Hacker News Reader

Comment by seattle_spring | Hacker News Reader

> Another top executive was coached by human resources on appropriate workplace behavior after he repeatedly referred to a group of female employees as “mean girls,” which continued even after they complained about it to management

What's a logical reason why "mean girls" is egregious enough to require reeducation, but "bro culture" doesn't bat an eye?

View on HN

There is no logical reason. The emotional reason, of course, is that one targets men and the other targets women. Most activism these days is retalitory, not consolidatory. So you are allowed to attack white men, because they are always in a position of power.

But both outlets are owned by Bezos, so maybe both outlets are just toxic. The fish rots from the head.

The Post is quoting when it uses both phrases. They are reporting what people involved said. One person used the phrase "bro culture" and there was another incident where a manager referred to some female employees as "mean girls".

> What's a logical reason why "mean girls" is egregious enough to require reeducation, but "bro culture" doesn't bat an eye?

Maybe its not a difference between the words, but between describing a broad social trend in the latter case and “referred to a group of female employees” in the former.

Isn't it possible, or even likely, that the "group of female employees" was referred to as "mean girls" specifically because they were being cliquey and exclusionary? I seriously doubt the phrase was used to describe a set of women simply working on a task together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com