Pajiba

Yeah...what she said.

Well said, Courtney. Pandering doesn't make a movie better, just more money.

BRAVO!

~ also a female, and a feminist.

I agree with this 100%. And would like to add, Sorkin writes nuanced kickass, empowered women really well, and I love him for it, but I don't need him to shoehorn one in where the source material doesn't call for it.

Accusations of misogyny aside, I do wonder why Sorkin and Fincher bothered to film a biopic if they weren't planning to stick with the truth.

If they wanted (as seems to be the case) to just create a morality tale about the quest for success, would it not have been better to opt for a roman à clef instead?

White Stripes quote in the title....I love it.

I got that the film was portraying misogyny rather than promoting it, but I was still bothered by the number of female characters that sounded exactly like Malibu Stacy dolls. I don't expect the writers to jam in some empowered female character when the material doesn't call for it, but it also didn't seem necessary to have most of the women speaking lines like "We don't know what we're doing! We're just pushing buttons! Tee hee!" while playing a video game. What did that add to the movie? The Erin character appeased me though. It was a small part, but the character seemed more three -dimensional than your average female lead in a romantic comedy.

If y'all are not completely sick of this topic, see Sorkin's response to charges of misogyny here on one of my favorite blogs, Ken Levine. (Ken's sort of appalled that his blog went viral after Sorkin visited.)

(I don't think this has been linked here yet...I could be wrong...sorry if I'm retreading old ground.)

I think Courtney's viewpoint is very well expressed, and I laughed at the Sesame Street reference.

There is certainly a point at which creating a diverse rainbow can get in the way of the story being told. One of the best examples I can think of is a brief clip from Sesame Street where Big Bird is counting ballerinas dancing a little portion of Swan Lake, and (after an ethnically diverse grouping) the last of the birds is a girl in a wheelchair. Diverse? Yes. Reflective of reality, helpful, educational or adding anything to the segment? No. Just confusing and serving no purpose other than a pandering sop to special interest groups. I see as many children in wheelchairs in any given episode of Sesame Street than I've seen in my city in the last year.

In that regard (and still having in mind the article on Rainbow Squirrels in sports), I watched The Good Wife the other night, and thought they did a good job incorporating Margulies' brother into the plot, and really had no issue with the episode...
until I read that it was apparently in response to protests that CBS didn't have enough gay characters in prime time. Why should the writing on a show be directed by the need to incorporate sufficient diversity?

I'm glad it wasn't particularly jarring on The Good Wife, but it bugs me that any show and/or network would cater to that sort of caterwauling. It's possible that viewers (including special interest groups) prefer shows where they can see themselves reflected in the characters (perhaps the reason for Lou Dobbs' guest appearance the prior week), but good writing should be able to make any character's feelings and circumstances a universal human experience, without the need to create a diversity rainbow of casting or topical subject matters.

If there doesn't happen to be any positively presented women, or children in wheelchairs, or anti-immigration zealots, or LGBT persons in the story being told, look for other things in the story which are relatable, or find a different story.

I agree. I read something a while back from a usually very intelligent critic who said something to the effect that the Batman movies desperately need more female characters; all I could think was "In what role?" They're about a dude who dresses up as a bat and beats the shit out of bad guys (primarily violent criminals and/or organized crime figures). In what place in that story would female characters reasonably go? I'm all for diversity, but sometimes it's just not appropriate.

In what place in that story would female characters reasonably go? I'm all for diversity, but sometimes it's just not appropriate.

Not only that, but I'm intensely irritated by the idea that because I'm a woman, I somehow can't identify with the emotional struggles going on between the men in The Dark Knight or several of my other favorite movies, like There Will Be Blood that don't have female characters.

I think Renee Montoya, for example, is a great character, not because she's a woman but because she's a great character who grew organically from the Gotham universe.

Let's not even discuss the Bechdel Test as some sort of watermark of worthwhile entertainment.

lemme guess: the jezzies have their pantahs in a wad about this.

::eyeroll::

Haven't seen the movie but this

Not every movie or TV show needs to be a rainbow Sesame Street coalition of diversity.

needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Though, I definitely think Simon has a good point: If women were crucial to the creation of Facebook and this is a biopic about the creators of Facebook, why weren't those women included in the movie? Why not just change the names of everyone invovled and call the social network something else? (Likely answer: No one would see that movie.)

