I think that we (as a society) want young people to see all avenues as open to them regardless of gender. I highly doubt that the company doesn't want to hire women or has any sexist intention. However, it is unwise for us (as individuals and an industry) to use terms like "brogrammer" because it subtly suggests gender. One might not mean it as gendered, but certainly some young people will and will internalize it as meaning that "programming is really a guy's thing". This is compounded by the fact that programming is a field where women aren't well represented. I'm not suggesting quotas or anything like that. I'm simply suggesting that when people are thinking about their future, perceptions about industries affect their decisions and terms like "brogrammer" can create perceptions.

The same could be said if a library position were to use female-gendered terminology. Library science is a field that is predominantly women and using female-gendered language can only help to reenforce that perception. We don't want to force males into library science, but we also don't want young males to feel like they shouldn't go into it "because it's women's work".

When someone says that something is "sexist", I think a lot of people become defensive because they aren't sexists. I doubt that the person who wrote the post is sexist. However, a person who believes in equality can say something that negatively impacts that goal in our society. I don't know if it should be called sexist, but I do think that it negatively affects what we generally want in our world and our companies. Maybe not a lot, but it's something to think about when writing things in the future.

  it subtly suggests gender

I think the idea they want to convey could be more inclusively expressed as "We believe in being happy and having a life and interests outside of programming" or something like that.

> Polo, tight so the chicks can see how defined your muscles are

It's hard to see how this would apply to a straight woman.

edit: obviously, the above point excludes job posts that break laws.

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

That said, the instant gender reaction the word "brogrammer" provokes means it's kind of a terrible choice for a job ad. Whether they meant it to exclude women or not (I would put millions of dollars on a bet on the latter), I wouldn't want to be defending it to the finely-tuned ironists on the EEOC.

If one reads carefully, the ad does claim that non-bros are welcome to apply, but I doubt that anybody else has read that far.

Also, if you read the post it says "at least once a month". Personally I don't really consider that an excessive amount of partying but I guess everyone has their own thresholds.

Either way, it seems like a bad idea to use this word in a job posting.

Also: I would try to hire flowgrammers because you know they are always in the zone.

EDIT: Make that flogrammers

I think this YC-funded startup is likely more guilty of tone-deafness rather than misogyny.

Serious, that's how they're blowing their startup money?

And these YC guys... they're just knuckleheads using the latest buzzwords. The "web scale" meme may fit them too.

They did one thing right though: they decided to be in stealth mode so we don't know who those fools are.

There are words that work in person, at a party, after several drinks, among friends that just do not work in text. Good writers know that. Sometimes bad writers learn that.

"Just tried to jerk it to #siri. She couldn't get me off. #turing_test_fail or dyke?"

https://twitter.com/#!/brogramming/status/129638489905053697

I've just learned an important author safety tip: Google the neologisms!

I think people take themselves way too serious sometimes. Relax, there is really more important things in the world than getting upset about "brogrammers" or guys making silly jokes about Siri.

Is it sexist to state you're only interested in hiring male programmers? Yes.

My brother and cousins are increasingly "brotastic", with tough talk, and repeated high fives (followed by finger pistols). And they didn't even get it from the aforementioned chans; it grows naturally. As scary as that may be to the rest of us.

So, if the term sexist? That's two questions:

1. Is it intended to offend or drive away women? Probably not.

2. Is it offensive to women despite intent? Not for me to answer, as a man. But this is the more important question.

(Sorry, lots of editing. I realized I had a lot more to say. But if they wanted to go for this style, they could've just as easily made the first line say something like "looking for awesome dudes and lady-dudes with awesome skills and awesome personalities to join our awesome startup!" Or something as cheesy to ensure inclusion.)

1) Yes, even if implicitly. It says "I expect people to conform to masculine norms; everyone else need not apply." Whether or not they specifically set out to exclude women, they did set out to exclude everyone who wasn't willing to tolerate their sexist and exclusionary behavior, who will statistically be more female than male (though plenty of men are excluded too.)

