Her.meneutics: The Social Network's Women Problem

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

email to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Live Action, Planned Parenthood, and a Year of Change | Main | The Gospel of Grace for Women Who Self-Injure »

February 25, 2011

The Social Network's Women Problem

The likely Oscar Best Picture winner's disturbing view of women apparently come not from Mark Zuckerberg's world but from the views of writer Aaron Sorkin.

Gina Dalfonzo, guest blogger

The Social Network is a Golden Globe winner for Best Drama and one of the most acclaimed films of 2010. The story of how Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook is a frontrunner for the Best Picture Oscar this Sunday night, and there are people who will be gutted if it loses. It’s innovative, stylish, cutting-edge — all those things that have critics tripping over each other to praise and reward.

In one aspect, though, the movie harks back to the stone age: its view of women. In both the early scenes at Harvard University and the later scenes in California, women are there as sex objects and little else. They inspire vengeful fantasies; they strip at parties and go home with strangers; they reward creative nerds for their creativity with spontaneous sex in the bathroom; they get drunk and high and play video games (badly). And that’s about it.

In the film, women are barred from any role in either the technological or the business side of Facebook. A female intern at the company is only there to show off her rear end in a short skirt and then get arrested for doing drugs. Even a seemingly levelheaded and businesslike woman flips out for no apparent reason, and sets a gift from her boyfriend on fire just for the heck of it.

I’m not saying there aren’t women who act like this. But nearly every woman in an entire movie — a movie that’s supposed to be a serious drama and not a frat-boy comedy?

The film’s defenders point to the fact that The Social Network is bookended by appearances from two smart, sensible women. But these two, a student named Erica and a lawyer named Marylin, are there to give Mark contradictory messages about himself. (Erica’s there at the beginning to tell him he’s an [expletive]; Marylin’s there at the end to tell him he’s not an [expletive].) Both female characters are lacking in serious screen time and substance.

When outcry arose over the film’s depiction of women, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin argued that he was just the faithful scribe trying to tell the truth. As he explained: “Facebook was born during a night of incredible misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them . . . 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.”

But as one digs into the facts, Sorkin’s argument begins to fall apart. For instance:

· A mean blog post from Zuckerberg about a girl he knew, shown at the beginning of the film, was real, but most of the deeply personal insults in that post were invented by Sorkin. (Here’s a look at Zuckerberg’s actual post. If you saw the film, you will realize what’s missing.)

· Zuckerberg is shown inventing a sexist “Facemash” site to rank Harvard women. But in real life, the site actually ranked both men and women.

· Zuckerberg has been with the same girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, since college. (No, there was no lonely nerd in a deposition room obsessively refreshing the Facebook page of the girl that got away, as at the end of The Social Network.) Far from being a “now you sit there on the couch and look pretty” type like the girls portrayed in the film, Chan is an intelligent woman who’s studying to be a pediatrician. She never appears in the film.

· According to technology writer Sarah Lacy, who was acquainted with both Zuckerberg and Chan in Facebook’s early days: “In ten years in [Silicon] Valley, I can count on one hand the times I’ve been hit on at a techy party or event — and even during those few occurrences the people apologized as soon as they realized I was married. I have never had an illicit proposition, I have never seen a girl stripping at a party, I have never seen giggling underage girls in panties doing bong hits as male programmers code.”

And as I was researching this piece, I noticed something intriguing. Do a Google search on “Aaron Sorkin” and “sexism,” and The Social Network is not the only project that comes up. You’ll also get hits related to The West Wing. And Sports Night. And Studio 60. And more.

There’s one thing that all these projects have in common, and it isn’t Zuckerberg. In fact, Sorkin has been dealing with accusations of misogyny in his work for years. According to many of his viewers, even his smartest female characters frequently get condescended to and put in their place by men.

I’m not trying to make Zuckerberg out to be some sort of saintly figure. But it looks as if he’s been unfairly smeared in some ways — very likely for reasons that have little to do with him, and a lot to do with one particular screenwriter’s fallen worldview.