I'm the harpy that disagrees. In regards to the film, I understand perfectly that Fincher and Sorkin are probably not these insane misogynists that wanted to put their prejudices on screen. I understand that their intent was to portray their protagonist that way.

What I don't understand is why they chose to make a statement about misogyny as part of this film. So apparently Zuckerberg blogged one night about a girl being a bitch. That's an example of him saying a sexist thing, not being a sexist (the link goes to a Jay Smooth video that makes that distinction re: racism.) If it were something that happened multiple times, and female colleagues were coming out of the woodwork to submit complaints about his behavior toward women? Different story. Zuckerberg may very well be a misogynist in real life, but there's scant evidence of that actually being the case; in fact, there's more evidence to the contrary.

My main beef is basically the following:

1) This Mark Zuckerberg, this Harvard, and this creation of Facebook are artistic imaginings of Sorkin and Fincher.

2) Their imaginings chose to include the fictionalized misogyny of their main character, which manifested as pretty blatant sexualization/objectification of 98% of the women on screen.

3) Said imagining was UNNECESSARY - it's not based on reality. As it were, this aspect of the film basically just serves to put more tits on the screen. It's completely extraneous to the Facebook creation story.

I'd like to add one more thing before I get chased out of here...

Just because you weren't offended (and I'm looking at some of the commenters here, not necessarily Courtney) doesn't mean that people who were are "whining" or "just looking for something to complain about."

Believe me, if I went through my life every day just looking for things to complain about, I'd be a much more miserable person than I am. As it is, I'm able to brush a lot of stuff off that really should bother me.

But you know what I don't like? Paying $15 to see a movie that everyone says is fucking awesome and walking out of there feeling like someone punched me in the gut. And then when I try to articulate what bothered me about it? Self-righteous people online telling me I'm just looking for something to be bothered about, and if I don't like it, then I should just go make a movie I do like. Um. If it was that easy, don't you think that there would be more movies where the women were just as relatable as the men?

Not only that, but I'm intensely irritated by the idea that because I'm a woman, I somehow can't identify with the emotional struggles going on between the men in The Dark Knight or several of my other favorite movies, like There Will Be Blood that don't have female characters.

And okay.. this? Is a straw man. All women do is relate to men. Because the movies about us? Are rom-coms, probably, where the woman is some kind of two-dimensional cut out of what "women" are supposedly like. I don't relate to those women. I relate to men in movies ALL THE TIME, because the men in movies are the ones who are propelling interesting stories. For every one film with a human female character that actually has a bit of nuance to her, there are 10 films like that about a man.

And that, actually, is what the Bechdel test is about. It's not about grading particular movies to assess whether or not they are good. It's about looking, on a larger scale, how many movies FAIL to have two women in it, with names, who talk to each other about something other than a man. It's not about women not being allowed to talk about men. It's about women in movies talking to each other about NOTHING BUT MEN.

Try the reverse Bechdel test if you don't see what I mean.

This movie must have:
1) At least two men with names
2) Who talk to each other
3) About something other than a woman.

Now see how silly that is? That's because probably 98% of movies reliably pass the reverse Bechdel test, whereas some 50% of movies pass the true Bechdel test - and that doesn't even mean that the women are fleshed out. It just means that at some point in the movie, one of them was given one line spoken to another woman about something other than a man.

That whole movie was totally true! I hate women! I hate swimmin'! But I LOVE swimmin'in women!

I'm still waiting for my sandwich. And it better be a manwich. None of those pussy lady sammiches.

I only wish it were more clear to us (the movie-going public) what kind of selection goes on behind the scenes to find out who gets greenlight, and who is chosen to direct. I've read bits and pieces here and there about how female screenwriters struggle to have their movies backed because their stories are about women, and there is allegedly this perception that men won't want to see those movies just because they're about women - not because they're bad screenplays. So part of the reason that rom-coms continue to get made is because there is an ideal man there who is usually some kind of smooth character, someone who men in the audience would like to identify with.

Now, I don't know if that's really true, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that Hollywood truly is rather backward and that there are efforts by women and minorities being made to get our stories told, but they're being rebuffed.

MANWICH, DAMNIT!

And okay.. this? Is a straw man. All women do is relate to men.

Which, again, is a bad thing because... why, exactly? I'm not supposed to relate to men in stories because...?

