Mark Zuckerberg, the boy responsible for Facebook, has been named Time Man Of The Year. We’re not surprised. The sexists and the misogynists are two peas in a pod.
Time magazine lards its essay on Zuckerberg with blather about the “cerebral neocortex” and evolutionary biology. Also fascinating to Time’s editors are the “narcissism and voyeurism” of “social media” of which the editors confess on behalf of the human race “Most of us display a combination of the two….”
What Time magazine does not mention is the sexism and misogyny of their boy of the year. In all likelihood, Time magazine does not mention the sexism and misogyny of their boy because the editors don’t see as worth mentioning something they themselves display regularly.
Let’s recall a bit of Zuckerberg history which we wrote about in October of this year:
“It’s not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes [and] equal. Mark’s blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he’s sure he’s missing, came directly from Mark’s blog. … 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. …
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.)”
The “Mark” that Aaron Sorkin describes above, is now Time’s Man of the Year – Mark Zuckerberg.
We’re not surprised that the geeks at Time magazine would choose Mark Zuckerberg as their Man of the Year. Two reasons for our lack of surprise that bear mentioning. The first is that Time magazine editors are well aware that their long time competitor Newsweek magazine was sold for one dollar. Time magazine editors know their days are numbered and they will soon join defunct Newsweek in the ash heap. So why not suck up to the boy with billions who might one day hire them? Career before anything to these creeps.
Careers and self advancement are what is important to these geeks. That’s part of the reason why they fell in love with the boy raised by wolves whose only goal has been self-advancement and his career – Barack Obama.
The second reason why Time magazine’s editors did not view Mark Zuckerberg’s sexism and misogyny as worth mentioning in their recognition essay is that they in all likelihood share, and therefore cannot see, the sexism and misogyny of the boy they hope to work for after the front cover fellatio.
Big Media is still a boys game and these little boys just don’t like girls as equals. The little boys of Big Media are big sexists and misogynists who admire other sexists and misogynists:
“Eight Jobs That Are Still Sexist.
4. Science and Engineering
5. Film and Entertainment
In March 1970, 46 NEWSWEEK employees became the first group of media women to sue for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Time, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, and a number of other publications would follow. But 40 years later, how much has changed? We may have two female anchors on network television, but in print journalism, male bylines still outnumber female bylines by a rate of seven to one—despite women being the majority of journalism graduates since 1977. They’re in the minority when it comes to sources, too: the Global Media Monitoring Project found that worldwide, women make up only 24 percent of the people “interviewed, heard, seen, or read about in mainstream broadcast and print news.”
The Tea Party, loathed by Big Media, won big in 2010 but was only a runner up to the boy sexist and misogynist.
Michael Steele has been a spectacular success and a spectacular failure. Steele, like his Obama Dimocrat counterpart, Tim Kaine, was chosen as a token race symbol.
Tim Kaine is not really worth discussing. He has been a spectacular failure and nothing but a failure. Kaine was the Governor of Virginia who endorsed Barack Obama in February 2007. The hope was that Tim Kaine who had won in red state Virginia and who shilled shamelessly for Barack Obama would continue to turn Virginia “purple” and be a symbol to White people, particularly White Working Class people, that the Obama Dimocratic Party cared about them.
The White Working Class proved to be too discerning to fall for that fake posturing and Virginia elected a Republican governor to replace Kaine. Whites of all social strata have abandoned Obama’s Dimocratic Party. Kaine has been a mess and a total failure. Tim Kaine who once thought he would be Obama’s Vice President is a total loser.
Michael Steele was also chosen as a token race pick. After the 2008 elections Republicans knew they needed to play the race game and play it they have with amazing adroitness.
Having a Black Guy as the top guy at the Republican National Committee made it easier to criticize Barack Obama. Remember, back in November of 2008 and into January 2009, it appeared that Barack Obama would forever be protected by Big Media and that anyone who dared attack Obama would be punished and called a “racist”. By getting their own Black Guy to slap around the other Black Guy the Republicans managed to get a little space to go after Obama.
As we have written, the Republicans reacted creatively and energetically to the losses in November 2008:
“The obvious mistake that the massive “creative class” brains made when they created the Obama monster in a Chicago laboratory was that Republicans would remain static in their strategies and candidates. The stupidity was to think that Republicans would go to sleep and stick to an outdated playbook.”
