What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that he wanted to present it (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before heading out? Was this thought to be acceptable by everyone at that company?
He sounded to me like some tragic Van Wilder-esque figure trying to clutch on to those college good times forever.
What is somewhat frustrating about all this stuff is that, while brogrammers or hipsters or whatever Bay Area-clique is in this month, can be targets of derision, the Valley is actually diversifying its personality structure, if not its sex. It's refreshing to see people that have different lifestyles to the geek stereotype, and it's broadening the appeal of these companies.
It's getting easier and easier to sell Computer Science as a career to male undergraduates, because they're seeing that there are people just like them higher up. It's very annoying that those same higher ups are screwing up female motivation.
I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. That said, certainly in context the humor wasn't funny -- and SXSW certainly could have asked him to rework the presentation to be less needlessly controversial.
I guess what I'm most confused by is why a talk titled "Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." got accepted in the first place. Really? I know SXSW isn't a hard science conference, but that seems awfully fluffy for an event that clearly has no trouble filling seats. Maybe it's one more sign we're in a bubble...
Edit: lots of folks are picking on the second sentence above and I think taking it out of context. It was a specific reply to the idea of banning a presenter based on the notion that he "already presented a sexist presentation" -- a fact offered without support. That's just bad thinking. If the guy deserves a career ban, then make that case. Don't throw it out as a tangential point in another post.
Matt arrived at digg in 2007 if I recall correctly. At that point the culture was being reshaped into what is described in the article. Also lots of women were hired - young, attractive women.
And we all know how that worked out.
The reason why this culture persists is because people are rewarded for promulgating it. Matt is a VP at Path.
Very well said. It's heartening to see a diversification of "personality structure." It's disheartening to have that reveal how far we still need to go – as a society – to eliminate misogyny.
Is SWSX the kind of centralized conference that approves/disapproves/arranges presenters? I've never attended but my impression was it was pretty free-form.
>What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that it happened (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots), already presented a sexist presentation, and still appears at SXSW either by invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not practice this presentation at Path before heading out? Was this thought to be acceptable by everyone at that company?
Yes, let's ostracize him. Hell, let's burn him at the stake.
Good, I'm glad people walked out of Van Horn's talk. That's the appropriate response to this sort of immature bullshit. This may sound extreme, but if you're surrounded by douche bags who make misogynistic jokes and weave rude and immature anecdotes into a work-related presentation, then these "brogrammers" must believe that this behavior is acceptable. And if you witness this, and laugh along (or even just ignore it), you are tacitly agreeing that this culture is acceptable. Do you want to work in an environment that allows this?
I am man, and this sort of culture makes me very uncomfortable and angry. I imagine it's even more aggravating and discomforting to women in these situations.
Simply refraining from laughing at a distasteful joke or turning a blind eye to vulgarities is a cop-out. We are all apart of the culture; if you're not calling this shit out, you might as well be laughing along.
If you see these behaviors, make an example to call that person out. Make it very clear that this behavior is not accepted. Failure to do so is implicit approval.
See, but the problem is that women, particularly in startups, have to walk a fine line of not letting themselves be objectified and not being labeled a bitch. The article even mentions that there isn't really much of a robust HR policy at small start ups.
When women in these situations make it clear that some behavior is not acceptable, they'll inevitably be met by "Woah don't be so serious, it's just a joke! Lighten up!" And the more upset and determined that woman is to make it clear that something isn't acceptable, the more likely they are to be labeled a bitch.
Because I'd bet you that 90% of the bad behavior you see in that type of situation isn't blatant sexism; it's small "jokes" and "jabs" that all add up to a bad workplace environment for women. And it makes it that much harder to defend yourself when there isn't just one glaring offense that people can blatantly see.
I think making this behavior unacceptable would be helped a lot more if men in the workplace stood up against it. It's not so easy for a woman to do it alone.
I think if you even go to a presentation called "Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." you've got yourself to blame when it turns out to be an ass-clown speaking out off his ass.
> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity.
This is very PC, but BS nonetheless. At the stage when people can be profitably hired by start-ups, the male/female ratio is nowhere near 50% among technical candidates.
I'm not saying that frat culture isn't harmful, nor would I dare to guess why women are underrepresented among development professionals; but defending a thesis with such grossly false assertions can only harm it.
I think you misread that paragraph. He does not seem to be writing only about programmers, but about everyone that a startup might need to hire. Read this again:
"Shapiro, who has blogged in the past about sexism in the tech industry, notes that "it is a widely understood truth that the single biggest challenge to a successful startup is attracting the right people. To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity." "
His point, as I understand it, is that if a startup has a bro culture, then women won't want to work there. That includes women in marketing, women in sales, women in HR, women as project managers, etc.
And yes, it is a serious issue. Even if you accept the (highly questionable) thesis that only men like to program, are you willing to argue that a growing company will never need women in marketing, sales, HR, management, etc?
In that light, he is quite right when he says: "To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity."
I would dare to guess that women are underrepresented among developers PRECISELY because of this culture and the underlying assumptions and attitudes.
Gender is irrelevant to logical analysis, which is the foundation of programming. If you don't have parity in your pool of candidates, there's a cause, and it's probably social.
Nursing and teaching used to be men's work. Women weren't thought to be capable of it. Too weak. Too sensitive. Too illogical.
Women aren't going into software development? Then there's a problem. Don't be part of it.
1) I don't think it makes sense to scare away any potentially awesome developers. My experience is that the problem is getting enough qualified and motivated people to apply, not sorting through too many applicants. (But I suppose YMMV)
2) Look at the other comments here. I'd estimate that 50%+ of developers are offended by this behavior, regardless of their own gender. I'm a guy, but I would not work for a company that is openly hostile towards women.
3) I think getting the office culture right is critically important for a startup. I think promoting a frat culture among developers is bad for business. If nothing else, imagine what effect it would have on your ability to hire and retain non-developer staff.
There is one theory which says that men genetically tend to be more "outliers" while women genetically tend more towards the average.
Thus there are far more men than women who are wildly rich and successful, but also far more men than women who are failures or in jail.
If we're talking about start-ups who need to hire from the top 10% of programmers, who might be from the top 0.5% of the population in terms of logical ability, then this theory would actually partially explain the dearth of female programmers. Again, this is just a theory.
But at the same time, blatant cultural insensitivity certainly isn't helping.
It's not controversial that aggression scares away the less aggressive as far as I know...
Are women less agressive than men on average? Maybe. Are women less aggressive than the kinds of guys who come up with "Gangbang Interviews"? Probably. Is a sociologist going to get funding for a study that obviously stupid? Probably not.
I would contend if you add women to the men with some social intelligence who would run, not walk from this "opportunity", you're probably killing far past 50% of your audience.
I think you're missing the point, which is: this attitude, which alienates 50% of humans, handicaps you, and ALL OF US in the development community, by 50%.
Interesting and well-written article, but one big problem: why throw in the Siri abortion thing? It wasn't needed to legitimize the author's point, and if anything comes across as technically naive. While Siri contains easter eggs that were manually added by programmers, the vast majority of searches would have to be algorithmic. Siri fails to find an answer to many basic queries, so to say that the lack of a response to 'where can I get an abortion?' is due to a lack of insight on the part of 'male programmers' is specious.
Not that fucking Siri canard again. It was debunked repeatedly. The reason Planned Parenthood wasn't being found by the person's query is they were looking for "abortion provider" or something along those lines and Planned Parenthood wasn't listing itself under those terms. It had NOTHING to do with sexism on the part of the developers.
This problem starts early, too - in my undergrad institution, many of the lectures and programming assignments taught OOP with examples employing beer and women-as-objects-of-seduction. The lecturers - not just TAs, but also adjuncts - would go out drinking with guys in the class from their old frats while ( I was alerted ) speculating as to how I got into Algorithms by sleeping with the professor. TAs discussed with guy students which of the female profs were 'bang-able' and which 'needed to be laid' so someone would 'have to take one for the team.'