2) Yes it is. Plus, as men stated up stream, it is directly offensive to some men too, and it should be offensive to anyone who doesn't want to work in a field populated by sexist assholes.

I certainly don't think women would want to be called "programmerettes" or "programmeresses" en masse. And I'm too afraid to Google those.

As to the points I was trying to make, my intent was to say that yes, I believe it absolutely would drive off more women than men by appealing to a culture that is male-dominant. But I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that it was done with the explicit intent of establishing a "no girls allowed" company. I do think those guys should've been more thoughtful about who they were appealing to, and I'm glad MattManser brought it to our attention; it's an interesting read. But I'm not as quick to call them sexist assholes. For all I know, they were going for a sense of cultural fraternity (that someone earlier in the thread excellently brought up as a word that, despite its roots, is a feeling we all typically aim to share.) Then again, that leads directly to my second point...

Being a part of that culture? That isn't a place I would want to work, either. But just because I find something untoward doesn't mean everyone would. That's what I mean when I said women get to decide what's offensive toward them, not men.

If men think something is offensive toward women, and women don't... Then I think it would be a very odd argument indeed. I think men can have an opinion on it, and I think most of us here probably agree it's at the very least tasteless, but matter like this, I would tend to defer to the party claiming offense. The question becomes what makes HER feel uncomfortable, and avoiding that.

It's something polite that could be done with anyone on any topic, but especially should be if the vast majority of a group finds it shockingly offensive.

(The 26th result is from a woman's profile on Facebook who commented on a link about brogramming.)

The term "bro" refers to values like fraternity and solidarity. Even the word fraternity comes from the latin frater which means brother but "fraternity" is not a male-only concept.

I myself consider some girls to be my "bros" even though I wouldn't use that term, but I agree in the values it conveys.

Additionally, if a girl applied for that job in particular I don't think she would be turned down because of her sex (at least I hope so).

I was indeed playing devil's advocate: it's not because the ad is clumsily worded that its author's intent was to exclude females.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brogrammer

2. A programmer who looks like, acts like, or is a bro.

3. A popular, cool, or otherwise normal person who has become intrigued by the fun of programming.

4. a bro who somehow learned to program

All of these seem to agree with what I said about it being bro + programmer and not itself about gender.

The first piece of advice is "Attire: Polo, tight so the chicks can see how defined your muscles are".

I know it's fun to be laddish when you're at college and uni, but cultural fit can often be a polite way of saying 'Hey, I'm a bigot, women are stupid and I'm not employing them above the level of secretary!'.

I'm sure cultural fit was used because some racist thought someone with a different coloured skin wouldn't fit in the office.

I don't like the way they phrased it because it was very easy to read that advert as advertising specifically for male programmers only. In other words, they're in danger of coming across as bigots.

And by association, so are we.

So I said something as it made me uncomfortable.

Stealing would still be wrong if it were legally acceptable, which some forms arguably are.

I didn't think you (as in ia) was especially defending it, I was just trying to point out the logic was very wooly. Though re-reading my comment I was a little hot under the collar, so apologies for that.

You're defending the ad. By extension defending any sexism contained within it (actual sexism TBD).

They went for a breezy tone and forgot to pass it through Legal. I doubt they're sexists. I'm sure sexism would, in this day and age, hurt them more than anyone else.

I don't think it was intentional on the job poster's part, but the fact that he didn't catch how it sounded of proofreading definitely indicates a blind spot to sexism.

You can defend something based on one merit, while not supporting a related detriment.

Which is a strange moral compass, because lots of bad things are not against the law (and with good reason).

and now we have a feminine culture takeover: used to be only sticks and stones would hurt me, now it's words that slay me. Get over the obsession already, this is tiresome! Everyone starts out equal, no one person is inherently better than another - but some people perform more valuable services than others. Men and women are different, hence the chromosomal difference. If these guys want an exclusionary company, let them have it! But you don't have to buy their goods/services.