As we will outline in days to come Republicans adjusted. Republicans became the party of diversity. Women, Blacks, Latinos, not only ran as Republicans but they won in 2010. Republicans also expanded their base in dramatic fashion as they grabbed senior citizens and women majorities to their now increasingly diverse appearing party. Obama Dimocrats increasingly retreated to the core Obama “situation comedy” demographics – blacks, gentry white liberals, and the temporarily young.
Like the “trophy wife” airhead who is selected to be “arm candy” for a powerful man Michael Steele had only one job – be a Black man. Like the “trophy wife” who gets in trouble by opening her mouth instead of just looking good, Michael Steele tried to turn his race-based job into something else. Steele talked and deluded himself into thinking he was hired to do more than be window dressing.
We doubt it was the presence of Michael Steele that helped the Republican Party get good candidates who are other than white males. But we will credit him for that diversity of skin color and skin shape which the Republican party is absorbing. That the Women, Blacks, and Latinos elected as Republicans have a more or less Republican/conservative philosophy and still managed to get elected is an achievement which should be respected and even admired. We’ll give Michael Steele, deserved or not, credit for all these achievements and call him a spectacular success.
But Michael Steele is also a spectacular failure. Politico has detailed some of Steele’s biggest flubs which include a recent dose of race-baiting:
“Those stumbles have come at such frequent intervals that it’s easy to forget some of his biggest doozies.
Forget the more serious criticisms of his tenure — the operational problems such as a cash crunch, the resignation of the respected political director and the flight of large donors. Or the embarrassing episodes that unfolded under Steele’s watch such as the revelation that the committee spent about $2,000 on “meals” at a bondage-themed club in West Hollywood, where topless women imitated lesbian sex. [snip]
“You know who needs a little leadership? Michael Steele and those at the RNC,” Limbaugh said on his show. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking-head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.” [snip]
At a July fundraiser, Steele questioned America’s involvement in Afghanistan, setting off a media firestorm.
The episode started with a criticism of Obama for relieving Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command over controversial remarks he made to a Rolling Stone writer. [snip]
Using the language of the abortion rights movement, Steele told GQ magazine that he would oppose a constitutional ban on abortion.
“Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?” GQ’s Lisa DePaulo asked in a Feb. 24, 2009, interview in his office.
“Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice,” he said.
“You do?” he was asked.
“Yeah. Absolutely,” he said.
Under fire from anti-abortion activists, Steele later issued a statement through the RNC saying, “I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.” [snip]
On Fox News, Steele said he would consider supporting primary challengers against Republican senators who voted for Obama’s stimulus package in early 2009.
“Oh, yes, I’m always open to everything, baby, absolutely,” Steele told host Neil Cavuto.[snip]
Vincent Jericho, the Missouri-based conservative talk show host, went off on a diatribe against Rep. Roy Blunt, a former member of Republican leadership running for Senate.
The host said Blunt epitomized why the party had lost its way and even accused Blunt of adultery, arguing that “guys like Papa Blunt makes us sick to our stomach.”
Steele, Jericho’s guest for the August 2009 segment, piled on.
“I agree with you,” Steele said. [snip]
In November 2009, on NewsOne’s Washington Watch, Steele was asked about criticism that some “white Republicans” are “scared of black folks.”
Steele answered in the affirmative.
“I’ve been in the room, and they’ve been scared of me,” the first African-American chairman said in an interview. “I’m like, ‘I’m on your side.’”
Michael Steele made the mistaken assumption that anyone cares what he thinks. That’s not why he was chosen. Steele was chosen as window dressing. Steele was chosen as a black shield from which to attack Barack Obama and to send a signal that the Republican Party was able and willing to adjust tactics to win the war. Michael Steel was the black in the box who tried to get out of the box and be just like Jack. But that is not what he was hired for. His job was to stay in the box.
Michael Steele as been a spectacular failure:
“We admire his pluck, but not his judgment. It’s time for someone else to run the RNC.
Steele is an infectiously likeable guy with an inspiring personal story. The adopted son of a laundress and a truck driver who credits his bootstrapping mother and Ronald Reagan with leading him to the GOP, Steele became one of the first in his family to attend college, and spent years at the Catholic seminary of Villanova before leaving to pursue a career in law and public service that would see him become the first African American to hold statewide office in Maryland and the first to chair the Republican National Committee.
