The Los Angeles Times is making available the full text of an e-mail roundtable we conducted on women and computing. You may freely distribute electronic copies. The opinions expressed are those of the participants. Any for-profit use requires permission from the Times, as would any paper reprints other than for personal or classroom use. We hope you find it interesting. Dan Akst Asst Business Editor Los Angeles Times akst@netcom.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LA Times Roundtable on Women in Computing Why are there so few women in the world of computing? Why do men predominate online and stay up all night, tinkering with their config.sys files? And does it matter? If computers in the near future do get like cars--just sit down and drive--and content really is king, will it make any difference that so few women are nerds? Will computers as communicators eventually give women an edge in the field? Are the differences between male and female computing behavior attributable to childhood socialization, differing household burdens or some gender link to monomania? Is the relative absence of women in the computer industry just plain discrimination? The Los Angeles Times hopes to address these issues in a special section April 11 on The Information Revolution. We're sure the members of this mailing list--about a dozen, not counting us at the Times--will have some interesting things to say on the subject, and we plan to publish as much of this discussion as we can. The rest will be made available electronically. (If you don't want to participate, just let me know, and I'll immediately take you off the list. Apologies in advance for any unwanted mail.) Since we don't yet have a functioning listserv available, and to make it possible for people to get off the list at will, I'll handle postings. To make a comment, just send mail or reply to akst@netcom.com. I'll then forward it to the entire list. For publication purposes, we'll have to cut things off on Tuesday, April 5, so please get your comments in before then. Thanks in advance for taking the time. Let the discussion begin. Dan Akst Asst Business Editor Los Angeles Times akst@netcom.com CIS:71603,144 Our Panel: Reva Basch runs a women-only forum on The Well, an on-line service based in San Francisco. Esther Dyson is a computer industry analyst who publishes the newsletter Release 1.0. Mary Flynn is an editor of technology coverage at U.S. News & World Report. Karen Frenkel has just completed a film documentary on how women are changing computing. George Gilder is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle- based technology think tank. He is the author of "Life Beyond Television" and other books. Wendy Kaminer is a writer and public policy fellow at Radcliffe College. She does not own a computer. Robin Raskin is editor of PC magazine. Jo Sanders runs the Gender Equity Program at the City University of New York's Center for Advanced Study in Education, where she studies computers and girls. >From akst@netcom.com Wed Mar 23 13:44:27 1994 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 13:41:45 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: Women in Computing (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 15:58:03 -0500 (EST) From:JXS@MINA.GC.CUNY.EDU To: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: Women in Computing Hi, Dan. I'm frustrated that I'll miss the best of this discussion since I'll be away from my computer between March 26 and April 3, but I'll try to get a couple of 2 cents in. I am increasingly concerned by the direction the popular media is taking about women's issues, including computing. We seem to be hearing more and more about the equivalent of a "computer gene" that makes women different in essence, innately, from men. This thinking leads to the conclusion that it's not surprising there are so few women in computing, relatively speaking, and, not coincidentally, also reinforces the status quo: if women are by nature unsuited to computing, why bother trying to increase their numbers in any way? In the same way, I've been seeing a lot of articles (print and electronic) lately about the "virtues" of sex-segregated schooling for girls. This thinking goes that since boys behave so badly and make education for girls such a torment and a trial, then we should exclude the boys and protect the girls. Maybe the next step will be an 8-foot high wall around girls' schools and what the hell, maybe veils to match. In all my years of research on girls and computing, it surely does seem to me that there are so many cultural influences that explain the differences in computer behavior and achievement between men and women that looking for the functional equivalent of a computer gene is at best misguided and at worst a cynical attempt to keep women out of computing. We know a great deal about the subtle and not-so-subtle influences: parents who buy computers for boys and put them in boys' rooms, software that appeals (not to say panders!) to male tastes, pornography in electronic networks and software, nerdy boys who chase girls out of computer rooms -- I could go on and on and on and on, and you all will be bored far before that. But I would love to hear from the rest of you what you make of the "computer gene" trend. Is it as apparent to you as to me? Am I exaggerating its extent or its importance? Looking forward to hearing from you all. Jo Sanders Director, Gender Equity Program Center for Advanced Study in Education CUNY Graduate Center, New York City jxs@mina.gc.cuny.edu >From akst@netcom.com Thu Mar 24 10:21:00 1994 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 10:19:15 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 21:10 EST From: George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing The dominance of males in computing is no greater than their dominance in mathematics, logic, business, politics, physics, chess, athletics, and violent crime. These areas of dominance are obviously not an effect of socialization since they arise in all societies known