And therein lies a sobering lesson. When you have a hammer, the adage goes, everything looks like a nail. And when you have a shallow, demeaning view of women — one that sharply contrasts the Christian view of women being wonderfully created in God's image and made for good, meaningful contributions — apparently more and more women start to look like “groupies, sexed-up Asians, vengeful sluts, and feminist killjoys” (as Business Insider put it) in your eyes.

It’s not just Sorkin, either. Almost more disturbing than the fact that he wrote a screenplay full of such characters, is the fact that no one he was working with called him on it. Could it be that decades of promoting sexual libertinism has led to a jaded view of women within the film industry?

All I know is this: Hollywood may fancy itself a bastion of enlightened tolerance, but judging by The Social Network, it’s got a long way to go, baby.

Gina Dalfonzo is editor of BreakPoint.org and Dickensblog. She wrote "The Good Christian Girl: A Fable" and "God Loves a Good Romance" for CT online, and "Facebook Envy on Valentine's Day," "What Are Wedding Vows For, Anyway?" "Why Sex Ruins TV Romances," and "Don't Think Pink" for Her.meneutics.

Comments

I've yet see the Social Network but I am familiar with Aaron Sorkin's works. Admittedly I am a fan of his fast paced, witty dialogue & the surprising depth with which he writes his characters. While I can see why some people would accuse Sorkin of being a misogynist, I don't believe that to be true. West Wing consistently had strong female characters who easily held their own with the male characters. His movie The American President likewise. I think it's important to note that Sorkin writes dynamic characters with their own past & issues to sort through. In my opinion, Sorkin creates equally broken male & female characters- everyone is flawed. Isn't that what we as Christians know to be the effects of sin?

I also do not believe that Sorkin champions misogyny. He consistently uses his works to point out inequalities in society or issues that the public wants to turn a blind eye to (West Wing for example, homeless people, etc). If this is true, then perhaps he is not writing misogyny into his scripts to champion it but as a means to convey the sad truth that misogyny is still a very big part of our lives, despite our equal access to bsic human rights.

I'm sorry. Watch any other of Sorkin's series, (I suggest The West Wing, in particular) rather just reading what other people have said about them. If his strong, intelligent, substantive female characters are occasionally condescended to by men, you'll see these same men being set straight by the women.

I'm not saying he didn't go wrong in The Social Network. Nor can I prove that he's not, personally, a misogynist. Fault his view of humanity; recognize the fact that, as a person confined within the boundaries of his own gender (as are we all, ultimately) he is bound to get women wrong some of the time. But this article's fatuous conjecture is not only based on a weak foundation of wishful thinking, it also commits the ridiculous folly of holding Sorkin accountable to a view of women based in a faith he does not espouse.

Along with The American President and The West Wing, I loved Sports Night, precisely for its strong portrayal of women in a no-doubt misogynistic field.

For the record, along with "The Social Network," I've seen "A Few Good Men" (which I liked), "The American President" (which I didn't like), and one or two episodes of "The West Wing" (which I didn't much care for). So I'm not unfamiliar with Sorkin's work.

Hmm, I hadn't really thought of The Social Network from this angle - then again I haven't really done that much thinking about it from any angle, because unlike critics I don't see the depth in the movie that is apparently there. But yes, the sexed-up girls slaving themselves to computer nerds never struck a realistic chord with me. It's primarily a movie about men; women are like objects in the background or walls to bounce male characters off of.

I haven't seen The Social Network yet, but I'll take Sorkin's view of women in The West Wing, in Studio 60, and The American President over the misogyny of Glenn Stanton and the Complementarians any day.

The West Wing in particular had many smart, successful female characters -- press secretary, national security advisor, assistant WH counsel, members of congress, staff assistants, wife of the president ...

I was disappointed (actually fairly upset!) by the misogyny in Social Network. It is there. But I don't think Sorkin is a misogynist. Rather, he was portraying a world of misogyny. I have known several computer science majors - I majored in a sister program, mathematical sciences - and many of them really are stunted when it comes to human interaction. Club house rules abound for many of them, and if a woman breaks in (like I occasionally did), she very much becomes "one of the guys."