No wonder these same people think this behavior is acceptable once they enter the workforce. They're getting it from authority figures from day one. I never experienced anything like this in any other department at uni.
The brogrammer meme is JUST A JOKE! It's the very opposite of a stereotypical programmer. It's simply taking a stereotype, flipping it around, and poking fun at it.
Instead of being disgusted by jokes about nudie calendars, do something about it. Go give your own presentation. Recruit more women at your company. Turn the boys club into an everyone club.
I'm not saying that everything people are doing is okay, I'm just saying that I think there are more productive ways of dealing with it than being offended.
It started as just a joke, but I've personally seen more than one CS undergrad living out the brogrammer stereotype because they thought it was cool and was part of "startup culture". No joking involved.
That's what scares me most about the joke. Its becoming a thing because people are too naive to realize that it isn't actually the new wave of best practices from the valley.
I tire of this facet of postmodern culture whereby one can avoid being held to account for one's character flaws and unpopular attitudes by hiding forever behind a veil of ambiguous "irony".
Make a claim in a possibly-ironic tone; see how your audience takes it; if they seem to agree with your overt sentiment, become unambiguously sincere; if they seem to disagree, become unambiguously ironic. Either way, you can adapt your apparent opinions to fit in to your current social group without any risk of reprimand for expressing a dissenting voice.
I sometimes wonder if the perpetually-ironic actually have any thoughts or opinions of their own underneath their layers of dry snark.
Sometimes jokes can go too far. Jokes are only funny in the appropriate context to the appropriate audience.
More so, there is only so far you can go with irony. If you're a hipster and you drink PBR ironically at the end of the day you're still drinking PBR. The same thing goes if you are projecting the image of a misogynistic workplace.
I think the article conflated brogramming and misogyny in Silicon Valley. The former isn't necessarily bad as could be seen in the hilarious Twilio presentation.
Misogyny is not funny, and it wasn't a part of the Twilio joke - at what I recall of it - as most of it focused on what makes for an annoying programmer. Some misogynists have appropriated the brogramming meme, but it is not an excuse for misogyny. Misogyny is not funny, regardless what the pretense of it is.
"It's just a joke" is straight out of the misogyny flow chart. People are doing "more productive things than being offended" by writing this article and discussing the topic maturely in the comments in places like Hacker News.
Once a community overcomes its sexism and does start treating people equally then we can start joking about it. However at the moment these jokes give strength to sexists and discourage women. As such, we should not make these jokes yet.
> At the startup-focused Grow Conference in 2011, his presentation included bikini-girl images from his calendar. He prefaced the slides with a laughing, "I'm sorry for being sexist. I apologize in advance,"
I read this a lot on reddit. Someone will preface their comment with "I'm going to hell for this" or "Apologies in advance" as if that's supposed to excuse it. I get the feeling it's because these people don't see themselves as ____ist, so when they do something ____ist it's "just a joke" or "I'm not serious!"
I think for us to get rid of this culture, we need to make these people realize they're actually sexist. They're not a nice guy making a sexist joke; they're a sexist guy making a sexist joke, and this is how everyone sees them.
What sickens me most is that these people don't believe they're wrong. I won't generalize every individual who's ever made a stupid comment, but I can tell you anecdotally that these 'brogrammers' resent being called out for sexist remarks and turn to like-minded cliques where acceptable discourse includes long-winded rants regarding the harrowing campaign of persecution set upon them by the likes of 'liberal whiteknights' and 'feminazi bitches'.
These guys aren't actively conspiring to exclude women from tech (in fact, they tend to jump at any superficial opportunity to demonstrate the opposite), but they're angry about being called sexist and they really don't want to capitulate to the suggestion that their behavior merits serious adjustment (which is not surprising considering the correlation of ego with 'brogrammer').
