The Social Network

[Salomé]

Wibble wibble? Someone sore and can't deal with being wrong?

You it seems, since you started out agreeing with me but now it has become desperately important to you to feebly try to score 'points' in order to restore your self-esteem and try to assert yourself over me. It's pathetic. But let me give you a tip - you can't really win here, because there are no right or wrongs, only opinion. And in the opinion of the fella who wrote the fucking script - it's misogynistic. That, I confess, was a unexpected gift for me. Case closed.

 

[InvisibleJim]

You it seems. Which is why it has become so important to you to feebly try to score 'points' in order to restore your self-esteem and try to assert yourself over me. It's pathetic. But let me give you a tip - you can't really win here, because there are no right or wrongs, only opinion. And in the opinion of the fella who wrote the fucking script - it's misogynistic. That, I confess, was a unexpected gift for me. Case closed.

A) Please provide some realistic reason why the facebook movie should be altered to include something which is more false (not based upon your own individual moral narrative) or everything you have presented in this thread would appear to be nothing more than a weak and logically false appeal to motive.

Does not apply, if it is misogynist or not does not appear to make the movie 'bad'. Does not provide reason to alter the script and lie. Therefore still an appeal to motive. Please provide us with a famous 'female founder' of facebook who was killed and hidden under the floorboards you seem to complain isn't in this movie.

B) Even better, provide us proof that the dramatisation should not be viewed as apparently you are claiming that somehow viewing misogyny turns one into a misogynist? How bizarre.

Does not apply.

/checks watch.

 

[MacGuffin]

Does light bend around you? This is incredibly dense.

Do you think it's appropriate to rely on the testimony of a "very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people" as to the competence of the women around at the time?

I'll write it in logical steps for you:

1) Group of misogynistic men
2) Shut out competent women
3) No competent women around

The fact that the two most "competent" women (with nice bookended "asshole" quotes) had to be invented by Sorkin should be telling. One is a lawyer that presumably doesn't exist. The other is a supposed ex whom we know nothing about from real life sources (other than she's a "bitch") and Sorkin gives her one of the best lines in the movie.

The worst thing people have to say is that it's a boring and unoriginal plot idea. No one has so much as hinted at the misogynistic tone of the movie. According to you, they're just a bunch of essentially good guys, doing what comes naturally.

I don't think they're good guys. I meant in my mini-review that relating to each other, no one was the bad guy. I understood why he forced out his friend. I don't think they'd be good people to know or anything. Charles Foster Kane was fascinating, but I wouldn't be his friend either.

As far as the misogyny, you're right. It's only blatant at the beginning, and subtle the rest of the time. Doesn't make the movie a bad movie though. I've seen others write about it and have read plenty about it, but just haven't written about it myself.

 

[MacGuffin]

It's not exactly subtle. That was why I was wondering about the accuracy, since he's such a jackass in the film. It's probably not pointed out because it's just obvious.

I interpreted it as the characters surrounding themselves with vapid girls because they didn't want "real" women and/or "real" women didn't want to be around them because they're douchebags (which seems especially likely). So in that microenvironment, it does seem likely that dumbass groupies would be the only women around them (assuming the film's accuracy, which is of course debated).

That was my take on it.

 

[Salomé]

I don't think they're good guys. I meant in my mini-review that relating to each other, no one was the bad guy. I understood why he forced out his friend. I don't think they'd be good people to know or anything. Charles Foster Kane was fascinating, but I wouldn't be his friend either.

As far as the misogyny, you're right. It's only blatant at the beginning, and subtle the rest of the time. Doesn't make the movie a bad movie though. I've seen others write about it and have read plenty about it, but just haven't written about it myself.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle, little wormey. Just so long as you manage to convince yourself.

 

[MacGuffin]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle, little wormey. Just so long as you manage to convince yourself.

Convince myself of what?

 

[Jonny]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle, little wormey. Just so long as you manage to convince yourself.

You come off as assuming much about others, while at the same time never giving them the benefit of doubt. Competence is relative to the occasion, and at the time Facebook was made, perhaps there weren't any women conniving and ruthless and socially inept and interested into computers enough to be a major part of the development of Facebook. This potential fact doesn't mean that there weren't successful intelligent women flooding the campus, just that they weren't "competent" in the right areas.

There are many successful women in my immediate family, and yet all of them submit to their husbands for whatever reason. My stepmother is head of neurosurgery at Standford, my dad is a stay at home dad, and yet she submits to him when it comes to making decisions. More than that, she plays stupid and asks for his help with things. My aunt and uncle are lawyers, one graduated from Harvard the other from USC, and yet my aunt now stays at home and lives the life of housewife of LA, submitting to the decisions of her husband.

The motives of these women for doing the things that they do is unclear to me, but it does present an image of inferiority to men. I am not saying that they are in fact inferior, only that they seem to play that way to get what they want. Even my girlfriend, who has a degree in linguistics and is arguably quite intelligent, seems to play the damsel in distress with me on a regular basis (much to my chagrin... Do it for yourself and get the fuck out of my face!).

Perhaps misogyny is a byproduct of this dynamic between men and women?

I'm just opening up the discussion, not attempting to make any declarative statement about the nature of men and women.

 

[Salomé]

You come off as assuming much about others, while at the same time never giving them the benefit of doubt. Competence is relative to the occasion, and at the time Facebook was made, perhaps there weren't any women conniving and ruthless and socially inept and interested into computers enough to be a major part of the development of Facebook. This potential fact doesn't mean that there weren't successful intelligent women flooding the campus, just that they weren't "competent" in the right areas.

