance in his life to relax around them and explore them simply as characters. And it’s ok for a movie to depict that character and his worldview. It’s also expected from the audience to understand the case study and understand what it is, and that it doesn’t explore the complete weave of life objectively. In fact there’s no way to do so. Every movie is about something. If the material doesn’t appeal to you, no problem. But don’t start saying things like “I won’t encourage this blatant sexism” b/c they have no basis in fact.

Dave Winer October 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM

It’s a movie, so it doesn’t prove anything about the world. The only conclusions you can draw from the movie are about the movie and the people who wrote it and made it.

And if you listen to the dialog in the opening scene you’ll see that the Zuckerberg character isn’t saying he can’t believe she’s dumping him, he’s trying to talk her out of dumping him. Maybe he can’t believe it too, but that’s just projecting. The evidence is that he’s negotiating, not dismissing.

And her going to B.U. — according to the Zuckerberg character — had nothing to do with her dumping him, it was the reason (he said) she wouldn’t have to study. I thought he had a good point. She seemed really really smart. It was kind of a compliment, an awkward one, but who can blame someone that young for being awkward? Geez. It was good acting, and at least that part of the story was believable. (The rest of it, not so much.)

Anyway it’s true the movie did say that women were flunkies and groupies and people whose bellies you snort coke off. But that informs you about Aaron Sorkin’s idea of women not the tech industry’s idea of women.

He wasn’t very respectful of techies either.

The guy has got a lot of weird ideas. Imho, you’re making a big mistake by projecting your anger on anyone other than the people who made the movie.

With respect…

Tim Ruffles October 2, 2010 at 12:19 PM

The film depicts a certain group of characters. The women in that group happen to be X,Y,Z (whatever). The men A,B,C. Can we reasonably argue from this that the film is arguing that all women are X,Y,Z and all men A,B,C? Of course not…

If an author/director/X always depicts a group as having a characteristic, it’d be fair to make that argument. Since you’re actually a fan of the writer I’d deduce his other work must be acceptable to a feminist. Therefore didn’t it occur to you that he wrote it this way to depict reality? As you say ‘ tech guys are more visible’. What would you prefer, fairy tales?

Frankie Starbuzz October 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I’m confused. The whole movie is about how he made Facebook cause some girl dumped him.

Isn’t the girl in this equation the biggest factor in the whole damn movie?

Frankie Starbuzz October 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Also, I found the early scenes in college to be refreshingly honest in their cruelty.

Garrett October 2, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Good, thoughtful post. It’s a fun and flawed movie. Actually, Erica’s character comes off relatively well in the movie, I liked where she stood her ground against Mark and put him in his place when they met post-Facebook launch. Other than that, women are not well treated or represented in the movie, admittedly.

On a side note, Lawrence Lessig also makes several good points in his analysis:

Rubin Safaya October 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Melissa Silverstein’s write-up is entirely fair. I agree, Mr. Sorkin wrote an engaging script with very smartly-paced dialogue. As directed by Mr. Fincher, the film is also well-paced. But the film, not Zuckerberg as character, is absolutely misogynistic and even subtly racist.

I discuss those issues in further detail in my review here:

Melissa Silverstein October 2, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I just want to thank everyone for the great discussion about The Social Network. I know that this is a movie and is not real, yet I think that the movie is a reflection of our culture. Another point I wanted to make about the treatment of women [Spoiler] is that in the party scene in Palo Alto (that Mark Zuckerberg is not at) and is said to be completely made up did they really have to have them snort the coke off the young woman’s belly? That was so degrading. They could have had them snort the coke off the table and it would have been just as effective a scene. It just seems that in that scene especially they tried to prove how little value the women were.

Martha Yost October 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM

It’s a d*ck flick, plain and simple and I stay away from d*ck flicks just like most guys stay away from chick flicks. If there are no black characters then yes, we can also call it racist. It’s a symbol of everything that is wrong with the people who are in charge of the flow of money. No thanks.

mike October 2, 2010 at 7:07 PM

thanks andrew for perfectly defining a sociopath.

Richard October 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

“in fact there is not one black person in the movie…”

Rashida Jones, who plays Mark Zuckerberg’s sympathetic attorney, is black.

Dani October 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM

the character may be a misogynist, but, the film did not have to be.
It turns out that the writer, Sorkin, is likely a misogynist.
I’m tired of people like you excusing that sort of writing and film making.

I wont pay to see the film, but, will likely be subjected to it in class. I am subjected to a lot of content that dismisses the existence of women in school and look forward to the day when I don’t have to sit through a 2 hour jerk off session.

I disagree with you, that does not make me an idiot or someone who is incapable of reading an entire (hot wind blowing out your ass) comment.
You may be happy to know that there are more people who are comfortable with misogynist content than not. I’m interning with a female film maker and that is the saving grace of my studies this year.

Andrew Sidhom October 3, 2010 at 7:39 PM

@ mike
Are you being sarcastic? If not, then you’re most welcome, and please disregard the following. If you are, just go fuck yourself, you know? People need reminding about these things. It’s not like everyone is accepting of the other and there’s too much tolerance in the world. People can forget (and/or not know) what it’s like to have life issues like Zuckerberg does.

You can disagree with me anytime, but saying things like “poor Andrew”, “are you high?” and “hot wind blowing out your ass” won’t do. It drives no point home you know, other than it belittling you for your inability to write a sound, grown-up argument that can own the other with no use of language.
Unlike you, I’ll remain on topic…
Not even the character is misogynist, and I’ve already explained why. He has an unhealthy view of women. Doesn’t mean he likes to belittle them. But let’s suppose that he was. Even then, on what grounds can you say the movie is misogynist? Its charcter may be, and the women he sticks around with may be dumb and with no personality. The fact that the former and the latter find themselves in the same environment actually makes sense (story and drama -wise). Now how can you go from that point to the point of accusing the writer and filmmakers of advocating that type of behaviour? If you could, then, by the same token, you could say Scorsese and Copolla that glorified the gangster life, and Paul Thomas Anderson encouraged violence and capitalism in There Will Be Blood. That would be beyond stupid. They, as well as TSN, are built around characters with issues, and anyone with issues does some things wrong. Instead of refusing to watch these movies, do yourself a favour and educate yourself about what they go through. You’ll be able to feel for them at the same time as rejecting their (obsessive, impulse driven) behaviour. Not to mention enjoying some great movies of real art and meaning.

sara October 3, 2010 at 10:14 PM

“But…as a woman and a feminist, the film illuminates another instance of just how superfluous women are.”

You think that about us in general..and you’re a woman and a feminist?? I hope you meant how we’re portrayed in films.

I agree with Dave Winer – the film shows how Aaron Sorkin sees women. Misogyny is pretty much his calling card, and the guy is socially awkward and arrogant when interviewed in a lot of the same ways as Zuckerberg. That might be why this film is less irritating than a lot of his work – it has a certain hypnotic truthiness to it. Another small redeeming point is the Erica Albright character who is strong, smart and deserves a lot better than Mark for a boyfriend and quite reasonably dumps him right in the first scene..and his one decent character strength is missing her, not just missing having a girlfriend but the woman herself.

Great movie anyway. People should see it, Sorkin aside.

M October 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM

“Not even the character is misogynist, and I’ve already explained why.”

Oh, Andrew. Trying so, so hard to explain this to Teh Wimminz who just won’t admit that you, a male, can perceive and understand the misogyny in a film better than them! Your behavior in this thread is pretty well described here:

No one bothers to ~explain~ to you why they disagree with you because you are mansplaining to women why they should stop questioning obviously misogynist material, and that they should value your explanations over their lived experience of misogyny. Your fucking privilege is showing. And by the way, we don’t have to pay $10 dollars to empathize with powerful rich white men. This whole culture is built on glorifying them at our expense. That’s practically all we see. So to tell us we are the ones lacking in empathy is myopic and insulting.