The surplus of cash and minor acclaim only emboldens their resolve; there is a subconscious belief that their financial success has conferred the wisdom to authoritatively determine the appropriate bounds of sexual commentary for a professional setting and anyone who can't deal with sexist bullshit can just get the fuck outta tech because the startup is king and sensitive women (and men) just can't handle the heat of 60 hour weeks spent reclined in front of a widescreen LCD.
These chauvinistic kids really need a wake up call, but frankly, I fear the money is just too good for them to ever really care.
These "I'm shocked, outraged, sick to my stomach." postings make me always a bit uncomfortable.
It seems to me that there are two ways one can approach this subject. On to proclaim that these are intentional acts of portraying females in a negative light and keeping them out of the tech industry. The other, that these are just a bunch of nerds, trying (and in large parts failing) to make coding something "oool" or a "manly" thing to do.
As always the interpretation of these things is to a certain degree based on the personal frame one puts these events in a context with.
Being a little too old to be a brogrammer (heck, I still remember when the notion of casual workdays was a novelty), I have a simple rule that I follow:
"If you're on the clock, act like it."
That typically means no inappropriate jokes/comments or profanity in workplace communications (email, conversation, slide decks, etc.), dressing appropriately (i.e., casual at work, but not too casual, dressing up for meeting with third parties), etc.
This idea might be considered "old school" here on HN, but it has kept me out of trouble for a long time, and I'm sure it could work just as well for 'brogrammers' as well.
I know that the tech workplace culture is quite relaxed about many types of borderline inappropriate behaviours, but to use another clichéd rule, "just because you can doesn't mean you should".
Do these companies not have HR departments? Occasionally idiotic things slip out from employees at bigCo's too, but they're swiftly dealt with. (Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of examples of hideous sexism at big companies, but I haven't ever had a job that didn't present a very clear sexual harassment policy on the first day.)
I'd have to think that the very words "uncomfortable work environment" would strike fear into the hearts of any investors, far more than any competitive threats.
I've been a "nice guy" my whole life, and sometimes it's socially detrimental (read: being too nice to girls that were hoping I'd be more than nice). At some level, I find the idea of brogramming attractive. Yes, I said it, and I know how awful that is. But consider that some very nerdy, possibly more insecure guys could look at this culture and decide they want to be part of it. They get to maintain their nerdiness and love of coding while making social changes that elevate them, at least in their mind.
I've never wanted to join a frat because they all seemed like idiots, but I can't say I haven't been jealous of them for the girls that seem to hang around.
All that being said, do you understand what I'm getting at? No, I don't wish for hipster sunglasses and drunken weekends. I am what I am, and typically that means I'm too shy and/or nice to girls for my own good. But at some level, the brogrammer culture looks cool to a guy like me.
I hope that makes sense and adds something to this discussion, it seems like most people are a bit older here and only approach it from that perspective.
Only one minor point from me: the Dan Shapiro quote is a bit off.
> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity.
From the figures I've seen, the handicap is in the 25-30 percent range based on the percentage of women in the industry.
But I like his line of thinking. It's an old libertarian argument too: racism and sexism will be rooted out the market by those smart enough to take advantage of the inconsistencies in the labor pool. It's a tremendous opportunity if it's as bad as it seems.
I'm the shirtless guy in the top-left photo. I feel pretty bummed that something we did to parody the ridiculous 'brogrammer' movement was used in this context : (
I find it fascinating that being offended entitles people to extra credibility and lower standards of proof. It would be interesting to imagine a world being offended made you less credible, and forced you to have higher standards of proof.
(Incidentally, can anyone think of a case where you've smacked your head and said "Wow! If only I'd given more credence to the people who are most emotional about this stuff, I would have made objectively better decisions!")
I'm pretty bored of bro culture in general, and startup bro-culture in particular, but the dialogue here seems broken.
Just want to say - I am not that Matt Van Horn. (I've met him, though, and I think the article is intentionally trying to show him in the worst possible light to drive more page views.)
