4 ms·

The article's thesis may or may not be correct, but the proponents of the argument do themselves no favors by conflating programmers with data-entry clerks. ED

by ci5er 9y ago

The article's thesis may or may not be correct, but the proponents of the argument do themselves no favors by conflating programmers with data-entry clerks. EDIT: As far as I know - people like Grace Hopper never got out (also US vs UK and Private vs Government and/or Military jobs, as examples, confound that stats)

eesmith 9y ago
I can't read the pay-walled WSJ article but it looks like it's related to the recent book by Dr. Marie Hicks. She recent gave a talk at the Computer History Museum, which covers an example very close to what you objected to. At https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=2198 https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=2198 you can see the advertisement "This typist can control your invoicing, stock records and sales statistics all at once ... electronically, but not without help from Susie her computer." Hicks then says that ad copy goes on to describe the types of programming this typist will be doing, "but she's still just a typist, not a programmer." I therefore believe the proponents argument isn't that they themselves conflate the two, but that (British) computing in the 1960s did the conflation. As for Adm. Hopper, yes, certainly some women stayed in the field. But then there's pictures like https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=999 https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=999 where a woman in her 20s or 30s has a "retirement" party, because she's getting married, so has to leave the workforce - which could be compulsory or coerced. Then once it was realized that programming was more than a clerical task, women were more and more forced out because it was expected that women were going to leave once they got married.
- ci5er 9y ago
  Hmmm. My formative adult years, at the beginning of my career, were spent in Japan, where every female was expected to get married and get out by the age of 28-or-so. I have no opinion or comment on whether that is good or bad for the Japanese men and women in their own society. But after that, I got to the US, and most of the women that I met in "my ranks" of career maturity were definitely very capable - and in it for the long haul. Which is to say: I've never seen the winnowing process up-close-and-personal. I'm guessing that something happens between the ages of 20 and 35? Or maybe less women join in the US in the first place? I don't know. But I think that if we are going to explore what's going on - we're going to have to go upstream of what most of these types of pieces are looking at... > Then once it was realized that programming was more than a clerical task, women were more and more forced out because it was expected that women were going to leave once they got married. That's very interesting if it is true. I'll have to dig into this a bit. EDIT: I am a male, if that wasn't obvious.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Based on your comments, you are around 50 years old, and after growing up in the US spent about 1/3 of your adult life in (mostly) Japan. Figuring (50-18)/3 = 11 years, so you returned in the mid 1990s. The 1980s was the peak time for women entering professional software development, at least as measured by the percentage of women vs. men receiving a BS in computer science. It was 37% in 1984/1985, says https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474991/it-careers/women-computer-science-grads--the-bump-before-the-decline.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474991/it-careers/wom... , while in 2010 it was 18%. Those women who graduated in 1985 at 22 are about 55 years old now. This puts them as slightly older than you, but close enough that they would still be part of "your ranks." I point this out because if you base things on your experience then you should realize that your experience comes from working with an unusual cohort. As you say, there is a US/UK difference. The speaker I pointed to said that the differences in gender expectations were stronger in the UK than in the US, and that part of those expectations was rooted in imperialism.