What you’re doing is trying to convince us that that this movie, and you for liking it/relating to it/beating of to it, are not misogynist, and if we don’t relent well that’s just us being obtuse and big meaniefaces.

People aren’t refusing to indulge you because they’re cowering in the face of your almighty rectitude. They are not indulging you because you’re an asshole.

Muffy October 4, 2010 at 6:19 AM

God, I’m starting to hate feminism! I freakin’ despise it now, and this is coming from a female! How many women have called their Ex horrible names? If the film was about a female who disrespected her boyfriend or made fun of him, none you hypocrical feminazis would say jack sh!t! And if the woman slept around you would call her every name in the book. No one forced those women to do those things, they did it because they wanted too. Women do have their own minds you know.

Andrew Sidhom October 4, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Thank you M for writing a post that so well illustrates your preconditioned, predisposed, stereotypical views of the whole men vs. women issue. I’ll tell you what the facts about my behaviour in this thread, then your whole fictional look at things.

The facts are that I wasn’t in any way disrespectful to anyone in my first post here. Please read it again. Please tell me about your objections. I said I “respectfully disagree” with the article, and proceeded to lay out my argument like anyone would his or hers, be it a man or woman. There was immediate intolerance towards my post (just b/c it dared to oppose some preconcieved notions of yours: that I’m a guy, arguing against misogyny, arguing for a movie with no strong female characters, blablabla…). If you don’t bother being a little more analytical of the material, it all conveniently paints that image. I got things like “Are you high?”, “oh poor Andrew” and “ridiculous”, but that’s ok b/c it’s just the supposedly oppressed gender standing up to the misogynist right? It’s so easy to draw things so simplistically.

Did you notice that the less respect came from the replies to my comment, not the other way around? Also, notice that none of my comments here were degrading to anyone except dani (and I still didn’t use language), who was the one who resorted to that kind of thing.

“No one bothers to ~explain~ to you why they disagree with you because you are mansplaining to women why they should stop questioning obviously misogynist material, and that they should value your explanations over their lived experience of misogyny.”
Look again. I don’t see where I was “mansplaining” to women (by the way, I didn’t even check what half the posters’ gender here was, but feel free to not believe that and keep feeding your views with things that don’t exist) and where did I imply that my opinions are so very valuable? Is the only way for a guy to convince you that he’s acting normally towards women by starting with a paragraph that painstakingly describes his undying respect for women and stressing at every line that these and those things he says are just his most humble and ultimately insignificant opinion? I doubt that, from one girl to the other, you treat eachother in the same way you some of you on this thread seem to expect men to treat you. I was completely gender-neutral in my attitude. But because I’m a guy refuting percieved misogyny, I fit the stereotypical type.

“And by the way, we don’t have to pay $10 dollars to empathize with powerful rich white men. This whole culture is built on glorifying them at our expense. ”
That’s just bitterness, and that’s what clouds your objectivity, and ultimately this kind of talk will do nothing but confirm gender inequality. The best way to act towards it is really not to assume it exists everywhere and jump in protest at the slightest possibility of someone possibly (may be wrongly) fitting a model of a misogynist. I think you’d do a lot more by meeting tolerance with tolerance, neutrality with neutrality and only intolerance with intolerance. I really did not start out intolerantly here. Some of the commenters saw that (thank you guys). The rest of you (M, danni,…) do yourself a favour and revise your positions.

Decor Girl October 4, 2010 at 4:55 PM

I’m all for women getting equal pay, rights and all that but when they aren’t a relevant part to a story… what is the big deal? I wasn’t the least bit offended. I’m missing why it is even an issue.

There are slutty, loose, opportunist girls in life. The movie portrayed a slice of life. Some nerdy guys aren’t great socially and some are total studs, so what. If a nerdy guy has a difficult time with girls, does that make him bad or purposely misogynistic – no. If you step on my foot does that mean you hate my shoes, no. Move on.

It was great entertainment, well written and mostly very well acted. It brought the audience into the story. And it did give us that fantastic “asshole” quote. I’ve already used it.

Andrew Sidhom October 4, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Decor Girl, very well said. It’s exactly what I’ve been saying over and over.