We don’t doubt he will continue to be an asset to the party and to the conservative cause in any number of ways, but he has turned out to be ill suited to the RNC job.
His engaging manner on TV was one of his attractions as a chairman two years ago. It quickly went sour. Steele doesn’t have the discipline of a party operative. Whether it was lashing out at Rush Limbaugh or calling Afghanistan “a war of Obama’s choosing,” his gaffes distracted from the work at hand. Meanwhile, the $20,000-apiece corporate speeches, the Regnery book, and the accompanying media plugs all gave Steele, fairly or not, the whiff of the political profiteer.
Likewise, his tactical choices seemed at times driven as much by personal exigencies as by party priorities. In September, with midterms kicking into high gear and every piece of data indicating that Republicans could make substantial incursions into key blue districts, where was Steele? Speechifying and fundraising in Guam — no doubt in part because the party committeemen of Guam and other U.S. territories in the Pacific and Caribbean broke heavily for Steele in 2008. A similar calculus could explain why Steele sent $20,000 from his state parties’ budget to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, which has no voting members of Congress, zero electoral votes, and a population roughly the size of Scranton’s.
Steele has claimed credit for the historic midterm victories, but believing that he substantially contributed to Republican successes is no less delusional than Nancy Pelosi believing that she didn’t. In his resignation letter, RNC political director Gentry Collins — now a candidate for the chairmanship himself — painted a devastating picture of the fundraising mismanagement at the committee. The RNC raised $284 million for the mid-terms in 2002 and $243 million in 2006, a far better performance than the roughly $170 million for this cycle. The party’s neglect of big donors and its reliance on mass solicitations of small donors meant it spent a lot to raise this smaller amount of money.
This left it to third-party conservative groups to close the money gap and expand the field of seats in play. Even so, the RNC’s anemic grassroots mobilization and voter-turnout efforts — the kind of “ground game” that pushed Obama across the finish line in 2008 — almost certainly cost Republicans seats. No, Republican candidates had a big night despite the RNC, not because of it.”
We are very generous and will give Steele credit for the successes under his watch even as we agree with the Steele critics that it is unlikely Steele deserves the credit. But we are generous and kind. In either case Republicans do not care one whit, and they should not care, what Democrats have to say about their leadership choices. Republicans should care what their Big Donors think and many Republican Big Donors don’t think much about Steele:
“Some of the Republican Party’s most prominent donors reacted Tuesday with shock — and then fury — to Michael Steele’s decision to seek re-election, bluntly warning that they would not raise money for the party if the controversial chairman wins another term. [snip]
Al Hoffman, a longtime GOP contributor in Florida who did two separate stints as RNC finance chairman in President Bush’s first term, was just as withering: “The donor community has virtually no faith or confidence in Michael Steele’s to be the keeper of the keys.”
Originally a supporter of the chairman, Hoffman said he and many of his fellow contributors would sit on their checkbooks in a Steele sequel.
“The long and short of it is I have a hard time finding any major donor who would trust him to straighten out the RNC and run a principled and ethical fundraising operation,” said the Floridian. “Whose going to give to him as long as he’s at the helm? Not me. My own slogan is now, Anybody But Steele.”
Michael Steele, like Clarence Thomas and many white men for many years, got his job in large part based on the color of his skin. Hey, it happens. Sometimes that type of racial hiring works out, sometimes it does not.
In the case of Barack Obama, the racial hire has clearly not panned out. In the case of Michael Steele, the racial hire was a smart move. But Republicans don’t need Michael Steele anymore. Barack Obama is on the run, and there are smarter and elected Black Republicans that can now carry the fight. Michael Steele, like Barack Obama, has outlived his usefulness.
Both Barack Obama and Michael Steele are pawns in a game. Michael Steele leaves a stronger Republican party in his wake. Barack Obama leaves a devastated Dimocratic party in his wake.
For Michael Steele, the game is almost over. Barack Obama will soon enough also fall to defeat. Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg will hire them someday. Barack Obama will have the inside track for the job however.
Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg have a lot in common. They have both been Time Man of the Year. They are also sexists and misogynists.