The First 1940s Coders Were Women (2017)(history.com)
history.com
The First 1940s Coders Were Women (2017)
https://www.history.com/news/coding-used-to-be-a-womans-job-so-it-was-paid-less-and-undervalued
7 comments
Must be an old article. "bro" was popular a few years ago as a disparaging term for men, but it didn't stick. Funny to see it again in the wild.
We still use it in tech to loosely describe programmers that don't genuinely have a love or deep understanding of the craft.
I've seen it mostly used to describe male programmers that people don't like.
I'm going to assume you're missing the 90's context where programmers began to be social as well as technical. This led to the accidental inclusion of people that were merely social without technical skills, thus: bros.
> Must be an old article
There's a pretty big date right at the top of the page.
There's a pretty big date right at the top of the page.
They're just being flippant in choice of language. You don't need to be so defensive by identifying so closely with your gender here.
This article is specifically how these women got swindled out of the prestige they should have got and how gender stereotypes pushed women out of the workforce after the war. All the men we're mad at here are effectively retired or dead so there's no need to identify with them because its unlikely you'd actually relate directly to their world view because they're mostly pre-boomers.
This article is specifically how these women got swindled out of the prestige they should have got and how gender stereotypes pushed women out of the workforce after the war. All the men we're mad at here are effectively retired or dead so there's no need to identify with them because its unlikely you'd actually relate directly to their world view because they're mostly pre-boomers.
> You don't need to be so defensive by identifying so closely with your gender here.
This comment is a bit hostile. They are simply applying the same standard to both sexes.
This comment is a bit hostile. They are simply applying the same standard to both sexes.
> This comment is a bit hostile
As is getting riled by the choice of language in the way that commenter did. There's no need for that shit.
> They are simply applying the same standard to both sexes.
No they're not, they're just taking sides because they share characteristics with what they perceive to be the slighted party here. Its likely they're projecting anger they have about gender issues elsewhere to the discussion of this article. They're being off-topic by doing so.
I'd wager that they didn't even read the article.
As is getting riled by the choice of language in the way that commenter did. There's no need for that shit.
> They are simply applying the same standard to both sexes.
No they're not, they're just taking sides because they share characteristics with what they perceive to be the slighted party here. Its likely they're projecting anger they have about gender issues elsewhere to the discussion of this article. They're being off-topic by doing so.
I'd wager that they didn't even read the article.
> they're just taking sides because they share characteristics with what they perceive to be the slighted party here
Once again, this is a popular accusation but one of the most uncharitable accusations on tap today in discourse.
I totally agree with their point about the double standard about bros and hos. Their gender is irrelevant.
Edit: for the record, I think we should be able to use flippant and juvenile language in our blog titles (at risk of seeming juvenile), but I’ve been in tech long enough to catch the increasing wind of the “men can handle words like techbro but women can’t” implication. Using cute gendered language for women isn’t quite as savory today.
Once again, this is a popular accusation but one of the most uncharitable accusations on tap today in discourse.
I totally agree with their point about the double standard about bros and hos. Their gender is irrelevant.
Edit: for the record, I think we should be able to use flippant and juvenile language in our blog titles (at risk of seeming juvenile), but I’ve been in tech long enough to catch the increasing wind of the “men can handle words like techbro but women can’t” implication. Using cute gendered language for women isn’t quite as savory today.
> Once again, this is a popular accusation but one of the most uncharitable accusations on tap today in discourse.
Fine but its evident they have an axe to grind if that's the point they want to make on this article. If you read the article the title is a really unimportant part of it. There's plenty to discuss and I don't see why anyone spoiling for a gender fight is really worthy of any sympathy here.
Fine but its evident they have an axe to grind if that's the point they want to make on this article. If you read the article the title is a really unimportant part of it. There's plenty to discuss and I don't see why anyone spoiling for a gender fight is really worthy of any sympathy here.
I agree with this comment and I’ve made it many times before especially wrt tech forum hysteria over using similar language about women.
I have noticed it tends to be worse received if it’s about women. Though I think there’s something larger at play than just defensiveness (objecting to bros) and whiteknighting (objecting to hos). And we may agree that we all should really just settle down when it comes to gender.
I have noticed it tends to be worse received if it’s about women. Though I think there’s something larger at play than just defensiveness (objecting to bros) and whiteknighting (objecting to hos). And we may agree that we all should really just settle down when it comes to gender.
> ... imagined injustice
And that's why you've been downvoted. While you started with what appears to be a legitimate question, you devolved into not only appearing to have avoided reading the article, but also not having empathy for the subject of the article.
The injustice is the complete lack of acknowledgement, for decades, of those who 'coded the software' of the machine. The seemingly willful ignorance of the bosses who ran the project and the media who covered it.
Take exception to the terminology in the heading if you like. Make a good argument that it's not productive. But at least have the ability to acknowledge the content of the article.
