Aaron Sorkin is defending The Social Network's portrayal of women, saying it reflects the tech world's misogyny. Others have cited artistic license as in service of a larger critique. But where's the line between glamorizing a world and critiquing it?
Of all the forums available to Aaron Sorkin, he chose to reply to a comment on a TV writer's blog, essentially to say that he relied on the facts: that he quoted from Mark Zuckerberg's blog verbatim, just changing the name of a girl that he may or may not have actually been dating, the comments about farm animals, the creation of Facemash, which Sorkin said was "aimed... at the entire female population of Harvard." (Nevermind that men were also graded on the real life Facemash, that a single blog post in a fit of pique isn't necessarily indicative of someone's entire worldview, or that again, Zuckerberg had a serious girlfriend he started dating not much afterwards).
This is not only true of the real Zuckerberg, he says:
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. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)
I already spoke to the dissonance between the Harvard he describes and the one I knew; at least one woman in the other sphere in the film, Silicon Valley, objects to that world's portrayal too. In TechCrunch, Sarah Lacy also points out that Sorkin is directly contradicting his previous statements that he knew nothing about the real Facebook and was simply storytelling: