User:Lsaccomandi/Gender disparity in computing
Background[edit]
See also: Women in computing
In the early days of computers and computing, women were well-represented in the field. Women often worked as "human computers," making complicated calculations and working in large groups, such as the Harvard Computers. Women also worked on ballistics calculations and cryptography. Human computers who were women could be paid less than their male counterparts. By 1943, the majority of human computers were women. Early programmers on machines such as ENIAC, were mostly women. The reason that women were involved as programmers and human computers was because "they expected programming to be a low skill clerical function," and that the difficult work was the creation of the hardware, which male engineers largely worked on. The programmers of the ENIAC, six women who designed the public demonstrations and prepared the machine for its public debut were not fully recognized for their contributions by the media.
By the 1960s, while computer programming was still touted as a good field for women to go into, major shifts were beginning to take place that would help push women out of the field. Men who were programming started to make the field more "prestigious," creating professional associations, education requirements for work and by actively discouraging hiring women in the field. Hiring tools were introduced in which answers were shared among all-male groups and clubs. Another way to push women out of the field was to use personality tests that favored people who were not interested in working with others, which was slanted towards a certain type of male applicant. After these trends were entrenched in the industry, it has continued to perpetuate itself into the modern day. Some computer science programs, such as Princeton, in the mid-1960s wouldn't even admit women into their program.
Background[edit][edit]
See also: Women in computing
In the early days of computers and computing, the field represented women well in the workforce. Women often worked as "human computers," who made complicated calculations and worked in large groups, such as the Harvard Computers. Women also worked on ballistics calculations and cryptography. Women in the computing field were paid less than their male counterparts. By 1943, the majority of human computers were women. Early programmers on machines such as ENIAC, were mostly women. The reason that Women were involved as programmers and human computers was because "they expected programming to be a low skill clerical function," and that The creation of software, mostly worked on by male engineers, was considered more difficult work. The programmers of the ENIAC, six women who designed the public demonstrations and prepared the machine for its public debut were not fully recognized for their contributions by the media.
By the 1960s, while computer programming was still touted as a good field for women to go into, major shifts took place in order to push women out of the field. Men in the field made it more "prestigious," created professional associations, education requirements for work and by actively discouraged hiring women in the field. Hiring tools were introduced in which answers were shared among all-male groups and clubs. Another way to push women out of the field was to use personality tests that favored people who were not interested in working with others, which was slanted towards a certain type of male applicant. After these trends were entrenched in the industry, it has continued to perpetuate itself into the modern day. Some computer science programs, such as Princeton, in the mid-1960s would not even admit women into their program.
Today, women are still entering the computer science field, but at a much lower rate than before. Almost half of women in the computer science field leave after five years, while less than a quarter of men leave the field after those five years as well.[1]
- ^ Barr, Valerie (2017-03-24). "Gender diversity in computing: are we making any progress?". Communications of the ACM. 60 (4): 5–5. doi:10.1145/3056417.