I find this whole brogrammer phenomenon ridiculous. It seems that it was a joke but now people start taking this stuff serious. I feel really embarrassed for people who describe themselves as brogrammers
[+] [-] Lewisham|14 years ago|reply
He sounded to me like some tragic Van Wilder-esque figure trying to clutch on to those college good times forever.
What is somewhat frustrating about all this stuff is that, while brogrammers or hipsters or whatever Bay Area-clique is in this month, can be targets of derision, the Valley is actually diversifying its personality structure, if not its sex. It's refreshing to see people that have different lifestyles to the geek stereotype, and it's broadening the appeal of these companies.
It's getting easier and easier to sell Computer Science as a career to male undergraduates, because they're seeing that there are people just like them higher up. It's very annoying that those same higher ups are screwing up female motivation.
[+] [-] ajross|14 years ago|reply
I guess what I'm most confused by is why a talk titled "Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." got accepted in the first place. Really? I know SXSW isn't a hard science conference, but that seems awfully fluffy for an event that clearly has no trouble filling seats. Maybe it's one more sign we're in a bubble...
Edit: lots of folks are picking on the second sentence above and I think taking it out of context. It was a specific reply to the idea of banning a presenter based on the notion that he "already presented a sexist presentation" -- a fact offered without support. That's just bad thinking. If the guy deserves a career ban, then make that case. Don't throw it out as a tangential point in another post.
[+] [-] ojbyrne|14 years ago|reply
And we all know how that worked out.
The reason why this culture persists is because people are rewarded for promulgating it. Matt is a VP at Path.
[+] [-] jedsundwall|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] batista|14 years ago|reply
Yes, let's ostracize him. Hell, let's burn him at the stake.
/s
[+] [-] joejohnson|14 years ago|reply
I am man, and this sort of culture makes me very uncomfortable and angry. I imagine it's even more aggravating and discomforting to women in these situations.
Simply refraining from laughing at a distasteful joke or turning a blind eye to vulgarities is a cop-out. We are all apart of the culture; if you're not calling this shit out, you might as well be laughing along.
If you see these behaviors, make an example to call that person out. Make it very clear that this behavior is not accepted. Failure to do so is implicit approval.
[+] [-] anichan|14 years ago|reply
When women in these situations make it clear that some behavior is not acceptable, they'll inevitably be met by "Woah don't be so serious, it's just a joke! Lighten up!" And the more upset and determined that woman is to make it clear that something isn't acceptable, the more likely they are to be labeled a bitch.
Because I'd bet you that 90% of the bad behavior you see in that type of situation isn't blatant sexism; it's small "jokes" and "jabs" that all add up to a bad workplace environment for women. And it makes it that much harder to defend yourself when there isn't just one glaring offense that people can blatantly see.
I think making this behavior unacceptable would be helped a lot more if men in the workplace stood up against it. It's not so easy for a woman to do it alone.
[+] [-] christkv|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cullenking|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fab13n|14 years ago|reply
This is very PC, but BS nonetheless. At the stage when people can be profitably hired by start-ups, the male/female ratio is nowhere near 50% among technical candidates.
I'm not saying that frat culture isn't harmful, nor would I dare to guess why women are underrepresented among development professionals; but defending a thesis with such grossly false assertions can only harm it.
[+] [-] lkrubner|14 years ago|reply
"Shapiro, who has blogged in the past about sexism in the tech industry, notes that "it is a widely understood truth that the single biggest challenge to a successful startup is attracting the right people. To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity." "
His point, as I understand it, is that if a startup has a bro culture, then women won't want to work there. That includes women in marketing, women in sales, women in HR, women as project managers, etc.
And yes, it is a serious issue. Even if you accept the (highly questionable) thesis that only men like to program, are you willing to argue that a growing company will never need women in marketing, sales, HR, management, etc?
In that light, he is quite right when he says: "To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity."
[+] [-] dsr_|14 years ago|reply
Gender is irrelevant to logical analysis, which is the foundation of programming. If you don't have parity in your pool of candidates, there's a cause, and it's probably social.