LOL. And you come off as someone who never knows what the fuck you're talking about. But thanks for proving my point. That is indeed what most ignorant people who see the movie will assume. And they'd be wrong. Go do some research.

 

[Jonny]

I haven't actually seen the movie, I'm just here to bother you. I'd like to think of myself as a punching bag that throws itself in between you and the other members who have better things to do with their lives than bicker. Why don't you throw me some of the articles you've used in your research, to get me up to speed.

Ever heard of a cannibal troll?

 

[Salomé]

No, but I've heard of a masochist.

 

[Jonny]

Are you saying that to continue to converse with you is, for most people, painful and humiliating? Props on the A+ social skills; and this is coming from a person who is mentally retarded, so... enjoy.

 

[Salomé]

Are you saying that to continue to converse with you is, for most people, painful and humiliating? Props on the A+ social skills.

You're way out of your depth pal. Stick to crying about your hurt feelings. Although, now that you've stupidly confessed to being a troll, after have been permabanned from the sister site, you probably won't be licking your wounds for too long...

 

[OrangeAppled]

You don't? It's because they are rich. There will never be a movie about Tim Berners-Lee.

So? And the creators of those other social networks aren't rich? The story does not strike me as anything special. Rich, nerdy guy from a prestigious college makes successful internet business; oh yeah, and he's bitter towards women. YAWN. Facebook is not very unique, but has often been touted as such. The existence of this movie just adds to that false image. Its significance is being overvalued.

 

[Salomé]

So? And the creators of those other social networks aren't rich? The story does not strike me as anything special. Rich, nerdy guy from a prestigious college makes successful internet business; oh yeah, and he's bitter towards women. YAWN. Facebook is not very unique, but has often been touted as such. The existence of this movie just adds to that false image. Its significance is being overvalued.

You're preaching to the choir, my dear.

 

[ZPowers]

Do you think if the lead characters were a bunch of racists or into pedophilia the reaction would be same?

Again noting that I haven't seen this film yet.

I don't think the quality of the main character makes a movie bad or good necessarily. Fritz Lang's M features a child murderer (and implied pedophile) in the central role and is still considered a classic. The German film Downfall has incredibly good reviews. The main character? Adolph Hitler. Not exactly everyone's favorite dude, and I think an undeniable racist, and in fact one of the most intense racists to ever live. There have been films about serial killers in the past which have actually been pretty well received (I'm thinking of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer about Henry Lee Lucas). Maybe there is a tonal difference here, or some kind of implied support of Zuckerburg and his sexism, but that's another judgement I can't make without seeing it.

Of course, comedies frequently feature awful main characters, but that is slightly different.

I'd also generally agree with the complaints against the film's premise and not see it, if it were not for the face that virtually every last source I've heard says its great (even the ones who have claimed it is sexist seem to generally begrudgingly admit it is an excellent and engaging movie). After all, most romantic comedies and horror films have a slight variation on the same tired premise, but some are still excellent and original

 

[Salomé]

Again noting that I haven't seen this film yet.

I don't think the quality of the main character makes a movie bad or good necessarily. Fritz Lang's M features a child murderer (and implied pedophile) in the central role and is still considered a classic. The German film Downfall has incredibly good reviews. The main character? Adolph Hitler. Not exactly everyone's favorite dude, and I think an undeniable racist, and in fact one of the most intense racists to ever live. There have been films about serial killers in the past which have actually been pretty well received (I'm thinking of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer about Henry Lee Lucas). Maybe there is a tonal difference here, or some kind of implied support of Zuckerburg and his sexism, but that's another judgement I can't make without seeing it.

Of course, comedies frequently feature awful main characters, but that is slightly different.

Everyone appears to be completely missing the point. At no point have I suggested that this movie should not have been made. It really shouldn't be too difficult to understand the objections, but I'm bored now with trying to help people see stuff that they'd clearly prefer to be blinkered to.

 

[Cybin]

The thing about the movie is, it really doesn't try to paint the main characters in a good light. Mark is a giant douchebag who understands the mechanics of socializing, but not how to actually do it. The Winklevii are just verbose meatheads. Sean Parker is a silver tongued sleezebag who profits off of other people. The only halfway decent main character was the other guy's who's name eludes me. He wanted to be involved in a fun project with a friend, but got shoved out when it became serious business. Misogyny was just another thing to dislike the main characters for. (really, only Mark said anything outright misogynistic, the rest was just implied because, like it or not, these guys did not associate with the best examples of girls. There were women on the lawyer teams, and the girlfriend that broke up with Mark for being an asshole. It made sense in context)

For that matter, in the party scenes, there were just as many examples of stereotypical guy pigs as there were party girl sluts.

The movie would not have benefited in any way by shoehorning in Smurfette. It happened to be about a few guys, and there happened to be a bunch of partying showing both genders in a poor light. I don't approve of misogyny, but I think it would have been more insulting to place a token.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I saw this smbc comic today and thought of this delicious thread:

 

[Mondo]

In terms of Enneagram, I take back what I previously thought of Zuckerberg. I think he is a 5w4 rather than a 3w4.
In the movie, he was way too socially awkward to be a 3 of any sort.

 

[You]

And that is why I liked his character.