4 ms·

NYT: “MEN invented the internet”

18 points by TDL 14y ago

spindritf 14y ago
That's nitpicking at its worst imho and can only lead to articles that have longer disclaimers and footnotes than body. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
angrycoder 14y ago
Grace Hopper was a complete badass. Here is an interview with her on Letterman circa 1986: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ0g5_NgRao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ0g5_NgRao
tomjen3 14y ago
I won't comment on the merits of this article, but before anybody comments, please take a moment to consider if what you to say is new. We had this dicussion recently, and having the same discussion isn't productive.
- lomegor 14y ago
  Maybe you are right and it's an old discussion. But repeating things and repeating discussions is in no way a bad thing. In fact, most of the ideas presented here on Hacker News are repeated ideas, maybe with a twist. Either way, if you are tired of this discussions don't participate on one, but don't tell other people to not discuss. Maybe someone new here wants to express his/her ideas or maybe someone old really loves discussing this topic.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- coridactyl 14y ago
  > For every woman who contributed in some way to the founding of the internet, there were hundreds of men. That's just reality, and to use that fact to argue any point about the state of the technology industry today is retarded. How is it retarded to remind readers that women made critical or at least significant (if not necessarily numerous) contributions to the evolution of the technology we have today? The work of these women has been overlooked, overshadowed, ignored and discouraged throughout history so much that there is a whole month relegated to reminding US school children of that fact. You may have heard of it. I agree that one blundering sentence does not an endorsement or thesis make, in the case of the New York Times piece. Perhaps the intent was to satirize the "lore" that it's all about men, men, men in tech, which is why women (in this case, Pao) get so much shit for even trying. Xeni took it literally. I can see where you might see that as an overreaction, but frankly the way that opening line is written doesn't instill much hope in me that the average NYT reader will catch the knowing wink, if it is in fact buried in there somewhere. Finally, no one's saying men shouldn't receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the underqualified being showered with recognition. What is being said is that women should receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the perfectly qualified being mocked, ostracized and all but forgotten. If that frustrates you, I would be curious to know why. Edit: original comment deleted. I'm a little disappointed because it indicated the writer felt a very potent irritation with the dialog on feminism/sexism in reaction to Xeni's response and I do wish we could engage each other when those difficult feelings rear up.
Tangaroa 14y ago
NYT: The tech industry is male-dominated and sexist. BB: The NYT is male-dominated and sexist for pointing it out. Flagged as bullshit.
- lomegor 14y ago
  Really? Maybe BB did say that, but that's not of the point of the article at all. Most of it is just criticizing the NYT views that men's contributions to computers and the Internet were more important than women's contributions.
  - Tangaroa 14y ago
    The "NYT view" was a crude stereotype of the tech industry and the stereotypical male nerd tech worker, introduced to justify the article's position that the tech industry is male-dominated and sexist. There's plenty wrong with it. And as a matter of fact, the contributions of men did heavily outweigh the contributions of women because women at the time were NOT ALLOWED to become engineers in most of the United States. In the rare places where it was allowed, high school advisors discouraged women from going to college and college advisors discouraged women from taking advanced math. Society was generally sexist and the potential for women to contribute was suppressed. In the tech industry, women were allowed to become computer operators because it was seen as a natural progression from being typewriter operators, and because the tech industry was more progressive than the NYT gives it credit for. The heavy math, engineering, and design work was mostly done by men because, with rare exceptions like Hopper, they were the only ones with the skills and training to do it.
    - lomegor 14y ago
      You are right. I was just saying what I thought the article was saying not what I believe personally. Saying that the article's argument is saying the NYT is sexist and male-dominated is an over-simplification, and in it's essential part, not true.
- GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
  Where does she say that the NYT is male dominated? Where does she say that the NYT is sexist? As far as I can tell she is only pointing out that the person who wrote the article is ignorant of reality. That has nothing to do with being male-dominated or sexist.
cantastoria 14y ago
Women may have been invisible, but the work we did laid the groundwork for more visible advancements now credited to more famous men. But what aspects of that work specifically led to the invention of the Internet? If "laying the groundwork" is the criteria then Newton, Tesla and Turing had a hand in inventing the Internet as well (an assertion I think few would make...). The fact that Lovelace and Hopper were women and programmers doesn't mean that "women" deserve credit for every invention that came after them.
- lomegor 14y ago
  Of course they don't deserve credit for every invention after them. I think the basic premise is that if you are going to say that only men's contributions to computers and the Internet are important, you are probably wrong as many women have advanced the field. If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But the Internet is not one but many technologies put together invented and developed by different people, which include men and women (maybe not specifically Lovelace). Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group.
  - cantastoria 14y ago
    If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But we are talking about a particular invention and it's invention has been well documented (see "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" among I'm sure many others). If there's some alternative history here please point me to it... part from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group. So woman *could" have contributed more to the Internet had they not been oppressed? That's a counterfactual argument one and two it doesn't change the fact that women didn't partake.
    - lomegor 14y ago

18 points by TDL 14y ago

That's nitpicking at its worst imho and can only lead to articles that have longer disclaimers and footnotes than body. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

angrycoder 14y ago

Grace Hopper was a complete badass. Here is an interview with her on Letterman circa 1986: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ0g5_NgRao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ0g5_NgRao

tomjen3 14y ago

I won't comment on the merits of this article, but before anybody comments, please take a moment to consider if what you to say is new. We had this dicussion recently, and having the same discussion isn't productive.

lomegor 14y ago
Maybe you are right and it's an old discussion. But repeating things and repeating discussions is in no way a bad thing. In fact, most of the ideas presented here on Hacker News are repeated ideas, maybe with a twist. Either way, if you are tired of this discussions don't participate on one, but don't tell other people to not discuss. Maybe someone new here wants to express his/her ideas or maybe someone old really loves discussing this topic.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

coridactyl 14y ago
> For every woman who contributed in some way to the founding of the internet, there were hundreds of men. That's just reality, and to use that fact to argue any point about the state of the technology industry today is retarded. How is it retarded to remind readers that women made critical or at least significant (if not necessarily numerous) contributions to the evolution of the technology we have today? The work of these women has been overlooked, overshadowed, ignored and discouraged throughout history so much that there is a whole month relegated to reminding US school children of that fact. You may have heard of it. I agree that one blundering sentence does not an endorsement or thesis make, in the case of the New York Times piece. Perhaps the intent was to satirize the "lore" that it's all about men, men, men in tech, which is why women (in this case, Pao) get so much shit for even trying. Xeni took it literally. I can see where you might see that as an overreaction, but frankly the way that opening line is written doesn't instill much hope in me that the average NYT reader will catch the knowing wink, if it is in fact buried in there somewhere. Finally, no one's saying men shouldn't receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the underqualified being showered with recognition. What is being said is that women should receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the perfectly qualified being mocked, ostracized and all but forgotten. If that frustrates you, I would be curious to know why. Edit: original comment deleted. I'm a little disappointed because it indicated the writer felt a very potent irritation with the dialog on feminism/sexism in reaction to Xeni's response and I do wish we could engage each other when those difficult feelings rear up.

Tangaroa 14y ago

NYT: The tech industry is male-dominated and sexist. BB: The NYT is male-dominated and sexist for pointing it out. Flagged as bullshit.

lomegor 14y ago
Really? Maybe BB did say that, but that's not of the point of the article at all. Most of it is just criticizing the NYT views that men's contributions to computers and the Internet were more important than women's contributions.
- Tangaroa 14y ago
  The "NYT view" was a crude stereotype of the tech industry and the stereotypical male nerd tech worker, introduced to justify the article's position that the tech industry is male-dominated and sexist. There's plenty wrong with it. And as a matter of fact, the contributions of men did heavily outweigh the contributions of women because women at the time were NOT ALLOWED to become engineers in most of the United States. In the rare places where it was allowed, high school advisors discouraged women from going to college and college advisors discouraged women from taking advanced math. Society was generally sexist and the potential for women to contribute was suppressed. In the tech industry, women were allowed to become computer operators because it was seen as a natural progression from being typewriter operators, and because the tech industry was more progressive than the NYT gives it credit for. The heavy math, engineering, and design work was mostly done by men because, with rare exceptions like Hopper, they were the only ones with the skills and training to do it.
  - lomegor 14y ago
    You are right. I was just saying what I thought the article was saying not what I believe personally. Saying that the article's argument is saying the NYT is sexist and male-dominated is an over-simplification, and in it's essential part, not true.
GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
Where does she say that the NYT is male dominated? Where does she say that the NYT is sexist? As far as I can tell she is only pointing out that the person who wrote the article is ignorant of reality. That has nothing to do with being male-dominated or sexist.

cantastoria 14y ago

Women may have been invisible, but the work we did laid the groundwork for more visible advancements now credited to more famous men. But what aspects of that work specifically led to the invention of the Internet? If "laying the groundwork" is the criteria then Newton, Tesla and Turing had a hand in inventing the Internet as well (an assertion I think few would make...). The fact that Lovelace and Hopper were women and programmers doesn't mean that "women" deserve credit for every invention that came after them.

lomegor 14y ago
Of course they don't deserve credit for every invention after them. I think the basic premise is that if you are going to say that only men's contributions to computers and the Internet are important, you are probably wrong as many women have advanced the field. If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But the Internet is not one but many technologies put together invented and developed by different people, which include men and women (maybe not specifically Lovelace). Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group.
- cantastoria 14y ago
  If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But we are talking about a particular invention and it's invention has been well documented (see "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" among I'm sure many others). If there's some alternative history here please point me to it... part from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group. So woman *could" have contributed more to the Internet had they not been oppressed? That's a counterfactual argument one and two it doesn't change the fact that women didn't partake.
  - lomegor 14y ago