to anthropology. Although it is not politically correct, male dominance as Steven Goldberg proved to the satisfaction of Margaret Mead and most of the other readers of his definitive book recently republished as Why Men Rule, originates with the biological differences between the sexes, beginning with the perceptible differentiation of brain structures. As long as computing is a leading edge activity, it will be dominated by males. This was true of driving until the car was routinized. When the computer becomes a routine tool, men will turn to something more challenging. Best, gg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 94 00:38 EST From: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Cc: "Mary K. Flynn" <0006186670@mcimail.com>, LA Times List Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) <> George, Surely this was meant as inciteful conversation? I think the operative word here is not "leading edge" but "impractical"... that is as long as computing is an "impractical" activity it will be dominated by males. Women, in part due to the nature of their roles in society, are practical creatures...driven by very practical, goal oriented needs. While men have the luxury of "frittering away" their time with online banter, the latest video game technology, a round of sports, a few hours of listening to high fidelity, or some other "sharper image" pursuit, women have been juggling the realities of family and work lives. Men have some sort of entitlement to the explore "because it is there" mindset while women, I believe, need to justify their explorations. I'm a woman who spent 10 years at home minding the children, and writing about technology as a sideline activity. When my children were school aged I returned to the office and was shocked beyond belief at how inefficiently men in the office used their time relative to women at home. I also quickly came to realize and appreciate that sometimes it's this playful/tinkering/explorative behavior that leads to the most creative work. As a woman in this industry, I try to balance the practical considerations of getting a hi-tech magazine out on time and on budget with the more noble pursuit of "testing the heck out of a software or hardware product". In other words I try and bring a sort of androgenous blend to the picture. Women have as little incentive to go online and "chat" with electronic cronies as they did to hang out at the corner bar. As the computer becomes a tool with a means to an end .. a way to get the school newsletter out, or shop for a family, or find out what an expert family doctor says about the new HIV vacination, or plan a family trip, or balance the family budget .. that's when women will see the value of computing. Women see a "tool" where men see a "toy". There's a world of difference between waiting for something to become practical and waiting for something to become routine. Don't you think so? --Robin Raskin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 13:49:56 -0500 (EST) From:JXS@MINA.GC.CUNY.EDU To: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) In reply to George Gilder's message: I'm always amused at the certainty people have of innate sex differences, considering that such a thing is unknowable. When we're prepared to raise children in individual boxes with no environmental influences whatever then we will know what is innate and what isn't. In the meantime we have to assume that since we know a fair amount about environmental influences that shape expectations and behavior, at least a lot can be laid at that doorstep. I'm not an anthropologist, but I was under the impression that societies vary considerably along sex role lines. Indeed, this is how the field as a . In fact this is how the field as a whole got its start. That's hardly proof of innate sex differences in computing! Jo Sanders ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 12:43:22 -0800 From: Reva Basch To: akst@netcom.com Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) I have to approach this discussion from the perspective of my own experience. Whatever the historical reasons for the lack of women in computing -- something that I do think is changing, by the way -- I see a tremendous interest among my female friends and colleagues, not so much in how computers work as in what they can *do*. I didn't think about computers one way or another until I started doing online searching for a living -- and I was coming, incidentally, from the traditionally female-oriented profession of library science. At that point, they became a tool, something that was essential to my job, so I had to become at least moderately conversant with them. Working with computers every day helps de-mystify them. You learn what you need to function at a certain level, and when you have to go deeper, you learn some more. Good programs are designed to allow you to work like that; the more complex features are invisible until you've learned enough of the basics to start wondering about the harder parts. That's a very natural way to learn a complex system, and from what I've seen, women adapt to it extremely well. For any technology to take hold, you need a "killer app," an application that makes using it irresistable. For many women, the killer app is communications, the ability to connect with other people through their keyboards and modems. I host Women on The WELL, a private, women-only forum that happens to be one of the most active conferences on that system. I see women who got hold of a computer and climbed the learning curve solely to participate in online communications. There are artists, single mothers, people who live in isolated rural areas, whom you wouldn't think of as computer users at all, but they have gotten adept simply because there was something they were strongly motivated to accomplish that happened to be computer-related. I don't believe in the "computer gene" theory. I think it's a question of socialization, and the messages girls and women have gotten until recently, the whole "math is hard" business. There are plenty of female nerds, women who make their livings working with computers *as* computers. Of course, their numbers are still relatively small at this stage. But what I find even more interesting is how many women, myself included, became comfortable with computers as a means to an end, and then enthralled with what *else* they could do with them. Once you're hooked, you start exploring how they work, and all kinds of other possibilities present themselves. Perhaps it's because I hang out online, but I know as many women as I do men who stay up until the wee hours, tweaking their config.sys files or installing new software, surfing databases, participating in online conferences and so on. That trend is going to continue, I have no doubt. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 13:49:56 -0500 (EST) From:JXS@MINA.GC.CUNY.EDU To: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) In reply to George Gilder's message: I'm always amused at the certainty people have of innate sex differences, considering that such a thing is unknowable. When we're prepared to raise children in individual boxes with no environmental influences whatever then we will know what is innate and what isn't. In the meantime we have to assume that since we know a fair amount about environmental influences that shape expectations and behavior, at least a lot can be laid at that doorstep. I'm not an anthropologist, but I was under the impression that societies vary considerably along sex role lines. Indeed, this is how the field as a . In fact this is how the field as a whole got its start. That's hardly proof of innate sex differences in computing! Jo Sanders >From akst@netcom.com Sat Mar 26 18:44:30 1994 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 18:42:25 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 94 12:08 EST From: George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) The issue of differences in behavior between men and women in relation to anything, from knitting and figure skating to baseball and computing-- cannot be seriously discussed without confronting the demonstrable reality of biological differences. I spent several years studying the anthropology on this point and wrote three books on the subject. Although sex roles have varied tremendously among societies throughout history, in all societies, men are more aggressive and competitive, hold the warrior role (Amazons are a myth), and command the positions to which the society ascribes the greatest prestige and importance outside the always central and indispensable maternal roles. In recent years, studies of the brain have demonstrated physiological differences in the hypothalamus and the cortex, and in the entire endocrinological system. Differential performance in math and science is not a peculiarity of the United States; it is universal. Greater male focus on earning money is universal in all societies with productive economies. It stems from the fact that as an overwhelming rule men must outperform women in the marketplace in order to marry. The computer is the leading wealth producer in the world economy. Men flock to it not for diversion but for sexual survival. In general, the more money a woman makes the larger is the gap between her income and her husbands larger income. Feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem do not traffic with flower children; they chase real estate magnates. The male dominance in computing is merely another expression of the universal need of men to dominate economically in order to win women. >From akst@netcom.com Sun Mar 27 18:30:57 1994 Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 18:29:49 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: Women in Computing (fwd) To: LA Times List --------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 94 23:25 EST From: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst , "Mary K. Flynn" <0006186670@mcimail.com>, LA Times List Subject: Re: Women in Computing (fwd) But George you can't say that spending hours and hours information surfing on the Internet, or playing some golf simulation, or Fantasy Baseball League, or electronic chat boards, or heaven forbid even electronic pornography has much to do with going out there and "making a killing" (financial or otherwise). These guys have a "because it is there" attitude -- not unlike climbers of Everest. While I won't disagree with your findings about innate differences in the sexes, I think the male "kill" gene doesn't really explain what's going on here. As a matter of fact, I could argue that there's an escapist gene at work here. I've heard wives complain about their husbands computer habits with the same tone that wives complain about drinking or drug habits. Over and over I've seen the near-addicted male and the "i-don't-understand-a-thing-about-these-computers" female live as couples. And while I know some women, in fact, quite a few women that frequent the electronic hangouts of cyberspace, the overwhelming majority of on-liners I know, or hear from in my professional capacity are men. --Robin >From akst@netcom.com Mon Mar 28 14:49:10 1994 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 14:46:29 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 16:37 EST From: Mary K. Flynn <0006186670@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Cc: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com>, LA Times List Subject: RE: Women in Computing (fwd) Wow, there's a lot to respond to on this thread! Here goes: Re: Women online. Cyberspace may have traditionally been a men's club, but that's changing. Fast. Earlier this month, at U.S. News & World Report, we launched a women's symposium on our CompuServe forum (Go: USNEWS): in the first three weeks, 2,000 people participated, about 95 percent of whom are women, estimates US News sysop Kristen Gunn. And we certainly aren't the only ones who've been successful in bringing women online. The New York-based bulletin board Echo isn't aimed especially at women, but by virtue of its being founded by a woman, Stacy Horn, it's captured 40 percent female membership. Compare that with CompuServe, which estimates its female membership at about 10 percent (and maybe as high as 30 percent if you count women using their significant others' accounts). Women's Wire, launched in January in San Francisco by Ellen Pack, has 700 members, 90 percent of whom are women. Clearly women are very interested in communicating online. But the way women communicate electronically seems to be very different from the way men do. While men spend a lot of online time expressing their opinions and arguing, women seem to be more interested in sharing resources--Women's Wire, for example, is jammed with articles people have posted and references to books and organizations)--and in connecting with each other in the real world (the U.S. News women's symposium is filled with a lot of career networking). At this point, I wonder if the very thing men seem to like about online services--the electronic "pub"--is what has been turning women off. Re: Toys vs. Tools I think Robin is absolutely right that men don't have as much trouble justifying playing time as women do. That playfulness is something I'm constantly envying in my male friends. As 3DO CEO Trip Hawkins told me, in the consumer market, women buy white functional appliances like refrigerators and washing machines whereas men buy black fun machines like stereos and TVs. I think this is one of the reasons for the difference in online behavior--men are playing whereas women are trying to accomplish something (making a career contact, finding an article to read). Re: Why so few women in the computer industry? This is a question I've been asking male and female executives in the computer industry for the last eight years. Many of the women I've spoken to talk about that magical age between 11 and 13 when all of a sudden you can't be both pretty and good at math. (If I were George, I guess I'd say women discover that in order to get a man, they have to fail at math.) Most of the women who managed to succeed in math-science-computer fields despite social pressures point to strong role models (not always female). Encouragingly, many companies--Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lotus and Microsoft are the ones I know about--are actively involved in bringing more women into the field through community outreach programs, scholarships for women in the sciences, and recruiting from women's colleges. With women like Carol Bartz (CEO of Autodesk, the number four software company), Martha Sloan (former president of the IEEE, the world's largest technical association) and Patty Stonesifer (vice president of the consumer software division at Microsoft, the software giant's highest ranking woman), the next generation of women will have more strong female role models in the computer industry than ever before! >From akst@netcom.com Mon Mar 28 20:02:34 1994 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 19:56:53 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: our discussion list (fwd) To: LA Times List Since there's been talk on this list of how women use computers for communications, and of women-only or female-friendly online services, I thought Nancy Baym's observations on rec.arts.tv.soaps might be of interest... Dan Akst ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 11:08:46 -0600 From: Nancy Baym To: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: our discussion list What I've been doing is basically an ethnography/discourse analysis of the group rec.arts.tv.soaps (rats) which is a Usenet discussion group that discusses (primarily daytime) soap operas. The group is extremely successful, distributing more messages than almost any group on Usenet. My data includes one month of posts from late 1991, 10 months from 1992 (together this is a corpus of almost 35,000 messages), e-mail surveys and interviews, the Usenet statistics posted to news.lists, and a "yearbook" participants who discuss All My Children compiled. The group is interesting for a lot of reasons, not the least of which, of course, is that it is dominated by women (by my estimates it's 72% women). Most of those women are professionals (predominantly in the computer & software industry), academics (predominantly scientists) and students. I have done analyses of how the talk is divided into named genres, politeness in the group, and humor in the group. My primary research question has been "how do the patterns of language use in this community reflect the concerns around which this community is organized?" In other words, I start with how they talk and deduce what matters most to them. Findings in a nutshell: * Participation in this group is radically un-equal. The overwhelming majority of participants lurk (a term without negative connotations in rats) without ever reading (perhaps as many as 40,000 readers). Of those who do post, 3% of the approx 2500 posters write 46% of the messages. * This is an interpretive group -- far more so than the distribution of information, this group is about pooling interpretations. All non-interpretive genres, for instance, are explicitly marked in the subject lines with genre titles, while interpretive comments are not tagged. Descriptions of the talk in my survey data also support this. * People are extremely polite to one another, especially when they are disagreeing on matters of interpretation. Politeness is accomplished through a number of specific linguistic devices (such as qualifications, agreements prior to disagreements, use of the other's name, acknowlegement of the other's perspective, provision of reasoning, and more). Participants do not flame one another. A high level of civility is the norm. * The group is very very funny. Humor serves a lot of functions: entertains others, compensates for the shows' shortcomings and simultaneously unites the participants in solidarity against the shows' writers, provides a means for individuals to develop distinctive identities within the group, and expands and codifies the group's