A Tale of Two Men: Russell Brand and Mark Zuckerberg

Katy Perry and Russel BrandRussell 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.’

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan
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.

Advertisements

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in men, women. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to A Tale of Two Men: Russell Brand and Mark Zuckerberg

  1. Conquistador says:

    I like the new layout and set up it was a needed improvement. To the point a hand if a billionaire Harvard graduate can only get a chubby plain Asian what chance does the average guy have out there?

    “his era of Big Men is likely to continue until women collectively decide they are sick of it and demand competence instead.” – Whiskey

    This is unlikely to happen. Just look at the ghetto, barrio, or trailer park. Rampant promiscuity and the poverty that goes along with it but no desire to change.

  2. Shawn says:

    Good post.

    Brand is a tall good-looking broad-shouldered guy, which undoubtedly helps him. But he has his image down pat, the bad boy image that girls crave. Women are attracted to that rebellious image. I believe that if Zuck wanted to pull more he could, even based of his current appearance and attitude, but to really generate attraction among women he would have to have the image of a rockstar/hippie/or rap guy and not look so wholesome, which turns women’s vaginas dry.

  3. Bitter Truth says:

    Fame>Wealth, at least when it comes to what chicks find hotter.

    A broke, D-list reality star will attract women like flies to shit whereas a relatively rich investment banker has to rain down cash and gifts to get any attention. If you work in the tech or programming industries, you’ll know many people who make impressive figures but still go home alone.

    In NYC, business men, financiers and the like usually only attract those women whose sexual market value is declining and want to secure a provider before it’s too late. It’s the same dynamic that gets Z-listers waved through the doors at the hottest clubs and have their drinks for free whereas bankers and stockbrokers have to pay eye-watering bottle-service charges (in the realm of $3000-$10,000 just to get a table, these clients are referred to as ‘whales’ in the nightlife industry).

    Women in NYC spend their prime years (16-28) riding the carousel of penniless indie hipster musicians, up-and-coming artists, barely working actors and the like.

    Many men seem to have the false belief that money will attract women. In truth, it will just attract those who’re ready to settle, i.e. nearing or at the age of 30. You can see this on Sex and the City where you have four over-the-hill women frantically chasing provider candidates. The hottest, youngest women tend to not only date broke but charismatic douchebags, they actually PAY for them as well.

  4. Bitter Truth says:

    By the way, I think earning lots of money is a good thing as it goes towards establishing your independence as a man. Just don’t expect to be a magnet for fresh, young pussy.

    This is especially true now that women have financial equality (and the recession has had a vastly greater impact on men than women). Being rich could seal the deal with a pretty young thing in Jane Austen’s day. Not anymore.

  5. Bitter Truth says:

    P.S. why does Zuckerberg always where t-shirts that show off his moobs?

    Also, everyone should check out Roissy’s post on how un-into him his girlfriend his:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/why-game-is-worth-more-than-a-billion-dollars/

  6. Contrary says:

    Russell Brand has the same eyes as Charles Manson.

  7. Shawn says:

    “Fame>Wealth, at least when it comes to what chicks find hotter.”

    Maybe so, but who can you think of who is famous but not rich? Exclude criminals and do-gooders like Mother Theresa. Nearly everyone who is famous is rich.

  8. Shawn says:

    Bitter I basically agree with what you have to say.

    And Poor guys who go bad boy (in terms of style) can get a better quality of women than rich preps, oftentimes.

  9. Jacko says:

    Posts like these make me want to stay MGTOW forever. A nice sports car beats a woman any day. BTW, the car [any car] is much lower maintenance than a woman [any woman].

    • Tschafer says:

      Personally, I doubt that Zuckerberg will lack for female companionship if he feels himself in need of it, but you’re right – he’s hardly going to be pictured on the covers of any women’s magazines, and I doubt if he’ll be marrying Katy Perry any time soon. But hey, cheer up, Mark! I hear that Kim Kardashian is available…

      • P Ray says:

        Both of those are likely to cuckold him.
        Someone like Camilla Belle or Emma Roberts might have their heads screwed on relatively straighter.

