Talk:Brogrammer

Tech bro usage has changed?

The description doesn't seem to match the way "tech bro" is being used today. I've seen it most frequently used to refer to people who promote techonological solutions without appropriate care about social and environmental downsides. Particularly for enthusiasts of cryptocurrencies and AI. Perhaps "blind technophile" is a synonym? In particular, the accusation of sexism seems to be gone.

The current article has no citations newer than 8 years. I don't have a more recent citation that describes the current usage, but I'd propose that "tech bro" and "brogrammer" are unlinked until one can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldra (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree, the usage has changed and the 'tech bro' redirect to this article is completely inappropriate. Even UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is dismissed as a tech bro by opponents because of his wealth and Californian work history. The term implies entitlement and lack of awareness of the lives of ordinary people. --Ef80 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Evidence? The Banner talk 15:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Brogrammer culture

The article mentions "brogrammer culture" and "the brogrammer effect", but neither term is explained. Probably something negative and possibly to do with sexism, judging from the "See also" listing. Speaking of which, nothing in the "See also" listing seems connected to the definition of "brogrammer" given on the first line. I don't know how to fix this, so I'm cutting the article down into a miserable little stub. Hopefully, whoever ends up putting this back together knows the subject and can make it a bit more coherent. 78.27.126.206 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Only 27%?

Only 27%? That, to me, is biased language. The word "only" carries an implicit assumption that 27% isn't very high. What form of words would be more neutral? I don't want to just wade in with my SJW boots on and start an edit war. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sod it. I'm removing "However, only". It adds nothing other than bias. I'm also swapping the Inc article that quotes Fortune for the Fortune article itself. — PhilHibbs | talk 17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, shouldn't we remove the only from "women received only 11.7% of computer science bachelor's degrees" as well? It's biased language by the same criteria you listed above. TheDracologist (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Feminism

It is kind of obnoxious that feminism has found its way to the article and that the project is listed here on talk. I know we are supposed to use sources and not personal experiences but "brogamers" have less to do with feminism and more to do with young men with limited aptitude going into programming a good paycheck. There are a 1000 content forks here but it isn't sexism and anyone who thinks otherwise should go to a Google or Facebook office.Cptnono (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This has no relevance to the article at hand. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't revert other editors like a dick. The article is overly focused on one aspect and the talk page having the feminism project as a template is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 April 2015‎

Please don't call other editors "assholes" or "dicks" -- those are personal attacks. (The former was in the edit summary.) ekips39 (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bachellor Degrees Connection Source?

Do you have any sources pointing to a connection between Brogrammers and the gender distribution of Bachelor of Science degree recipients? The inclusion of that statistic on this page carries the implied claim that the discparity is caused, at least in part, by Brogrammer culture. I think if this page is going to make that claim, there ought to be sources on the culture of science academia and how it effects female drop-out rates. Cited statements about the gender distribution of those who drop out of science classes or switch majors from a scientific majors to non-scientific majors and the reasons women choose to stop pursuing science degrees would really strengthen the claims in this article. TheDracologist (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Useless as an encyclopedia article

This article is pretty much devoid of actual facts on the subject at hand, other than the definition of the word. It should probably be trimmed down to a stub or deleted.--greenrd (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Needs improvement. Consensus at AfD was to keep. Widefox; talk 01:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Should 68% of women leaving tech citing motherhood as the reason be mentioned or not?

In the part that said "27% of women cited workplace culture as a reason for leaving jobs in the technology industry, whereas 68% cited motherhood as a reason", has had the comparative statistic struck. I appreciate the anonymous users boldness in trying to improve the article, but I just want to make sure that everyone's okay with the change to head off any potential edit wars since articles related to sexism and feminism can be contentious.

• Reason to keep It puts the 27% in perspective and acknowledges that brogrammer culture isn't the most common reason for women leaving tech.
• Reason to remove It is irrelevant to the article and biases the article by minimizing the 27% statistic.

For now, I will leave it out, but if anyone wants it added back in, please discuss it here to avoid a revert war. TheDracologist (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be kept in the interests of following NPOV policy. Wikipedia tends to blame straight white men for every supposed "social justice" issue. It is biased to keep out countervailing information from the article.--greenrd (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding it back since it's been a while and no one has argued against its inclusion except for my attempt at a devil's advocate argument in my first post. TheDracologist (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Are these percentages correct?

"women make up less than 20 percent of employees, despite making up 10% of qualified candidates"

First of all, for formatting, those should either both be "percentage" or both be "%". Secondly, if only 10% of qualified candidates are women, then why would "less than 20 percent" be stated using the transition "despite"? I'll grant that 10% is "less than 20 percent", but "less than 20 percent" sort of implies more than 10%. What's going on here? Is this data referenced by reference #9? I'm not sure from the way it's spliced in there, but the reference is broken in either case.

73.53.109.183 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I went to blame the revision and there was no citation provided. I just gave it a yank as I can't find info to support it. Side note, how did that stay in for almost three years? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Effects on participation of women in computing"

Almost 2/3 of this section don't explain what is supposed to be the connection between this and the "brogrammer" thing; they talk about the effect of workplace culture in women participation, but does not says nothing if the problem in the workplace culure is the "brogrammers" (for what is written, could be a problem with the stereotypical geeksm for example)--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What about all the negative effects on the LGBTQIA+ community??!! Was this article written by a TERF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.215.18 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Move to "tech bro"?

Tech Bro is the more common term. 467k Google search results compared to Brogrammer's 98.7k. IMO, a move is in order. TortillaDePapas (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at the Google Ngram data, 'brogrammer' was more popular first, but was quickly overtaken by 'tech bro'. TheNk22 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)