I relate to characters, stories and struggles. Sure, I want more stories about everyone, and as diverse as possible, because I bore easily and new perspectives are interesting, but I'm not going to carry a list of demands that a movie has to fulfill before I deem it worthy of my attention. God knows there are less than a handful of movies every year that are better than mediocre without dropping extra caveats in.

I didn't go to see a movie that made racist casting decisions and because many other people made the same decision, film producers will think twice before whitewashing their next film.

I think the inherent breathtaking crappiness of that 'Avatar' is what will make them think twice. Plenty of people thought the other 'Avatar' was racist, it made more money than god, and they're sure greenlighting whatever Cameron wants to do next.

isn't it tad presumptuous for you to criticize a screenplay that you did not write, and to claim that certain aspects of the story were unnecessary?

No. I'm pretty sure that criticism and critique of screenplays are pretty common practice, particularly on a website that reviews movies, so I'm not sure what's particularly presumptuous about it.

Besides, I do think the gratuitous objectification was unnecessary. Zuckerberg had a girlfriend in real life since before Facebook was created. There is nothing in real life that substantiates the scenes where he's out partying and getting blowjobs and snorting coke off of willing women. I think there are a lot of other ways to demonstrate that the guy your alleged biopic is about is potentially a dick without throwing a lot of women-as-rewards at him in an effort to make what's on screen more titillating, since the real-life story was probably kind of boring - "I coded a lot... and stuff."

Which, again, is a bad thing because... why, exactly? I'm not supposed to relate to men in stories because...?

I really think you need to stop waving the "why am I not supposed to relate to men?" flag. No one's saying that. That's why it's a straw man. Relate to men all you want - as I said, I do as well - I'd just like to see some relatable women out there too. And when it comes down to it, if you're not bothered by characters, stories, and struggles mostly revolving around men in the majority of our cinema, then by all means, keep seeing movies and don't let it bother you. It bothers me, so yes, I do tend to be more discriminating about which movies I'll see. It works for me.

WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST READ??????????? I'M GONNA BARF MY FACE OFF.

First of all, never call yourself a feminist ever again. How could you not see the misogyny in this movie? Let alone "pick up the slightest hint!" of it? Christ. The filmmakers weren't just portraying characters' fucked-up attitudes towards women; they deliberately chose to make them looks like stupid, coked-up whores. Did you catch Aaron Sorkin on The Colbert Report? Colbert called him out on it and Sorkin's "explaination" was "Well, you see, they're just prizes." That was it!

Nobody criticizing this movie was "whining" about how they didn't "shoehorn" in a "~*~*~POWERFUL WOMAN**~*~". People are mad because the filmmakers went out of their way to reinforce the idea that women (like, ones that go to Harvard, even!) are mindless sluts who exist for the sole purpose of being sexy for the COOL-ASS, SO SMART, FACEBOOK-CREATIN' DUDES.

You missed the whole point of everyone's rage (even though you read soooooooo many reviews so now you're soooooooo tireddddddd of women bitchinggggg). As you said, "It’s about the men. The two MEN who created Facebook and the MEN who sued Mark Zuckerberg." So why have a constant stream of bimbos? What does that have to do with the story about the "MMMMMMMENNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"? People got so (justly) up in arms because it was completely irrelevant to the story, not to mention insulting to ALL WOMEN. As a *TOTAL* feminist, don't you ever get sick of seeing women portrayed like this ALL THE TIME?

Men see movies like this and then treat women like shit. And some women see movies like this, internalize the message, and then complain when actual SMART women protest. They say things like "What, do you expect a movie to have female characters that are, like, actual PEOPLE? Instead of worthless sluts? You CRAZY, feminazis!!"

I know you're trying to be "one of the dudes!" by not being A GIRLY GIRL but also being SO TOUGH and smart, but that's not feminism. That's MISOGYNY.

Hannah, are you for real? That was...alarming.

I think it was stated somewhere that the choices about how to portray women in the film were based upon what the characters in the film viewed them as.

Like how you'd likely choose to portray some of us 'unworthy of the feminist name' betrayers in a film where we are unable to see an evil empire of men cackling while us poor deluded women are taking the koolaid because we just don't know any better. Until a smart woman comes along to set us right and open our eyes, correct?

Godtopus save me from one more messiah, and from one more woman insisting men are out to 'get me'. Sure, they're out there, and so are other women playing each other for points, and women playing men, etc. It's called 'human nature' and it isn't a trick, it's something to change and adapt with creativity and intellect.