  10. But why isn’t Zuckerberg on the cover of Women’s magazines? After all: he’s ungodly rich; he’s single/not-married; he shapes the daily lives of people on social media, 845 million and counting; he gets his phone calls to the White House returned, unlike say the Situation or Brand.

    By all accounts it should be Zuckerberg, not Brand, who is an object of fascination among women. Zuckerberg has real power, power that can generate respect and deference from the President of the United States, a man (currently) not known for showering that on people he considers beneath him (“You’re likable enough Hillary.”) If you measure this in power and money, both, Zuckerberg is off the charts compared to Brand. Yet Zuckerberg like Gates before him, generates no attention among the wider female-oriented media.

    That to me is the dog not barking in the night-time. The thing that should have happened but did not. The WSJ has a book review covering the same subject. Noting that “Bad Teacher” starring Cameron Diaz as a middle school teacher takes aside an earnest young boy eager to take a risk to prove his love for some girl, noting that the girl likes only “hot, popular” boys and the kid is sensitive, not a compliment. The kid asks if Eighth Grade will be better and Diaz replies that College is his window.

    To me, this explains the collapse of marriage among all but the Upper class among Whites. THEY know the score — getting and keeping wealth means dialing down the bad boys and going for Zuckerberg. Being in control, because the illusion of safety nets and social welfare is just that, the money is already running out. Witness Harrisburg’s bankruptcy, Detroit, soon to be many more.

    Like Romney, I’m not really concerned with Zuckerberg’s love life, just appalled at the larger social implications which Murray has measured but not really understood (as to the driving force).

    Yeah, I saw Roissy’s take on how Zuckerberg’s girlfriend was not into him. Pretty telling, and again indicative of a lack of any real model of love and relationships in our post-modern culture.

    • Blank says:

      ” Diaz replies that College is his window”

      Ha! Good one, Cameron.

    • Shawn says:

      Zuckerberg & Gates are not good-looking guys with a bad-ass image. Zuckerberg is average looking and short and Gates looks like a dork. Think back to high school and who were the cool guys. Not the wholesome-looking guys but the guys with the bad boy thing going on.

      This sort of thing has been going on forever though, probably way way back in human history. Girls are attracted to bad boys because at some point being with them made those girls more reproductively successful (maybe the bad boys were more willing to commit violence against other males).

      Please watch this clip of the perfectly cast Matthew McConaughey as David Wooderson, the tall, muscular, good-looking guy, who is a bad ass that women love! Wooderson also happens to be a major loser with no life ambitions, but the young women don’t seem to mind, those young women in their prime.

      Okay watch this you won’t be disappointed (note: this of the guys in the car with the redhead as being on par with Zuckerberg & Gates and think of Wooderson as being a Russel Brand type or some creative type with no ambition)!

      • Anonymous says:

        Wow, has anybody on this forum stopped to think for a minute that Zuckerberg is just not as nice and decent a person?? I’m sure if he had a likeable personality, he would have a larger pool of women to choose from. But with his bratty, arrogant, I’m better than anyone, attitude, I doubt his dating luck is bound to change any time soon. It’s not his nerdy, Harvard educated background that precludes him from finding a good-looking partner, but rather his annoying attitude. Russell Brand is a CELEBRITY bad boy. The chicks who date Russell are not going to be the same ones who would date Mark – not even close! Russell, I’m guessing, must have been lucky to have passed a GED test if he ever even bothered to. So, no, comparing these two guys is like comparing apples to pears and it debunks your thesis that ALL women desire to be dominated by some misogynist, sex addict, alpha ape.

  11. I’m so sick of seeing this beta herbs with simian-looking little chinese chicks on their arms. To me it is an indication of the FAIL state of Western civilization, when white the natural state of things – ie white men pairing with white women – is upset by an uber-liberal feminized agenda.

    Wherever I look here in the French Quarter in New Orleans, literally >75% of the couples are interracial, id est white men with chink chicks of white womenz with hulking erectii. The latter group usually are pushing a stroller full of hybrid spawn.

    Somebody let me out of here, I can’t take it anymore.

    Sincerely,

    Arturo

    – crimesofthetimes.com

    • jesus@christ.com says:

      Oh dear. Are you butthurt about Pearl Harbor or something? Get the fuck over it.

