RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jay West via cctalk]

You’re supposed to ‘allow’ (not that I need your permission) the list owner to 
take care of it. Everyone just assumed (jumped to the conclusion) that I was 
sexist. I deserve better than that, and I have nothing to prove.

 

Life’s too short. I’m done. For all the work and goodwill, I’m just tagged as a 
sexist in a nanosecond by folks without adequate information, or told I have to 
explain myself. I do not.

 

Funny – I’m sometimes chastised by list members for coming down on them for 
off-topic convo, so much so that there became two lists. And now I’m chastised 
for not coming down on people enough. Or chastised for not picking and choosing 
who/how/why to come down on someone the way a particular person thinks I 
should. Screw it.

 

J

From: Michael Mulhern [mailto:mich...@jongleur.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:53 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk@classiccmp.org>; 
Jay West <jw...@classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

 

 but you admonish one publicly, and not the other that solicited the 
response. What am I supposed to read into that?

 

M. 

 

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 at 9:40 am, Jay West via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org 
<mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote:

And if you don't think that evan's post was a personal attack, then I 
just don't know what I can tell you. I saw that and jumped on it first.

> On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts something 
> on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that perhaps the adult 
> thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand on them, leaving 
> the points behind that you find offensive or inappropriate. The rest will be 
> dealt with off-list, as I have done in the past.



-- 

 

 

Blog: RetroRetrospective – Fun today with yesterday's gear…….. 
<http://www.jongleur.co.uk/blogs/> 

Podcast: Retro Computing Roundtable <http://rcrpodcast.com/>  (Co-Host)

RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jay West via cctalk]

I wrote...
> I did not say sexism was ok. 

To which toby replied...
>That is, indeed, the message you are sending

No. It is not. It is what you are saying that I intend. And not that I have to 
explain myself but historically when anyone posts something I'd like to 
curb, I generally do it off-list. There are exceptions - which is my 
discretion. I did not yet get a chance to respond to it as I normally do that 
during the evenings.  But I have always said that the biggest way to get in 
trouble here is personal attacks. And if you don't think that evan's post was a 
personal attack, then I just don't know what I can tell you. I saw that and 
jumped on it first.
 
> On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts something 
> on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that perhaps the adult 
> thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand on them, leaving 
> the points behind that you find offensive or inappropriate. The rest will be 
> dealt with off-list, as I have done in the past.


*Did* you, in this instance?

Because when somebody posts such vile, wrong, offensive and harmful 
essentialist hogwash, as Rod did, on a public list, I would be expecting swift 
action from the moderator, in private and/or in public. If you had given prompt 
notice of doing so, then readers wouldn't have had to censure it themselves.

So... what you're saying is... I have to report to you and the list, give you 
prompt notice of what I do/decide and what private emails I send OR ELSE you 
get to decide? That is not how it works.

J

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[js--- via cctalk]

..

On 8/24/2017 6:14 PM, Toby Thain via 
cctalk wrote:

Please note that I said to keep things in a historical perspective and 
on-topic. I don't think that is saying sexism is ok.

On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts something 
on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that perhaps the adult 
thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand on them, leaving the 
points behind that you find offensive or inappropriate. The rest will be dealt 
with off-list, as I have done in the past.


*Did* you, in this instance?

Because when somebody posts such vile, wrong, offensive and harmful
essentialist hogwash, as Rod did, on a public list, I would be expecting
swift action from the moderator...



Peoples' reactions following what Rod 
wrote are really bewildering me, at 
least -- a moderate.  I'm not quitting 
the list.   What would happen if for 
example everyone here suddenly revealed 
their political or religious or other 
leanings, and it were found that that 
within the membership, there were some 
neo-Nazis, KKK members, or ISIL members 
who happened to have a vintage computing 
interest -- but who never inflicted the 
membership with their ideologies?   
Would there be a mass ejection?


I'm willing to bet that if everyone DID 
reveal themselves, there'd be all kinds 
of chaos.  So, It's because we're all 
here and ONLY talking about one subject, 
that allows things to remain cooperative.


Isn't this why it's often advised to 
never discuss politics or religion in 
the workplace?



Next point: has anyone here run Rod's 
observation by any actual women, just 
for a reality check?   Of course, 
different women are going to have 
different reactions to it, but it'd be 
interesting.


