Are we derogatively saying that the "hos" are increasingly taking the doctor-positions? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous.
So why then is it OK to rag down on guys? And over some imagined injustice!
I really don't get the problem people are trying to construct here.
And that's why you've been downvoted. While you started with what appears to be a legitimate question, you devolved into not only appearing to have avoided reading the article, but also not having empathy for the subject of the article.
The injustice is the complete lack of acknowledgement, for decades, of those who 'coded the software' of the machine. The seemingly willful ignorance of the bosses who ran the project and the media who covered it.
Take exception to the terminology in the heading if you like. Make a good argument that it's not productive. But at least have the ability to acknowledge the content of the article.
There's a pretty big date right at the top of the page.
This article is specifically how these women got swindled out of the prestige they should have got and how gender stereotypes pushed women out of the workforce after the war. All the men we're mad at here are effectively retired or dead so there's no need to identify with them because its unlikely you'd actually relate directly to their world view because they're mostly pre-boomers.
This comment is a bit hostile. They are simply applying the same standard to both sexes.
As is getting riled by the choice of language in the way that commenter did. There's no need for that shit.
> They are simply applying the same standard to both sexes.
No they're not, they're just taking sides because they share characteristics with what they perceive to be the slighted party here. Its likely they're projecting anger they have about gender issues elsewhere to the discussion of this article. They're being off-topic by doing so.
I'd wager that they didn't even read the article.
Once again, this is a popular accusation but one of the most uncharitable accusations on tap today in discourse.
I totally agree with their point about the double standard about bros and hos. Their gender is irrelevant.
Edit: for the record, I think we should be able to use flippant and juvenile language in our blog titles (at risk of seeming juvenile), but I’ve been in tech long enough to catch the increasing wind of the “men can handle words like techbro but women can’t” implication. Using cute gendered language for women isn’t quite as savory today.
Fine but its evident they have an axe to grind if that's the point they want to make on this article. If you read the article the title is a really unimportant part of it. There's plenty to discuss and I don't see why anyone spoiling for a gender fight is really worthy of any sympathy here.
I have noticed it tends to be worse received if it’s about women. Though I think there’s something larger at play than just defensiveness (objecting to bros) and whiteknighting (objecting to hos). And we may agree that we all should really just settle down when it comes to gender.