Birds of a feather flock together - people are almost always going to associate with people they feel more comfortable will - and each individual will decide which character trait they most like to identify with, and will seek out people with like traits. </rant>

But one thing that ought to be pointed out is that free markets tend to punish companies, over the long term, that intentionally deny themselves access to talent due to bigotry. Conversely, companies who acquire talent with rational screening procedures will have a competitive advantage over those who use irrational screening procedures.

It's a sort of corporate karma. In aggregate, bigotry in hiring procedures will eventually harm you, legal or not.

That sounds a lot like fair world fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

To give an analogy, if you have access to all the food you want, but you voluntarily limit yourself to kumquats and bananas for arbitrary, irrational reasons, in the long run you will develop health problems.

Likewise, a business that irrationally limits itself to a subset of all available talent will, in aggregate, lose out to those who are not thus limited.

I admit to not having citations of statistical evidence at hand, although I have seen many publications in the past that indicate diversity of employee populations is correlated with innovation and success. I did not provide evidence because I believe as a Gedankenexperiment, the conclusion is self-evident.

  > one thing that ought to be pointed out is that free
  > markets tend to punish companies, over the long term,
  > that intentionally deny themselves access to talent
  > due to bigotry.

If this were true, we wouldn't have needed the EEOC and the Civil Rights Act in the first place. We did. Therefore.

All in all, you might be right in that they might have put "cultural fit" as their #1 priority, but that doesn't make it a good decision. Saying that the alternative is "a stiff and sterile ad" is a fallacy of false dichotomy.

fair enough. to clarify--"a stiff and sterile ad" is the only type of add that won't alienate any possible subgroup.

the goal of a job ad is not simply to "attract talent". it's to attract the right kind of talent. to that end, a job ad that emphasizes culture is one way to look for it. these guys made a choice, and it looks like their (imo) poorly-worded job ad isn't being well received by the majority of people on hn. but unless we know that no suitable candidates resulted from it, i don't think we can claim it a failure.

To be fair, it's not a job ad that fails here, it's the culture that came up with that job ad.

agree, in the sense that if people react adversely to this job ad, they would have a similar reaction to the company culture.

In addition, I can say that the only reason I'd care to know who the stealth company is is so I can avoid giving any thought to working for/with them later on or reading any later (probably toned down) job postings.

So a company decides that most female engineers wouldn't be a good fit?

It's fairly obvious that using it in a job ad (as opposed to using it in a self-deprecating way to joke about yourself: how the term started) has the effect of alienating female developers.

On the other hand I don't understand, why, most of you, as males are really getting mad about this? Why do you feel offended? If you have a female programmer friend, ask her about this and make her post their opinions, not you. I'll bet my life savings that all females that are into tech (that I know) will not have the slightest problem with this.

Stop whining about this kind of stuff HN, you're better than this.

I was just asking for a female programmer to tell that she's having a problem with this, not a dude.

Probably I haven't exposed my ideas in a correct and coherent way, but I am tired and english is not my main. But trust me, I know a lot of women that are programmers, at some I look up to, and those who aren't I try to help them integrate, we need really need female programmers, because we, as males, can never achieve their way of thinking.

So you think that I, as a whitey, shouldn't be offended by racism? And that I, as an atheist, shouldn't find religious persecution offensive?

> You are a native english speaker (our tech relies on speech recognition)

This sentence is also unwise in the UK.

That ad certainly tells me that's not the sort of company any woman should be working for.

I agree with mattmanser, if that was a UK job add they would be in serious trouble!

Companies put little jokes and pokes in their job searches all the time. Do you think the company is really going to turn down applicants because they're not "brogrammers". It's certainly silly to assume so.

Did you even read the full post? Here is what it says verbatim:

* You are a fan (or future fan) of Brogramming on Facebook. (Non-Bros are still welcome to apply)

That in no certain terms has anything to do with gender. I'm a male and would not be considered a "brogrammer". What if they said they were looking for the King of all Rubyists? Does that mean they would hire a female because by technicality she couldn't be a king?

Sorry I just think this thread is ridiculous.

Edit to add: 'Man' either started in Old English as man or mon, or came from Old High German man. In either case it meant 'human being'. It seems to have become male-only more recently.

