> Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who'd most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.<p>What a bunch of pretentious self important nonsense. Fact is, from age 12 to age 25 or so, both men <i>and</i> 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.<p>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?<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Disclaimer: I'm historically a fan of Sorkin's movies, and a vocal critic of Facebook's privacy policies.
This <i>Slate</i> article claims that Facemash had pictures of men and women:<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/</a><p>It seems that most of the specific evidence Sorkin cites is fictional. If <i>Slate</i> 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.<p>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.
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:<p>- 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.<p>- 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.<p>- 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.<p>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".<p>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.<p>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.<p>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."<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
Aaron Sorkin interviewed on CNN:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/10/17/aaron.sorkin.facebook/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/10/17/...</a><p>source: Follow up post by Ken Levine:
<a href="http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-sorkin-on-cnn.html" rel="nofollow">http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-sorkin-on-cnn.ht...</a>
The rules for all of this are already described in John Fonte's Why There is A Culture War:<p><a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7809" rel="nofollow">http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/780...</a><p>The movie was not sufficiently critical of hegemonic values to reach the threshold of cultural acceptability.