Also, to the others, check out Sasha Stone’s piece ( Another WOMAN who shares the same view as mine. If you didn’t know the name this post’s author, would you say she was “mansplaining”, M?

Dani October 5, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Andrew, you come off as an ass. I’m sure you assumed I am young because I am in school and interning, but, I am an adult who has run 2 businesses, raised human beings and now I am back in school, interning with a woman 10 yrs younger than me. I’m 54. So you can take your hint of agism towards a youngster and flip to prejudice against an adult female.
I call you an ass cause I am just so damned tired of you and the likes of you dismissing feminine presence and value in every blessed story on earth.
It’s lazy misogynistic writing you support and I am responding with lazy wimminz are angry comments.
Now go out and use your male privilege to buy a clue.

Muffy October 6, 2010 at 4:24 AM

When a man disrespects a woman; he hates women. When a woman disrespects man; she’s a hero, she’s just a woman scorned, he was a jerk. I love the irony of feminism. We don’t want women treated like victims all the time. We want them to have their own minds. But we don’t mind labeling every woman as a victim, and treating her like a child.

Alice Charles October 6, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I have no intention of seeing The Social Network. I have no desire to see another boys’ own adventure, where women are merely ciphers or there to provide eye candy and little more. I wish more women would realise that they have economic power – simply don’t pay to see misogynistic movies. Filmmakers will soon get the message.

Andrew Sidhom October 6, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Dani, who cares how old you are, and which gender? I usually concentrate on the content of what people say, and on the topic at hand. You’re 54, good for you. Doesn’t change a thing. You still do everything but write actual arguments. I’m getting more and more the impression that you’re a troll. Till now, amidst all the gibberish, bad language and empty words in all your posts, I found a point worth replying to. Not this time. You simply repeat yourself and go over the same words.

I’m not aware that I dismissed female presence or value in ANY of my posts. I only wrote some arguments for a certain issue. All you do is draw a strawman of my position and practise negation and name calling. Calling me “lazy” was about the funniest thing you said so far.

tinfoil hattie October 6, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Go, Dani! You know you’re right, and so do I. Shorter Andrew: “Misogyny doesn’t exist, and even if it did, and even if it were shown in this film, WTF? Can’t you chicks lighten up?

Andrew Sidhom October 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM

tinfoil, if that’s what you got from it, all I can say is, poor you. Someone needs to take you gently by the hand and give you a reading and writing course of some kind.

By the way, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone supporting a sound argument that I oppose. Funny thing is, there was never any argument from dani’s part since the beginning. Just read his posts again and if you find something, tell me.

Flewellyn October 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Andrew, the problem you’re having here is that you are assuming “argument = dispassionate”. Dani has indeed put forth an argument, you’re just ignoring it because it doesn’t suit you to listen.

As for your own argument, well…two things. First, social skills can be learned. I know this firsthand. And second, “asshole” is not on the autism spectrum. As someone with Aspergers myself, I abhor the use of my diagnosis by others to try and excuse rectal haberdashers like Zuckerberg.

You might also consider that, as a man, you have far less firsthand experience with misogyny than women do. As such, you might consider listening to the people who have greater expertise on the subject. It’s not a matter of opinion.

Dani October 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Flewellyn, thank you.

I know you must feel just awful about the curse words I used.
It seems you even think calling you a lazy asshole is worse than the misogyny we experience. Poor you, we are such stupid women! When will we finally accept that it is a good thing to be a “prize” and have lines of coke snorted off of our bellies instead of being burdened with lines of dialogue?!?! Goodness forbid we ever have any developed characters to relate to, despise, love, fear and feel comforted by!
It’s a man’s world, not an assholes world- I was so wrong. Sexism perpetuated in films is not causing any negativity in the world. It is all unrelated. Bullying (the issue of the month) has no relation to domestic violence, has no relation to dehumanizing women in media. Social Network is doing a great service to society, especially us “prizes”.

Thank you for educating me about how hard it is for you.

