Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only • Hacker News Board

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#811

Post by xamebax » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

rds2000 wrote: post #501

glesica wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is offensive because it has high potential to create a hostile environment for women. This isn't just me and a few people making shit up, read my comment, it's obvious that the authors knew they were on shaky ground. They tried to defuse the situation with a cute little comment, but it would have been better to just change the name. Read this comment for a better explanation if you're actually confused: https://ne…

What creates a hostile environment for woman is where a sector, made of predominately men is scrutinized with a hysterical "boy who cried wolf" mentality. It's a vicious cycle. 1. First there is a tiny group of feminists, mostly consisting of marketers, call themselves coders, but if you were look them up, they're twittering and having fun more than building. They seem very happy to stir indignation. 2. Then, people…

I'd like to see you question street cred of all brogrammers with such scrutiny. Like, you know, grant them rights in a community according to quality of their code and what they post on Twitter. Just let me get my popcorn.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#812

Post by hackinthebochs » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 9:02 PM UTC

Fomite wrote: post #807

hackinthebochs wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an answer. It's still a reminder of genderedness just as much as bro is. The word "niggardly" is offensive to some because of its similarity to the n-word. That doesn't make its offense less real.

Intent, and context, matters.

Isn't this whole argument about that people can feel excluded regardless of intent/context?

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#813

Post by Perseids » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 9:02 PM UTC

a3_nm wrote: post #736

falcolas wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A short confession. After participating in this forum for a few years, I never thought this was an actual problem. Watching this whole thread of conversation has been very enlightening, and not in the way I had hoped. So, on behalf of those of us who had not seen these attitudes before so blatantly on parade, my sincerest apologies.

I had a similar moment of realization about gender equality once. I used to believe that IRC was a very nice medium because the gender of the participants was not revealed (unless they wanted to), so (I thought) it was entirely free from gender prejudices. Then, I discussed with someone on the channel of a hackspace I used to go to (but had just started attending so I didn'n know the people well); I had never seen th…

It's a problem I have with hacker news comments as well...

Are there any statistics how many participants here are male, female, etc.?

I just assume something about 95% male commenters so I automatically assume a boy or a man on the other side of the conversation. Which probably is a rather bad assumption :/

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#814

Post by etjossem » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

ChrisAnn wrote: post #776

etjossem wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone else in the thread suggested 'tin', which I love! "What does 'curl' do?" "Does what it says on the tin page." $ tin curl # get the contents of a web page curl https://news.ycombinator.com/

I saw another suggestion elsewhere for 'tldr'

The perfect answer to 'rtfm'!

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#815

Post by argumentum » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 10:49 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #613

girvo wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree entirely. "Brogrammer" is not a well known phenomenon outside of Silicon Valley.

I was working in NC for a few years. I did not hear the term "brogrammer", but after leaving there and learning the term, it applied to several companies I knew. The typical setup was younger men with a manager in his 30s or early 40s. It was a tight knit group, they hung out together after hours, drank together, sports activities together, picked up women at bars (or tried to). Strong encouragement to work overtime,…

How is this a culture than women do not fit into? Are women not allowed to go into bars and "hit on" guys? Women are 1/2 of the equation here, if there were no women in bars, guys would have nobody to "hit on".

Btw, this is a phenomenon is certainly not any more common than in other professions .. watch any television show about cops, lawyers, bankers or doctors .. it's just our culture.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#816

Post by egghead » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 11:02 PM UTC

overgard wrote: post #367

Steuard wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "bro" has been closely associated in the tech world lately with things like "brogrammer" culture. I don't know whether that was the intended reference in this case (though it seems pretty likely to me that something of the sort was on the authors' minds when they chose the name: why else would the term feel relevant?). But the real issue isn't "What did they intend?" in any case: it's "What impact might this…

Here's the problem with your argument: since there's nothing actually hostile towards women on that page, what you're basically saying is that any expression of male culture at all is "hostile". It's like saying "stop being men! it's chasing all the women away!".

