4 ms·
Quick anecdote from an earlier time. My mother's college roommate (Marilyn) studied Math and Physics in undergrad in the late '50s/early '60s. She went on to do
by ianamartin 11y ago
Quick anecdote from an earlier time. My mother's college roommate (Marilyn) studied Math and Physics in undergrad in the late '50s/early '60s. She went on to do a Masters at MIT and worked on the Apollo project there, which by that time was being run by another woman: Margaret Hamilton.
If I remember the story correctly, Marilyn started a PhD, but never finished due to marriage and kids. She went on to have a very happy career at NASA and retired from there eventually, around 1995.
She worked in code for almost all of her career. She worked on the Apollo Guidance Computer for at least a couple of years.
Her telling of how things were is that there were a lot of women working in what would eventually become the field of computer science. It was a flipped version of what we think of now but with some similarities.
It was flipped because women were the higher percentage of the work force in the early '60s and on into the '70s and even '80s. But this was also the same as today because the field itself was really not well-defined, and after people went from punch cards (which is what she started programming with), they went to typing. And for the average Joe, typing was a job for women: it was secretary work.
So this seems to me--with the caveat that I'm remembering some conversations I've had with this women from maybe 10 years ago when I first got interested in software and started having jobs that involved it--that there was a brief opening window at the early stages of the field when there were a lot of women practitioners.
As the field became more mainstream and more codified and promised rewards and opportunities, it appears that the guys noticed and came in rather slowly. And then pretty suddenly when it became clear that you could make a quick buck without a crapton of advanced knowledge, the brogrammers showed up and pretty much took over.
That's obviously only one interpretation, but it's an interesting one to me because Marilyn retired before things seem to have got really bad. She retired when the women were still wearing dresses to work, and the men were wearing suits, and things were mostly professional. There were probably glass ceilings, but she didn't feel one in her work because NASA has an institutional history of women doing big, important things.
*
Another anecdote. This one much shorter.
A second field that seems to be to being opened up by bro-ish types (and with the incompetence and general lack of knowledge and laziness I associate with that type) is healthcare--specifically Nursing.
When I was studying Statistics at the University of North Dakota, I was living in a house with 6 other guys. Two of whom were Nursing students. They would have frat-style parties several times a week. Parties where 35-40 of their nursing school guy friends would come over, play Nickelback all night long and drink shitty beer. Basically the opposite of what I would expect from Nursing students.
I found this pretty unexpected and asked once WTF was going on here.
The answer was pretty consistent: there's a dearth of Nurses. People will pay a lot for them. The barrier to entry is pretty low. Essentially, it's quick easy money.
*
All this makes me wonder how much of the shift in industry demographics is really driven by institutional sexism and how much it is just that the lowest common denominator will always try to make easy, lazy money. And then the more competent people move elsewhere, or just leave the industry entirely and go do something else.
Of course, once you reach a critical mass of bro-ism, the institutional bias does become real. But I wonder if we have a situation in business or IT management that is somewhat akin to the problems we have in U.S. Politics: the only people interested in managing are, by definition, not fit for the job. So smart people give up and walk away to something else.
The other thing that it makes me wonder is this: how many other industries are there that started out with one traditional mix of demographics because "that's a job for x type of person. Not someone like me. And was then co-opted by the someones-like-me.
Anyway, sorry for a long musing. Just trying to put some puzzle pieces together here to see if there's a larger idea to digest.
- dikdik 11y agoAre we attempting to wash away history? It seems like this article and a lot of comments are insinuating women's rights have only decreased in the last 40 years. WHAT. My mother, born in 1955, was told by her father there was no reason for her to take algebra or any type of math in high school because she wouldn't need it. Maybe the upper class women of yesterday are just lamenting the death of chivalry. I don't know. I often wonder why bro-ish types are chastised for being who they want to be. I get why it's bad when it becomes overbearing and crowds out diversity. Yet it seems bro = stupid, terrible, provide no value, and a bigot. I know some great, intelligent guys that are pretty bro-y. It gets old when we have to constantly champion weakness, meekness, and discourage confidence. While a complete bro culture can be toxic, I've worked in majority-woman departments where the gossiping and backstabbing is just as toxic.
- ianamartin 11y agoI'm not in any way trying to wash away history, and I am not trying to imply that women's rights have only decreased since the 50s. I'm suggesting that there is a larger pattern operating here that is potentially more complicated than "things used to suck; now they are getting better, but not fast enough in STEM." I agree with you that women are discouraged from entering certain fields. My mother (b. 1941) wanted to be a doctor, and her father didn't see the point. She ended up meeting my father in a German class and falling for him (he was the prof) and she ended up going the route of a German professor. Of course we know that women are still discouraged from entering certain fields. I'm not arguing that they are not. I'm wondering if there are background signals in play here that drive women out of the fields that they are encouraged to get into. As for bro culture, it gets chastised because it's toxic by definition, in my experience. Bro culture--to me--is quite a lot more than what you are describing it as. I'm not meek, week, and I'm not lacking in confidence. You can be all those things and still be very far from bro. It's the stupid, terrible, provide no value, racist, sexist, bigot kind of people who walk around fist bumping and saying things like, "Dude, did we totally rape that bitch into submission, or what?!" when talking about "solving" a "hard" problem that are toxic. It's the kind of people who think that ping pong tables and free beer make up for an utterly shitty working environment. It's the kind of people who are completely and totally unable to think that some people would want something other than what they want out of a job. In other words, bro culture is marked by all the things you say it is "chastised" for, but not for those things in themselves. After all, we are all human and exhibit certain elements of all those things in ourselves. Bro culture celebrates stupidity, terrible-ness, sexism, and bigotry--and bro culture is entirely lacking empathy for anyone who is not a part of it. I'm not saying anything about you or anyone you know. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. I'm describing the characteristics that people deride when talking about it. * I have no input about majority-women departments. I can certainly see how gossiping and backstabbing is toxic. I'll leave the criticism of those things to people who are in a position to do something about it. I'm a mid-30s white male technologist. I can do something about bro culture. Not so much I can do about women gossiping and backstabbing.