I read his opinion as just an opinion 
and an _observation_ -- not something 
that he himself was inflicting on 
women.   It's obviously not exactly the 
most modern of opinions, and suffers 
from being a stereotypical 
generalization, but to my older eyes, it 
has a smidge of truth to it, from one 
angle.   In the end, though, as everyone 
knows, stereotypes aren't universally 
true, and at least many women will do 
whatever it is they want to do regardless.


- J.

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Alan Hightower via cctalk]

 

I'm a little surprised to see a list administrator specifically calling
out a critical response to an original statement that seemed destined to
provoke one; and not including the original post and poster in the
admonishment. It may lead one to presume Jay sympathizes with the
original statement or that it is anything but an oversight. Don't rush
to that judgement. And don't rush to leave the list. Keep things on
focus and be mindful that any further comments should de-escalate the
growing uneasiness and not perpetuate it. 

Thanks, 

-Alan 

On 2017-08-24 18:29, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote: 

> Well, if all it takes to make you leave the community is *one person* making 
> a politically incorrect (albeit relevant) statement and Jay's pointing out 
> that personal attacks and name-calling are an inappropriate response, then 
> obviously list membership did not have much value for you.
> 
> Sorry to hear it; you'll be missed.
> 
> Goodbye.
> 
> m
 

RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jay West via cctalk]

Seth, my wife is one of those engineers that you speak of. She has 30+ years at 
a 'well known global engineering company'. She has succeeded greatly and she 
has done so specifically by insisting that she be treated the same, not 
differently.

She discusses the stance that you wrote below very often, and I can tell you 
that any time someone says 'we have to have men talk differently'... she is 
greatly offended by the implication.

And no - we don't have to give engineers the right to be bad engineers. When 
you accept bad engineers as ok, generally - people die.

But the first part of your post is very on-topic and interesting, thank you for 
that.

Best,

J

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-08-24 6:11 PM, Jay West via cctalk wrote:
> Several wrote...
> 
>> You may feel free to remove me from this list.
> And
>> Likewise.
> And
>> That's it for me and this list.
> 
> I did not say sexism was ok. 


That is, indeed, the message you are sending, with this weird 'reading
into it', 'argue about the intent', 'both sides are bad' language, along
with (let's contrast the nature of the response), a quick, public and
categorical condemnation of Evan's pretty-damn-accurate line.


Those that are reading that in to it - please click unsubscribe as you
are obviously looking for an excuse to do so regardless. Or perhaps
you're upset I won't give you a soapbox to commandeer the list
discussion. Either way - please leave.
> 
> Please note that I said to keep things in a historical perspective and 
> on-topic. I don't think that is saying sexism is ok.
> 
> On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts something 
> on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that perhaps the adult 
> thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand on them, leaving 
> the points behind that you find offensive or inappropriate. The rest will be 
> dealt with off-list, as I have done in the past.


*Did* you, in this instance?

Because when somebody posts such vile, wrong, offensive and harmful
essentialist hogwash, as Rod did, on a public list, I would be expecting
swift action from the moderator, in private and/or in public. If you had
given prompt notice of doing so, then readers wouldn't have had to
censure it themselves.

> 
> While one could argue about the intent of the original poster, 

Not really. The words are right there in black and white. If that stuff
is acceptable on the list then I don't need to be subscribed to the list.

--T



one cannot argue that the personal attack - and namecalling - from Evan
was acceptable. It was not.
> 
> J
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Mike Stein via cctalk]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Hanson via cctalk" Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Why women were the first computer programmers


>> That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.

> He didn’t call Rod any names or personally attack him, he responded to the 
> statement. (Accurately, too.)

> The fact that you’re calling this a personal attack while complaining about 
> “political correctness gone mad” says way more about you than it does about 
> Evan.
-
Sexist? Yes. 
Wrong? A topic for discussion (somewhere else! ;-).

But the fact that you don't think it's personal to call someone's opinion (and 
by extension the person) "crude and ignorant," not to mention the implied 
insult directed at Jay, certainly says a lot about you.

I thought you were leaving?

m

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Seth Morabito via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> This is not political correctness. It's basic human decency and
> giving everyone an equal opportunity to be a good or a bad engineer on
> their own merits.
>

Keep in mind we can't say, with any degree of certainty, what experiences
and education makes a good engineer (because there's many bad engineers
that get what seem to be identical training). Since we can't control for
the factors known to create a good engineer, we can't design an experiment
that will control for them and see if after doing so there's a difference
in the numbers of good or bad engineers that's gender based. Since we can't
design an experiment to test it, we can't create a falsifiable hypothesis.
Since we can't do that, science can't say boys or girls are better
engineers, even if were it to identify certain traits that may be more
prevalent in one gender than the other that we believe might contribute to
being a good or bad engineer. We can, and have, identified differences
based on gender. However, science has not found a causal relationship
between the correlation we observe today in the field and gender. Nor can
it with our current level of understanding of what makes a good engineer.
It's basic science. Beyond that is opinion and politics.

Warner

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk  
wrote:

> I am all for female equality (but not superiority)
> 
> The main reason for the unbalance is the same in all work situations.
> Its called Maternal Dropout.
> Women are genetically programmed to be mothers and child care specialists.
> They have a built in urge to do so. So often expensive education or training 
> is wasted by this compulsion.
> 
> They are just good at single simple or multi-step complex repeated tasks or 
> multi tasking.
> These are the main requirements for this vital job. They will all tell you 
> that is the case
> 
> Once programming moved from formal analysis and form filling eg COBOL into an 
> interactive creative activity requiring unitary focus women had to work much 
> harder to compete.
> 
> Can women be good programmers. Certainly, but they are hampered by natural 
> forces that they have to overcome.
> Men just move into the vacuum caused by this situation.
> 
> Rod

just a couple of minor corrections:

I am all for  equality (but not superiority)
...
 are genetically programmed to become .
They have a built in urge to do so. So often expensive education or training is 
wasted by this compulsion.
...
Once programming moved from formal analysis and form filling eg COBOL into an 
interactive creative activity requiring unitary focus  had to work much 
harder to compete.
Can  be good programmers. Certainly, but they are hampered by natural 
forces that they have to overcome.
…

There, fixed that for ya. 

"what do they think about during the *other* six seconds?"

https://www.gq.com/story/health-myth-does-the-average-man-really-think-about-sex-every-7-seconds


Seriously, I think there is a problem with using generalizations - any 
generalizations - to categorize people. Humans are each unique. There is no 
categorization for which there are not many and substantial exceptions. 
Particularly in a field where it is the exceptions who make the most valuable 
contributions, people simply must be dealt with on an individual basis. It’s 
impossible for me to imagine a situation where I should make a hiring or 
evaluation decision based solely on information about a person’s gender - if 
I’m expected to do so, I am insufficiently informed and need either to gather 
more information about the person’s unique capabilites or recuse myself from 
the decision. People are individuals, not statistics. “Inheritance” and “class” 
are terms that must apply to software constructs, not to the people who create 
them.

- Mark
210-522-6025 office 
210-379-4635cell

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Seth Morabito via cctalk]

I've been a list member on and off (mostly on) for a good 20 years
now. I've seen my fare share of flame wars, and they're never fun. I
would never want to add to frivolus attacks or general noise. But I
cannot let this thread go without feedback.

Every time this argument appears, I come back to the graph at the
top of this story from 2014:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

Women WERE coding, and interested in computers, at the same rate that
men were, until the middle of the 1980s, when computers stopped being
sold as co-educational tools and entertainment systems, and instead
started being marketed as boy's toys. This contributed greatly to the
decline of women in our tech workforce.

But there's much more going on than just that.

We live in a world built to be harder for women than it is for
men. Yes, I say built; not necessarily intentionally, but due to
inertia and maintaining status quo in a world that has changed. I have
watched many women engineers struggle not due to lack of talent, but
due to an atmosphere that rewards behavior that makes women question
their own capabilities and expertise. Every time we speak down to a
woman or a young girl, every time we reward behavior from other men
that puts women into the uncomfortable position of defending their
very right to do a job that men get to do without question, we build
another barrier that helps keeps women out of our field. And every
successful woman engineer I meet has horror stories of being in the
industry that make me blush with embarrassment.

So, I propose that we watch our tone and be concious of what message
we're sending to 49.5% of the world's population.

This is not political correctness. It's basic human decency and
giving everyone an equal opportunity to be a good or a bad engineer on
their own merits.

If that basic decency is truly in question here, then this is a list I
don't need to be a part of, either.

Best Wishes to all,

-Seth
-- 
  Seth Morabito
  li...@loomcom.com

RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk]

Jay West wrote (among other things):
> On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts something
> on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that perhaps the adult
> thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand on them, leaving
> the points behind that you find offensive or inappropriate. The rest will be
> dealt with off-list, as I have done in the past.

Exactly. I had many interesting discussions about this subject with my
late mother and wouldn't mind seeing people's opinions here. Our
discussions had a practical nature since I design computers for children
and wanted to be careful not to come up with stuff that could contribute
to the gender imbalance in this field and might even think of ways of
reducing it.

My mother was an author of several books on relationships and was firmly
in the camp of biological differences. I pointed out that something that
varied over the decades and was different from one country to another
had to have a significant cultural component to it. My point is that we
both respected the other's opinions and tried to research scientific
studies to learn more about the subject.

-- Jecel

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Chris Hanson via cctalk]

On Aug 24, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Jay West via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> While one could argue about the intent of the original poster, one cannot 
> argue that the personal attack - and namecalling - from Evan was acceptable. 
> It was not.

Evan did not engage in either a personal attack or name-calling.

Rod made a claim about women’s suitability to programming. Evan quoted the 
claim and replied:

> That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.

He didn’t call Rod any names or personally attack him, he responded to the 
statement. (Accurately, too.)

The fact that you’re calling this a personal attack while complaining about 
“political correctness gone mad” says way more about you than it does about 
Evan.

  -- Chris

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Jay West via cctalk 
wrote:

> Several wrote...
>
> > You may feel free to remove me from this list.
> And
> > Likewise.
> And
> > That's it for me and this list.
>
> I did not say sexism was ok. Those that are reading that in to it - please
> click unsubscribe as you are obviously looking for an excuse to do so
> regardless. Or perhaps you're upset I won't give you a soapbox to
> commandeer the list discussion. Either way - please leave.
>
> Please note that I said to keep things in a historical perspective and
> on-topic. I don't think that is saying sexism is ok.
>
> On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts
> something on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that
> perhaps the adult thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand
> on them, leaving the points behind that you find offensive or
> inappropriate. The rest will be dealt with off-list, as I have done in the
> past.
>
> While one could argue about the intent of the original poster, one cannot
> argue that the personal attack - and namecalling - from Evan was
> acceptable. It was not.
>

Evan wasn't namecalling.  He pointed out that Rod's statement was sexist
and crude.  It wasn't a personal attack.

Your statement about "the world going mad with political correctness"
speaks volumes.  This also isn't a personal attack.

- Josh



>
> J
>
>
>
>

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Mike Stein via cctalk]

Well, if all it takes to make you leave the community is *one person* making a 
politically incorrect (albeit relevant) statement and Jay's pointing out that 
personal attacks and name-calling are an inappropriate response, then obviously 
list membership did not have much value for you.

Sorry to hear it; you'll be missed.

Goodbye.

m

 - Original Message - 
From: "Chris Hanson via cctalk" <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Why women were the first computer programmers


On Aug 24, 2017, at 2:27 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jay West via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> It was written...
>> ---
>> That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.
>> ---
>> 
>> The above statement sounds to me as being intolerant, hatespeech, and
>> judgemental. Why do you think you have the right to determine that and
>> apply labels to someone?
> 
> It's none of the above.  Why does Rob have the right to label all women as
> incapable of doing the same job as a man?
> 
>> The world has gone mad with political correctness, and I will - at least
>> in the very tiny corner of it that I control - not allow it.
>> 
> 
> You may feel free to remove me from this list.

Likewise.

I want nothing to do with people who think sexism is reasonable on a technical 
mailing list, or that pointing out the inappropriateness of sexism is 
“political correctness gone mad.”

  -- Chris

RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jay West via cctalk]

Several wrote...

> You may feel free to remove me from this list.
And
> Likewise.
And
> That's it for me and this list.

I did not say sexism was ok. Those that are reading that in to it - please 
click unsubscribe as you are obviously looking for an excuse to do so 
regardless. Or perhaps you're upset I won't give you a soapbox to commandeer 
the list discussion. Either way - please leave.

Please note that I said to keep things in a historical perspective and 
on-topic. I don't think that is saying sexism is ok.