      And no, this has nothing to do with liberalism. Few things make feminists more angry than a white man dating an Asian woman.

  12. Matt Strictland says:

    Well Zuckerberg comes on like a Alpha Geek which might appeal to a chubby Chinese geeky girl but not to magazine reading women. And yeah sure its good for women to see an ordinary girl with a super rich guy but she’s Asian, which would annoy the readers a bit. In the real world almost everyone is a bit racist after all.

    Another of the reason is that Brand seems “normal” by media standards, whatever those are.

    Zuckerberg on the other hand seems creepy. As an example, Zuckerberg only eats what meat he kills himself.

    This doesn’t seem paleodiet cool, it seems more like “How long before he starts hunting Ice T through the woods” creepy.

    Heck Zuckerberg even makes me a little unnerved and I am a guy.

    Brand is more “booze, drama, fun” something most people, especially women want and understand. The media gets him.

    Also part of it is interest level, Zuckerberg simply doesn’t care about relationship drama past “will this make me more money” and he either has the girl he wants or has a girl on his arm so people assume he actually cares about girls or both. What’s to talk about or show off especially for a guy into minimalism(source Wikipedia mentions )

    • lil mike says:

      I’m not sure I would agree that Brand seems normal as compared to Zuckerberg. Even by media standards, Brand was a loose cannon, which isn’t a bad rep for a celebrity, but it’s certainly a terrible one for a potential husband. Katie Perry might have been the only one who thought this marriage would be an extremely short term deal, and come to think about it, she had to have known that too.

      • Anonymous says:

        Katie Perry may well have outsmarted all of you and pulled a publicity stunt by declaring to be dating Brand. Gossip sells, didn’t you know? I betcha serious $$$ she was never in love with that dude…

  13. Foxfier says:

    Zuckerberg is freaking creepy— half the time he’s got face time on TV, he’s talking about how everyone (meaning him) should be able to know everything that someone they’re “friends” with has ever done. Anybody who’s ever helped a family member who was seriously abused by their spouse (male or female– yes, real men can be abused by women, since they’re constrained by things like decency) should have alarm bells going off.

    His appearance doesn’t help. (Normal attractiveness, with a heavy dose of petulant teenage boy.) The way he just oozes “I’d be a total controlling, manipulative SOB if I could ever get the power” doesn’t help.

    Biggest difference between him and the scumbag Perry hooked up with? Zuckerberg showers more often, and probably has fewer STDs.

    Side note- the “Brand” guy looks like he based his appearance off of Weird Al.

    • Tschafer says:

      Yeah, they’re both creepy, but if I had my choice, I think I might prefer to like in a world organized by Brand rather than one organized by Zuckerberg. There’s just a touch of Beria/Yezov in Zuckerberg that I don’t like. Brand is obviously a loon who’s only interested in booze and sex, but that’s preferable to a nascent totalitarian.

      Maybe Perry has a point…

  14. ray says:

    “Russell Brand has the same eyes as Charles Manson.”

    nah, not even, Chuck’s the real deal . . . but russ is trying hard, and that’s the point

    his trendy Satanic Look plays well in l.a., where he can pretend to be and edgy badboy and clueless spoiled-brat females will respond, e.g.

    kutie katie: “I always needed someone stronger than me and I am, like, a f****** strong elephant of a woman.”

    it’s revealing pathology that a weakling phake like brand would match with a weakling phake like katie, who’s been told all her life by her feminist nation that she’s a fucking strong elephant

    in reality, she’s a pathetic pretender who (like many others) colluded with hollywood/amerika to trade on her underage sexuality as a springboard to “stardom” (while all denounce same) meanwhile leading a life of utter privilege and security, w/o the need ever to develop character or real strength

    she’s Fucking Elephant Strong based on no extant criteria, but wholly on the power and wealth awarded her by a psychotic matriarchy

    zuckerberg’s almost as sorry, his Great Achievement was to facilitate yet more western females gabbling on endlessly about nothing on their personal com equipment and social media, producing NOTHING OF VALUE except more fantasies in female heads about what Fucking Strong Elephants of Women they are (with fat bank accounts and an army of govt thugs to back up their Fucking Elephant Strongness)

    whole thing should be put outta its misery

  15. fakeemail says:

    When (white) men are in control of America, the kind of man who is held up as desirable and heroic is a Ward Cleaver, Mitt Romney, or Superman type. A man of real decency, strength, and honor. The kind of man who can build a first world civilization. Shits like Brand are laughed at as greasy little con artists.

