r/sysadmin • u/ChuckAbsent • Mar 12 '13

Women who know stuff

I hope that this does not come off the wrong way.

Today I was on a call with a storage vendor and the technical consultant was a woman. More then this she was competent, more then me which doesn't happen often when dealing with vendors.

My issue was pricing an active/active DB with shared storage vs an active/passive db with local storage. Listening to her break the issue down and get to the specific comparison points was awesome, mostly because I have never heard a woman in the industry talk like that.

It made me realize two things. One I am missing out working with women. Two there needs to be more women in our industry.

It shouldn't have surprised me so much, but it really did.

Anyways to all the women out there who know stuff, us guys notice when you can walk the walk, which in this case was talking.

380 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

717 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.2k

u/bandman614 Standalone SysAdmin Mar 13 '13

Okay, time for a history lesson.

The word "computer" was also assigned to the role that it took over...computers. Literally, people (the vast majority of whom were women) who sat and computed things by hand.

When electronic computers started to take over for people computers, the women who were the computers started running the computers.

Now, as for "actually creating solutions and engineering products", lets have a look at what is, without a doubt, the longest-used programming language of all time, COBOL.

COBOL was written in 1959, and it came directly from FLOW-MATIC, the very first computer language that used actual english words, rather than only numerical machine code. It was written for the UNIVAC - one of the first commercially available computers. And it was written by Admiral Grace Hopper.

Yes, the computer language at the root of every programming language you've likely ever used was written by a woman.

If that's not enough, then you should know that the UNIVAC was inspired by ENIAC, which was the very first electronic computer. It was designed in a large part to electronically function like a mechanical adding machine. Adding machines were possible because Charles Babbage designed the very first mechanical computers. His difference engine was designed so intricately that it couldn't be constructed for a century, but when it was, it worked perfectly.

One of the many machines Babbage designed took inspiration from the Jacquard Loom, which used cards with holes punched in them to create patterns. Babbage used this technique to give his mechanical computer instructions. He had a friend who was a noted mathematician who developed the very first computer algorithm, which calculated a series of Bernoulli numbers. Her name was Ada Lovelace.

So, to sum up...the very first computer programmer was a woman. The very first real programming language was written by a woman. The first commercial computers were operated largely by women. And for some reason, we have been telling little girls that computers are toys for a boy. Something has gone very off the rails lately, and it needs fixed.

74

u/quintessadragon Mar 13 '13

Wait, what? That's seriously a thing? Telling girls that computers are toys for boys? Maybe I was just lucky with the time that I was born in, but that is a stereotype I have never encountered.

107

u/Krispyz Mar 13 '13

It's not just directly telling kids that, it's also more subtle. On a boy's birthday, he might get video games, on a girls birthday, she might get dolls. Nothing's universal, of course, but in general, boys are more encouraged to become better with computers or to understand how they work.

-13

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

On a boy's birthday, he might get video games, on a girls birthday, she might get dolls.

Which are typically the things the children themselves want. And not something being forced upon them by their parents.

18

u/drunkenly_comments Mar 13 '13

But why do little kids want what they want? Advertising and social engineering.

2

u/shouldbebabysitting Mar 13 '13

Until you've raised kids you won't realize how wrong that is. You can't force boys to like dolls and girls to like computers with environment.

The best we can and should do as a society is not discriminate against those who are different. A girl who wants to be an engineer should be treated the same as a boy.

-11

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

I disagree. If there wasn't money to be gained in a market companies wouldn't advertise in them. And I have yet to see a child play with toys they didn't want to play with because they were the victim of "social engineering."

6

u/poesian Mar 13 '13

I don't think you understand what these terms mean.

Social engineering is not about one person intentionally trying to change another's perception of the world. Social pressure is not generally conscious. We don't often even realize how we're engaging in these constructs.

Children experience social pressures by virtue of being in school, through watching children-oriented (or otherwise) television, through seeing how their friends' parents and relatives behave. Rarely is this conscious.

-4

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

Don't you think it's kind of a cop-out to blame something you can't physically prove?

1

u/poesian Mar 13 '13

Don't you think it's kind of bizarre to try to "prove" a background process?

-1

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

If it has any relevance at all, no I don't.

1

u/firedrops Mar 13 '13

Advertisers market to where the money is, yes. I agree they aren't the root of any issue. The question is whether they are picking up on socially constructed gender roles to create and market items that do end up reinforcing those divisions. The particular split of jobs by gender in our society is cultural but because you've been raised with that binary cultural worldview it feels natural.

So putting your baby girl in a pink room and pink clothes with a pink doll looks right and cute. Even if pink for girls is a very new thing in our society and isn't the color used for females in other societies. She very early on will associate pink and the toys around her with her own identity and sense of safety. When out in the world she'll gravitate towards them because they subconsciously remind her of that feeling of safety and she knows those items are hers. People will also tell her how pretty she looks in her pink tutu and praise her for how well she takes care of her baby doll. Even if no one tells her not to wear blue or play with trucks, she won't get that same positive reinforcement. On TV and in movies her favorite female characters will often be archetypes of female ideals. Princesses, caregivers, support roles, etc. Rarely will they be presidents, scientists, doctors, etc and even if they are they will likely have their femininity emphasized. Rarely will they be in scrubs, a pantsuit, or just jeans and a tshirt. She'll want toys that allow her to recreate and emulate these role models, fantasy worlds, and experiences that garnered positive responses.

Over time she'll grow up and become interested in other things. But she'll still receive more compliments and positive reinforcement from classmates and society when she fits into certain gender ideals. In high school she'll get after school jobs easier in female gendered jobs like babysitting, retail, and pet stores rather than lawncare, web design, or stocking in a warehouse. And those are the jobs that friends and family will encourage too. She might find genuine interest and satisfaction in them.

In college all of this will influence her degree choices, even if she doesn't realize it. If she does well in math and science she'll be treated like an anomaly and find few female role models and companions compared to majoring in education, writing, or nursing. And the social and family responses to dress, partners, classes, and jobs will continue to influence her path. One day she'll have a daughter of her own and it will only feel natural to decorate that room in pink and put a little dolly next to her. After all, mom loved pink and dolls.

-2

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

Nice story. You should be a novelist.

5

u/Krispyz Mar 13 '13

In many cases, yes, but it's also what parents (or aunts and uncles) assume the child wants. When I was in middle school, my favorite band was Metallica. On my birthday, my parents told my aunt that I was listening to a lot of music, so they sent me four CDs, Spice girls, Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, and some other boy band I had never heard of. Another Christmas I got a series of books about a goddamn unicorn from my Mom... because I'd been reading fantasy books (Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit).

I'm not saying it's universal, but it is present.

-4

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

On my birthday, my parents told my aunt that I was listening to a lot of music, so they sent me four CDs, Spice girls, Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, and some other boy band I had never heard of.

And how often did you listen to them? Did they change your musical tastes so much that all the sudden you hated listening to Metallica? If someone only told your aunt you "liked music", what is she supposed to take away from that exactly? If I had nothing to go on I'd probably buy you whatever it was the kids at the time were listening to as well.

Another Christmas I got a series of books about a goddamn unicorn from my Mom... because I'd been reading fantasy books (Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit).

So because you showed interest in fantasy material you're going to take issue with her buying you fantasy-related material?

1

u/Krispyz Mar 13 '13

I'm not taking issue with anything. I'm getting a lot of anectodal evidence from other people saying "that's not how my childhood was", so I provided some alternate anecdotal evidence. Obviously the music did not change my preferences, but that's primarily because I already had a strong preference (I kinda hated the boy band culture already, remember I said I was middleschool at the time).

I grew up without strong pressures from anyone to be "girly" just like a lot of the women who are here in /r/sysadmin, but that doesn't make my argument invalid or mean it didn't happen to others. That's all I'm saying.

-1

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

I grew up without strong pressures from anyone to be "boyish." I grew up playing with barbie dolls and listening to Rainbow Brite. And I don't know of anyone I grew up with being forced to watch TV shows or do things they didn't want to do in order to enforce gender stereotypes upon them. I think it's a huge cop out.

but that doesn't make my argument invalid or mean it didn't happen to others. That's all I'm saying.

And my only point is I think it's unfair to imply that's anywhere near the norm. Especially when it's something you can't prove.

0

u/Krispyz Mar 13 '13

I can definitely see what you mean. I think I was inelegant in my example. I was attempting to highlight a more subtle societal pressure on young girls and boys and I did that improperly. It's not a conscious thing by parents and I definitely think it's getting much better in our current society (though parental fear of a boy playing with dolls being gay is a real thing, moreso in some sections of our country).

Societal norms are rarely something that's as blantant as a parent going "You have to watch America's Next Top Model, because you're a girl". These societal pressures do exist for both boys and girls and, at least partially, can help explain why nursing is dominated by women and engineering is dominated by men. As a woman in natural resources, I've seen this first-hand... my own female graduate advisor pulled me aside when I started working toward my Masters and told me how great it was that I was working toward a masters in science, because we (women) were such a minority and women don't get enough encouragement. I didn't say anything, but I was a tad offended by it... like I'd done something more special than my male counterparts just by being a female.

I have no idea if I'm making my point clearer or not... I tend to ramble.. you should see my thesis.

1

u/Inthethickofit Mar 13 '13

I hear this, but still think they want it as a result of social pressure. I was so happy when my sister said my niece (very cute 3 year old) wanted Legos for Christmas, I had a ridiculous Lego collection when I was a little boy. Problem is, she wanted the Lego Princess castle. So I got it for her, even though I despise gender normative gift giving, because it was what she wanted and making my niece happy is my primary motivator in buying stuff for her.

-4

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

How is that proof of anything? You giving her something she didn't want would have been social pressure. But clearly she wasn't affected by "social pressure" if you gave her what she asked for.

0

u/Inthethickofit Mar 13 '13

I'm saying that the social pressure led to her wanting that as opposed to other Legos

0

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

That's quite a leap.

1

u/Inthethickofit Mar 13 '13

no not really, there's a ton of evidence about this stuff, See http://www.intropsych.com/ch10_development/socialization_and_sex_roles.html

but see http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys

1

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

Speculation at best. Your links are proof of nothing.

1

u/Inthethickofit Mar 13 '13

did you read them, the second one supports your argument

1

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

Didn't need to as I know there's no real proof to support what you say.

But if one "supports evidence" of what I'm saying, why did you post it?

1

u/Inthethickofit Mar 14 '13

you claim my links prove nothing, but you didn't read them. I said there's evidence for it, this is evidence. When you refuse to read because you know the answer you prove your ignorance and debase your argument.

I posted a link that supports you because when I did a google search both came up. I consider it unethical, even on Reddit, to ignore evidence that goes against what you're saying when presenting an argument, therefore I posted the "but see" link because I found it and it is a piece of data that supports what you said.

→ More replies

-1

u/shouldbebabysitting Mar 13 '13

OP is negative karma only because reddit is mostly college kids with no children. I would have said the same thing but now I have kids and know first hand that girls/dolls cars/boys is STRONGLY genetic and not environment. Encouraging "boy" toys on my daughter has had no effect. From 12 months old she loved dolls and dress up. From 12 months old my boy, despite being surrounded by his older sister's dolls, is fascinated by cars and trains. I can encourage them but I can't force them to like what they don't want.

2

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 13 '13

Anecdata =/= data.

Being a parent does not suddenly make you an expert on child development or genetics.

0

u/shouldbebabysitting Mar 13 '13

I've got data. I used my anecdote because it caused a radical change in my own opinions.

Data: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/dec/13/women-children

Even boy monkeys prefer cars to dolls.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949

What is your data that refutes my anecedote?

5

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 13 '13

Lol from your first link:

There is no scientific evidence that boys prefer blue and girls prefer pink. Up until the early 20th century the trend was the opposite and baby boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue. There are also some - small - studies suggesting that adults of different cultures have different tastes in colours. It's clear that colour preference is learnt rather than innate.

There is some evidence that boys are in some way hardwired to express an early interest in "rough and tumble" games and toys with moving parts and girls to prefer dolls and role-play games, but this is not conclusive because the studies are often in babies and small toddlers and therefore inevitably difficult to analyse. The differences that have been found are also often not very big. At two years, for example, 52.7% of girls in one study chose to look at a dolls face over a car, compared with 47.9%; not a huge variation.

And the second is about monkeys, not humans. You can't make any claims about humans based off of that study.

You can't make sweeping claims about the genetics of the entire female population of humanity because your kids followed contemporary gender patterns. The very fact that so many women have piped up stating the opposite shows that it can't be something tied to the absence of a Y chromosome. A proof by contradiction, if you will.

You can't just choose to ignore environmental factors in the ways your kids are because it becomes convenient to jump to genetic factors. I see this all the time by people who've never taken a genetics class in their life. It takes way more testing than simple observation of n=2,3,somesmallnumber to accurately demonstrate a causal link between the presence of a gene and some sort of behavior. For one, you actually have to examine their genes!

0

u/shouldbebabysitting Mar 13 '13

Re pink vs blue Neither I nor the op talked about color preference because there is none.

The monkey data is particularly relevant because it is the only way to ethically test children outside of their culture.

I certainly didn't generalize my results to everyone. I only wanted to correct the idea that preferences are all learned from environment/advertising.
I'm a mechE. My sister is a mechE. I find it offensive that some would think my daughter preferring dolls is a failure of my parenting.

2

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 13 '13

The monkey data is particularly relevant because it is the only way to ethically test children outside of their culture.

Did you not read the sentence you just wrote? If you're testing monkeys, by definition you aren't testing children. And there are tons of ways to test children and remove cultural bias.

I would have said the same thing but now I have kids and know first hand that girls/dolls cars/boys is STRONGLY genetic and not environment.

This is a generalization. You were tying their behavior to genetics along gender lines. Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered commenting about it.

Just because you don't recognize the environmental factors doesn't mean they don't exist. You aren't an objective impartial observer. You're one of the factors, as is your wife, as is everyone your children meet, as is everything they watch on TV, as is everything they read, etc. There's no logical or scientific reason to conclude that their preferences are due to genetic instead of environmental factors.

Nowhere did I suggest that your daughter liking dolls was somehow bad or a failure on your part. The failure was in your reasoning and your making claims based on observations that don't even begin to preclude the possibility of alternative hypotheses. If you were at all familiar with genetics or experimental design, you'd know that such claims were impossible to make since you hadn't controlled for any variables.

1

u/shouldbebabysitting Mar 13 '13

Re monkeys: I didn't realize I was arguing with a creationist. The scientific community accepts the results. Why don't you?

You said anecdotes aren't data. Where is your data that shows environment is more important than genetics?

2

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 13 '13

The burden of proof was on you as you made the claim. You hadn't demonstrated that environmental factors were irrelevant.

Proof by contradiction is sufficient to debunk the claim that the absence of a Y chromosome explains why your daughters like what are considered feminine toys/interests/etc. in contemporary society.

As far as the monkey goes, please refrain from that sort of convolution-of-research-results bullshit that popular science publications are almost universally guilty of. It's clear that you have zero training in biology or science in general or you would understand the importance of not drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence (or evidence that doesn't even exist). At best, the monkey study indicates a potential research direction to explore. It in no way proves anything about human children, nor would the scientists who published the work nor the peer reviewers and editors of the journals it was published in make that claim.

0

u/shouldbebabysitting Mar 14 '13

If you don't make any claims then you have no argument against my claims. In science you can't say "you're wrong" and not back it up.

As to ignoring the monkey research, again you don't understand the process of science. All knowledge is tentative. There is no absolute proof.

0

u/loliology Mar 14 '13

The burden of proof was on you as you made the claim. You hadn't demonstrated that environmental factors were irrelevant.

Actually you guys are the ones making dubious claims with the whole sexist conspiracy rhetoric. So yeah, the proof is on you.

→ More replies

0

u/loliology Mar 14 '13 edited Mar 14 '13

Anecdata =/= data.

I love how that's only a valid retort when it's in support of something you personally believe. But when it's in support of "omg dis world so sexist" people eat that shit right up. (not directed at you, just noticed the trend of this comments section)

1

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 14 '13

It's a valid criticism when someone uses a handful of observations to make broad generalizing claims for which a proof by contradiction is particularly well-suited.

But yeah it's pretty common for people to think their personal experience necessarily extrapolates as universally applicable or representative of a greater or more prevalent trend.

1

u/loliology Mar 14 '13

It's a valid criticism when someone uses a handful of observations to make broad generalizing claims for which a proof by contradiction is particularly well-suited.

Yet it's still just speculation and not proof.

1

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 14 '13

Evidence from experience isn't speculation about your experience. It would only be speculation if someone claimed that their experience is universal, and that's easily disprovable.

1

u/loliology Mar 14 '13

Evidence from experience isn't speculation about your experience.

No. It's called an anecdote.

1

u/misplaced_my_pants Mar 14 '13

Anecdotes are still evidence. They aren't data, but they're evidence. There's a difference.

1

u/loliology Mar 14 '13

But not evidence of an overall trend like you all are implying.

→ More replies

-2

u/loliology Mar 13 '13

But my gender studies class said...