Slashdot Mirror
The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave -- Men Pushed Them Out (wsj.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A column on the Wall Street Journal argues that sexism in the tech industry is as old as the tech industry itself. At its genesis, computer programming faced a double stigma -- it was thought of as menial labor, like factory work, and it was feminized, a kind of "women's work" that wasn't considered intellectual (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternative source). In the U.K., women in the government's low-paid "Machine Operator Class" performed knowledge work including programming systems for everything from tax collection and social services to code-breaking and scientific research. Later, they would be pushed out of the field, as government leaders in the postwar era held a then-common belief that women shouldn't be allowed into higher-paid professions with long-term prospects because they would leave as soon as they were married. Today, in the U.S., about a quarter of computing and mathematics jobs are held by women, and that proportion has been declining over the past 20 years. A string of recent events suggest the steps currently being taken by tech firms to address these issues are inadequate.
probably are retired actually
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why does it need to be repeated every few days that discrimination is the only possible reason why there could ever be more men than women in a profession and that men are collectively guilty? Curiously, it is rarely seen as a problem when women form the majority in a profession.
Did they get pushed out? 'cause 91% female doesn't seem like that's any kind of normal distribution. So, why aren't there more male nurses? If I use the current media-logic, it must be because women are pushing them out, sexually harassing them, and basically being general pieces of shit. So, because men don't show much interest in nursing, is it because women are playing dirty?
Why bother with details when the whole premise is bullshit?
Please sir, be realistic, the only moon jobs are for "whalers on the moon" which is also a majority male enterprise.
They were 'computers' well before that.
By Computers I mean math execution units. IIRC It took thousands of person years of work to calculate the shape of the B-29's wings.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As government leaders in the postwar era held a then-common belief that women shouldn't be allowed into higher-paid professions with long-term prospects because they would leave as soon as they were married.
Before you can claim it as merely a "then-common" belief that women might leave as soon as they were married, you FIRST need to prove it wrong.
What data is available, and what does the data for that time period say about a majority of Women staying in and remaining committed or LEAVING professions in general after getting married?
For all I know at that time that WAS then the norm for women to be expected to change their priorities and leave profession after having kids, AND all of that perceived stuff might have been fully justified.
That MIGHT even be the norm today that the Man or the Woman might abandon their field following marriage+kids, and then it could be reasonably regarded to maintain a STABLE profession to seek the character and type of candidates that are most likely to be COMMITTED and not leave, for instance; single people who will sign an agreement that they won't date or marry for 10, 20 years, Etc. Etc.
I know because I still remember a time when there were women programmers around who started out on keypunch machines.
Picture yourself spending all day typing COBOL programs into a keypunch machine. Back in the 60s and 70s that's pretty much tantamount to picturing yourself as a woman. Don't you think you'd figure that programming thing out, particularly if you were a smart girl?
Another thing you don't remember, there was a time when being able to type carried a professional stigma. Men didn't type. If you were a woman applying for a job you'd automatically be given a typing test. This was true as late as the 70s, when my wife (a physics undergrad student) was looking for summer jobs in science. She had to pass a typing test, but ended up writing Fortran programs which helped design what became the Chandra X-Ray observatory.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1) Programming work was never considered menial even when it was relegated to women. COMPUTER work, that is being a small part of a biological Arithmetic Unit was considered menial. Indeed it was, assembly line work doing basic arithmetic, it was in every way factory work that wouldn't ruin a pretty face. Many women used to computer revolution to take their experience doing this sort of work to become programmers which were always respected.
2) Machine operators and system operators were generally relatively low skilled workers compared to programmers. They would actually operate the computer in the days when most people couldn't use it themselves. Most of these jobs eventually were taken over by the helpdesk. Once again a deservedly menial job.
. Today, in the U.S., about a quarter of computing and mathematics jobs are held by women, and that proportion has been declining over the past 20 years.
Here is where the intentionally deceptive author shines through. 20 years ago was the PEAK of women in tech, when they were nearly at parity with men. Many people have taken guesses at what pushed women out 20 years ago.. My favorite explanations are that this correlated with the rise of the autistic man child nerd archetype in the collective conscious. But the best I've heard is that the dot-com bubble attracted greedy assholes to the field and women don't want to deal with that shit.
I find this highly believable for the reason I believe BLM. It's a problem that I can relate to and accept may even be worse for the person making the claim. The part that sucks is that the sort of PHB MBA shithead that ruined everything will be the first one to demand a comprehensive code of conduct, and comprehensive training package to teach our fragile engineers and scientists not to rape.
It's often the female version of the men that originally drove women out in the first place. Except they get the be the toxic boss and victim at the same time. There will be no scandal if their abuses are brought to light.
What exactly is the problem supposed to be?
No one wants to train and invest in people who are going to flake out. What matters is not their gender, but their behavior. The behavior was the consideration, not the gender.
These gender war baiting articles are starting to piss me off. Slashdot is controlled by social justice warriors.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
they would be pushed out of the field, as government leaders in the postwar era held a then-common belief that women shouldn't be allowed into higher-paid professions with long-term prospects
And please why that didn't happen in medicine, for example? Or in law practice, or in accounting, or in social services, veterinaries... Somehow the law faculties were less hostile to the sudden influx of females? Allow me to be skeptical of that.
We humans are really bad at getting to grips with complex processes, and are much more comfortable with a narrative, that simplifies the process in a couple of rough brush strokes that are easily consumable. Much better if the "story" has a bad guy against which personal irritations of one's daily life can find a target. To recognize that the playing board of society is more or less fair, and that sexes gravitate to the jobs that better fit them, taking into account all kind of conditions, is probably too much to ask.
But still! Nevertheless! To choose precisely tech among all fields, for that inane tale! I cannot think of an area where the last decades have been more dynamic, the demand for talent so pressing, the barriers of entry so low, and the competence so fierce. Does anybody really think that the under-representation of the females (never enough regretted by the males, I feel compelled to add) in this field is some sort of Machiavellian plot?
Had Google be better served by a mixed team, would they have renounced to it for...exactly what? And then they would have their lunch eaten by Bing, that had in the meantime renounced to the loggia's precepts and admitted many women to the development team. Netscape rests in the pantheon of heroes, because they could have been saved by a timely infusion of the female of the species, but they chose to sink with honor instead of selling themselves to the enemy. And when everybody was building the next wonderful thing in Silicon Valley, venture capitalists sent promising teams packing if they could smell just a bit of perfume in the presentation, just because they were not really in the business of getting rich, but part of a global sinister conspiracy,
Utter nonsense.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
What's the over/under on tech bros litigating every tiny, pedantic detail in TFA in order to make themselves feel better?
"Later, they would be pushed out of the field, as government leaders in the postwar era held a then-common belief that women shouldn't be allowed into higher-paid professions with long-term prospects because they would leave as soon as they were married."
If a company has to spend a considerable amount of time and money investing in something, only to find that there was a very high chance that the investment would not pay out in the long run, perhaps it shouldn't come as such a shock that companies started to make the decision to not take that chance.
What percentage of women did leave a job after getting married or having children 30+ years ago? Was it statistically proven that hiring women was deemed a considerable risk to the necessary investment?
And before you try and label this argument pedantic, keep in mind that from a purely business perspective this is standard risk analysis and ROI 101, and would logically apply to every business decision.
Yep. this is why you see so many women in garbage collection. Oh wait...
Why don't /. editors respect women's choices?
Claim:
The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave -- Men Pushed Them Out
Passing reference to reality:
women [...] leave as soon as they [get] married [or became pregnant].
You see, if you just ignore all the misandry (as well as heterophobia, anti-white racism, anti-conservatism, anti-Christianity, and anti-other-traditional-aspects-of-the-west) and read between the lines, you'll see the truth. These social justice cretins have to mention reality, however briefly, in order to have a shred of truth in their anti-west drivel.
Women are free to work in whatever field they want. If not a lot of them want to work in tech, then fine. That's THEIR choice and I respect it. Why don't SJWs respect it?
I believe the term is disputing. Litigating would be if we took it to the Male Privilege court. Then again if it went to the Male Privilege court we'd just say something like 'Your honour, the defendant has always been a bit high strung. Difficult. See you in the Men's Club after the case is dismissed? I've got a fine filly you might enjoy breaking in'.
And that would be that.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Just more Self Flagellation on the part of the SJW crowd.
You suck, I suck, we all suck. History is all about woman haters blah blah blah.
If we are going to go back in history to find reasons to bash men today, we can just right back to Eve and blame that bitch for getting us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Just out of curiosity, what do slashdotters think about men being forced to work with women?
It would seem, judging by things like history books, and the biggest news stories of 2017, that a lot of men don't like working with women. So why are we forcing them to? Is there something wrong with a group, even a large group of men wanting a life where they don't work with women?
Maybe they simply aren't comfortable around girls? Maybe they want to go home to their wives having not spent all day with other women? Maybe they feel overpowered by women in the work place, or maybe they feel like every comment they make to or around women to be a liability in a way very different than comments with male colleagues?
The point is that it doesn't matter what the reason. Why are we forcing men to work with women? What's wrong with the very simple: this is a men-only workplace?
I understand that twenty years ago, that would have meant women couldn't be hired. But these days, there are plenty of female-run companies, and plenty of what-would-have-been-called-progressive companies who enjoy women in the workplace.
So is it time to drop the affirmative action of requiring men to accept women in the workplace?
Today, going forward, what would happen if we were to start allowing companies to limit their workforce to men-only, purely because their workforce desires such?
She wants to go into Family Medicine, and has no aptitude for computers. But I've firmly told her "No! You've internalized the patriarchy in thinking you don't want be a programmer! Now listen to your father and spend your life chained to a terminal like I have!" /s
This is actually a huge issue. If you really want equality and not just some token feelgood bullshit, let's start with eliminating "maternity" leave and turn it into "parental" leave, with mandatory equal times for husband and wife. As long as this ain't the case, there is actually a very real incentive for employers to prefer men over women, simply due to a lower chance of losing them for a few months or even years, depending on the country you're in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's actually about neither. From what I can tell, it's about getting stuff for free.
Quite seriously. If you want equality, you will have no bigger ally than me. If you want preferential treatment, you won't find a bigger enemy. Because then you're pretty much the kind of asshole you accuse me to be: Someone who thinks that they should get something for free just because they have the "right" gender, race, sexual preference or place of birth.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Next you're going to tell me to "give communism a chance".
Marxism is characterized most simply by establishing artificial and false dichotomies and pitting the two sides against each other.
So yeah, that word means exactly what I think it means.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
There's nothing like when a "generation removed" tries to teach a lesson to the people that lived it. It sends the wrong message to the generations that follow.
Most women thought, and openly expressed, openly mocked, computer use as being the domain of the nerd. As someone that actively encouraged women to become more involved I can say that the predominant attitude by them was that "computers are for nerds".
Men didn't make it too inviting, however that wasn't their responsibility. It wasn't their purview.
Granted men did create a highly competitive environment and this was filled with intimidation because the work was intimidating. It was. If someone wasn't able to embrace that they obviously wouldn't stick around, male or female. I'm sure the atmosphere created by this was intimidating to the point of being viewed as hostile by some. This intimidation didn't keep men from pursuing their goals.
I remember playing darts with a friend who was into computers. We were talking about Macintosh vs. DOS. I asked him how he got involved. He talked about his brother that worked for Industrial Light & Magic (ILM). He told me that he was writing drivers for some hardware component for the Macintosh. He told me his brother had taken some "obscure math" class in college and that ILM was looking for anyone that had that knowledge. This was when I lived in the heart of Silicon Valley so I had no reason to disbelieve his story.
Back in the early tech days competition was heavy and hard. People would enter and leave in droves. They'd enter because it was a new skills market and they'd leave as they failed to achieve or they burned out. I noted back then that so many left yet I stuck it out -- I didn't seem to burn out.
Learning technology is a very personal thing. I mean most of those that stayed with it were people that spent their nights and weekends learning everything they could. Their job didn't stop at the close of business. If you wanted to learn a new programming language -- the up and coming new one such as C or C++ or C# -- you traditionally built on your prior knowledge. It took months if not years to learn these languages adequately, and that didn't always happen by going back to school. In fact, I'd venture a say that it rarely happened that way. I can't say what occurred at the level of the executives, but I can say that it wasn't likely that anyone was going to achieve the level of executive unless they had an intense indepth of knowledge in the field.
If you weren't into software then you were into hardware and if you weren't into hardware or software you were into support. It took years to learn to design hardware, and that most often required a degree in electrical engineering and/or math. So, if you weren't going for a degree to develop computer hardware and you weren't developing software then you were supporting infrastructure and/or the users. That took a broad understanding of multiple areas. You needed to know how the hardware basically functioned and you needed to know how software was supposed to work more than you needed to know how a specific piece of software/program worked. For instance, you needed to know the idea behind word processing versus knowing a specific word processor. You needed to be able to look at a piece of software that you'd never seen before and know why it broke -- and you did know because you knew how software was supposed to work. None of these skills came over night. You needed to thoroughly indoctrinate yourself and you needed to be around others that didn't mislead you, around people that also knew their stuff, and if you couldn't put up with the competition you were shunned. If someone was able to deal with that then whether they were a man or a woman didn't matter.
I do remember many times where I heard a complaint that such and such wouldn't teach such and such a person. When asking about it I'd get a response that that person just didn't get it or took too much time away from what they were do
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Bullying is a factor.
You mean by women. Back in the 1980's and 90's there was a large coordinated push by feminists to push men out of both areas. In both cases it was some mantra of the "he's male thus a rapist." There's no social pressure against being a teacher or nurse, there is a big social pressure not to go in it because of the perceived problems relating to working with women.
Again, look in your own damn backyard. And you'll find plenty of stories of men run out of the teaching profession especially k-12, on claims of sexual harassment that turn out to not be true or have their lies completely ruined by false accusations. On the other hand, there's plenty of female sexual predators who get slaps on the wrist for hooking up with a 14yr old boy or girl.
Om, nomnomnom...
In the U.K., women in the government's low-paid "Machine Operator Class" performed knowledge work including programming systems for everything from tax collection and social services to code-breaking and scientific research. Later, they would be pushed out of the field, as government leaders in the postwar era held a then-common belief that women shouldn't be allowed into higher-paid professions with long-term prospects because they would leave as soon as they were married.
Perhaps, but aside from a dastardly evil plan to keep women out of advanced fields like programming, maybe - just maybe - at the end of WW2, when the boys came home, the women left the workplace and returned to being the homemakers they were before the war?
In 1945 the world was a much different place than it is today, don't Project today's motives on last century's actions.
Ken
There is a lot of moronic bullshit, starting with "Editor's note: the link could be paywalled." No, asshole, you do know that the it is paywalled, that's why you were providing an alternate link. Why get all mealy-mouthed about it? WSJ is paywalled.
Then it blathers on about how it was written by a millennial without enough knowledge of cultural history to know that women usually did leave professional jobs after being married in those times. A few would try to keep the jobs and complain if they were forced out, but it was somewhat rare. It was only much later in the 70s and 80s when the demand from women to keep those jobs after marriage picked up; and the societal changes allowing it happened rapidly.
It wasn't normally government bureaucrats who were keeping married women out of the work force, it was either the women themselves, or their husbands, depending. They didn't anticipate women leaving those jobs after the war because they were uniquely sexist; women in those jobs also anticipating moving on to other things after the war in most cases.
You can always find the exceptions and trumpet their voices, but it doesn't always really explain what was going on in society. It is simply not the case that women were perfect and enlightened and without stereotypes, and the evil men were mean and held them down. That isn't how it was at all. In reality, men and women were both filled with the exact same gender stereotypes. Everybody was harmed by it. And a small minority outgrew the stereotypes together, and society was seen to have changed.
No, usually the bullying is by assholes full of stereotypes. Like you.
Uh-huh. Facts are stereotypes huh? Why oh why are nursing organizations trying to put a hard brake on the entire thing and stop female nurses bullying male nurses then. Oh right, let's pick one then: Because that's imaginary or because you have no idea.
It isn't the other nurses doing the bullying, it is the doctors and patients.
No? You should go let them know that, especially with the nurses who've been bullied out by other nurses for not being the right gender.
Om, nomnomnom...
This doesn’t accord with my memories. I joined ICL (the product of earlier mergers) in 1972 and as a programmer worked with three women on the team. Later, at a publishing company, the chief programmer was female, as were two senior systems analysts. I don’t recall any animosity or other bad feeling towards any of the women I’ve worked with. As for minicomputers, their design really didn’t fit the corporate processing requirement; though by the end of the 60s ICL had developed a successful small 24-bit mainframe comparable to (say) the PDP-11 in processing power, though arguably with the wrong form factor for laboratory use. I do wonder whether a US issue is being projected onto the UK here.
> Gotta love the nerd rage. Just because your gross doesn't make discrimination okay.
How can you possibly be so ILLITERATE and post a response? Women self selected for this. They were NOT discriminated against. They CHOSE to avoid computing because of the exact social stigma pointed out in what you responded to.
This entire SJW nonsense is prefaced on the idea that personal choices equal "discrimination".
Pretty much every female in my (current) entire economic class dumps their corporate overlords because they have the means to do so. Can't say I blame them really.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This has nothing to do with equality. That's why the term is used.
This is about an enforced notion of political correctness meant for public consumption. It's bullshit public virtue that doesn't reflect any reality. Outcomes differ because people choose to make different choices. They don't mindlessly follow the current orthodoxy.
Women actually have minds of their own. They exercise free will.
The SJW class objects to choices freely made by others that they don't approve of. Feminism has been pulling this crap for decades (and alienating people over it).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
My JP Morgan Chase offer, yesterday, included 4 mo parental leave for me (a man).
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Split evenly with your wife?
The core of the problem is not that you cannot volunteer to take a leave. What is required is mandatory 50:50 split. Else you will in most constellations end up with the woman taking the longer share and true equality is impossible because it is STILL preferable for the employer to employ a man because he is more likely to be available and not on leave.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> Split evenly with your wife?
If I was to work there, how would they split the leave over someone who doesnt? Take a look at what the policy looks like, since it's been in the news a bit.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.