Nursing and teaching used to be men's work. Women weren't thought to be capable of it. Too weak. Too sensitive. Too illogical.
Women aren't going into software development? Then there's a problem. Don't be part of it.
[+] [-] eli|14 years ago|reply
1) I don't think it makes sense to scare away any potentially awesome developers. My experience is that the problem is getting enough qualified and motivated people to apply, not sorting through too many applicants. (But I suppose YMMV)
2) Look at the other comments here. I'd estimate that 50%+ of developers are offended by this behavior, regardless of their own gender. I'm a guy, but I would not work for a company that is openly hostile towards women.
3) I think getting the office culture right is critically important for a startup. I think promoting a frat culture among developers is bad for business. If nothing else, imagine what effect it would have on your ability to hire and retain non-developer staff.
[+] [-] RandallBrown|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazygringo|14 years ago|reply
Thus there are far more men than women who are wildly rich and successful, but also far more men than women who are failures or in jail.
If we're talking about start-ups who need to hire from the top 10% of programmers, who might be from the top 0.5% of the population in terms of logical ability, then this theory would actually partially explain the dearth of female programmers. Again, this is just a theory.
But at the same time, blatant cultural insensitivity certainly isn't helping.
[+] [-] __alexs|14 years ago|reply
Are women less agressive than men on average? Maybe. Are women less aggressive than the kinds of guys who come up with "Gangbang Interviews"? Probably. Is a sociologist going to get funding for a study that obviously stupid? Probably not.
[+] [-] zeroonetwothree|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gte910h|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhconnelly|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nikcub|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|14 years ago|reply
Yeah, the handicap is already baked in.
[+] [-] dudeguy999|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darthpanda|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gdubs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|14 years ago|reply
Shame on the author.
[+] [-] eli_awry|14 years ago|reply
No wonder these same people think this behavior is acceptable once they enter the workforce. They're getting it from authority figures from day one. I never experienced anything like this in any other department at uni.
[+] [-] RandallBrown|14 years ago|reply
Instead of being disgusted by jokes about nudie calendars, do something about it. Go give your own presentation. Recruit more women at your company. Turn the boys club into an everyone club.
I'm not saying that everything people are doing is okay, I'm just saying that I think there are more productive ways of dealing with it than being offended.
[+] [-] zheng|14 years ago|reply
That's what scares me most about the joke. Its becoming a thing because people are too naive to realize that it isn't actually the new wave of best practices from the valley.
[+] [-] EvilTerran|14 years ago|reply
Make a claim in a possibly-ironic tone; see how your audience takes it; if they seem to agree with your overt sentiment, become unambiguously sincere; if they seem to disagree, become unambiguously ironic. Either way, you can adapt your apparent opinions to fit in to your current social group without any risk of reprimand for expressing a dissenting voice.
I sometimes wonder if the perpetually-ironic actually have any thoughts or opinions of their own underneath their layers of dry snark.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
More so, there is only so far you can go with irony. If you're a hipster and you drink PBR ironically at the end of the day you're still drinking PBR. The same thing goes if you are projecting the image of a misogynistic workplace.
[+] [-] buff-a|14 years ago|reply
This [2] was for real.
[+] [-] kmfrk|14 years ago|reply
Misogyny is not funny, and it wasn't a part of the Twilio joke - at what I recall of it - as most of it focused on what makes for an annoying programmer. Some misogynists have appropriated the brogramming meme, but it is not an excuse for misogyny. Misogyny is not funny, regardless what the pretense of it is.
"It's just a joke" is straight out of the misogyny flow chart. People are doing "more productive things than being offended" by writing this article and discussing the topic maturely in the comments in places like Hacker News.
[+] [-] AkThhhpppt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
Once a community overcomes its sexism and does start treating people equally then we can start joking about it. However at the moment these jokes give strength to sexists and discourage women. As such, we should not make these jokes yet.