    When childish women are in control of America, it’s all reversed. Loudmouth thugs, criminals, douches, and pompous asses are deemed “sexy” and have the most sex and kids while all the men who make society work get bupkis. . .and are even laughed at and ridiculed!

    This is perhaps the greatest crime imaginable; especially when you consider the long-term implications.

    The wisdom of the Constitution to grant voting rights to only landed white men is clearer than ever. Another nice essay, Whiskey!

  16. ant says:

    america is screwed

  17. superdestroyer says:

    Celebrities are not harmed by having lots of public drama in their lives. It keeps their names in the media and in reality, they have lots of time off.

    Men trying to run fortune 500 companies, Departments of the government, large organizations in the military, large universities do not have the time to deal with drama in their lives. Having a supporting spouse/girlfriend who is also busy works out better for them.

  18. RFactor says:

    If men like Zuckerberg were consistently less successful reproductively than men like Brand, the genes for the “Zuckerbergs” would have been weeded out of the pool a long time ago in evolutionary history. The fact that they persist means that they do have some reproductive value. Moreover, they persist at a rate (say 20%) at which men like Zuckerberg do *equally well* in reproductive terms as men like Brand. If that were not the case, if the reproductive success of some men were greater than others’, then evolution would have started to lean in the direction of the more successful males and quickly weeded out the lower-success genes.

    Let’s not forget the fact that men who have sex with 80 women/month are susceptible to STDs which have the potential to curtail their reproductive health (and indeed their lives). In our evolutionary past, but also in contemporary life, men like Brand would have enjoyed a brief span of promiscuous activity followed by early mortality. Men like Zuckerberg would have been far less promiscuous, but they would have steered clear of STDs and enjoyed a greater reproductive lifespan.

    • krakonos says:

      In past generations reproductive fitness was very different to what we see today. Do not forget that monogamy has been enforced for centuries/millenia in some parts of the world. Arranged marriages were the norm or at least parents had significant influence who their children would marry, etc. Class and relegion had similar effects.
      Look at different parts of the world, how many Zuckerbergs, how many slackers and thugs thye have. Look at avarage IQs and such values. There are great disparities.

  19. Anon says:

    CH has an awesome picture somewhere on his blog, the facebook guys with their not so stellar asian GFs, vs a mexican turd gunrunner with a beauty queen who WENT TO PRISON with him.

  20. Anon says:

    “If men like Zuckerberg were consistently less successful reproductively than men like Brand, the genes for the “Zuckerbergs” would have been weeded out of the pool a long time ago in evolutionary history. The fact that they persist means that they do have some reproductive value.”

    Cooperation works in a hostile environment, while being a big man means starving to death in the cold. Eventually this formally became the basis of the patriarchy, and here we are. Today no one is at risk of starving to death in the cold, thanks to the society built by the vast masses of betas who exist, and whos society has been turned against them.

  21. Mike says:

    Katy Perry has some nice thighs, I must say.

  22. Johnycomelately says:

    I think the capacity to produce fear is an often under looked aspect of game, biologically the animal kingdom seems to make a massive investment in fear producing mechanisms, size, colour, shape etc.

    Women used to be the booty of warring tribes so they must have developed some psychological mechanism to become attracted to the most fearsome tribe to continue propagating their genes.

    Brand may not be fearsome in the traditional sense but in the ubiquity of safety of today’s civilization he brakes the rules.

  23. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of February 12, 2012

  24. asdf says:

    Asian women make white women feel the way white union workers feel about the plant moving to China. Asian women are seen as an inexhaustible pool of cheap mates just as Asian men are seen as an inexhaustible pool of cheap manual labor. Their existence is dehumanizing.

  25. Robert in Arabia says:

    Keep it up, Whiskey. Good stuff.

  26. Anonymous says:

    If I had to choose between these two, I’d become a nun… LOL

Comments are closed.