    - ci5er 9y ago
      Either your math or investigative skills are impressive. > your experience comes from working with an unusual cohort. How so? I mean - you've got me pegged, but why is it unusual? > that part of those expectations was rooted in imperialism. Does that follow?
      - eesmith 9y ago
        It was unusual because of the relatively high number of women who entered computing in the 1980s. Or are you asking me why the 1980s was different than the 10 years before and after? For that I can only at best conjecture. Traditionally, mathematically inclined women studied mathematics, with thoughts to being a math teacher. Grace Hopper got her PhD in math and taught mathematics at Vasser, for example. Katherine G. Johnson, of "Hidden Figures" fame, first started as a teacher before becoming a research mathematician. Traditionally, businessmen had women working as secretaries, and it was the women who learned to type. Two of the many exceptions include newspaper writers and army clerks, but in general typing was feminizing. That's why many of the first women in computing came from a math background, and did the typing=programming work. (Going back to your original comment, it really was seen that programming was little different than typing. Do you remember Simonyi's meta-programming concept, which he tried to implement at Microsoft? Wikipedia quotes Cringely "the metaprogrammer was the designer, decision maker, and communication controller in a software development group.... individual progammers were allowed to make no design decisions about the project. All they did was write the code as described by the metaprogrammer.... A programmer with a problem or a question would take it to the metaprogrammer, who could come up with an answer or transfer the question to another programmer..." This sort of programmer is little more than a typist, and I think in the 1970s many people thought that an analyst could figure out the grand plan, drawn up with architecture-like flow charts, at which point it became little more than a typing project to convert it into software.) The 1960s and 1970s was the big struggle for woman's rights; in the workplace, in the home, and in general. By the 1980s it was socially acceptable for women to have a career. (As compared to going to college to get an M.R.S. degree - an old phrase I didn't learn until about 10 years ago.) But still in an era when using a keyboard was generally considered secretarial work, and hence woman's work, so not as attractive to men. It was also just at the start of the microcomputer era, so men and women graduating with a CS degree in 1985 were unlikely to have used a computer at all before going to college. While those in later years may have had an Apple ][ or TRS-80 while still kids. And unfortunately, those microcomputers fit into all sorts of cultural biases. As one example, girls are supposed to be social, while it's okay for boys to be in their computers for hours. Honestly though, there's a lot on that topic, and I can't begin to do it justice. I just wanted to explain enough so you might get a sense that your cohort might not be representative. As for "imperialism", I didn't really understand Hicks' argument from interview I linked to. I assume I would need to read the book to understand.
- dzink 9y ago
  Coming from Bulgaria, where despite all the horrible things Communism did, it had relative parity between men and women in professonal settings, even with its extreme patriarchy. I suspect one reason for it was that market inefficiency - a lot more labour was required and both genders were expected to be employed. I went to free kindergarten and school throughout (no paid options available) and the only way to get into advanced schooling was high grades, not money, unless you count private lessons as an advantage. Lack of female engineers there was not as much of an issue. At the same time, because most kids were socially raised in communal kindergartens, loneliness and extreme introversion was less of an issue, since most acquired some social skills at an early age. I never thought women are expected to stay at home, until I learned about that in a US college.

