Russell Brand and Mark Zuckerberg are in the news. The Facebook founder could be worth north of $1 billion depending on how much the IPO generates. His company, with more than 845 million registered users, stands ready to challenge giant Google for internet ad dollars, and become the dominant player in social media, extracting near monopoly rents from companies and individuals wanting to use Facebook to reach customers, advertise, or do business. Not bad for a guy only 27 years old, who formed the idea for the company out of his college dorm room. Meanwhile, Brand, estimated to be worth $15 million, is divorcing Pop Diva Katy Perry and could net from her, a pay-day of $25 million. Not bad.
But why is Brand the “dreamboat” of the tabloids, the supermarket checkout counter object of desire, and Zuckerberg nothing but a boring businessman? Facebook is hardly obscure, with news of the upcoming IPO and Zuckerberg’s net worth dominating. Zuckerberg is to social media, the way say Thomas Edison was to light bulbs? Why isn’t the game-changing internet entrepreneur the famous man desired by all, and the obscure British comedian well, relegated to obscurity?
The answer is all about pre-selection. Brand is rumored to have slept with 80 women a month, and that reputation is what drew Perry to him in the first place:
Posing for a series of raunchy photographs for the magazine, the 25-year-old said she has reformed the former sex addict, who according to rumours used to sleep with up to 80 women a month.
‘He was a heroin addict and now he’s not. He was addicted to all kinds of things and now he’s not. And he basically used to be a professional prostitute and now he’s not,’ she said.
‘So he’s an extremist, which can be both good and bad.’
‘I always needed someone stronger than me and I am, like, a f****** strong elephant of a woman.’
‘I say that hopefully in the humblest way I can. When we have an argument he knows I’m not just gonna throw my hands up and say, ‘okay, you win.’
‘Let’s get into it. Let’s start debating. Let’s wrestle, Russell.’
Pre-selection. A famous beauty, and rumors of sleeping with 80 women a month? That’s catnip to women. Even more so, the idea of “reforming” the bad boy who was so irresistible that all those women wanted him. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of Facebook CEO, Priscilla Chan, is hardly adoring in the pictures above. Zuckerberg is no famous bad boy in need of reforming. That he’s on a first-name basis with the President, and can get his calls returned, is no matter. That he’s soon to come into a billion dollars is also no real mark of attraction.
In America, it is what does not happen, but by all rights would be expected to happen, that matters. If it were merely a matter of fame, and power, and money, (and even looks), then you’d expect the clean-living, powerful, pioneering, and rich Zuckerberg to occupy the attention and fantasies of today’s American women. Not a British comedian few people have heard of, with no power or influence.
This a red arrow, pointing towards the selection for a certain type of man, by women, and by extension, the female-dominated media. What we are seeing, is the fruits of endless choice by women, without any real knowledge of the real score (i.e. choose badly and wreck your life, see Katy Perry, Demi Moore, Demi Lovato, etc.), moving almost exclusively towards the “Big Man” personality. Preferring above all other qualities, extroversion, social domination, “big” personal problems (i.e. “tragic flaws” such as drinking, drug abuse, etc.) and a track record of bedding many, many women.
Only in a society seriously flawed (and one determined to keep the real deal, the score, from women) would the premier young mogul of our time generate so little (none at all really) attention from women and women’s magazines, and trivial junk celebrities such as Russell Brand so much. This is the result of extreme short-term focus on pre-selection, lots of “drama” (problems a woman can “fix” by being, well just so special) and high extroversion. This is not particularly sustainable, the only question is how hard and how massive the crash will be, in the market for men, and just as importantly how women can find mates. No woman, after all, is owed a husband. If no guy is owed a romantic relationship, no woman can demand a commitment either.
While the saga of tabloid fave Kim Kardashian is likely exaggerated, her romantic reality is not that much different from Monica Lewinsky. Who found few takers for romance, after her dalliance with Bill Clinton. A woman’s beauty fades fast, and even faster the more partners she racks up, visibly, unlike a man who within reason gains more from again, pre-selection.
Sadly, few women have older relatives they trust to show them the score, how things work out, what happens with foolish romantic choices. Not even the movie “Young Adult” was willing to open up to women about the inability to roll back the clock.
In short, we are likely to be plagued by “Big Men” such as Brand, who bring the sexy to a female audience but don’t exactly possess competence. This probably explains the reluctance to vote for Romney among Republicans, Romney not exactly being a “Big Man” who brings the sexy, and Newt at least filling that “Big Man” void of being socially dominant. [Even though, in polling, Romney has substantial advantages over Newt and Santorum among women voters.] When sexy is what is preferred among women, men tend to try and oblige. Women tend to get the type of men they prefer in abundance. Until they don’t want it. This era of Big Men is likely to continue until women collectively decide they are sick of it and demand competence instead.