And sometimes it's just a reasonable character choice in a movie.

And I'm sorry about saying this, in a way, Hannah - but I think you're just as twisted and seeking answers as the rest of us because you come across as sounding like you can't envision a woman without a cape, or a man without a balaclava. (Although I'd watch your 'Deluded Women' film before I passed judgement. Go make one.)

I also appear to be missing out on these "Everyone's Rage" Parties. Damn you guys! That or my internalized, sub-etha, hypno-penii, stupidizer transmitter is broken.

I stand by my 'some people have too much time on their hands' statement. That is an awful lot of ragey all caps, bizarre punctuation, and creative spelling, over a silly movie.
Now, chin up sweetie, and get yo' sweet ass in the kitchen and make me a SAMMICH!

I agree with Amanda6, this story was not one of misogyny and nerds, but Sorkin chose to make it one. This does a disservice to the women portrayed in the film (fictional or not) and the women left out of the film so that Sorkin could tell the story he wanted.

People are really just upset that Sorkin has put a mirror up to men, especially that class of men, and said "this is exactly what happens" and we know it's what happens and we don't like it but we do our best to hide that contemptible truth most of the time. So this is a feminist response to that truth, and it misses the boat, because they're missing the point- which is that Sorkin is actually being honest and forcing people to confront that behaviour for all it's dispicble machoism

This I don't agree with at all. What do you know about that class of men? Did you know he had a long term girlfried during the period this film portray? It's not a feminist response any more than making a film where David Beckham sexually assaults a woman, because y'know that what some athletes do.
Deleting a real female character (his girlfriend) from your screenplay so that you can tell your own story about how the 'poor exploited women' are nothing but 'prizes' and 'coked up sluts' is the opposite of feminist.

Also, what Angry Black Lady said. Fuck off trying to tell me I'm not a feminist because I'm not a raging one who gets up in arms about every perceived slight.

Also, ABL: you better believe the jezzies are all over this one. It's so perfect for them.

Also, it plays into the sex-negative narrative for women that says they are harmed by having sex with attractive but dickheadish guys.

Can you imagine a film where a bunch of drunk and drugged young fratboys get bussed into a Uni to party with all the Rich Attractive Women, who call it the "Fuck bus" and fuck them, where they play this as harmful to the fratboys?

No?

Then why should women be portrayed as these fragile things, unable to make their own decisions. They know they're getting bussed into a rich Uni to party. They're not weak Victorian stereotypes of women who need to be 'protected' from their own inability to make decisions that don't involve fucking a rich privileged dickhead.

" One of the best examples I can think of is a brief clip from Sesame Street where Big Bird is counting ballerinas dancing a little portion of Swan Lake, and (after an ethnically diverse grouping) the last of the birds is a girl in a wheelchair. Diverse? Yes. Reflective of reality, helpful, educational or adding anything to the segment? No."

Yeah, it's pretty jarring to see something not reflecting reality in a clip involving a SIX-FOOT-TALL TALKING BIRD. Sesame Street is intended for children. It's heavy-handed and very obvious. The clip is plainly intended to make disabled kids not feel like shit (for once).

I won't use all caps or exclamation points in an effort to not have my comments dismissed as crazy. But, I do agree that this movie had some problems with the way it portrayed women. The argument that "this is the way the men in this story viewed women" doesn't really work. When Sorkin defended himself on that blog, he said that the misogynistic blogging, the crazy girlfriend, and the bus of drunk girls making out with eachother were actual characters/events from the "true" story, or at least near approximations. Why choose to highlight those parts of the story and not the fact that Zuckerberg had a girlfriend throughout most of the story who probably played at least some role in the events? It has been argued that he was trying to make the most interesting story, but then we can still criticize him for deciding that women as sexy crazy objects in the background is the most interesting story. And you can say that the film doesn't glamorize the demeaning of women, but I doubt that's the message most young men took away from it. And no, it's not Sorkin's job to change sexist views of women, but it's not whining to say that a movie has sexist aspects to it, even if you enjoyed it.

Also, it plays into the sex-negative narrative for women that says they are harmed by having sex with attractive but dickheadish guys.

Can you imagine a film where a bunch of drunk and drugged young fratboys get bussed into a Uni to party with all the Rich Attractive Women, who call it the "Fuck bus" and fuck them, where they play this as harmful to the fratboys?