Source: Marriam-Webster.

valid EEOC complaint? yes.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

That said, it seems to be a reference to an internet meme.

http://www.facebook.com/getwiththebrogram

They also say pretty clearly that non-bros are welcome to apply (I'm male and I consider myself a non-bro). It also does not say that being a Brogrammer actually entails that you be male. (Admittedly, it could be interpreted that way). They are trying to show a work-hard/play-hard mentality, and maybe a little playful immaturity.

All of this said, I think if they are willing to accept responsibility for the repercussions of the job posting, there is no reason to abridge their free speech. Whether this particular posting is a good idea for them as a company (w/r/t investors, image, actually recruiting the best people rather than people who are 'fun') is another matter.

it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_AAqi0RZM

I guess it means: "You write code, but you're not one of those nerds"

Also see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro (definition #1) for what the "bro" part stands for. It's not technically "brother".

When I was in college the term was a little more harsh: "douche" http://peoplewtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DOUCHE-4.jpg

It seems they have better PR now.

These super-duper-cool-stealth-YC-startup job listings are becoming more idiotic every month.

edit: hdctambien's comment is on-point with the urbandic link. I believe a similar synonym with less euphemistic connotations is douchebag in certain circles, but not amongst brahs.

also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_AAqi0RZM

and this: http://www.quora.com/Brogramming/How-does-a-programmer-becom...

This is probably more helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqg01Nk3SYI

and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4uDPZGYWmE

and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm4KlxG1SEg&feature=relat...

bonus round: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJh-13maChY

Anyway, is it sexist? At least in Italy you can't do that. But.. are there people who really like male only working environments?

It doesn't help that the linked post _is_ a YC startup too... and they're one of those "startups for startups!"

  BROGRAMMERS COME WORK HERE

  (fine print: non-bros can apply too)

1. The writer of the ad had in mind a college-aged male as the target audience.

2. The 'non-bros can apply' part seems like an after thought. It makes it seem like someone that's a 'brogrammer' will get to the top of the list, and others will be looked at after the list of 'brogrammers' is exhausted.

3. It indicates a sort of Reddit/Frathouse-ish company culture, which women might not want to apply to any ways. (So some of the commentary could also be on whether or not we want to encourage such cultures in our industry, but that's stretching a bit from the original ad).

I was involved in greek life during my undergrad and we used to joke around about the "bro" lifestyle because we were all far from it, yet outsiders associated us with it simply because we were in a fraternity. That's what made it so funny to us; while other "frat bro's" would be out partying at 1am on a Friday, all of the engineers and CS guys in my fraternity would be in a computer lab.

1. Is a term sexist when the speaker intends to be sexist?

2. Or is the term sexist when others interpret to be?

3. Or is a term sexist in some other more subtle way?

Some answers:

1. No idea

2. This varies. I know people here are saying brogrammer is an internet meme, but I've met plenty of start-up people that seem to enjoy various components of the meme -- polo shirts, bad sunglasses, incoherent misogyny.

3. This one is hard, and there are several conflicting possibilities.

a) Usage of the word "brogrammer" (whether in jest, or not) could be good (for gender relations), if it is successfully used ironically, or if it somehow signifies the irrelevance of gender.

I don't think either of these are true. Popping your collar is not irony. It might be a good halloween gimmick, but it's not irony.

And as for brogramming signifying a post-gender binary world, uh, no, come on?

b) The alternative is what I believe to be true, posts like this, regardless of intent reveal a serious cultural insensitivity. Whoever wrote it doesn't care if they offend you. They don't care if it sounds sexist, and they probably don't care if they _are_ sexist.

This is very antisocial behavior, and it deserves disapprobation just for that.

That being said, brogrammer probably is a bit sexist.

If we attempt to spin things in a positive light, it may be assumed that the intention was to describe the culture in their startup, which involves jokes around such terms as 'brogrammers'.

If we attempt to spin things in a negative light, they are obliviously sexist.

