randy_byers: (2010-08-15)
On the flight back from California, I read Claire Brialey's piece in the latest Banana Wings about feminism and (amongst other things) fandom. Claire was polite enough not to finger me as the unnamed fan who, in worrying about the lack of LOCs from women to his fanzine, attributed Claire's article about the same issue in an earlier Banana Wings to her male co-editor, Mark Plummer. Hoist on my own petard, as I said to Claire when she called me on it here on LJ at the time.

As I was thinking about the issue of female participation in fanzines after reading Claire's piece, I got to wondering about whether the percentages are any better in online communities. I still haven't done a gender count of the Chunga mailing list, but I've just gone through my LJ Friends list. Ignoring communities, people who have died, and people I don't know (and thus don't know their gender), and counting people with multiple accounts only once, I came up with 77 male Friends and 48 female Friends. That's 62% male, 38% female. Well, it's better than the percentages for people who write LOCs to Chunga! (Although I suppose the proper comparison there would be people who comment on my LJ.) I wonder how this compares to other peoples' counts. Anybody willing to do the work on their own Friends lists?

Okay, this is kind of weird: On Facebook I have 115 male Friends and 74 female. That's 61% male, 39% female. Those percentages are scarily close to the LJ percentages.

(And don't worry, Claire (and Mark), I *am* going to try to turn this into a LoC.)
randy_byers: (thesiger)
A fascinating look at the upper tiers of American society. Excellent production, interesting story, great dialogue (hello, Aaron Sorkin), smooth, flowing pace. Just really well done in all aspects. However, I came out of it feeling that it was really good, but so what? Partly it's because the very final scene is such a thumb-sucker. The Beatles song used could just as well have been "Money Can't Buy You Love" "Can't Buy Me Love". Could anything be more obvious? But as I've mulled it over this morning, it does seem a perfectly fitting end, structurally speaking, and maybe the banality of it is a gesture toward the inadequacy of trying to tell a story about the founding of a humongous corporation. (Although now I'm imagining how it would play if they'd gone with the biting self-pity of Randy Newman's "It's Lonely at the Top".)

I don't know. It's certainly a movie that bears mulling over. The story of modern American capitalism. (Cue the South Asian student I overheard in a Lebanese restaurant last week saying, "America is a good place to make money." With the implication, "But I wouldn't want to live my whole life here.") I can also see why women are bristling at the boy's world portrayed in the film. Not that anybody really comes off well here. Maybe the smartest structural comment on American capitalism the movie makes is to depict it as a process of intertwining lawsuits.

One thing that occurred to me when talking it over with [livejournal.com profile] holyoutlaw afterward was that for the whole length of the film we see Zuckerberg resisting attempts to make money using advertising -- and one of the great triumphs is attracting venture capital so that advertising money isn't needed to expand -- and yet that's precisely how Facebook makes money now. Is that an unstated irony that we're supposed to figure out on our own?

Profile

randy_byers: (Default)
randy_byers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 24th, 2025 07:23 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios