7 ms·

There has never been a better time to be a woman in the valley. My female family members have gotten a job everywhere they have interviewed, even at the top tie

There has never been a better time to be a woman in the valley. My female family members have gotten a job everywhere they have interviewed, even at the top tier. There is no "pushing out" now, infact its the opposite, everyone from recruiter to the hiring managers have high level okr's and bonuses for finding and hiring women. Is it really necessary to dig out some skeletons and create some controversy where there is none.

eesmith 9y ago
I don't understand your last line. Historians dig up skeletons all the time. (As, literally, do archeologists.) Surely you aren't suggesting that historians stop what they are doing? I also don't understand what controversy you think is being created. We all knew that women were forced out of the field in the 1960s and 1970s, so that isn't controversial, and we know that the percentage of women in the computing industry is still not back to what it use to be. I didn't, however, know the details of why that happened. Hicks' recent talk for the Computer History Museum helped me understand just how strong the cultural reasons were in that era against women having managerial positions over men in that era, and how the presumption that women would leave once getting marriage collided with the increasing professionalization of the field to help get women kicked out. Even if times are great for women now, surely it's important to know some of the history of when it wasn't great? As an analogy, in school we learned about poor working and food safety conditions at the start of the Progressive Era, in order to understand the impact of muckrackers like Ida M. Tarbell and Upton Sinclair, and legal actions like the split-up of Standard Oil and creation of the Pure Food and Drug Act. If we don't know how things were, we don't understand why anti-trust and food protections laws are still on the books. That said, the WSJ article is pay-walled. The introduction makes me think it's to do with Hick's new book "Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing". It might instead cover something else, and I'm simply out of the loop.
- dominotw 9y ago
  >I don't understand your last line. Historians dig up skeletons all the time. (As, literally, do archeologists.) Surely you aren't suggesting that historians stop what they are doing? Quoting an analysis from the past, saying situation is still the same in top tech companies and implying that current situation is due to "men pushing women out" . He even quotes an internal google memo that says " women overall are biologically less suited to programming" as an example of men today bent on pushing women out. Hope you see the controversy part. Surely you can see this article is not purely historical curiosity and not at all like an article about history of food safety conditions.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I have now read the article thanks to merricksb. This is not due to "an analysis from the past" but to a recent analysis of the past. Hicks' book just came out. What do you mean by "still the same"? Hicks describes situations in the 1960s and 1970s which don't exist now, like women being forced out the company if they get married, having babies in secret so they don't get fired, and managers refusing to structure things so that men work under women. Clearly that's not "still the same" in modern work environments, and Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial, and it's not incompatible with your statement that it's the best time to be a women in this industry. The most controversial point seems to be the statement that "simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem" - an argument that the new historical study supports. What is the skeleton that should not be dug up?
    - dominotw 9y ago
      > It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial Thats precisely what is controversial. Infact, 'sexism in the computer industry' is one the most controversial topic on HN. Why do you think this article getting flipped between flagged/unflagged status if its not controversial. I agree that its still a problem, controversial part is this, sexists are a problem not "men". > an argument that the new historical study supports. But you say this "Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same." if conditions aren't they same how does the study support it? You are saying variables for the experiment aren't the same but experiment will yield the same results regardless.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Then I'm back to not understanding what you meant by "create some controversy where there is none". What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? If I understand your last comment, you would be happier with the title "The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave, Sexist Men Pushed Them Out"? That somehow seems worse. Saying "Sexists" or "Sexist People" would be less correct, as sexist women - and certainly there were many - didn't have the managerial power to do the pushing in the British computing field during the 1960s and 1970s.

eesmith 9y ago

I don't understand your last line. Historians dig up skeletons all the time. (As, literally, do archeologists.) Surely you aren't suggesting that historians stop what they are doing? I also don't understand what controversy you think is being created. We all knew that women were forced out of the field in the 1960s and 1970s, so that isn't controversial, and we know that the percentage of women in the computing industry is still not back to what it use to be. I didn't, however, know the details of why that happened. Hicks' recent talk for the Computer History Museum helped me understand just how strong the cultural reasons were in that era against women having managerial positions over men in that era, and how the presumption that women would leave once getting marriage collided with the increasing professionalization of the field to help get women kicked out. Even if times are great for women now, surely it's important to know some of the history of when it wasn't great? As an analogy, in school we learned about poor working and food safety conditions at the start of the Progressive Era, in order to understand the impact of muckrackers like Ida M. Tarbell and Upton Sinclair, and legal actions like the split-up of Standard Oil and creation of the Pure Food and Drug Act. If we don't know how things were, we don't understand why anti-trust and food protections laws are still on the books. That said, the WSJ article is pay-walled. The introduction makes me think it's to do with Hick's new book "Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing". It might instead cover something else, and I'm simply out of the loop.

dominotw 9y ago
>I don't understand your last line. Historians dig up skeletons all the time. (As, literally, do archeologists.) Surely you aren't suggesting that historians stop what they are doing? Quoting an analysis from the past, saying situation is still the same in top tech companies and implying that current situation is due to "men pushing women out" . He even quotes an internal google memo that says " women overall are biologically less suited to programming" as an example of men today bent on pushing women out. Hope you see the controversy part. Surely you can see this article is not purely historical curiosity and not at all like an article about history of food safety conditions.
- eesmith 9y ago
  I have now read the article thanks to merricksb. This is not due to "an analysis from the past" but to a recent analysis of the past. Hicks' book just came out. What do you mean by "still the same"? Hicks describes situations in the 1960s and 1970s which don't exist now, like women being forced out the company if they get married, having babies in secret so they don't get fired, and managers refusing to structure things so that men work under women. Clearly that's not "still the same" in modern work environments, and Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial, and it's not incompatible with your statement that it's the best time to be a women in this industry. The most controversial point seems to be the statement that "simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem" - an argument that the new historical study supports. What is the skeleton that should not be dug up?
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial Thats precisely what is controversial. Infact, 'sexism in the computer industry' is one the most controversial topic on HN. Why do you think this article getting flipped between flagged/unflagged status if its not controversial. I agree that its still a problem, controversial part is this, sexists are a problem not "men". > an argument that the new historical study supports. But you say this "Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same." if conditions aren't they same how does the study support it? You are saying variables for the experiment aren't the same but experiment will yield the same results regardless.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Then I'm back to not understanding what you meant by "create some controversy where there is none". What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? If I understand your last comment, you would be happier with the title "The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave, Sexist Men Pushed Them Out"? That somehow seems worse. Saying "Sexists" or "Sexist People" would be less correct, as sexist women - and certainly there were many - didn't have the managerial power to do the pushing in the British computing field during the 1960s and 1970s.