And that's why you've been downvoted. While you started with what appears to be a legitimate question, you devolved into not only appearing to have avoided reading the article, but also not having empathy for the subject of the article.
The injustice is the complete lack of acknowledgement, for decades, of those who 'coded the software' of the machine. The seemingly willful ignorance of the bosses who ran the project and the media who covered it.
Take exception to the terminology in the heading if you like. Make a good argument that it's not productive. But at least have the ability to acknowledge the content of the article.
Pathologization of masculinity is an exclusive phenomenon that revolutionaries carry in the Western World. All the answers to that can be found in the movements that came out of the Frankfurt School.
A pervasive narrative of "successful men bad" and "successful women good" is being pushed in the western world. This caused shockingly sexist (and racist) policies called affirmative action.
Interesting factoid, engineering was a femine occupation in ussr. 60%+ of engineers were women by late eighties.
In Eastern Europe lots of engineers are women still, especially in CS.
In Western Europe, where I live now, you need to look hard to find women on engineering campuses, and when you do, they're usually from abroad.
In Western Europe, where I live now, you need to look hard to find women on engineering campuses, and when you do, they're usually from abroad.
In Romania when you go and apply for engineering usually is like this. Computer Science is like 66% of a class is girls, then Electronics is like 50/50, Electrical Engineer is like 25% girls and Mechanics is like under 10%. So the most prestigious of them all is still girl dominated. And is not like the boys don't want CS, it's because they can't get in there. The fight for a place is like 25 students per place, and girls beat boys hands down. Also usually they are very beautiful too, so if you made it to CS, you're drowning in both beauty and smart. Good times.
> Also usually they are very beautiful too
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
While this is a real and interesting current effect, it doesn't explain things in the USSR at that time. The sibling comment about how nearly an entire generation of young men was lost in WW2 is closer to the mark.
While USSR technically had gender equality, reality was very different. For example, how much of The Party elite was women? Virtually none :) Sexism was through the roof too.
IIRC the "less equality = more women engineers" example was India. And USSR was somewhat similar to modern India. On paper women were on par (= purely technocratic acceptance to universities) but day-to-day life was different. "Pursue your passion" was not an option. So if a girl was smart in maths, engineering it is. Fatherland needed engineers, not people in BS studies who'd work in Starbucks afterwards.
IIRC the "less equality = more women engineers" example was India. And USSR was somewhat similar to modern India. On paper women were on par (= purely technocratic acceptance to universities) but day-to-day life was different. "Pursue your passion" was not an option. So if a girl was smart in maths, engineering it is. Fatherland needed engineers, not people in BS studies who'd work in Starbucks afterwards.
Yes, exactly right about USSR.
The more equality less STEM effect is seen in more than India. Sweden is the example I see talked about most. It's interesting and still heavily debated. I don't fully understand the current state of debate.
The more equality less STEM effect is seen in more than India. Sweden is the example I see talked about most. It's interesting and still heavily debated. I don't fully understand the current state of debate.
Multiple generations of men were lost in WW2 in USSR. Higher education was one of very few ways to legally move to cities. On top of that, USSR had quite harsh maternity policies. Sustaining family on a single salary was not an option. Thus women had no choice but work.
Your workforce is going to reflect your hiring pool and pipelines
Prior to the advent of readily available digital electronics to do the job arithmetic and number crunching was considered secretarial work and the field was dominated by women. This was the talent pool from which many early computer programmers were hired since they already knew the math and the business logic. They learned programming and worked in punch-cards instead of spreadsheets
As computer programming transitioned into a more engineering type profession it drew on more engineering type talent pools and hiring pipelines which were (and still are) more male.
So the question should really be why did computing become more of an engineering type profession.
Prior to the advent of readily available digital electronics to do the job arithmetic and number crunching was considered secretarial work and the field was dominated by women. This was the talent pool from which many early computer programmers were hired since they already knew the math and the business logic. They learned programming and worked in punch-cards instead of spreadsheets
As computer programming transitioned into a more engineering type profession it drew on more engineering type talent pools and hiring pipelines which were (and still are) more male.
So the question should really be why did computing become more of an engineering type profession.
This is historically inaccurate and reads as very dismissive/patronizing towards women computers (in the historical sense of the term). These were people that did sophisticated calculations, not just simple arithmetic.
While there was a decline during the initial decades of computing, that trend reversed. The fraction of women in computing peaked in the early 80s just before the PC era took off. This is fairly well known stuff you can google for sources on easily (example: https://www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-...).
There's no simple single factor explanation of this, but it is very clear something changed significantly during the PC era. The socialization of boys and girls surrounding home computers does appear to be one of the big factors, and it likely echoed forward by creating hostile educational environments as this cohort aged. This isn't enough to explain the current situation completely however.
While there was a decline during the initial decades of computing, that trend reversed. The fraction of women in computing peaked in the early 80s just before the PC era took off. This is fairly well known stuff you can google for sources on easily (example: https://www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-...).
