The points system was discussed in considerable detail in the show and in interviews that accompanied it. Chidi would be happy to note that the outcomes and points are based on a strictly Utilitarian outcome, where things that cause happiness are given positive scores and things that result in net unhappiness are given negative scores. Notably, this can mean that the same action can result in wildly differing scores depending on the outcome over time.
Evidently using the term "bro-code" and telling a woman to smile are things that are likely to result in net unhappiness. As to why, it's likely because the people who wrote the show think that the people who do these things are using sexist tropes that negatively impact on individuals or society in general.
In the original pilot script, the system was explained in even more
depth. Point totals were based not just on the inherent benevolence or
malevolence of the act, but how it ultimately impacted other people.
And they weren’t static. “Let’s say you read a magazine and you see an
ad for something and you’re in a doctor’s office and you tear out the
ad and you toss the magazine back on the bench,” says Schur. “Maybe
the thing you tore out the ad for is a kind of medicine that could
help your allergies, right? So you get plus two points for that
because you’re trying to help yourself have a healthier life, but
negative one point for ripping out a page out of something that wasn’t
yours. Someone who suffers from allergies comes along and they’re
flipping through that magazine, and if they had seen that ad, they
might have done it. Also, their whole family suffers from allergies,
so they could have used that ad to buy medicine for their whole
family. Suddenly what was one fixed negative point at the moment you
did it now is negative 13. The idea is the point values are constantly
changing and shifting, depending on the kind of ultimate ripple of
whatever you did and how it ripples through the rest of society.”
Schur initially planned to have Michael walk newcomers through various
scenarios in the orientation video instead of displaying the graphic.
“He said, ‘Save a child from getting hit by a car. Great job. That’s
plus 4,000 points,'” recalls Schur. “And you actually saw that happen.
And then he said, ‘Poison a river with dirty chemicals. Uh-oh, that’s
negative 9,610.’ And then he said, ‘But it’s not just the big stuff.’
He went through that argument and laid that out. But it just took too
long, so we came up with this idea of having those things appear on
the screen as a much clearer and ultimately funnier way. It explains
the premise. Once we had that idea, there were a ton of jokes.”
Good ones, too. For example: Eating vegan earns you +425.94 points,
but never discussing your veganism unprompted earns you a whopping
+9875.37. “If you just eat vegan, that’s just a personal thing that you’re doing,” reasons Schur. “That’s just a choice that you’re making
about the kind of food you want and where it’s sustainably sourced.
But the reason we decided that never discussing your veganism
unprompted was way better is because people who proselytize about
personal choices are often the most annoying people. The people who
tell other people, ‘I do this and it’s great that I do this and
everybody should do this,’ and if you don’t do this, the implication
is you are a bad person, you get far more negative points for that
kind of negative action than you do doing something that is an
internal choice: ‘This is the way I’m going to live my life.’ And a
lot of the ways that we calculated the points had to do with the
concept of rippling out. Imposing your value system on someone else is
a worse thing to do than just doing something that’s like, ‘I’m pretty
good.’ It’s pretty good that you’re vegan, it’s good for the
environment and you’re not killing animals, so that’s good in the
long-term. But the worse crime than eating meat would be lecturing on
other people on why what you do is better than what they do.
The Good Place: Inside the point system that determines your afterlife status