Or to rephrase it "Too Soon"
[+] [-] ceol|14 years ago|reply
I read this a lot on reddit. Someone will preface their comment with "I'm going to hell for this" or "Apologies in advance" as if that's supposed to excuse it. I get the feeling it's because these people don't see themselves as ____ist, so when they do something ____ist it's "just a joke" or "I'm not serious!"
I think for us to get rid of this culture, we need to make these people realize they're actually sexist. They're not a nice guy making a sexist joke; they're a sexist guy making a sexist joke, and this is how everyone sees them.
[+] [-] vectorpush|14 years ago|reply
These guys aren't actively conspiring to exclude women from tech (in fact, they tend to jump at any superficial opportunity to demonstrate the opposite), but they're angry about being called sexist and they really don't want to capitulate to the suggestion that their behavior merits serious adjustment (which is not surprising considering the correlation of ego with 'brogrammer').
The surplus of cash and minor acclaim only emboldens their resolve; there is a subconscious belief that their financial success has conferred the wisdom to authoritatively determine the appropriate bounds of sexual commentary for a professional setting and anyone who can't deal with sexist bullshit can just get the fuck outta tech because the startup is king and sensitive women (and men) just can't handle the heat of 60 hour weeks spent reclined in front of a widescreen LCD.
These chauvinistic kids really need a wake up call, but frankly, I fear the money is just too good for them to ever really care.
[+] [-] stfu|14 years ago|reply
It seems to me that there are two ways one can approach this subject. On to proclaim that these are intentional acts of portraying females in a negative light and keeping them out of the tech industry. The other, that these are just a bunch of nerds, trying (and in large parts failing) to make coding something "oool" or a "manly" thing to do.
As always the interpretation of these things is to a certain degree based on the personal frame one puts these events in a context with.
[+] [-] slantyyz|14 years ago|reply
"If you're on the clock, act like it."
That typically means no inappropriate jokes/comments or profanity in workplace communications (email, conversation, slide decks, etc.), dressing appropriately (i.e., casual at work, but not too casual, dressing up for meeting with third parties), etc.
This idea might be considered "old school" here on HN, but it has kept me out of trouble for a long time, and I'm sure it could work just as well for 'brogrammers' as well.
I know that the tech workplace culture is quite relaxed about many types of borderline inappropriate behaviours, but to use another clichéd rule, "just because you can doesn't mean you should".
[+] [-] debacle|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reitzensteinm|14 years ago|reply
A backlash seems almost inevitable at this point. Maybe they figure any publicity is good publicity?
[+] [-] showerst|14 years ago|reply
I'd have to think that the very words "uncomfortable work environment" would strike fear into the hearts of any investors, far more than any competitive threats.
[+] [-] jgn|14 years ago|reply
I've never wanted to join a frat because they all seemed like idiots, but I can't say I haven't been jealous of them for the girls that seem to hang around.
All that being said, do you understand what I'm getting at? No, I don't wish for hipster sunglasses and drunken weekends. I am what I am, and typically that means I'm too shy and/or nice to girls for my own good. But at some level, the brogrammer culture looks cool to a guy like me.
I hope that makes sense and adds something to this discussion, it seems like most people are a bit older here and only approach it from that perspective.
[+] [-] sycr|14 years ago|reply
> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity.
From the figures I've seen, the handicap is in the 25-30 percent range based on the percentage of women in the industry.
But I like his line of thinking. It's an old libertarian argument too: racism and sexism will be rooted out the market by those smart enough to take advantage of the inconsistencies in the labor pool. It's a tremendous opportunity if it's as bad as it seems.
[+] [-] cyborg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byrneseyeview|14 years ago|reply
(Incidentally, can anyone think of a case where you've smacked your head and said "Wow! If only I'd given more credence to the people who are most emotional about this stuff, I would have made objectively better decisions!")
I'm pretty bored of bro culture in general, and startup bro-culture in particular, but the dialogue here seems broken.
[+] [-] mattvanhorn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codesuela|14 years ago|reply