MikeeUSA October 11, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Political Suggestions about women’s Rights:

* Females be married once they are able to have children (usually at ages: 12, 13, 14).
* Men never persecuted for having relations with a young female of childbearing age.
* The marital rape exception reinstated (So that a man is never persecuted for raping his wife).
* If a man rapes a unmarried/unbetrothed++ virgin girl he marries her, pays her father some money, and doesn’t divorce her.
++Bethrothal here meaning female living with husband for about one year before the marraige feast/ceremony.
* Females barred from bringing claims against their husband (or similar) in court.
* Females barred from divorcing their husbands.
* Females barred from collecting monies from husband (child support etc).
* Other similar things to remove all power from females and make them what men desire.
(About Child Support: A saying from Bob is: child support is a seat at a Man’s table and a cot to sleep on in his house)

Frankie Starbuzz October 11, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Andrew Sidhom October 15, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I haven’t checked back here last week so this is a late reply, but whatever.

Flewellyn, whenever there was a semblant of an argument from Dani’s part I fully responded to it. It’s not as if I dismissed everything she said as troll material from the beginning. Only when her posts veered more and more into that territority, I pointed it out. She wasn’t refuting my points in any way. All her rants were directed at that strawman drawing of my general position and where she assumed I’m coming from. As a result, the last 2 or 3 back-and-forths from both of us weren’t that dense with content, but start from the top of the page and you’ll see how the disparity between the nature of our posts increased.

“Dani has indeed put forth an argument, you’re just ignoring it because it doesn’t suit you to listen.”
Please tell me exactly what specific points from her part I haven’t listened to and haven’t addressed.

“First, social skills can be learned. I know this firsthand.”
I’m sincerely glad to hear that you were able to cope with that personally. But not everyone has had the same chance. No two persons are alike, even within the same diagnosis, so even though I have no doubt what you’ve gone through must have helped you understand people in many more ways, don’t assume that they all fit your model. I know for fact (both from reading and from experience) that many people are unable to acquire social skills sufficient to live a life close to ordinary or having near-ordinary social interactions or social outlook/perception. Scorsese’s The Aviator is an example of a case study which fits the mould of OCD but is unique in its own way. I can assure you that outside perception of someone in that spectrum as an “asshole” is not uncommon. Even if it’s not listed in the disorder’s diagnosis.

One last thing: We can agree that an argument doesn’t have to be dispassionate to be valid, but only as long as the passion doesn’t cloud or replace its premises or reasoning..

Anonymous February 6, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Something tells me more women came out of this movie feeling hatred towards men than men came out of this movie thinking that women were worthless.

And to everyone who is passing judgment on this film without seeing it and therefore are unable to analyze it intellectually: for shame. Really.

pandora uk December 1, 2011 at 2:55 AM

You had some nice points here. I done a research on the topic and got most peoples will agree with you

batman arkham asylum cold call killer March 21, 2013 at 7:27 AM

You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be really something that I think I would never understand.
It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me.
I’m looking forward for your next post, I’ll
try to get the hang of it!

Ashely May 24, 2013 at 4:58 AM

Hi, I do think this is an excellent web site. I stumbledupon it
;) I am going to come back yet again since I saved as a favorite it.

Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people. July 21, 2013 at 5:05 AM

Howdy! This post could not be written much better! Looking through this article reminds
me of my previous roommate! He constantly kept talking about this.
I am going to send this information to him. Pretty sure he’ll have a great read. Thanks for sharing!

Fishing-boats June 16, 2014 at 10:20 AM

0m in length which can be sailed single handed or two plus crew, some types of sailing dinghy that spring to mind
are for the single hander; Contender, Comet, Laser, Laser Funboat,
Laser Pico, and Topper. Anchor Alert allows you to project an anchor position in any
direction and by any distance you want, by simple point and click.
A few days later you will think of a hundred other things you should have packed in your Ditch Bag.

Jodi Janeway August 24, 2015 at 9:55 AM

The article posted was very informative and useful. You people are doing a great job. Keep going.

Leave a Comment

{ 13 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: