Sexual Harassment In Tech Is As Old As the Computer Age (ieee.org)

Tekla Perry writes: Historian Marie Hicks, speaking at the Computer History Museum talks about how women computer operators and programmers were driven out of the industry, gives examples of sexual harassment dating back to the days of the Colossus era, and previews her next research. "It's all a matter of power, Hicks pointed out -- and women have never had their share of it," reports IEEE Spectrum. "Women dominated computer programming in its early days because the field wasn't seen as a career, just a something someone could do without a lot of training and would do for only a short period of time. Computer jobs had no room for advancement, so having women 'retire' in their 20s was not seen as a bad thing. And since women, of course, could never supervise men, Hicks said, women who were good at computing ended up training the men who ended up as their managers. But when it became clear that computers -- and computer work -- were important, women were suddenly pushed out of the field."

Hicks has also started looking at the bias baked into algorithms, specifically at when it first crossed from human to computer. The first example she turned up had "something to do with transgender people and the government's main pension computer." She says that when humans were in the loop, petitions to change gender on national insurance cards generally went through, but when the computer came in, the system was "specifically designed to no longer accommodate them, instead, to literally cause an error code to kick out of the processing chain any account of a 'known transsexual.'"

Comments

Nothing changed but the language

[Zero__Kelvin]

When you redefine sexual harassment as any unwanted attempt to connect then sexual harassment is quite common indeed, and I have been sexually harassed by a number of women as well by that definition.

Re: Nothing changed but the language

[Zero__Kelvin]

Nobody is saying that Trump is great and I can grab pussies with impunity now because a few women are vocal about their sexual repression. Trump and Moore were sick well before all this, and those of us who are well will continue to show respect while simultaneously appreciating the female form. Anyone who uses this as an excuse to justify bad behavior is doing exactly that ... seeking to justify bad behavior they were going to exhibit either way.

Re: Nothing changed but the language

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might want to watch the news sometime.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[jellomizer]

It is more complex then that.
Sexual harassment is about using your gender as a way to to pull power from someone else of a different gender.
It isn’t about just trying to connect to a person.
It’s a statement of I am so powerful that I can do things to you and there isn’t anything you can do to stop it.

There isn’t a well defined line but a gray area where things can be considered differently.
Normally the rule of thumb is if you have the authority to make someone’s life difficult from retribution of your advances then you are in the gray area. Hence why a lot of people with good guy reputations have been called out recently. Because who are they going to believe?

As a straight male, it is sometimes tough if there is an attractive woman that you are working with, but it is important to keep your professional and personal life separate and not use your authority as a driver.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[jellomizer]

If you are too stupid to know when you are getting in the gray zone where harassment could be considered then you really should stay out of society. Just because that woman is friendly doesn’t mean there is anything more from it. It isn’t like in the work environment we are hugging and touching the other guys or rating their sexual assets. We can focus on work. We can have friendly relations with employees without crossing that line.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[swb]

Ah yes, the attempt to downplay and dismiss the concerns of sexual harassment. After all, if they are at fault, then who even needs to worry about any of their complaints?

It's not that any of the headline-grabbing complaints of sexual harassment aren't all legitimate harassment if they're true as described.

But it does seem like there are a lot of women who make a big deal about "being looked at" or other similar non-contact/non-verbal behavior as some kind of harassment. I don't think that challenging "being looked at" as an arbitrary and excessive definition of harassment is the same as denying sexual harassment exists.

Humans are sexual animals and reproduction is principal drive. Mate selection is driven significantly by visually identifiable physical attributes -- hips, bust, and so on, for example. It's just not realistic to expect that the human reproduction system is going to be switched off like a light switch.

In some ways, women are right -- certain "looks" by men really do amount to a kind of instinctive evaluation of women's suitability as a reproductive partner, but much of this isn't really anything remotely like a conscious choice to harass a woman. A lot of it is a reflexive response to a physical stimulus, such as the prominence and definition of breasts and hips/bottom in a woman's dress.

I realize this can be framed as "blaming women for how they dress" but in some ways that's exactly what it boils down to. Women's fashions aren't designed by women looking to minimize male reproductive instincts, they're designed by people who often look to maximize women's body characteristics, including busts and hips. Ask yourself why so many lesbians dress "like men" -- there maybe some kind of political choice in wanting to look like a mechanic, but there's definitely an aspect where they are explicitly choosing not to define their appearance in terms of reproductive appeal.