On a technical list with adults, I believe that when someone posts something 
on-topic which has portions you do not personally like that perhaps the adult 
thing is to take the points that are in-common and expand on them, leaving the 
points behind that you find offensive or inappropriate. The rest will be dealt 
with off-list, as I have done in the past.

While one could argue about the intent of the original poster, one cannot argue 
that the personal attack - and namecalling - from Evan was acceptable. It was 
not.

J

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Chris Hanson via cctalk]

On Aug 24, 2017, at 2:27 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk  
wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jay West via cctalk 
> wrote:
> 
>> It was written...
>> ---
>> That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.
>> ---
>> 
>> The above statement sounds to me as being intolerant, hatespeech, and
>> judgemental. Why do you think you have the right to determine that and
>> apply labels to someone?
> 
> It's none of the above.  Why does Rob have the right to label all women as
> incapable of doing the same job as a man?
> 
>> The world has gone mad with political correctness, and I will - at least
>> in the very tiny corner of it that I control - not allow it.
>> 
> 
> You may feel free to remove me from this list.

Likewise.

I want nothing to do with people who think sexism is reasonable on a technical 
mailing list, or that pointing out the inappropriateness of sexism is 
“political correctness gone mad.”

  -- Chris

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jason Scott via cctalk]

That's it for me and this list. If anyone needs to reach me on
vintage/computer/other subjects, please write to me at jsc...@archive.org,
ja...@textfiles.com, or @textfiles on twitter.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jay West via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> It was written...
> ---
> That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.
> ---
>
> The above statement sounds to me as being intolerant, hatespeech, and
> judgemental. Why do you think you have the right to determine that and
> apply labels to someone?
>
> The world has gone mad with political correctness, and I will - at least
> in the very tiny corner of it that I control - not allow it.
>
> Feel free to continue this discussion, but keep it to historical
> perspective and on-topic. If I see even one post that is attacking someone
> personally or politically, the list will go into emergency moderation mode.
> I will not allow political BS (nor personal attacks) here.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jay West via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> It was written...
> ---
> That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.
> ---
>
> The above statement sounds to me as being intolerant, hatespeech, and
> judgemental. Why do you think you have the right to determine that and
> apply labels to someone?
>

It's none of the above.  Why does Rob have the right to label all women as
incapable of doing the same job as a man?



>
> The world has gone mad with political correctness, and I will - at least
> in the very tiny corner of it that I control - not allow it.
>

You may feel free to remove me from this list.

- Josh


>
> Feel free to continue this discussion, but keep it to historical
> perspective and on-topic. If I see even one post that is attacking someone
> personally or politically, the list will go into emergency moderation mode.
> I will not allow political BS (nor personal attacks) here.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Daniel Seagraves via cctalk]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Jay West via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> The world has gone mad with political correctness, and I will - at least in 
> the very tiny corner of it that I control - not allow it.

OK then, which opinion is safely politically incorrect? Are women biologically 
inferior to men or not? I don’t want to get in any trouble for having the wrong 
opinions.

RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jay West via cctalk]

It was written...
---
That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.
---

The above statement sounds to me as being intolerant, hatespeech, and 
judgemental. Why do you think you have the right to determine that and apply 
labels to someone?

The world has gone mad with political correctness, and I will - at least in the 
very tiny corner of it that I control - not allow it.

Feel free to continue this discussion, but keep it to historical perspective 
and on-topic. If I see even one post that is attacking someone personally or 
politically, the list will go into emergency moderation mode. I will not allow 
political BS (nor personal attacks) here.

J

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Evan Koblentz via cctalk]

Well, this is the stupidest thing I've read today.


"Do Not Feed The Troll" should go without saying.  Really.


If this list becomes another partisan political list - I'm out of
here...

Lyle


There's nothing political about "men shouldn't act like pigs".

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Evan Koblentz via cctalk]

Once programming moved from formal analysis and form filling eg COBOL 
into an interactive creative activity requiring unitary focus women 
had to work much harder to compete.


Can women be good programmers. Certainly, but they are hampered by 
natural forces that they have to overcome


That's crude, ignorant, sexist, and wrong.

RE: Why women were the first computer programmers

[W2HX via cctalk]

Oh, brother. 1955 is calling.