I found it a bit odd that Sorkin gave the defense he did. Even if he fictionalized that part of the story, I think he should have admitted that. But judging from West Wing and other series he has no problem with strong women. It is just that in this case the story demanded a different view of women, and it is that view, not Sorkin, that deserves our criticism.

Sorry Gina, but please do not say you are familiar with Sorkin's work if you have not seen many (instead of a couple) episodes of The West Wing, let alone Sports Night or Studio 60. The West Wing has many strong women presented in positive and intelligent lights. But, you have to watch it and pick up on the story lines and know the characters to make any comment about it.
Also, when I Google Aaron Sorkin and misogynist, all the posts on the first 2 pages deal with recent things from The Social Network, not some long-standing lists of accusations.
Yes, he, as most screenwriters do, took many liberties in telling the story in The Social Network. But, director David Fincher has even said it was never meant to be a true telling of the start of Facebook, but rather, insight to what Facebook "is" and how it affects people. Maybe Zuckerberg didn't sit and hit refresh to see if his old girlfriend would friend him, but for sure many people do do that kind of thing. And, for sure a frat environment with those attitudes are on college, and Ivy league, campuses. I think the telling was more a reflection of culture in general. And, I think we are "supposed" to be a bit sick to our stomach when seeing all of that. I do not think Sorkin is being misogynistic and degrading women, but he's actually showing how things like social networking can be used for such bad behavior, essentially.

Gina, you've read every negative bit of criticism about Sorkin, but only "one or two" episodes of The West Wing, his largest body of work, whose character arcs developed over years, and you claim to come to an understanding of what he believes and writes about women? Seriously? That is hardly "digging into the facts"!

If all I read in the Bible were Song of Solomon and Revelations, I'd probably end up with a pretty warped view of Christianity too.

I'd expect a little more from a published author than being "not unfamilar" with the work of the person she is criticizing.

The piece is about "The Social Network," which I *have* seen. There's only one short paragraph that refers to Sorkin's other work, and it was about other people's reactions to that work, not my own personal reactions. Now, if I had set out to write a full critique of "The West Wing" after only seeing an episode or two, *that* would be a problem. But that's not what I did.

The really interesting thing, from my perspective, is that some commenters are critiquing my piece on "The Social Network" without having seen that. :-)

(I beg your pardon, that's two paragraphs, not one. I meant that there's one paragraph that refers to them by name. But they're still not what the piece is about.)

Gina, your article is subtitled "The likely Oscar Best Picture winner's disturbing view of women apparently come not from Mark Zuckerberg's world but from the views of writer Aaron Sorkin." You don't just criticize The Social Network -- You criticize Sorkin's entire "worldview," and ultimately all of Hollywood's, which is a far broader point, without having even seen years' worth of Soprkin's most important work. (And that's not just limited to a couple of paragraphs.)

Your article asserts that the problem with The Social Network is Aaron Sorkin's worldview and you conclude that his defense of The Social Network can't possibly be true because so much of his other work has been supposedly criticized by "many of his viewers" as misogynistic. (We don't even get to know who these other critics are to know if they are credible or not.) Completely ignored are all the awards the West Wing won -- Writers' Guild, Emmys, Golden Globes, SAG, DGA, People's Choice. Such awards are not always a good measure, but after so many, it's hard to believe all that supposed misogyny escaped notice.

Simple logic hold that a false premise will lead to a false conclusion. If you're wrong about Sorkin's other work, your conclusion is likely wrong as well.

I haven't seen The Social Network, so I can't (and didn't) offer an opinion on it. My point was that one of the premises of your conclusion is, in my view, false, and to question why an author would publish a piece based upon a premise they hadn't even bothered to check out. Even if you were only writing about "other people's reactions to [Sorkin's] work, not my own," are you really saying it's OK to just repeat a bunch of criticism about someone without even investigating whether any of it has any substance? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm likewise entitled to believe it's not well-founded.