by ci5er 9y ago

eesmith 9y ago

I can't read the pay-walled WSJ article but it looks like it's related to the recent book by Dr. Marie Hicks. She recent gave a talk at the Computer History Museum, which covers an example very close to what you objected to. At https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=2198 https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=2198 you can see the advertisement "This typist can control your invoicing, stock records and sales statistics all at once ... electronically, but not without help from Susie her computer." Hicks then says that ad copy goes on to describe the types of programming this typist will be doing, "but she's still just a typist, not a programmer." I therefore believe the proponents argument isn't that they themselves conflate the two, but that (British) computing in the 1960s did the conflation. As for Adm. Hopper, yes, certainly some women stayed in the field. But then there's pictures like https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=999 https://youtu.be/WTLJ7saIV3o?t=999 where a woman in her 20s or 30s has a "retirement" party, because she's getting married, so has to leave the workforce - which could be compulsory or coerced. Then once it was realized that programming was more than a clerical task, women were more and more forced out because it was expected that women were going to leave once they got married.

ci5er 9y ago
Hmmm. My formative adult years, at the beginning of my career, were spent in Japan, where every female was expected to get married and get out by the age of 28-or-so. I have no opinion or comment on whether that is good or bad for the Japanese men and women in their own society. But after that, I got to the US, and most of the women that I met in "my ranks" of career maturity were definitely very capable - and in it for the long haul. Which is to say: I've never seen the winnowing process up-close-and-personal. I'm guessing that something happens between the ages of 20 and 35? Or maybe less women join in the US in the first place? I don't know. But I think that if we are going to explore what's going on - we're going to have to go upstream of what most of these types of pieces are looking at... > Then once it was realized that programming was more than a clerical task, women were more and more forced out because it was expected that women were going to leave once they got married. That's very interesting if it is true. I'll have to dig into this a bit. EDIT: I am a male, if that wasn't obvious.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Based on your comments, you are around 50 years old, and after growing up in the US spent about 1/3 of your adult life in (mostly) Japan. Figuring (50-18)/3 = 11 years, so you returned in the mid 1990s. The 1980s was the peak time for women entering professional software development, at least as measured by the percentage of women vs. men receiving a BS in computer science. It was 37% in 1984/1985, says https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474991/it-careers/women-computer-science-grads--the-bump-before-the-decline.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474991/it-careers/wom... , while in 2010 it was 18%. Those women who graduated in 1985 at 22 are about 55 years old now. This puts them as slightly older than you, but close enough that they would still be part of "your ranks." I point this out because if you base things on your experience then you should realize that your experience comes from working with an unusual cohort. As you say, there is a US/UK difference. The speaker I pointed to said that the differences in gender expectations were stronger in the UK than in the US, and that part of those expectations was rooted in imperialism.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    Either your math or investigative skills are impressive. > your experience comes from working with an unusual cohort. How so? I mean - you've got me pegged, but why is it unusual? > that part of those expectations was rooted in imperialism. Does that follow?
    - eesmith 9y ago
      It was unusual because of the relatively high number of women who entered computing in the 1980s. Or are you asking me why the 1980s was different than the 10 years before and after? For that I can only at best conjecture. Traditionally, mathematically inclined women studied mathematics, with thoughts to being a math teacher. Grace Hopper got her PhD in math and taught mathematics at Vasser, for example. Katherine G. Johnson, of "Hidden Figures" fame, first started as a teacher before becoming a research mathematician. Traditionally, businessmen had women working as secretaries, and it was the women who learned to type. Two of the many exceptions include newspaper writers and army clerks, but in general typing was feminizing. That's why many of the first women in computing came from a math background, and did the typing=programming work. (Going back to your original comment, it really was seen that programming was little different than typing. Do you remember Simonyi's meta-programming concept, which he tried to implement at Microsoft? Wikipedia quotes Cringely "the metaprogrammer was the designer, decision maker, and communication controller in a software development group.... individual progammers were allowed to make no design decisions about the project. All they did was write the code as described by the metaprogrammer.... A programmer with a problem or a question would take it to the metaprogrammer, who could come up with an answer or transfer the question to another programmer..." This sort of programmer is little more than a typist, and I think in the 1970s many people thought that an analyst could figure out the grand plan, drawn up with architecture-like flow charts, at which point it became little more than a typing project to convert it into software.) The 1960s and 1970s was the big struggle for woman's rights; in the workplace, in the home, and in general. By the 1980s it was socially acceptable for women to have a career. (As compared to going to college to get an M.R.S. degree - an old phrase I didn't learn until about 10 years ago.) But still in an era when using a keyboard was generally considered secretarial work, and hence woman's work, so not as attractive to men. It was also just at the start of the microcomputer era, so men and women graduating with a CS degree in 1985 were unlikely to have used a computer at all before going to college. While those in later years may have had an Apple ][ or TRS-80 while still kids. And unfortunately, those microcomputers fit into all sorts of cultural biases. As one example, girls are supposed to be social, while it's okay for boys to be in their computers for hours. Honestly though, there's a lot on that topic, and I can't begin to do it justice. I just wanted to explain enough so you might get a sense that your cohort might not be representative. As for "imperialism", I didn't really understand Hicks' argument from interview I linked to. I assume I would need to read the book to understand.
dzink 9y ago
Coming from Bulgaria, where despite all the horrible things Communism did, it had relative parity between men and women in professonal settings, even with its extreme patriarchy. I suspect one reason for it was that market inefficiency - a lot more labour was required and both genders were expected to be employed. I went to free kindergarten and school throughout (no paid options available) and the only way to get into advanced schooling was high grades, not money, unless you count private lessons as an advantage. Lack of female engineers there was not as much of an issue. At the same time, because most kids were socially raised in communal kindergartens, loneliness and extreme introversion was less of an issue, since most acquired some social skills at an early age. I never thought women are expected to stay at home, until I learned about that in a US college.