Exclusion is a better word for what is going on than hostility. The name is based on the homonym between 'man' as short for 'manual' and 'man' as a synonym for 'male'.

Though a tool for manuals the author chose the namesake by the identification with males.

Do you see why this might make some people feel excluded, why if you want to make a tool to help people it's probably a good idea to not exclude people?

Are you saying the name is a good name? Or just defending the right to be exclusionary?

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#817

Post by vectorpush » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 11:11 PM UTC

jtheory wrote: post #794

vectorpush wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an ironic response, some (not I) might say you're being a little insensitive to those who find that word unacceptable to use in any circumstance, though unreasonable it might seem to you, I mean, jeeze, you were only making an analogy was all! I read your comment and understand that you're not saying the two terms are equal, rather, you're trying to demonstrate that it is not unusual for someone outside of the…

It could be ironic that I was critiquing readers with poor reading comprehension (who were missing that that comment was not equating the two terms), and in response you seem to have confused me for the person who wrote that comment. I'm not.

Apologies, you are not the author of the comment, the reading comprehension chide is deserved.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#818

Post by Jtsummers » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 11:33 PM UTC

argumentum wrote: post #815

Jtsummers wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was working in NC for a few years. I did not hear the term "brogrammer", but after leaving there and learning the term, it applied to several companies I knew. The typical setup was younger men with a manager in his 30s or early 40s. It was a tight knit group, they hung out together after hours, drank together, sports activities together, picked up women at bars (or tried to). Strong encouragement to work overtime,…

How is this a culture than women do not fit into? Are women not allowed to go into bars and "hit on" guys? Women are 1/2 of the equation here, if there were no women in bars, guys would have nobody to "hit on". Btw, this is a phenomenon is certainly not any more common than in other professions .. watch any television show about cops, lawyers, bankers or doctors .. it's just our culture.

1) Culture on television has rarely matched culture in real life, IME. At best it's an exaggeration, but more often it's just a fabrication.

2) They certainly can, but in this culture it's not uncommon for guys to come back on Monday bragging about the "chicks" they banged, or tried to bang. And that's the sort of language they use. It's crass and classless, and off-putting to many people (not just women, but as they're the group specifically being denigrated it's even worse for them).

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#819

Post by KuraFire » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 1:04 AM UTC

Crake wrote: post #689

rds2000 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What creates a hostile environment for woman is where a sector, made of predominately men is scrutinized with a hysterical "boy who cried wolf" mentality. It's a vicious cycle. 1. First there is a tiny group of feminists, mostly consisting of marketers, call themselves coders, but if you were look them up, they're twittering and having fun more than building. They seem very happy to stir indignation. 2. Then, people…

>These are woman creating a hostile environment for woman who would otherwise feel grateful to earn their way and belong. EXACTLY THIS. Listen up, white knights, and please--knock it off.

You are such an embarrassing cliché, I don't even know where you would have to begin to gain some perspective.

Primary and secondary school history lessons, probably.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#820

Post by jacobtracey » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 1:34 AM UTC

xamebax wrote: post #810

jacobtracey wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRC is gender neutral. You made a foolish assumption. Not everyone does that, or even cares in the slightest what a users gender/age/cultural background/disability/whatever is. All you have done is reveal your own past personal prejudice. Congratulations on getting over that.

> IRC is gender neutral. So you read about someone's experience proving otherwise (I have had similar experiences on IRC, getting treated shitty for being a woman) and you stated something else in an authoritarian fashion, without feeling the slightest need to prove your point. How... interesting.

Saying his personal experience proves anything about IRC as a medium is a stretch.

No requirement exists to give your gender or a name that may reveal a gender. That, by any definition, is 'gender neutral'.

If someone makes assumptions about other people it's their own issue, it has nothing to do with what is essentially an anonymous medium. I really didn't think it needed 'proving'.