And the issue is further blurred by a certain narcissism inherent in many women -- they *want* to "look pretty", aka be visually appealing. I mean, if you're trying to be visually appealing and you choose the apparel that does so by highlighting your physical attributes which also highlight your reproductive advantages, why exactly were you expecting a man to never look at you in any way that suggested they recognized those same physical attributes?

I shouldn't have to end this little screed with this, but I will for the reactionaries anyway -- NONE of this justifies coercive or any kind of unwanted physical contact. I am ONLY explaining and critiquing the common and fairly narrow cases of women who complain that "being looked at" is a kind of harassment.

Re: Nothing changed but the language

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, there's no evidence that Trump or Moore ever did the things they've been accused of. You've fallen for fake news.

Thank you komrade, your attempt at deflection has been noted and you can go away now.

PGOTUS confessed. We have it on tape. We've all heard it and BillyBob Bush has confirmed its authenticity.

As far as Moore is concerned, IMO where there's smoke, there's fire. By your standard, there's no evidence that Franken did any of the things he has been accused of either. But we'll wait for the trials just the same.

Re: Nothing changed but the language

[Zero__Kelvin]

It's not only "alright", it is literally why we are alive today. If our parents made no unwanted advances they never would have found the wanted ones.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[lucm]

We can have friendly relations with employees without crossing that line.

Unfortunately that's no longer for you to decide where the line is. Most people know that pulling out your dick in front of your intern is unacceptable, but what about touching the bare skin on the back when you take a group selfie? or what about complimenting a coworker on their outfit? or what about walking around in your bathing suit at a company pool party? It depends.

Just like male teachers cannot afford to be alone with a student (female or not), it has become somewhat a gamble to be alone with a female coworker. It's even now risky to have sex with someone you met in a bar while both are drunks, because consent is becoming subjective.

What's left? Only meet women while witnesses you both trust are present, only engage in relationships under a clear contract, and never drink. Looks like ISIS is onto something.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

You are trying to make a blanket statement to characterize every claim of sexual harassment and are implicitly placing guilt on men for every objection that the fundamentally and increasingly irrational feminist social justice warriors bring up.

The problem with the honest (but misguided) sexual harassment accusers is that the "gray zone" is that it is constantly being expanded with double standards. The concept creep is rampant.

The real problem is the dishonest or externally misguided accusers who take advantage of the fact that there is absolutely no check or balance against claims of abuse. These matters are being judged emotionally and not objectively.
The only "evidence" submitted in almost every case is the testimony of the accuser herself, with no corroboration for that specific alleged event.
Multiple accusers are not necessarily credible either as almost all of the time they still have no corroboration for the specific alleged event they are purporting.

The most tired excuse is "well the male predator only strikes when they're alone together, so how are we supposed to get them into trouble unless our mere accusations are empowered by the mob and/or the courts?" Sorry, you have no proper recourse whatsoever nor do you deserve any. You can't make a mockery of justice because you have poor judgement. Don't be alone with a man you don't want an advance from. This has been the rule for all time. In every case, even if you are alone in a room with a man for some business purpose, there are other people nearby so you could not be said to be alone with this man.

Stop blaming other people for your inability to function in the real world. If some one comes too near you, back away or otherwise use body language to repudiate. If they still come toward you, leave to go to an area with many people and tell some of them about it. There is no reason to, and you have no right to, go to a public platform and accuse this person of some wrongdoing. They have done nothing morally or ethically wrong. They have expressed their desire, and if that is wrong by social convention the scope of recourse is by right limited to the social situation in which it occurred.
If you prevent an unwanted advance, you have not been attacked. You have no right to feel attacked. And you have no right to a platform to speak to the public about the event.
We cannot let common social interactions become arbitrated by mob and then legislated by government. It robs our society of its strength, it props it up when it has no strength of its own.

There is no excuse not to stand up for yourself. Unless you want the social validation of all that attention on you. Which is no doubt what motivates many of these accusers.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[Solandri]

If you are too stupid to know when you are getting in the gray zone where harassment could be considered then you really should stay out of society. Just because that woman is friendly doesnâ(TM)t mean there is anything more from it.

Just because that woman is friendly doesn't mean there isn't anything more to it either. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of cases where it's considered OK if a woman wants the attention, harassment if she doesn't. You cannot define what is/isn't OK based on how someone's reaction after the event has been precipitated.

Certain things, mostly involving touching, are obviously crossing the line. But when it comes to non-physical behavior, the rules need to be clearly set beforehand and on both sides. That is, not only do the rules need to define what is sexual harassment, they also need to define what isn't sexual harassment. What am I allowed to do and be assured I will not be accused of sexual harassment? I don't see the latter being done; and in fact I frequently see sexual harassment literature state that anything could be considered harassment if it's unwanted attention (i.e. definition based on someone's reaction after the fact). Well, if you define harassment that way, the only option if you want to be completely safe from harassment charges is to avoid interacting with women at all. Which means excluding them from your work. Except then you're be raked across the coals for discriminating against women.

The rules as they currently exist in some places are set up so it's impossible to comply with them.

It isnâ(TM)t like in the work environment we are hugging and touching the other guys or rating their sexual assets.

Well duh. Two men having sexual relations doesn't propagate the species. It's not done because it's not necessary for the survival of the human race.

Men and women having sexual relations is necessary for the survival of the human race. Consequently, some form of sexual communication (be it innuendo, or just asking for a date) is required. You cannot retroactively define that as being sexual harassment if it turns out the woman isn't interested in a date. To do so is to orchestrate the end of the human race.

The fundamental problem here is that it's traditionally the man's role to make the first move - to be the one who makes his interest known to the woman. If all women would agree to dump that tradition, then there would be no problem. The introductory behavior between men and women would be symmetrical, and we could set down a clear set of rules of what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Unfortunately, a large fraction of women (maybe even a majority) want to keep with that tradition, and expect the man to be the one to make the first move. As long as that expectation exists, men will express their interest to women. And just by chance alone they will sometimes express their interest to women who aren't interested. You can't have one without the other. (Alternatively, you could just define verbally expressing one's interest the first time as not-sexual harassment. Then there's a clear avenue for men to express their interest without running afoul of harassment guidelines. And if the woman rejects him, then no more advances are to be made by the man.*)

And yes I know you're not supposed to enter a relationship with someone at work. While that's a nice guideline for avoiding lots of potential problems, the unfortunate reality is that it happens, and pretty often too based on the number of married couples I know who somehow met through their work.

* Likewise, a large number of the married couples I know are together because the man persisted even after the woman rejected his initial advances. i.e. He harassed her until she eventually grew to like him and ended up marrying him. There'

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[hey!]

What you say is absolutely true, but changing cultural norms also play a role in the "epidemic" behavior we're seeing.

I'm a horology geek, so I recently pulled up the movie Thunderball on Netflix to check out the exact details of the famous (among watch geeks) "Bond strap". Rather than search through the movie I decided to simply watch the whole thing. Now I grew up in the 60s, and I've seen this movie several times, but it's been maybe 30 years since the last time. Watching this time, all I could think was, "holy cow, Bond is rape-y."

The thing is it wasn't so long ago that unchaperoned young women were tacitly assumed to be looking for or at least open to sex. That assumption was never so strict here in the US as in places like Italy, which is why so many American women travelling there were surprised to be mobbed on the street by grabbing men. But even here every woman was taught by her mother never to be alone with a man, and if she did she had to be prepared to slap him, which was usually effective but sometimes a dangerous escalation.

The reason that Bond's behavior when he forces himself on his physiotherapist wasn't immediately perceived by audiences as reprehensible was because as a woman in a job that sometimes required working with men she'd have been perceived as fair game for aggressive sexual overtures when she was alone with one.

That doesn't work when half the women in the workforce are women. If every occasion a man and a woman had to work together was sexually charged it'd be chaos. So the norms (which were never very kind to working women) had to change. The thing is with change is that we're all in different places in that change depending on how old we are, where we live, and the kinds of organizations we've worked for.

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[Cederic]

You can't get _into_ a relationship without risking accusations of sexual harassment.

"Want to grab a coffee?" "STOP HARASSING ME!!!"

Re:Nothing changed but the language

[Cederic]

- I never noticed how some women literally cowered in the corner of the elevator until I finished a rape and sexual assault class. A shock.

I have, I just didn't put it down to rape or sexual assault. I also tend to give them space and show courtesy, much as I would anybody else. If they're a paranoid muppet that fears me then there's not a lot I can do about that; they can take the stairs if it's that important to them.

- Some women in offices were deathly afraid of leaving work. They had men in their lives, exes etc., who would wait for them.