No?

Then why should women be portrayed as these fragile things, unable to make their own decisions. They know they're getting bussed into a rich Uni to party. They're not weak Victorian stereotypes of women who need to be 'protected' from their own inability to make decisions that don't involve fucking a rich privileged dickhead.

--------------------------------------------------

Thank you thank you thank you. Reality is very complicated and also very ugly sometimes. Do you know where at least one of the real life "fuck buses" comes from? Wellesley College, one of the premier women's colleges in the country. These girls are VERY smart, and they know what the bus is called at Harvard and how they may be perceived. They choose to go anyway for a LOT of different reasons.

When I went to school at (all women) Barnard College, roughly 2002-2005 there was a lot of misogyny and sexism from both men and women at Columbia University (which Barnard was part of, but was across the street)implying that Barnard students were all sluts who only came to campus to hook up. There were some girls who fit this stereotype and plenty who didn't.

I have no trouble believing the misogyny shown by the characters in this movie. I don't think the solution to one-dimensional female characters is insertion into already complete stories, but rather new stories focusing on well rounded female characters where they do exist.

Here's this feminist's take on the whole brouhaha. I don't really care if Mark Zuckerberg has had a girlfriend since 2003 or if the sexism shown is an exaggeration based on what we know about the real life founders of Facebook. It is NOT an exaggeration of the sexism and misogyny that often exist in the male centered worlds of the elite and thus I think it should be shown and reviled within that context.

Where are the intelligent and awesome women? Not hanging out with sexist losers like these characters.

"Here's this feminist's take on the whole brouhaha. I don't really care if Mark Zuckerberg has had a girlfriend since 2003 or if the sexism shown is an exaggeration based on what we know about the real life founders of Facebook. It is NOT an exaggeration of the sexism and misogyny that often exist in the male centered worlds of the elite and thus I think it should be shown and reviled within that context."

Interesting. I agree that showing and reviling the sexism and misogyny that often exists is a good thing, but I don't think that this film was the place to do it, for the reasons I mentioned, it's unfair to all of the real people who's characters were made misogynists to fit Sorkin's point, and the woman who was deleted to prevent her existence contradicting that narrative.

it's unfair to all of the real people who's characters were made misogynists to fit Sorkin's point, and the woman who was deleted to prevent her existence contradicting that narrative.

------------------------------------------
Touche, I actually hadn't realized that earlier post was you as well. Sorry! A nice middle ground might have been, as you suggested, an explicit acknowledgment of the shown misogyny OR a fictionalized "Mike Sackerbean" character and a story "inspired by" the founding of Facebook, which would have allowed Sorkin to make his point without sullying reputations or erasing people unfairly.

@replica

you need a blog. seriously. comment threads aren't enough for your eloquence. (and because sometimes the internet translates my words into misconstrued messages, the intent here is praise)

I haven't seen this movie, and probably won't as i am slightly more interested in inspecting my cat's bowel movements than learning about either the real story behind facebook, or a fictionalized story of facebook origins.

But the discussion, here and elswhere about the film has been fascinating. i just want to throw two things in:

1. Considering that Harvard is a training ground for the wealthy powerful elite, i find it amusing that the characters are supposedly alienated disenfranchised nerds.

2. The majority of university enrolment and graduation is female today. Studies show women are performing better than men at school as well. While I don't suspect this is somehow biological, it might be a place for scrutiny concerning how men are socially constructed and understood in our society. But instead, we are very concerned that women were portrayed as bimbos in a film that will we forgotten in 6 weeks.

Scrutinizing the semiotics and cultural reinforcements in film is productive, but i sometimes wonder what we don't examine.

case in point for what we don't examine in romantic comedies. I don't watch many, but when i do, i see them from the guys point of view. They teach me:

All of my accomplishments really mean little if I don't have glowy love.

I will always be an overgrown slobby manchild until I find a woman to civilize me.

I am so repressed and anal that I will never enjoy the little things in life until a woman teaches me how.

I am hopelessly inarticulate and couldn't tell a feeling from a lugnut without the kind nurturing assistance of a woman.

I am pathologically resistant to commitment.

I don't want children and will only become peripherally competent at coping with children through the love of a woman.

I am resistant to a compelling relationship with a woman because it threatens my time drinking beer and telling fart jokes with the guys.

