Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

Post by glesica » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 8:48 PM UTC

overgard wrote: post #298

glesica wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another offended man checking in. Why is it so hard to accept that sexist language and actions are offensive to men? I suspect that most people would agree that white people can be offended by the use of terms like "nigger", or jokes about slavery. So then why can't men be offended by misogynistic language or jokes that are likely to create a hostile environment for women? I clicked, I saw the name and was a little t…

In what way is this sexist? There is not a single word of disparagement on that site. Nobody in their right mind would say that the word "bro" is sexist unless they're explicitly looking to be offended. (IE: picking a fight)

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

mumbi wrote: post #289

glesica wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another offended man checking in. Why is it so hard to accept that sexist language and actions are offensive to men? I suspect that most people would agree that white people can be offended by the use of terms like "nigger", or jokes about slavery. So then why can't men be offended by misogynistic language or jokes that are likely to create a hostile environment for women? I clicked, I saw the name and was a little t…

for a man to be offended by this FOR the sake of women, you must be one pussy whipped mofo. let the down votes commence.

Post by baddox » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 8:52 PM UTC

blahedo wrote: post #153

ihuman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that your argument has the same flaws has res0nat0r's argument: neither of you know what the author was thinking when he named it. Was the creator thinking of brogramming? Was the creator thinking of it being the "bro"ther of the man pages? None of us know, so it is useless to argue about it.

No. 1) A big part of my point is that it doesn't matter what an author is thinking when it comes to discussing how others will react to it. I won't restate here my arguments on that topic. 2) We can safely say that the creator was thinking of brogramming. Aside from the fact it would be an astonishing coincidence, the original page uses as one of its examples "curl --header "X-GirlsAreBrosToo: 1" www.bropages.org". C…

Post by reallyseriously » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

neumann wrote: post #109

pstack wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if people here are being intentionally thick or not. "Is bro supposed to be sexist or is it meant to be ironic?" "Man referred to manual, not men!" I can't even imagine many of you people watching a stand-up comic. Your heads must verge on exploding. The diagram for the pun/humor here would be about as simple as a diagram could be.

Well, bad comedy is still bad. Much like the naming of this idea. The term is already reserved for a subgroup that celebrates itself for being exclusionary, crass and insistently unreflective about its privilege in society.

Post by Stratoscope » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

rds2000 wrote: post #314

Pxtl wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point. It's such a shame that gender politics have created so many thorny issues in our industry, but you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend they're not there. If we had good female representation in the industry and we didn't have a small cluster of vocal misogynists, we'd be able to make cute jokes that play on gender. But sadly, we don't live in that world. Yes, we need to hold ourselves to a higher stan…

It's a funny joke, I love the name. Change it. A higher standard? How about an individual having backbone and integrity to stand firm, hold the line and not supplicate? I feel this, "Change it.", as if you are some castrating, sky-god feels eerie. Like you are some judge of the highest moral purity, when in reality, you're the enemy of purity. You are taking an honest, organic creation and molding it for your own abi…