Christian Lawyer, break that subtitle down. I don't criticize Sorkin's "entire worldview." I say that a certain element in "The Social Network" appears to come from an element in Sorkin's thinking.

(Incidentally, since you refer to the subtitle, I feel compelled to mention that I didn't write it. If I had, I wouldn't have called TSN "the likely Oscar Best Picture winner." :-) Though it's definitely a frontrunner, I think -- and hope -- that "The King's Speech" will win.)

Within the article itself, I don't just say his defense can't be true because of people's criticisms of TWW. I give multiple reasons -- most of them stemming from the actual circumstances surrounding the invention of Facebook and the actual people involved -- why I think his defense is not true.

And misogyny escaping notice in HOLLYWOOD? I may not have seen every episode of TWW, but I've seen more than my share of modern movies and TV shows, and I'd be surprised if Hollywood ever took *any* notice of the misogyny rampant in its midst.

Well the social network just won best adapted screenplay because its based on a book. As others have shown, I too don't believe Sorkin to be a woman hater. I wonder how much of the mysogeny was his creation and how much was on the original work.

Gina, your article discusses more than just "an element" in Sorkin's thinking. You refer to his "fallen worldview." Your hammer and nail analogy appears to give the "sobering lesson" that Sorkin's "shallow, demeaning view of women" colors "everything" he does. All without even mentioning, until the comments, that you've only ever seen one or two episodes of his major work.

And, I guess we are never going to know what Google "hits" you found or what websites you visited to determine that "many of his viewers" have been complaining about "misogny in his work for years."

You're welcome to your view, but I don't have to think it's very well researched or very well founded.

You don't consider "The American President," "The Social Network," or "A Few Good Men" among his major works?

The review sounds like nothing more than an excuse to once again push the feminist agenda.

I'm going to preface my full comment with this: I want to be a screenwriter. I doubt I ever will, but if I could do my dream job - it would be screenwriting. My screenwriting heroes include Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, Amy Sherman Palladino, and .... Aaron Sorkin.

So of course, I read this with interest. I'm a huge sci-fi geek but among my favorite non-sci fi shows are Gilmore Girls and The West Wing. The American President is on my "love" list of movies (but not on the "favorites" list).

So your premise is the Social Network is mysogynstic. Your theory is that its because Aaron Sorkin is as well, that its his fault that the movie is full of hating on women. I disagree with your theory. That being said - Aaron Sorkin is a very flawed man. He's had troubles with drugs and alcohol and I've got the impression that he deals with the typical psychoses that very brilliant, very creative men deal with. I also have gotten the impression that he believes that most people are inherently bad, greedy, and selfish (and he's been hurt by them) but that there are those who are inherently good and selfless who try to make up for the rest of humanity. Ah, if the man just would know what the Truth was!

As I commented last night, it turns out that the Social Network is based on a book. While Sorkin may have interviewed the main folks, chances are he didn't - which means he would have been going by the source material - and how honest of a portrayal was that book to begin with?

I also find it interesting that you conveniently left out this part of his comment: "The other was Gretchen, Eduardo's lawyer (in reality there was a large team of litigators who all took turns deposing witnesses but I wanted us to become familiar with just one person--a woman, who, again, is nobody's trophy."

Does that sound like someone who is a misogynist or someone who is trying to showcase a real life scenario? I also noticed that he continually references these guys not as men, but as boys. Seems to me like he knows that these guys' view of women is wrong....

Who are we going to believe, Sorkin or Zuckerberg? For me, neither. If Zuckerberg is really misogynistic, he's probably really not going to know it plus in the face of fame, he'll hide it from the public sector and if anyone thinks movies like this are completely honest and truthful they are sadly mistaken. That's what artistic license is all about.

Plus lets not even get into the fact that screenwriters are just one piece of the puzzle. The director and producers have the final say on how a movie looks. The screenwriter is just responsible for the plot and the words.