I will create the most convoluted nonsense rather than speak honestly to a woman I am interested in or involved with.

Without a woman, i will die a slow and painful death rather than see a doctor.

I am witless, more of a punchline than a person, but luckily some woman will redeem me anyways.

So, my point here is that films teach us a lot of crappy untrue stuff about ourselves and the opposite gender. But we are choosy about what we examine and criticize. why are most sitcom husbands retarded and lazy while their wives are sensible, mature and hard working? well, because humour is often base and it's still open season on men.

Depiction does not equal endorsement. That's pretty much all I have to add to this debate.

If we're having the conversation, and debating what may or may not be a sexist party culture in Ivy League circles, or parsing out the misogyny inherent in the lust for sucess in 21st century America, is it possible that Sorkin achieved his goal? Is it possible his aim, in including these scenes, was to call attention to these issues, as opposed to glorifying the events presented?

Food for thought.

oh lindsey, i normally relish in your comments, but have to contend that arguing on the internet is the closest many people get to thinking about an idea let alone articulating a position, and therefor not only valid but essential.

I say that tongue in cheek, yet reflect on the reality of that statement.

*pours cheerios and cries*

citizen_cris I agree with Amanda6, neither of us said any of that. It was Hannah. I disagreed with you, but did not try to revoke your feminist card, or rag on you. And I didn't say you were missing the point by not seeing misogyny in the film, I just said that I did think it had misogynistic bits in it, and explain which and why.

Do I think my time could be better spent on other misogyny in films? No, I have plenty of time to examine the misogyny in every film I encounter it. It doesn't take that long.

I don't see what's wrong with explaining why you think something is misogynistic to persuade people that you're right. I'm open to being convinced I'm wrong, and I'm not saying that if you don't agree with me you're a misogynist. And you don't need your brick wall, if hannah doesn't return no-one's going to attack you.

idleprimate To your first comment:
1) They're "alienated disenfranchised nerds", I think. Which is reasonable even at a training ground for the wealthy elite.
2) I agree that there is cause for concern about the message we are sending to and the culture we are allowing to exist for our boys and young men, I still have time as I said to citizen_cris to think about, talk about and address both issues. So it's not a choice between the two.

To your second comment:
"case in point for what we don't examine in romantic comedies. I don't watch many, but when i do, i see them from the guys point of view. They teach me:"

"I will always be an overgrown slobby manchild until I find a woman to civilize me."

Ha! Ninja-d! Check my comment at 7:08 AM, middle paragraph.

Me:"The problems with them are well known, they give limited female roles, limited aspirations, suggest getting a man as a solution to all your problems, feature uptight women and immature boyfriends etc etc."

Already examining it! Yes, I'm being childish, but that is exactly what I was referencing when I said that, and the reason I did wasn't because I watch any romantic comedies and have noticed it, it's because some people are talking about it.

The rest of your examples are stereotypes, and problems that are common in how men are portrayed. They are problematic, and I agree that in some ways you have more freedom to use derogatory male stereotypes on television, but I think it's overstating it to say "it's still open season on men." It's not perfect, but it's not open season either. And we agree that it's not perfect for women either.

Tammy: I don't know if anyone's saying 'depiction equal endorsement' in this debate.
And, No. Sorkin did not achieve his goal with this debate, because if that was his goal he wanted us to be talking about the misogyny in the elite male circles, not the misogyny in his choice to male-wash out some real female characters to sell a story that did not happen, and depict intelligent women making free choices as weak and defenceless victims of misogyny.

Lindsey with an 'e':

Ironically I was just saying on another thread here that I don't support the campaign to stop people using the word retard. I use it myself in private circles, and some people would consider me a contemptible shit for doing so.

But this:
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Win or lose, you are still "Special"."

This is really offensive.
So you're essentially saying here that winning an argument on the internet is worthless? Because win or lose, you're still rubbish, like those retards?

I don't see another way to parse that. Win or lose, you are still crap. Like those "Special" people whose achievements don't matter at all, even if it's the olympics.

Using retard is pretty bad, I justify it because I don't use it to refer to people with conditions, just people being stupid - like the word moron. But many people will think I'm a dick.
But you are actually using disabled people achieving something very real as your example of something that is as worthwhile as "winning an argument on the internet"

It's exactly as bad as saying:

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Superbowl. Win or Lose you are still a "Negro"

And ABL - you couldn't be more right about Jezebel. That whole ordeal was a shambles.