The truth may be anywhere in between, but the truth doesn't matter: only reception does. And it isn't being received well.

here was my initial email: http://lilpuff.us/non-bro

and the reply from secretstartup@gmail.com: http://lilpuff.us/rY6D8r

and the original listing, cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WEsG46N...

also, just to note: the fact that they put "non-bros still welcome to apply" suggests that they were aware that brogramming might come off as a men-only requirement, but did not see this as a problem.

also consider the use of "still welcome to apply" vs. more positive or friendly language, e.g. "we love non-bros too!" which still utilizes the term in question, but is welcoming and follows the tone of the posting.

and i spoke with multiple men and women (who do and do not work in IT) who found this pretty offensive.

Some people very obviously do care, bro.

If so, still poor communication.

being male doesnt make you a bro, females can be bros

if you don't understand what bro means then you cannot possibly understand the word brogrammer. if you do not understand the word brogrammer, then you are not in the right culture to be hired by this company.

As to "We love all kinds of music, tv, movies, and books", they likely don't.

Maybe software brogineer or something

Hell, I love memes, Reddit, drinking, partying, etc.

But is that a professional or appropriate job advert for HN? Do we want to be a community which actively cultivates a 'no girls allowed' policy?

That's not fair. An unwise attempt at humor isn't actively cultivating such a policy. It may be inadvertently fostering such an environment, but so many comments are busy casting aspersions on the job poster without addressing that issue.

This is one of those things in the Valley that I really hate (I'm a ho-grammer). The immature attitude - up there with "rockstar" postings. Is there anything in the ad about the tech? Oh right, because it's "stealth" (another annoying Valley thing). I am also wary of a company that feels the need to state that programmers get some sleep. Really? The reality is that they're going to get tons of applicants because it's a recession. The applicants are going to be eager and inexperienced, probably not from here. The poster didn't evenhave to use brogrammer to get 95% men applying- that's roughly the % of men in the CA-Bay Area industry.

The new hires are going to work for a bit, the start-up will fizzle to nothing, but in the meantime the brogrammer will learn how to party in SF, go to strip clubs, get crunk, work hungover, and write passable code. He'd doubtless leave with a few great connections, and then starting or join another startup, where he'll fondly remember the ad that got him here and post a similar one. A kid just out of a midwestern school will see it and buy a cheap one-way ticket to SF. Like begets like (another thing that annoys me about SV). The monoculture continues.

Thus, it is the responsibility of every person in every industry to work hard to intentionally work against sexism or racism or discrimination of any kind (intentional, unintentional, or implied).

For better or for worse, when you have an industry as heavily male dominated as the tech one, it takes more active work to counteract the natural tendency of the industry to a masculine culture.

I am on a mailing list that spent a fair amount of time discussing the recent dust up over sexually explicit slides at the EECI conference.

One respondent wrote to the list saying that as an employee of the federal government she finds all of these controversies sort of amazing (in a negative way) since employees of the federal govt all have a very clear understanding of what is and isn't appropriate and would never show slides with sexually explicit material.

I know that everyone probably just read "Fed govt" and thought "PC, boring, and miserable" but as a women in tech, I would LOVE it if less of my time could go into being angry and frustrated, or spent trying to educate people on why things are offensive, and we could all just spend more time doing the work we are here to do: making cool technology.

If you're asking if they were sexist. (once again I haven't read it nor can I find it, I'm going off what everyone else has quoted.) Then it would seem safe to say no, what with them saying that it's not only "brogrammers" that can apply. I would also go as far to say that this post should be considered good if nothing else then the brutal honesty given. They party, they get "crunk" they brogram, which is to say they are comrades that support each other and like minded individuals. Is that bad? Not inherently so. Is it immature? I think they made sure everyone knew that was the case.

Also I forgot this part, to answer the question posted, (my bad.)

Do we want a community of people that supports a no girl allowed rule? Um hell no, I like women, generally they have ideas that I don't consider because I'm a male, my DNA and my social upbringing made me who I am, which is different then who anyone else is. I don't feel like that's what they were trying to do though.