There's no simple single factor explanation of this, but it is very clear something changed significantly during the PC era. The socialization of boys and girls surrounding home computers does appear to be one of the big factors, and it likely echoed forward by creating hostile educational environments as this cohort aged. This isn't enough to explain the current situation completely however.
There's no winning when discussing these topics.
You write a wall of text and someone complains that you missed their favorite detail.
You make it concise and someone complains that there's not enough detail.
You use strong words and someone complains that you're virtue signaling.
You take a mild tone and someone complains that you're being dismissive.
This is a slow moving 40yr transition that is intertwined with every sector of the economy at the macro and micro level. If your goal is to find a way that my few sentence comment is not perfectly accurate in describing it I'm sure you can accomplish that.
You write a wall of text and someone complains that you missed their favorite detail.
You make it concise and someone complains that there's not enough detail.
You use strong words and someone complains that you're virtue signaling.
You take a mild tone and someone complains that you're being dismissive.
This is a slow moving 40yr transition that is intertwined with every sector of the economy at the macro and micro level. If your goal is to find a way that my few sentence comment is not perfectly accurate in describing it I'm sure you can accomplish that.
Maybe just take a moment and relax. I wasn't attacking you, just pointing out you simply have the history wrong, and that your characterization came across as patronizing.
I don't have the history wrong. We're just talking about the same people at different points in time.
Think about what generations would be in the workforce in 1980.
Think about what generations would be in the workforce in 1980.
I think a rough TLDR is: Stereotypes.
> Still, even with the introduction of men, programming was often conflated with low-level clerical work commonly performed by women like typing or filing, writes Nathan Ensmenger, a professor of informatics and computing at Indiana University.
[...]
> Jane Margolis, a senior researcher at the University of California-Los Angeles and author of Unlocking the Clubhouse, cites the introduction of the home computer as a “boys toy” in the 1980s as a factor that pushed more men than women into computer science. Radio Shack ran ads showing that personal computers were great for nerdy (white) boys and sporty boys because they could use it to do homework and play video games. Another 1985 Apple ad showed how much a computer could help a boy named Brian Scott, while also demonstrating what fun he could have teasing a girl who was trying to use a computer.
I do think that we under-appreciate the effect that stereotypes have on forming peoples' career choices. Teens are particularly susceptible to these things, and that's unfortunate because that's the age where they are expected to start choosing their career path.
> Still, even with the introduction of men, programming was often conflated with low-level clerical work commonly performed by women like typing or filing, writes Nathan Ensmenger, a professor of informatics and computing at Indiana University.
[...]
> Jane Margolis, a senior researcher at the University of California-Los Angeles and author of Unlocking the Clubhouse, cites the introduction of the home computer as a “boys toy” in the 1980s as a factor that pushed more men than women into computer science. Radio Shack ran ads showing that personal computers were great for nerdy (white) boys and sporty boys because they could use it to do homework and play video games. Another 1985 Apple ad showed how much a computer could help a boy named Brian Scott, while also demonstrating what fun he could have teasing a girl who was trying to use a computer.
I do think that we under-appreciate the effect that stereotypes have on forming peoples' career choices. Teens are particularly susceptible to these things, and that's unfortunate because that's the age where they are expected to start choosing their career path.
It is amazing that this article have been flagged! A pretty matter-of-fact popular history account of the role of women in early computing is apparently too offensive for the HN audience.
> Yet programmer Grace Hopper, who invented the first computer language compiler (which transferred mathematical code into machine code), also used gender stereotypes to encourage women to enter the field. In a 1967 Cosmopolitan article titled “The Computer Girls,” she quipped that programming “just like planning a dinner.” Hopper continued: “Programming requires patience and the ability to handle detail. Women are ‘naturals’ at computer programming.”
Those would be stereotypes now, but were they stereotypes in 1967?
From an early age back then most children were taught and trained both at home and school based on the idea that most boys would go into the workforce and stay there, and that most girls would become stay at home housewives raising the kids perhaps after spending time in the workforce before starting a family.
You'd expect a young woman back then to be patient and good at handling detail because she had been told her whole life that she was going to end up doing something that requires that, and a large part of her schooling had been aimed at developing those skills.
Those would be stereotypes now, but were they stereotypes in 1967?
From an early age back then most children were taught and trained both at home and school based on the idea that most boys would go into the workforce and stay there, and that most girls would become stay at home housewives raising the kids perhaps after spending time in the workforce before starting a family.
You'd expect a young woman back then to be patient and good at handling detail because she had been told her whole life that she was going to end up doing something that requires that, and a large part of her schooling had been aimed at developing those skills.
Are we derogatively saying that the "hos" are increasingly taking the doctor-positions? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous.
So why then is it OK to rag down on guys? And over some imagined injustice!
I really don't get the problem people are trying to construct here.