Their dismissal of Olivia Munn and rejection of the women who work on the Daily Show's letter? 100% feminist.
How else could you judge a pretty woman on a show? She 'prettied' her way in there and has no talent. Obviously. And once you've ignored a bunch of women's existence and assumed men did all the work at the Daily Show (Raging feminist win) it would be very un-feminist to admit that you were wrong. Even if there's a photo showing all the women and naming them giving their jobs titles. A man probably made them do it.

:(

ABL,

I'm going to be honest and say that I only skimmed your most recent comment, because the truth is I also ignore the majority of what comes out of the mouth of Jezebel. So I probably agree with your refutations of Iris' points.

As for the article I linked, I did so because I found it interesting mostly past the part where she says "I do know Silicon Valley, and I do know geek culture." From that point on, I think her insight is relevant to the discussion of geek women. If you have a chance, perhaps do take a look further down and see what you make of the part that isn't giving Jezebel a reach-around :)

I'm not here because I'm hoping or expecting that everyone will be made to agree with me, but this whole discussion hits home for me on two personal fronts (as a woman and as a geek) so I hope you'll all forgive me for being stabby about what I think was a big misfire in understanding our role in this culture, and generally in portraying this story. I'm not aiming at anyone personally.

arguing on the internet is the closest many people get to thinking about an idea let alone articulating a position, and therefor not only valid but essential.

*sigh* Ain't that the truth.

Amanda-

It's cool. I wouldn't have wanted to read my hot mess of a ramble either.

I will get past my Jezephobia and read the rest of that link. :) You made some great points and it's people like you who have something relevant and important to say about this issue since you're a part of the culture. Those who are barfing their faces off, are doing so only because they've been told to; they have nothing of value to add to the discussion. It was really Hannah's comment and then reading irin's article that made me insane.

Also, I really get pissed off with all the Aaron Sorkin is a misogynist bullshit when he really has done more for female characters on the TeeVee than, say, Aaron Spelling and his Donna Martins and Kelly Taylors.

Geek on, sister. Lady geeks rule. Everybody knows it. I'm not a geek, but I am a nerd. I think we're in the same genus, or something.

peace out!

By the by, whatever happened to Jezebel? I'm pretty sure I used to like them. Did they get crappier, or did I just grow up?

OK, I don't usually DO THIS, but:
Oooh, I OFFENDED someone with an old saying WHICH I even PC'd up. And the resulting 'Straw man' army is impressive indeed, trying to link in racial bigotry that has no bearing on the argument. My FRIEND ABL will surely disown me now. Let me just call her real quick and check. Kudos on not invoking Godwin's Law on me in there too.

Statement of FACT: There is a thing called the Special Olympics
Statement of FACT: In order to compete in it, you must meet certain criteria.
Old Saying: When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit.
(watch, now I will be accused of animal abuse)

I don't really 'get' the big whoop about appropriate use of the word 'Retarded' either. My Ex BIL has Downs, SIL has multiple developmental delays, the family (PhD's and all) take the pejorative out of that word and use it freely. It has NO power over them. Oversensitivity to words that should be harmless is a waste of energy. See! I didn't even USE the dreaded word, and now SPECIAL is verboten.

Statement of OPINION: Engaging in a lot of ragey back and forth on the internet (ESPECIALLY under anonymous handles) isn't particularly useful. Having reasonable discussions can be. There are MANY people from this Pajiba crowd who not only know my NAME, they have my email, phone #, address, and some have even MET me. I am not hiding behind a curtain and throwing rocks here, in fact if you want to, come meet me on FB. Lindsey Withan'e' (all one word). Consider yourself invited.
(see that is the OPPOSITE of trolling)

I am not entirely sure WHEN this site became SUCH a bastion of ragey feminism, PC oversensitivity, and pearl clutching, but it is truly a shame.

There was no attempt to link your comment to racial bigotry. Try reading for understanding, not speed. I said that it was exactly as bad. And it is.

Well done for 'PC'-ing it up. I guess that makes it less... shocking? It doesn't change the underlying meaning. Which is wrong.

Statement of FACT: You used 'Being "Special"' to mean "rubbish"
You've won your internet argument, but it's a meaningless as every achievement of those lesser "Special" people.

It's not 'PC Gone Mad' to suggest that you shouldn't say that about them. I'm not offended. But they would be. And for good reason.

