Why would we take this article seriously? It's a bit of sexist toss to point out that "tech bros" are the issue. (They use the term to imply that it's men and that they're the dominate population within tech.. which isn't even close to being true)
The issue here is people who are over-promoted in the media and lack ethics.
Also in the article:
It goes from the use of stereotyping to the whole liberal "companies are bad" argument.
> They use the term to imply that it's men and that they're the dominate population within tech.. which isn't even close to being true
This seems to contradict most of the information I've seen in the diversity reports from companies. Maybe there is some information covering the broader industry that supports this point?
Clarifying: I meant to say that they're blaming "tech bros" and linking that attribute to men and linking tech bros to being dominate in the tech industry.
The second part of that was pointing out bad journalism.
When I say "they dominate in tech" I mean to say that they implied tech bros dominate in tech. (As in when you bring up tech they'll rattle off the big named ceos)
The issue here is people who are over-promoted in the media and lack ethics.
Also in the article:
It goes from the use of stereotyping to the whole liberal "companies are bad" argument.