If only there were things they could do to address this. Get help from colleagues, their management, the police, others. Oh, wait..

Many a mistake made because the project was completed and the thrill of success lead to the lust for validation.

And many a marriage has been started during those late nights crunching to finish. Most of us just build friendships though.

Divorce has, among other things, left women in vulnerable positions, having children as a single parent can lead them to accept men they would not normally take into their lives

Which fuckwit told you that? Women have full control over which men they let into their lives. I meet a lot of single mothers and they're all very choosy, and many of them are very careful about their partners and their children. Hell, I had a three month relationship with one and never met her kids (which suited me just fine).

Meanwhile the fathers are frequently lacking contact with those kids while being forced to hand over vast sums of money to the mother. Divorce does not leave women in a vulnerable position at all, just check the fucking suicide rates and homelessness statistics post divorce by gender.

Divorce has also led some men to believe they have carte blanche to treat divorced women as their rightful prey.

That's possible but also hyperbolic. By 'some men' do you mean that more than three exist? Probably.

My experience is that divorced women are much the same as any other woman, and some of them are very sexually aggressive. Others are not.

Same for the powerful, irresponsible man. He is designed wrong. Fix the design, or leave it to those who can handle the danger.

You really don't believe in personally responsibility. First you're telling us that women have no control, now you're telling us men have no self-control. This is no help to anybody; a manager that will use their position to take sexual advantage of their workers is dangerous even if some of those workers are able to say no.

It shouldn't be tough if there is an attractive woman that you are working with... First, recognize it isn't about the woman being 'attractive'. It's about you being responsible, honest with yourself, and respectful. There is a way to engage a woman at work in a personal relationship, but it's difficult. And it should be. Relationships are difficult, and the effort must be balanced against the reward.

When the attractive woman sends you IMs telling you she wants to smother you with cuddles, it gets very fucking difficult. Especially when she's much more junior, you give her work to do and HR's guidance is, "It's all down to how this makes you feel"

That guidance is no fucking use at all when a response building a relationship could lead to being sacked for sexual harassment two hours later, but a failure to reply and respond would be reported to your manager as "doesn't support female members of staff".

I've been in that situation. It's a fucking minefield even if you aren't trying to start a relationship.

And, sir, you will not know if you've offended her even if you ask

Some women can't not be offended. I've worked with a couple, and the only response is to get the fuck out of there. They're toxic and they destroy teams.

Programming or operating ?

[religionofpeas]

Women dominated computer programming in its early days

Reading the articles about it, it sounds more like they dominated operating the machines, not designing the actual software (or hardware).

Re:Programming or operating ?

[religionofpeas]

Because many of them were just operators, therefore we should relegate all of them to the dustbin of history, right?

No, we should just refer to them as operators, not programmers.

There have been a lot of male operators too. Shall we apply the same standard for them?

Why not ? Are you a sexist ?

Zero emprical evidence

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

But plenty of totally unverifiable anecdotes!
Sounds like a good basis to instigate social change!

I've no interest in the article

[Baron_Yam]

...when the summary adequately communicates the size of the chip on the author's shoulders.

I don't doubt women still get sexually harassed, or that it was more common and accepted in the past. I ALSO don't doubt this 'historian' is so biased she sees sexual abuse in men saying 'good morning' to her and has no sense of humor at all.

When I talk about why I have a problem with feminists because people like this represent the movement (never mind that the movement itself is sexist because it's only interested in women - give me egalitarianism any day), THIS is the kind of person who is the velvet glove over the iron fist of the man-hating feminists.

Oddly enough, as a man, I have a huge issue with people who assume I'm a woman-abusing monster because I have a penis.

Don't be stupid...

[kenh]

the system was "specifically designed to no longer accommodate them, instead, to literally cause an error code to kick out of the processing chain any account of a 'known transsexual.'

Seriously? The system wasn't "specifically designed" to "cause an error code" - it was programmed to process male or female, nothing more than that. The "human" system let the worker take an eraser and change an "F" to an "M" under gender as the person requested.

The system was designed to accommodate an "F" or "M" in the gender position, it's no more nefarious than that. That a computer system is now designed to accommodate any Unicode character for gender doesn't mean it "supports" transgender rights.

This is like arguing that older COBOL programs were designed assuming the world would end before the year 2000, so they didn't allow for "century" in date fields, optiong instead for only a two-digit number to represent year.