Is the movie misogynistic? I'm sure it is - I haven't seen it yet (yeah, I know). Could Sorkin have done a better job? Maybe he could have, if it served the story better. In the end, what was more important - being politically correct or serving the story? Sometimes, rarely, movies can pull off both and Sorkin knows how to do that. It'll be interesting to dissect when I finally get to see the movie.

Thanks for your perspective, Leslie. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it when you see it.

If I may, I want to make it clear that it wasn't my intention to "conveniently" leave anything out. Sorkin's defense is ten paragraphs long; I couldn't quote it all. The part about Gretchen is way down from the part I quoted, and it would have made my quote sound very awkward to drag it in. "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. . . . The other one was Gretchen." You see the problem. :-)

As for Gretchen herself, I will say that she is a competent female character, though ultimately a very minor player in the film, even more so than Erica and Marylin.

Understandable - it felt like it was being left out on purpose but its very likely that you read his response one way and I read it another :)

I had thought up a whole great comment last night, but then I slept. Even though I disagree with your theory, I'm glad for this discussion. I work in an IT department in an oil and gas company. Can we say "male dominated environment?" - so honestly I don't think I would have noticed anything "wrong" in the movie - the attitude is wrong, but I would have accepted as being a normal (though flawed) environment....well maybe. It'll be fun to dissect this one once I see it.

BTW - I remember your fairy tale you wrote. Please write more of those :D I know a lot of people didn't understand the end point of it, but it was great social commentary :)

Err....fable not fairy tale. I haven't had enough caffeine yet.

Again, the movie was not meant to be "true." It is a reflection on culture and social networking in general. And, I have seen The Social Network, The American President, A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War, all of the West Wing, Studio 60, and some of Sports Night.
The point many of us are making Gina, quite simply, is that your post was not about The Social Network or limited to it as a movie and book. You focused a lot on Aaron Sorkin and his work, as you even mention his worldview in the subtitle. And quite simply, you are not versed in his work. Many of us are harping on The West Wing because it is a large body of work, and it is known as one of the top TV shows of all time (you can check various people's lists online to verify that). I think we also don't really see the misogynistic view in his other movies either. Then, you also used some odd reference to Google hits to support your argument.
So, it is juts a matter of saying that your post was more than a bit misguided, honestly.
Yes, watching The Social Network just as it is on screen - there are a lot of misogynist elements. But again, it is not meant to glorify those behaviors or to demean women; it is more meant to reveal the detached attitudes of a generation of people today. Writing on that thematic element would have made for a more interesting and accurate post, instead of misguidedly blaming it on Aaron Sorkin. And, no, I have no affinity for Aaron Sorkin or know much of anything about him personally. Just happen to have seen most of his work - cause it happens to all be exceptionally good.

Gina, Sorkin's movies are certainly substantial parts of his work, but in terms of trying to analyze his views of women, a few short hours of film just do not compare with a seven-year series in which the development of his characters could be drawn out in finer detail. The West Wing is his mangum opus. You don't have to like it and seeing it might not even change your views, but criticism of his "fallen worldview" having only seen a snippet of it is just not well-founded.

A Few Good Men -- 2.25 hrs
American President -- just under 2 hrs
The Social Network -- 2 hrs
The West Wing -- 156 hrs

I don't know if anyone will see this but I *finally* got to see The Social Network. Within the first minute of the movie I had Zuckerburg pegged as having Asperger's Syndrome. Now whether the real Zuckerburg has it or if its just how the actor and dialog protrayed him, I don't know. I'm not a psychologist (joke intended there) but I would say the movie showed a man with Asperger's quite well.

As to the misogyny accusation: I still don't believe it is Sorkin's belief system but that he was portraying that world view. The lack of substantial women really didn't surprise me (I work in an IT job in a field that is mostly male to begin with) so I'm really not surprised by how women were represented (not saying its right -just saying its realistic).

The undertones of the movie were great - Zuckerburg trying to be and find acceptance and constantly pushing people away - is the main story.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The Social Network's Women Problem

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The Social Network's Women Problem

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives