The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
thesocietypages.org
The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
1–10 of 18 posts
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#2Whether or not you think this is tremendously important, it is.
We could easily unleash almost twice as much human potential of the human race we are right now in coding, and engineering and science in general, if we go back and inspect all the hideous details and biases inhibiting girls and women from pursuing scientific and technical interests and positions of authority.
(Almost twice as much, since a few women have managed to emerge with amazing technical superpowers from a still very sexist and sexist-tolerant society.)
For a very long time I had faith in how far we had progressed in sexual equality in American culture. But very many experiences over the past many years have convinced me overwhelmingly of how very far American culture still needs to go before every girl and woman has a level playing field at EVERY STAGE of educational and professional opportunity.
This is extremely important for every single one of you. If you're an American male programmer or engineer or scientist today, keep in mind always that almost half of your potential awesome colleagues or awesome employees aren't there working with you because they faced obstacles you might never have imagined.
Please, everyone, make it better and treat every single person the same way in every way from now on.
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#3There are a hundred usability reasons why sharing text in images sucks, so here's a transcript (I've taken a couple of minor liberties for the sake of clarity):
The Computer Girls By Lois Mandel
A trainee gets $8,000 a year . . . a girl “senior systems analyst” gets $20,000—and up! Maybe it’s time to investigate . . . .
Ann Richardson, IBM systems engineer, designs a bridge via computer. Above (left) she checks her facts with fellow systems engineer, Marvin V. Fuchs. Right, she feeds facts into the computer. Below, Ann demonstrates on a viewing screen how her facts designed the bridge, and makes changes with a “light pen.”
Twenty years ago, a girl could be a secretary, a school teacher . . . maybe a librarian, a social worker or a nurse. If she was really ambitious, she could go into the professions and compete with men . . . usually working harder and longer to earn less pay for the same job.
Now have come the big, dazzling computers—and a whole new kind of work for women: programming. Telling the miracle machines what to do and how to do it. Anything from predicting the weather to sending out billing notices from the local department store.
And if it doesn’t sound like woman’s work—well, it just is.
(“I had this idea I’d be standing at a big machine and pressing buttons all day long,” says a girl who programs for a Los Angeles bank. “I couldn’t have been further off the track. I figure out how the computer can solve a problem, and then instruct the machine to do it.”
“It’s just like planning a dinner,” explains Dr. Grace Hopper, now a staff scientist in systems programming for Univac. (She helped develop the first electronic digital computer, the Eniac, in 1946.) “You have to plan ahead and schedule everything so it’s ready when you need it. Programming requires patience and the ability to handle detail. Women are ‘naturals’ at computer programming.”
What she’s talking about is apititude—the one most important quality a girl needs to become a programmer. She also needs a keen, logical mind. And if that zeroes out the old Billie Burke-Gracie Allen image of femininity, it’s about time, because this is the age of the Computer Girls. There are twenty thousand of them in the United (cont. on page 54)
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#4Whether or not you think this is tremendously important, it is. We could easily unleash almost twice as much human potential of the human race we are right now in coding, and engineering and science in general, if we go back and inspect all the hideous details and biases inhibiting girls and women from pursuing scientific and technical interests and positions of authority. ( Almost twice as much, since a few women ha…
I just hope we're not at the apex. If it's not some mix of higher gene variability or somesuch holding us here where women only do X of profession Y, etc.
I know sexual harassment is an issue at some conferences, etc, so I doubt we're there yet as far as the reaches go, but I wonder if 50/50% representation is ever going to happen in IT, the boardroom, the classroom, science or in prisons. For instance, the suspicion towards males at playgrounds and in teaching positions and the lack of suspicion towards females removes a entire set of males from many child centric occupations, thereby sticking them in ones unrelated to children, unbalancing it.
I hope that there isn't the case, but there may be something about testosterone, expectations of mating, etc holding us here deeper than just educational awareness, or promotion mechanisms. I am not saying this is good, just pointing out we may be approaching the point where bias isn't the issue, other socio/biological factors are and may require bigger tools to get past.
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#5Whether or not you think this is tremendously important, it is. We could easily unleash almost twice as much human potential of the human race we are right now in coding, and engineering and science in general, if we go back and inspect all the hideous details and biases inhibiting girls and women from pursuing scientific and technical interests and positions of authority. ( Almost twice as much, since a few women ha…
You know it's not that simple. It's not that people think of programming as a "guys' job". It's that most people never think of programming at all. It just happens that the few people who do think of programming, ever, are mostly guys. We just need to advertise better.
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#6Sounds like an article about my mom. If I recall correctly in the late 50/60's she was a secretary at Virginia Power in Richmond. She took an aptitude test for programming, along with others, and did well then began a 30+ year career programming on/for mainframes.
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#7Whether or not you think this is tremendously important, it is. We could easily unleash almost twice as much human potential of the human race we are right now in coding, and engineering and science in general, if we go back and inspect all the hideous details and biases inhibiting girls and women from pursuing scientific and technical interests and positions of authority. ( Almost twice as much, since a few women ha…
You know it's not that simple. It's not that people think of programming as a "guys' job". It's that most people never think of programming at all . It just happens that the few people who do think of programming, ever, are mostly guys. We just need to advertise better.
That may be what caused us to get to the current situation, but the status quo being how it is has led to other problems in the meantime. Sexism is a very real problem in CS, both on academia and the professional side (sorry not really sure how else to distinguish, academics are also professionals obviously).
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#8Still the original computer girl...
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#9Whether or not you think this is tremendously important, it is. We could easily unleash almost twice as much human potential of the human race we are right now in coding, and engineering and science in general, if we go back and inspect all the hideous details and biases inhibiting girls and women from pursuing scientific and technical interests and positions of authority. ( Almost twice as much, since a few women ha…
I don't believe there's some great oppression of girls that prevents them from becoming programmers and engineers (in fact, several articles have been written about how it's boys who are getting the short end of the stick in education). I think it's just that programming is already a niche career, and the few people who consider doing it are mostly men.
(Almost twice as much, since a few women have managed to emerge with amazing technical superpowers from a still very sexist and sexist-tolerant society.)
This is a very odd statement, because sexism is barely tolerated at all in this society. In fact, men are often the targets of criticism and ridicule, but criticism of women is heavily punished. I'd be interested in what you're basing your statement on that this is a "very sexist and sexist-tolerant society."
Please, everyone, make it better and treat every single person the same way in every way from now on.
I also have to take issue with this statement because every single person is not the same way in every way. In fact, I think it's harmful for a society to pretend there are no differences between people, particularly genders. There are differences that have been documented by biologists and psychologists. To deny the individuality in each of us is to deny our strengths and weaknesses.
Re: The computer girls (1967 issue of Cosmopolitan)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know it's not that simple. It's not that people think of programming as a "guys' job". It's that most people never think of programming at all . It just happens that the few people who do think of programming, ever, are mostly guys. We just need to advertise better.
That may be what caused us to get to the current situation, but the status quo being how it is has led to other problems in the meantime. Sexism is a very real problem in CS, both on academia and the professional side (sorry not really sure how else to distinguish, academics are also professionals obviously).
Your perception of the status quo is backwards. Statistics show that it's males who are struggling and falling behind in education. Up to 60% of a university population is female, and the majority of bachelor's degrees go to females.