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod Smallwood 
via cctalk
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Brian Walenz via cctalk
Subject: Re: Why women were the first computer programmers



On 24/08/2017 04:10, Brian Walenz via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk 
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org
>> wrote:
>> "Nathan Ensmenger has observed"
>>
>> he's written a whole book on the subject "The Computer Boys Take Over"
>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-boys-take-over
>>
>>
> And:
>
> "Recording Gender", Janet Abbate (also mentioned in the article) 
> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/recoding-gender
>
> "Programmed Inequality", Marie Hicks
> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/programmed-inequality
>
> b
Many of the first computers ie people who performed computations were indeed 
women.
Hence they knew the steps involved in proceeding from data to answer.
When it came time for computations to be performed by a machine it would be 
their job to get the machine to repeat what they did.

I am all for female equality (but not superiority)

The main reason for the unbalance is the same in all work situations.
Its called Maternal Dropout.
Women are genetically programmed to be mothers and child care specialists.
They have a built in urge to do so. So often expensive education or training is 
wasted by this compulsion.

They are just good at single simple or multi-step complex repeated tasks or 
multi tasking.
These are the main requirements for this vital job. They will all tell you that 
is the case

Once programming moved from formal analysis and form filling eg COBOL into an 
interactive creative activity requiring unitary focus women had to work much 
harder to compete.

Can women be good programmers. Certainly, but they are hampered by natural 
forces that they have to overcome.
Men just move into the vacuum caused by this situation.

Rod









--
Wanted one pdp-8/i rocker switch leaver to copy.

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 08/23/2017 11:27 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote:

On 8/23/2017 9:14 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote:





Can women be good programmers. Certainly, but they are 
hampered by natural forces that they have to overcome.

Men just move into the vacuum caused by this situation.


Well, this is the stupidest thing I've read today.

Yeah, my advice to Rod is "don't show your wife what you 
wrote!" And, especially, don't show it to your DAUGHTER!


Jon

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Brent Hilpert via cctalk]

On 2017-Aug-23, at 9:55 PM, Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:45:12 -0700
> Lyndon Nerenberg via cctalk  wrote:
> 
>>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Well, this is the stupidest thing I've read today.  
>> 
>> "Do Not Feed The Troll" should go without saying.  Really.
> 
> If this list becomes another partisan political list - I'm out of
> here...



I was going to have something to say about the one aspect of the original 
article that would be on-topic:
it's historical assessment of the industry. I'll skip the full version as it 
would likely lead to more acrimony.

The article was primarily political, as historical presentation it is empty.

Rod expressed an opinion/assessment based on what I will presume to be his 
experience and observation from years in the industry.

The utterly empty attacks of "troll" and "stupid" rise no higher than being 
partisan and political.

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:45:12 -0700
Lyndon Nerenberg via cctalk  wrote:

> > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Well, this is the stupidest thing I've read today.  
> 
> "Do Not Feed The Troll" should go without saying.  Really.

If this list becomes another partisan political list - I'm out of
here...

Lyle
-- 
73  AF6WS
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Lyndon Nerenberg via cctalk]

> On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> Well, this is the stupidest thing I've read today.

"Do Not Feed The Troll" should go without saying.  Really.

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On 8/23/2017 9:14 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote:




On 24/08/2017 04:10, Brian Walenz via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk 

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

On 24/08/2017 04:10, Brian Walenz via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk 

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Brian Walenz via cctalk]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  wrote:

>
> "Nathan Ensmenger has observed"
>
> he's written a whole book on the subject "The Computer Boys Take Over"
> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-boys-take-over
>
>
And:

"Recording Gender", Janet Abbate (also mentioned in the article)
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/recoding-gender

"Programmed Inequality", Marie Hicks
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/programmed-inequality

b

Re: Why women were the first computer programmers

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 8/23/17 5:17 PM, Kevin Parker via cctalk wrote:
>  
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/careers-and-money/women-were-the-first-computer-programmers-then-men-crowd
> ed-them-out-20170822-gy1e8r.html

"Nathan Ensmenger has observed"

he's written a whole book on the subject "The Computer Boys Take Over"
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-boys-take-over

Why women were the first computer programmers

[Kevin Parker via cctalk]

This most interesting article appeared in The Age (Melbourne) today.

 

Thought it might be of interest to other list members.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/careers-and-money/women-were-the-first-computer-programmers-then-men-crowd
ed-them-out-20170822-gy1e8r.html

 

 

 

Kevin Parker