This is proof that all you need to get up the front page on HN is a title that matches the current zeitgeist.
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."
Even so, when I saw the event and its pathetic attempt to appeal to get some free work done for sponsors, it set off more than one red flag. It wasn't so much the PC-ness as the poor marketing that turned me off.
Sorry, but what exactly is sexist about trying to get laid? Not trolling, or sarcastic. It honestly seemed like an event that tried to combine the things that a certain demographic of people like to do into one event. I don't see how different this is from a Sushi buffet-dubstep-LAN event.
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.
Sorry, but what exactly is sexist about trying to get laid?
Nothing. The hilarious image of a bunch of brogrammers hitting on their waitresses aside, the issue is that the event effectively excluded women programmers- or at least made it clear that they weren't wanted. Perhaps if the flyer boasted "hot chicks and buff dudes serving you drinks" it might be a little more equal. Horrifying, but equal.
the issue is that the event effectively excluded women programmers- or at least made it clear that they weren't wanted.
OK, and that is an issue because?
Can't one just make an event with a SPECIFIC target audience in mind? Especially, if, hypocrisy aside, the audience was gonna be male populated anyway, even if a semi-naked Brad Pitt served drinks.
Perhaps if the flyer boasted "hot chicks and buff dudes serving you drinks" it might be a little more equal. Horrifying, but equal.
And when does that need for "equality" stop when planning a SPECIFIC event? Even if they did what you suggest, someone could come and say: "this event is terrible, it excludes gays by having hetero male and female servers, we also need hot gay guys serving drinks". And then lesbians.
One can host whatever event one likes. One can market it however one likes. Similarly, one's funders can choose to withdraw their sponsorship if they feel they don't wish to support one's politics, and one's community can castigate one for enforcing damaging messages.
Well, if you are a guy looking for casual sex, the women are certainly not going to pick up you. This is just the way the sexual marketplace works, 9 times out of 10. Nothing chauvinistic about that statement...it's just acknowledging reality.
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?
If you want to divine whole worlds of phantom meanings from innocuous phrases I'd recommend picking up PoMo lit-crit as a hobby, it's where such speculation belongs.
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.
People getting upset about this type of thing is a sign to me that emancipation still has a long way to go. Nobody would have complained if the girls in a Sex and the City movie would have gone 'fishing for some men'.
"picking up women" 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.
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.
I actually know Avand personally, and his humor is often awkward, as is common in many geeks.
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.
Its fine to be less than perfect and to make mistakes, but if someone makes a mistake large and in public, they should apologize for it. Spending the least little amount of time talking to someone who was offended should be enough to clue in the clueless, and ensure a genuine apology.
An insincere apology shows that the person apologizing really cares less why anyone actually was offended, and is just as likely to say something equally offensive again.
Once again, it comes down to a difference between what each person considers an appropriate apology. What you usually see (including in this case) is an apology, followed by people arguing over whether the apology was sufficient or not. "Sincerity" is gauged based on whether you think the apology is good enough. If not, the usual response is to say that the offender obviously didn't care enough and is being insincere.
If you have a long running sitcom, what you're saying on a weekly basis provides a frame of reference for jokes. The audience knows what to expect.
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.
What exactly is sexism? Behaving as sexes DO exist, and, for example, men can like the look of certain females? Well, sexes DO exist, and men do like the look of certain females. To state otherwise would be hypocrisy.
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.
There are proper places for sexuality, objectification, etc. A professional / workplace environment isn't one of them. It makes people uncomfortable and can contribute to a hostile work environment. The fact is people don't have as much choice over their coworkers as their friends, and they can't easily avoid unwanted interactions as easily as they can in choosing their social circles.
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.