The article itself is terrible, making mountains out of molehills. I'm someone who'd never even be confused as a brogrammer, but someone explain to me what's negative about this "Drinking beer, lifting weights, picking up women, and kicking out a new JSON parser before dinner. ". That actually sounds like a damn good day in my book.
On top of its ridiculous hand wringing, the article is meandering and bizarrely attaches network TV and Louis C.K. to its thesis.
Forget brogrammers, this is the kind of reactionary, overly-P.C buzzkill I'd really hate to work with.
These bros planned a hella sick party out in Boston. There was going to be hot chicks, they were gonna do Rails and kegstands--it was gonna be the hottest thing since Southby.
(Even the Zuck was checking it out.)
But, like, the ad they payed some hipster to write, like, wasn't bronificial to the party. They didn't underline the amount of dubstep and wubwub, and, like, without the proper flag raised a bunch of those pansy Valley coders got all butthurt.
Like, really, who doesn't want to rep while they REPL? Who doesn't like drinks served by the hottest bitches; what're they, some kind of queerlicopter?
This author, brahly, seems to think, like, maybe they pitched to the wrong audience, you know. Like when we tried to pitch that NattyIce/Pets.com mashup, and the VCs were all like "Are you sure that your target demographic of bros who like light beer and dogs actually exist?" and we were like "Pshhhhaw yeah" and they were like "You'll hear from us--don't call."
This is what's wrong with this. I mean, I do know it's a pretty good day for a chauvinistic dude, but that's objectification of women as pleasure devices.
"overly-P.C buzzkill" Aw. Someone ruined making fun of women for you.
If it was a networking conference for high-powered female C*Os and they were advertising that the waiter's were all young buff men I wouldn't get up in arms.
Interesting story: I went for dinner out with a friend (both males) and all the girls (we saw only women waitresses their) were ~20ish and in small black dresses. Our waitress was one of these. However, our food and drinks were brought to us by men that looked like tax accounts. Then we spotted a male waiter, he was serving a table of young women... and he was built (biceps with a diameter of a strip of bacon), tanned, and coifed, but their food was brought but those same tax accounts. That's not sexism, but sex appeal in marketting and was used gender neutrally, and it seemed the ratio of male vs female servers was reflective of the patrons.
The belief that no women enjoy casual sexual relationships and always resent being hit on, is just as misunderstood as doing something that's actually sexist (which also happens regularly in tech circles, unfortunately). Can't we just find a middle ground somewhere?
Besides, he was joking.
For the record, I hardly view women as 'pleasure devices', and "picking up" is such a common phrase in the english language that to divine from that someone's entire attitude toward present gender issues is disingenuous.
As a community with a genuine gender disparity I think it's great that we've latched on to these issues. However, comments like LaGrange's, and the sibling in this thread are just as much a threat in their distraction from real issues.
There's a difference between opposing genuinely oppressive language and going on a linguistic witch hunt. Going after a phrase like 'pick up' (something girls do with guys as well by the way), is in the same hyperbolic category as the ill fated attempts to change the word women to womyn.
(because all programmers are big fat neckbeards and brogrammers are gigantic hunks of meat)
(that is the joke you see)
Really? Because, humans sometimes just want to pick up some other human (of the different or even the same sex) and JUST have pleasure with each other bodies. They don't want to marry, and they don't want to discuss Russian Literature. They don't even intent to date, they JUST want to fuck each other's brains out. We call this "picking up". Sometimes, it even turns to a proper romance, sometimes it's just an one night stand.
Now, somehow this is bad, because?
And it's not like liking women or wanting to go to a bar that has pretty waitresses (and vice versa for women) if somehow taking advantage of the other sex. No more than wanting to go to a concert is taking advantage of people with nice voices and musical skills.
So, are we disallowing sexual desire and/or lust? If not, we are just advocating hypocrisy. I.e think it, but don't say/act as if you think it.
Seems to my European mind that Americans will be puritans whatever their political inclinations are. If they are of the Bible inclination (Bible belt etc), they will be all serious, sex is evil, abolish sexy looks, etc.
If they are of the liberal inclination (democrats etc), they will be all serious, sex is insulting, sexual references show intolerance and or exploitation, we should hide sexuality when in polite/professional company, etc.
Once a puritan, always a puritan.
As far as sexism goes when you make assumptions about your audience, you make anyone who doesn't fit those assumptions feel unwelcome. It doesn't mean you should never make assumptions, but always be aware who you are excluding and if you have a good reason for excluding them.
Well, that might be a cultural thing though. We don't particularly care about such things in other parts of the world (that doesn't mean we run around naked in the workplace).
And actually neither did the US until like the nineties or so.
Yes it is. It is disallowing sexual desire to be expressed, and only allowing it to exist in private (thoughts or practice).
What's wrong with a place that has women serving beers, if some men would like such a place to exist? Did anybody FORCE those women to serve beer?
If it's an equality issue, well, build places where men with firm buttocks serve beer too. Hell, I'll serve at such a place, even though my buttocks ain't what they were.
The bro thing is a celebration of a certain cliched fantasy of what masculinity should be. It's a cheap shot.
Seems they were trying to hard and it just backfired. The humor wasn't intended as a negative thing but it's good that they apologize to clear the air of uncertainty.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
The social awkwardness of their joke kinda shows the divergent nature of the "brogrammer".
I can see where he was trying to go with the joke (exactly where he said he was trying to go in his equally awkward apology), but once you trip up on a sensitive topic, people immediately arrange themselves to be maximally offended. Once this happens, anything short of a blood sacrifice is insufficient, and woe be to anyone who fails to make a 100% flawless apology!
So for the socially awkward, the result of a failed joke is a bad situation that it's impossible to get out of, because nobody is willing to accept that there exist people who are less than perfect when it comes to the social dance.
If you're adding a joke to a simple advert, there's absolutely no way you can predict the way something subversive will be received .. especially when the object of the joke is an under-represented key part of the audience.
Very silly mistake.
Definitely not front page material.
