So, here's the thing. I touched on this (but now I'm wishing I'd emphasized it more).
Brogramming is moving away from satire. There are actually people who want to be brogrammers, just like there are actually people who want to be guidos. Now, almost everyone I know is proud to NOT be a brogrammer (I think some people slyly enjoy the label, but that's another issue).
I would also challenge your idea that our community is accepting of everyone. I think we are in theory--certainly, we all want to be--but there's little things that happen. IMO, the stuff that's been surfacing this week has always been here. It's just people are getting called out on it now.
And, btw, thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
I would think that's pretty offensive to anyone who's in any sort of "* Phi Delta *" fraternity. In a thread that touches on the offensiveness of stereotypes and subsequent alienation, the irony of both the comment and your LOL reaction should be pointed out. As far as "thoughtful comment" goes, there certainly wasn't much thought put into the phrase "Phi Delta Toolbag".
Penn sometimes jokingly refer to our CS group (which has the abbreviation "DP") Delta Phi, especially when we're planning social events or the like. So it was an amusing coincidence, too.
Tolerance might be the opposite of abstraction, and thats a hard reality in a field where abstraction has gained us so much.
"Announcing 'I'm offended' is basically telling the world you can't control your emotions, so everyone else should do it for you."[1]
There are legitimate sources of offense, but "bro, you're totally harshing on frats" is not one of them.
The reddit post is applicable because it is a rejoinder to those who claim offense at that which cannot reasonably be claimed to cause real offense to those for whom such a thing matters.
"They're drunken twenty-something white guys whose primary concern is..." <--- Stereotyping. Generalizations. Right here. In your comment.
There are fraternities and sororities whose members are not all "twenty-something white guys" and whose efforts are worthwhile. Do a smattering of research and you'll discover this.
My own personal theory is that there are two collective phenomenon at play here:
1) There's a self-cyclical force here where some people think brogramming is a label some people use non-ironically, so there are things like marketing materials developed specifically for it, which by definition will be exclusionary and sexist. This material further spreads the idea that "brogrammers are real" and everyone gradually forgets that nobody is actually this ridiculous.
2) There is a fear among programmers that our wonderful merit-based community accepting of all genders, cultures, and creeds -- which it is, really -- is going to turn into Phi Delta Toolbag overnight. For a lot of us, myself included, we've never been one of the "cool kids" and found computers and technology a much better fit for our introverted personalities. And suddenly these pink popped-collared polo shirt sunglass-wearing monsters are going to take that away from us.
Anyway, I understand why the women at UPenn would be offended by the "brogrammer" term, sometimes you just don't want to be associated with a term even if it's satirical. But are there actual brogrammers out there being sexist, or is this an overblown issue?