Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

~~~

O... kay? I wasn't trying to downplay the expertise involved, you don't need to... do... whatever it is that you're doing.

[Reelya]

I think the standard "sound bite" about how "programming was seen as women's work" actually does the women involved a disservice. That kind of makes it sound like they just hired any old women and let them at it.

In fact when they were hired the expectations were pretty low. They weren't hired as programmers, they were seen as not much more than glorified number-crunchers and button pushers. Planning and designing the systems (software design, or what we'd call "programming" today) was meant to be the men's job. The fact is that they became bona-fide programmers, going well outside the scope of their original job classifications, despite the gender segregation of the time. Which is even more remarkable when you think about it.

[Willfor]

~~~

O... kay? I wasn't trying to downplay the expertise involved, you don't need to... do... whatever it is that you're doing.

I wasn't saying you were? I just thought that even Reelya's expounding about their accomplishments wasn't enough, and I was going to make sure everybody knew it.

I think the standard "sound bite" about how "programming was seen as women's work" actually does the women involved a disservice. That kind of makes it sound like they just hired any old women and let them at it.

In fact when they were hired the expectations were pretty low. They weren't hired as programmers, they were seen as not much more than glorified number-crunchers and button pushers. Planning and designing the systems (software design, or what we'd call "programming" today) was meant to be the men's job. The fact is that they became bona-fide programmers, going well outside the scope of their original job classifications, despite the gender segregation of the time. Which is even more remarkable when you think about it.

I have seen a talk by one of the ENIAC women, and if they felt they were being done a disservice when this talk began then there were no signs of it given. If you'd like to continue on this topic, maybe you should hear their own arguments.

[Reelya]

Linking a 1-hour plus video isn't really an argument. That video could be 1 hour listing all their achievements, which I fully accept. But that wouldn't contradict a single argument that I made, which was that the belief at "at the dawn of the computer age, programming was seen as a woman's job" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Was "programming" really seen as a woman's job?

First up, there was no term "programmer" at that point in history. So we'd have to understand that to mean the modern concept of "programmer". Second, there were clear job roles and gender segregation, and almost all the tasks we'd associate with being a "programmer' today were expected to be done by men, not women. Women were relegated to the role of "coder", and the "coders" were expected to merely transcribe programs planned by men into the hardware.

Of course, it didn't end up like that. The female "coders" ended up knowing much more about the machines than the men did, and implementing many programs for the "engineers" meant that they got really good at detecting errors (bug fixing) and suggesting improvements. They ended up doing significant amounts of the programming-related tasks that the male scientists were "supposed" to do. These women became programmers not because society saw software design as a female role, but because the bureaucratic hierarchy and strict job descriptions in their organizations collapsed in the face of rapid and unpredictable technological change.

[Morrigi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ50XmALd54

SO TOLERAN AN PROGRESIV

[Willfor]

Linking a 1-hour plus video isn't really an argument. That video could be 1 hour listing all their achievements, which I fully accept. But that wouldn't contradict a single argument that I made, which was that the belief at "at the dawn of the computer age, programming was seen as a woman's job" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Was "programming" really seen as a woman's job?

First up, there was no term "programmer" at that point in history. So we'd have to understand that to mean the modern concept of "programmer". Second, there were clear job roles and gender segregation, and almost all the tasks we'd associate with being a "programmer' today were expected to be done by men, not women. Women were relegated to the role of "coder", and the "coders" were expected to merely transcribe programs planned by men into the hardware.

Of course, it didn't end up like that. The female "coders" ended up knowing much more about the machines than the men did, and implementing many programs for the "engineers" meant that they got really good at detecting errors (bug fixing) and suggesting improvements. They ended up doing significant amounts of the programming-related tasks that the male scientists were "supposed" to do. These women became programmers not because society saw software design as a female role, but because the bureaucratic hierarchy and strict job descriptions in their organizations collapsed in the face of rapid and unpredictable technological change.

The only thing I disagreed with is that you said they were being done a disservice by the claim, which if true, would've been remarked on in the video. The only thing I disagreed with was you speaking as to how they should feel about this turn of events. You can argue all day about any pedantic point, that's fine, but I wanted you to stop speaking as to what they should feel when they quite clearly spoke for themselves.

[Geltor]

Linking a 1-hour plus video isn't really an argument. That video could be 1 hour listing all their achievements, which I fully accept. But that wouldn't contradict a single argument that I made, which was that the belief at "at the dawn of the computer age, programming was seen as a woman's job" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Was "programming" really seen as a woman's job?

First up, there was no term "programmer" at that point in history. So we'd have to understand that to mean the modern concept of "programmer". Second, there were clear job roles and gender segregation, and almost all the tasks we'd associate with being a "programmer' today were expected to be done by men, not women. Women were relegated to the role of "coder", and the "coders" were expected to merely transcribe programs planned by men into the hardware.

Of course, it didn't end up like that. The female "coders" ended up knowing much more about the machines than the men did, and implementing many programs for the "engineers" meant that they got really good at detecting errors (bug fixing) and suggesting improvements. They ended up doing significant amounts of the programming-related tasks that the male scientists were "supposed" to do. These women became programmers not because society saw software design as a female role, but because the bureaucratic hierarchy and strict job descriptions in their organizations collapsed in the face of rapid and unpredictable technological change.

this reminds me of the Harvard Computers/Pickering's Harem, where only women were hired to catalog the brightness of stars. one could then argue the idea that under the principle of this example, in the same era as you speak of, the majority of astronomers were women.

[mainiac]

Pickerings harem looks to me like a classic example of why affirmative action raises the quality of the workforce.  Williamina Flemming was obviously an intelligent woman but she was working as an unskilled laborer.  Most men with her intelligence and management savvy wouldn't be unskilled laborers so giving her the job wasn't rearranging the workforce of knowledge workers but expanding it.  The subsequent astronomers would have had a hard time putting their talents and training to use.  Some of them would have made it but the number of knowledge workers was clearly increased by Pickering taking an affirmative action hiring stance.

If Pickering had instead hired men he no doubt would have been able to eventually find a competent male staff that would do the same work.  In doing so however, he would be competing for a male pool of applicants that didn't have the slack of the female pool of applicants.  So maybe his work gets done but someone elses doesn't get done.  It's not ideal that the women could only work as research assistants and not as researchers (although they did go beyond assisting) but that work is needed to be done and science can't go without it.

It's a fascinating example because it's far enough back in history that even very, very brilliant women were getting completely ignored.  The benefits of affirmative action were at their extreme.  However it's far enough back in history that no one was thinking to document the vast majority of this so it's a rare glimpse into those extreme conditions.  And it would have to be rare because the extreme conditions wouldn't exist if people were aware of what they were wasting.

[Dorsidwarf]

Ameripol thread: Where people argue that letting tens of thousands die horrible deaths at the hands of horrifying war criminals in unimportant places is better than a few dozen dying in the Best Country EVAR!!1! because the lives of Americans are objectively more valuable than the lives of Syrians and Iraqis.

[Reelya]

The only thing I disagreed with is that you said they were being done a disservice by the claim, which if true, would've been remarked on in the video. The only thing I disagreed with was you speaking as to how they should feel about this turn of events. You can argue all day about any pedantic point, that's fine, but I wanted you to stop speaking as to what they should feel when they quite clearly spoke for themselves.

But does the video even address the claim whatsoever? Nothing that you've said even implies that the video brings up the modern claim "programming was seen as a woman's job back then". You're being vague enough that I can tell that I'd watch 67 minutes looking for an actual quotation, and there would be none to give. If nobody in the video even brings up the modern "programming was seen as a woman's job" narrative, then how could it be relevant?

"How they should feel about the turn of events", i.e. their achievements is one thing, and what I'm pretty sure the entire video is about. But I'm talking about something else, which is that people have recast it to be one of those "gender is fluid" arguments similar to the "pink used to be for boys and blue used to be for girls" line of reasoning. That makes it sound like it was a career women were naturally encouraged to do. But that's not actually the case, it was an uphill battle for those women to open up the field for other women. Which is why I'm stating that the modern meme it's devolved into doesn't do the reality justice. Kind of like claiming "women were given the right to vote in 1920", without mentioning the suffragettes. Women weren't given the right to vote, nor was programming a career that was handed to women in the 1940s. They fought an uphill battle against sexism in both cases, they weren't given an inch.

[Willfor]

It's just a good video, beyond this argument itself. Just watch it on its own merits at this point, I don't even mind if it doesn't convince you of anything.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

...it took me three days to figure out the pun in the title. 

[Rolan7]

Ameripol thread: Where people argue that letting tens of thousands die horrible deaths at the hands of horrifying war criminals in unimportant places is better than a few dozen dying in the Best Country EVAR!!1! because the lives of Americans are objectively more valuable than the lives of Syrians and Iraqis.

If you're referring to Weird's comments, that's not the impression I got at all...
More of a Star Trek prime directive thing.  That they should be allowed to wear burqas if they want (I agree) and kill women who don't (I disagree).   But that we have no right to intervene in a foreign culture, even along with other nations, even to stop slavery and tyranny.

I mean, obviously I disagree, but he's not arguing that it's too dangerous or costly.  We just don't have the right or responsibility.  Which is a reasonable point of view, like in Star Trek, I just disagree.

[Shadowlord]

Ameripol thread: Where people argue that letting tens of thousands die horrible deaths at the hands of horrifying war criminals in unimportant places is better than a few dozen dying in the Best Country EVAR!!1! because the lives of Americans are objectively more valuable than the lives of Syrians and Iraqis.

If you're referring to Weird's comments, that's not the impression I got at all...
More of a Star Trek prime directive thing.  That they should be allowed to wear burqas if they want (I agree) and kill women who don't (I disagree).   But that we have no right to intervene in a foreign culture, even along with other nations, even to stop slavery and tyranny.

I mean, obviously I disagree, but he's not arguing that it's too dangerous or costly.  We just don't have the right or responsibility.  Which is a reasonable point of view, like in Star Trek, I just disagree.

After Japan attacked us in World War II, did we have the right to intervene in Europe, or should we have just left that to the Soviets?

The justification for intervention in the middle east since 9/11 has been based on similar grounds: We were attacked (by terrorists), and we responded (and are responding).

The problems with the bomb-the-terrorists-until-they-stop have already been pointed out by other people here though

[Kot]

Bing Bing Bong Bong