Well done for having a black friend by the way, I'm not racist either because some of my best friend's are... wait, this doesn't sound right.

"See! I didn't even USE the dreaded word, and now SPECIAL is verboten"

Your speed reading has let you down again. I didn't criticise you for using "SPECIAL". If you think I did then you really need to re-read what I wrote, slower.

Statement of OPINION: This has not been ragey back and forth on the internet. By coincidence there is some ragey going on another thread you may come across. And that's barely more than snarky, let alone ragey.

Thanks for the invitation, I don't use facebook that often but I next time I do I may say hi, I'm not hiding behind a veil of anonymity because I'm afraid that people will know I think that joke is offensive. And I don't believe I accused you of trolling.

"I am not entirely sure WHEN this site became SUCH a bastion of ragey feminism, PC oversensitivity, and pearl clutching, but it is truly a shame."

Yes, if it is such PC oversensitivity you should have no problem explaining why it's ok to use "Special" in the joke, but terribly bad to use "Negro".

One is Racial Bigotry, the other is something Pearl Clutchers get 'oversensitive' about.

There must be some special difference then?

And ftr, I have no personal investment in this issue, I don't think you're a terrible person for making that joke, I just think that it's an offensive joke with only one obvious meaning, a meaning which is exactly as bad as the racist example.

TheHobo, your ideas about gateway feminist blogs are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

@MelBivDevoe Sadly, mostly I lurk on other blogs, though I have occasionally blogged under Even Tempered White Lady over at http://www.angryblacklady.com/ and almost keep up a somewhat personal blog about my adventures moving to New York to attend said graduate school.

Sometimes I daydream about using a blog as an outlet for all the conversations our papers don't cover, but I'm not sure I'd be able to update it at all regularly.

In short (too late!) I'm flattered! Thank you!

Haven't seen the movie, but to appease me and the feminists, dear Aaron Sorkin, can you please make a movie about Jezebel and the rise of the online feminist movement someday? Because that would be very interesting indeed.

This, I would dearly love to see.

And I, too, like your point about 'gateway' blogs. You're so right that when I first found feminism, it was because I was mad about lady stuff and wanted to learn the tools to express it, and yell! But then I learned more about intersectionality, and hey, I'm pretty privileged in a lot of ways too and I should check that sometimes. Well, that was tough, but it actually became more rewarding as well. Because now I feel like I'm actually more empathetic in general, and a better listener.

Yeah, tardy, you have really lost a valuable conversation you were a total part of. No wait, you're a twat. Fuck off.

idleprimate: What are you on about? Did you rescind your fuck off to me?
Why did you say it in the first place? What your browser lying about?

I had more to say on what you were talking about, but I fell asleep, it's now the morning, and tbh I don't really know quite where we stand.

Done, Uriah Creep!

One of *these* again.

Standish, call my egg, butter and various pies man, as I am going to back out of this room and have a constructive, edible weekend.

Have a fun ice cream, everyone.

I've never labeled myself a feminist, though I'd like to think I live my own life as someone who believes in equality of the sexes. However, I have a tough skin when it comes to pop culture, and tend not to be bothered by movies, music, etc., that might be offensive to some women.

Despite all that, I do understand what Hannah and others are saying here. I wasn't personally offended by The Social Network, but I can't pretend there wasn't any offensive material there. The partying, drunk, drugged, slutty, half-naked women present throughout the movie served no particular purpose. They didn't further the story, except to inspire computer geeks to work hard in order to get random ass handed to them on a platter. There was an interesting enough story in there and the random bimbos were simply unnecessary. Are there women like this, even at Harvard and Stanford? I'm sure. But I'm also sure they don't make up 99% of the female student population.

Again, I wasn't particularly offended by the movie, but it did have a distinctly Entourage-esque flavor, and that seemed out of place and unnecessary. If I were the type of girl to get riled up about this sort of thing, I could most certainly find ammo in The Social Network. I feel that there may be a double standard at play here. Crappy rom-coms and other movies on the Pajiba shit list are continually taken to task for their portrayal of women, while movies that most of the writers/commenters praise are defended despite any similar portrayals.

Grand poteau ! Merci pour prendre le temps d'écrire quelque chose qui est réellement en valeur la lecture. Trop souvent je trouve l'information inutile et pas quelque chose qui sont réellement appropriées. Merci pour votre dur labeur.