Why I hate "dudebro," "brogamer," etc.

[Erik_Twice]

That random blog seems to think Bromance is a way of sayiang you have gay sex but you say it doesn't count. Which is missing the joke. Hard.

I think this is very appropiate:

[Blu]

In particular, if two males share an intimate relationship (not in the physical, sexual sense) where they're not stoic and actually talk about emotions, their problems, etc, why is the term bromance used as a classifier?

Why not?

The noun itself is homophobic.
Just because you and some random person on some random blog assert this does not make it true. Bromance is no different than the even older "Platonic friendship", which according to your logic would be "heterophobic", since it is used to describe non-romantic friendship between a male and a female.

Ugh, that blog totally butchers Plato as well. Why do the ignorant feel so compelled to spew their nonsense publicly?

The blog was simply used as an example. The poor usage of Plato should not detract to whether or not they believe the usage of Bromance is an insult, it's still their perception. There are many others, besides me, that do not care for the usage of the term. I've attended noteworthy higher education conferences where this was discussed in breakout sessions; and where it was generally agreed upon that bromance was an exclusive term. All I'm arguing is the term is more exclusive than it is inclusive. Why does there need to be a term at all? Why can't we just exist in a society where a man's masculinity isn't questioned if he's incredibly close with a friend and nothing is implied. In the end it's still about privileged males excluding themselves from a minority. I'm not looking for individually-based arguments like, "Well I AM really close with my best friend, so your opinion is null and void." I'm saying in terms of societal views, it's not a progressive term.

Since I've picked your brain and you didn't like the blog, here's a peer-reviewed article.
http://www.freireproject.org/files/Spri ... f#page=144

[MrPopo]

Why does there need to be a term at all? Why can't we just exist in a society where a man's masculinity isn't questioned if he's incredibly close with a friend and nothing is implied. In the end it's still about privileged males excluding themselves from a minority.

The term taken in a vacuum has use. It is useful to be able to differentiate between people we are in a romantic relationship with from those who are just very close friends. The problem is that there isn't really an analogous term for male/female platonic relationships; "friend" is a catch-all for all diadic relationships that doesn't really describe the quality of the relationship.

[o.pwuaioc]

The blog was simply used as an example.

A poor example at that. Both of you simply assert without backing anything up, without showing how it actually is homophobic, without even defining what homophobia is (a major problem with much of the newer politicized theory).

The poor usage of Plato should not detract to whether or not they believe the usage of Bromance is an insult, it's still their perception.

Ad misericoridam fallacy. Christians get offended by evolution, Republicans by global warming, racists by black people - does that mean anything at all? They can "perceive" that "bromance" is an insult all they want, but they'd still be wrong in considering it such.

There are many others, besides me, that do not care for the usage of the term.

Ad populum fallacy. Just because people don't like it, does not make it homophobic.

I've attended noteworthy higher education conferences where this was discussed in breakout sessions; and where it was generally agreed upon that bromance was an exclusive term. All I'm arguing is the term is more exclusive than it is inclusive.

Homosexual is an exclusive term. Does that make it an insult to non-homosexuals?

Why does there need to be a term at all? Why can't we just exist in a society where a man's masculinity isn't questioned if he's incredibly close with a friend and nothing is implied.

The masculinity isn't being questioned. That's a reading into a social situation that's just not there. It might be there in certain segments of the population, but the term itself is entirely neutral and divorced from that context.

In the end it's still about privileged males excluding themselves from a minority.

Ipse dixit fallacy. No. No it's not. Not at all. You're reading too much Kristeva and Foucault. Please enter the 21st century.

I'm saying in terms of societal views, it's not a progressive term.

You mean "political correct" term? True progressives would not seek to create a category for some but exclude others. By the way, you do not have to be straight to have a bromance, nor is it technically limited to males. You can check Wikipedia for a few portrayals.

Since I've picked your brain and you didn't like the blog, here's a peer-reviewed article.
http://www.freireproject.org/files/Spri ... f#page=144

Ad verecundiam fallacy.

[CFFJR]

This conversation seems insane to me. I never thought of the term bromance as being anything more than a joke. I've also never met anyone who considered it to be inappropriate.

If that's really offending some people, then I think said people might need to loosen up a tad.

[MrPopo]

This conversation seems insane to me. I never thought of the term bromance as being anything more than a joke. I've also never met anyone who considered it to be inappropriate.

If that's really offending some people, then I think said people might need to loosen up a tad.

I'm in an abusive bromance with o.pwuaioc, but I know he really loves me.

[o.pwuaioc]

This conversation seems insane to me. I never thought of the term bromance as being anything more than a joke. I've also never met anyone who considered it to be inappropriate.

If that's really offending some people, then I think said people might need to loosen up a tad.

I'm in an abusive bromance with o.pwuaioc, but I know he really loves me.

Screw you, bro.

[Blu]

I have nothing more to say. I was trying to draw a parallel to dudebro and brogamer by a topic that has gained traction in higher education. I definitely see some connections to why all three of these terms have gained in popularity. Additionally, I've used the term bromance many times off the cuff without really thinking if I'm offending someone. In general, my job requires me to be aware of perceptions and conscientious about being PC, and this is one I've slowly become more aware about. However, I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. I'd love to continue the conversation, but feel it's best that I move on without beating a dead horse. I thank you for the conversation, o.pwuaioc.

[Menegrothx]

The problem is that there isn't really an analogous term for male/female platonic relationships; "friend" is a catch-all for all diadic relationships that doesn't really describe the quality of the relationship.

People just need to aknowledge the difference between an acquaintance and a friend.

[Yancakes]

Wow, I missed this thread I'm going to ignore the current conversation

In regards to the OP... the term "brogamer" is about as offensive to me as "metal head". It's a description of a pop-subculture. I acknowledged in the quoted post that it's a huge generalization. I don't have a problem with generalizations, so long as they aren't used as a basis for bigotry or discrimination.

As far as a term limiting people expanding their realms of gaming, that's kind of ridiculous. Most of the brogamers I know like sports or shooting games, but actively have no interest in playing other genres. In most cases, if I have talked to them about gaming, they indicate their lack of interest so I we just switch to talking about sports or whatever.

Likewise, if I'm talking to someone who is clearly a metal head, I will happily explain to them who my favourite bands are. But if they have no interest in anything but metal then I'll have a more entertaining conversation if I just talk to them about metal.

It's really not a big deal.