Male programmer in his thirties here: I automatically assumed they were looking for assholes.

In other words, "a cultural match".

That's about the score. "Bro$suffix" is generally perjorative for "college-age male douchebag".

I fell out my chair laughing when I read your comment.

I think it was sexist, but they did say women should apply too. It's hard to spin that one, but I see it as an honest mistake, these guys are obviously new to the "real world".

That seems pretty clear.

Another woman programmer here: This is exactly what I assumed and I agree there is no way it can be considered a unisex term. I would assume the culture at the company is immature and not a place a woman programmer would want to work anyway, so I would avoid applying for any position at this company.

Fellow here, and that's how I read it as well--as a term to exclude (whether that be women, nerds, or the properly socialized). It was, however, a useful filter on my side--I work in speech technology and might have wasted time following up.

Interestingly, as an old male programmer, I also assumed that "brogrammer" does not include me.

(Maybe it does, if I wear baggy pants or something.)

Another woman programmer here: I'm glad I'm not the only one who assumed this.

(Not a woman programmer here)

The sad thing is that despite the clear evidence ("real women programmers read it as a gendered term") we'll no doubt see a ton of posts on this thread arguing that it's clearly not a problem.

That said, I'm reasonably sure that it's not intentionally exclusionary. The poster had an image in their head of a work environment and came up with "brogrammer" as a catchy way to describe it. That this picture didn't include women is a huge problem, obviously, but I suspect it's probably not willful sexism.

I agree that the poster may not have intended to exclude women, but when they imagined that work environment in their head I'll bet they weren't imagining it full of women writing code.

In fairness, if you're starting a software company and you imagine a room full of women, you're either wholly ignorant of the demographics of the industry or you're planning to discriminate like crazy against men.

> "Brogrammer," is not a unisex term, no matter how they try to spin it.

No one sensible would try to spin it as unisex. I think it's simply an oversight on their part - more stronger than addressing a gathering "hey guys", but on the same lines.

But that's the point -- that kind of oversight happens because of male privilege. It's because it's easy to think of programmers as men, so much that you have an "oversight" about including women.

That excludes women, and that's exactly what this kind of stuff needs to be called out. The problem isn't always one data point; but rather, there are a lot of these data points that are easy to dismiss one by one, but lead up to an avalanche when collectively viewed.

I agree with your overall thrust, but just a point that bugs me sometimes: Your comment would be much stronger without the "male privilege" explanation. That kind of talk has the wrong effect on people who aren't well-versed in feminist literature and there's usually a less broad description for the specific case you're talking about. For example, it's easy to think of programmers as men because working programmers are disproportionately likely to be men.

But the point is that we're largely blind to it because we don't have to deal with it.

The point isn't if it's intended to be sexist, or if it is that big of a deal in and of itself. It's a tiny pebble, one that most of us wouldn't notice in and of itself. It's as if most of us have shoes and we're walking over some gravel. Someone who was barefoot would notice every pebble a lot more.

I think that's why mentioning male privilege is important. If we don't think about it, we're more likely to throw a pebble on the ground without thinking of the consequences. More importantly, if we are unaware, we're more likely to dismiss someone who has a valid complaint about a small issue, because they've been dealing with a thousand small issues that combine into one large issue.

I'm not saying don't mention inequities; I'm saying don't frame them as "male privilege" — at least not if you aren't writing the introduction to a whole book on the topic, because just mentioning it without thoroughly establishing what you're talking about will just make most of your audience tune out. You want to know why?

Because the dread god Ki'urnac wills it so. Wait, you don't know about Ki'urnac? Oh, well then it's good I mentioned him, because now you'll now to follow his will so he doesn't torture you in the Dark Eternities.

More seriously: Most men don't feel particularly privileged. A lot of them feel downright oppressed (not because they're men, per se, but just because life is hard). If you suddenly tell them, "You're wrong, but you don't know it because you're so privileged," it's like bringing up Ki'urnac. They have roughly the same level of belief in the statements "Ki'urnac exists" and "I am privileged." Unless you're planning a lengthy proof of Ki'urnac, they're probably going to write you off and feel mildly offended at your pushiness. That's why I think it's better to point out the actual ways in which people are privileged, rather than just tell them they're privileged and thus they should distrust their own minds.

I agree, the "privilege" expression is adversarial and will offend people you might want to get onto your side.

Personally, I instinctively ignore people who use it because it makes me think they either aren't serious about having a coöperative dialogue, or are as tactless as the people they're denouncing.

Incidentally, I've seen it around a lot recently. Is it new, or newly popularized?

I'm a white male. But a left handed male. I notice a pair of right handed scissors, or right handed kitchen tools, or a lack of left handed desks in a classroom whereas a right handed person would probably never notice. Why would it be controversial to point this out?

It's not like anyone is trying to be malevolent in this case; it's just something they would never notice. They have the privilege of not having to notice. Now, in day to day life, being left handed is pretty benign, all things considered, and I don't think a right handed person should have to apologize for being right handed, or for not noticing the issues for us southpaws, but neither should they be defensive when it's pointed out to them.

I think all most people are asking for is this: "It was noticed, it was corrected, we apologize, and we'll try and do better next time."

We're talking past each other: the disagreement is not with anything you just said. I just want you to rephrase your perfectly good argument without the word "privilege", because although what you mean by it (which you have explained) is not offensive, calling people that word tends to rub them the wrong way based on their previous experience of it being used negatively/critically.

It's as if you couldn't see what's wrong with making the claim, "Niggers are overrepresented on Death Row". It's an objectively true statement, but you still need to change one of the words you used if you're serious about constructive debate.

I think chc in this thread is saying exactly the same thing as me.