collaborative meanings. My explanation of the findings has to do with the nature of soaps: (1) they are designed to elicit multiple ongoing interpretations of events and characters. The more interpretative resources one has access to, the richer ones experience of/pleasure in the show. Hence the group is enriching soap pleasure by giving all the participants interpretive materials with which to enhance it. (2) soaps are about emotion in intimate relationships. When people pool interpretations, a lot of what they are doing is talking about their own experience and understanding of private emotionality (it is through this knowledge that they interpret the soap). Much of the politeness, humor, and other phenomena in this group are oriented toward creating a place safe and pleasant enough that people will feel free to voice these highly personalized interpretations. The group thus provides a space to discuss socio-emotional issues, through the activity of talking about soaps. Since this is a discussion of women and computers, let me just position myself in terms of that topic. I have not taken an explicitly gender-focused approach toward the group, though I am sure the fact that it's largely women is part of the reason it looks as it does. I have found no gender differences within the group. I have tried to present the material so that those who would like to draw implications about gender or take it in that direction further will be able to, and it is an angle I'd like to see elaborated eventually. My stance has been that what they are doing here, creating a rich friendly personalized and pleasurable community through language alone, is interesting in its own right, and I have sought to describe and explain that process. One thing that I think emerges as particularly noteworthy for those interested in how women may be left/pushed out of the computer phenomenon is that this is a case where women have been extremely successful in creating and sustaining a public space where they can discuss issues of concern to them (for instance, using the soap as a launching pad, there is often explicit tangential discussion of "feminist" issues including physical safety, abuse, sexism, etc.). As such I think it is a model of the up-side of the coin. I am happy to elaborate on any of this further if people have questions or comments. Nancy Baym Nancy Baym "Education is the only place where Speech Communication people try to get the least for their University of Illinois money" -- my mom >From akst@netcom.com Tue Mar 29 11:12:06 1994 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 11:10:22 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: our discussion list (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 11:34 EST From: Mary K. Flynn <0006186670@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Cc: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com>, George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com>, LA Times List Subject: Re: our discussion list (fwd) Nancy: Sounds like a fascinating study. I'd love to hear some examples. I'm also curious to know more about what you mean by interpretive. I have a philosopher friend who believes soap plots are constructed so that you want a particular outcome; she finds the plots most interesting when it's not clear which outcome you're supposed to want (should you want Dixie to end up with Tad or his not-so-evil twin?). Also, on the 3 percent participation--how does that compare to other forums? I wonder if primarily male online discussions have a higher or lower percentage of participation. It seems to me that women have less practice--and are therefore less comfortable with-- expressing their opinions in public (something I've never had a problem with!)--one reason I'm at least sympathetic to single-sex education (after all, my college, Vassar, was all female for 100 years!, though it was co-ed by the time I went there) is that it gives women a chance to catch up on skills like speaking in class. Mary >From akst@netcom.com Tue Mar 29 13:57:25 1994 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:55:24 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: Women & Computers Discussion (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:16:42 -0800 From: Reva Basch To: akst@netcom.com Subject: Women & Computers Discussion Mary raises an interesting point with her mention of Echo and Women's WIRE. Both of these online services have made a special effort to reach out to women, to try to convey the message that there is, indeed, something to grab and hold their attention once they get online. Neither system coddles users or condescends to them. In fact, from what I've seen, Echo's interface is no friendlier than The WELL's notoriously cryptic and non-intuitive PicoSpan. Women often need to be *shown* that there's something of value behind the technology. I tried explaining to my 80-year-old mother-in-law how it was that I had made such good friends "on the computer." Finally, I sat her down and demo'ed The WELL to her. Her comment? "Why, honey, it's just people *talking*, isn't it?" She was thrilled, and had me browse through conference after conference, looking for topic headers that she found interesting. I don't go along with Mary's suggestion that women seem to be more interested in sharing resources and connecting in the real world than in hanging out in some electronic pub. Again, this is from my perspective as a host of Women on The WELL, but the electronic pub model is *exactly* what appeals to many of us. We work at home, or live in areas where it's difficult to find kindred spirits, and we fulfill many of our social needs by hanging out online. >From akst@netcom.com Tue Mar 29 17:16:49 1994 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 17:14:58 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: re: women in computing (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 18:06:24 EST From: David Kennedy To: AKST@netcom.com Subject: re: women in computing Hello, this is Wendy Kaminer. You can reach me at David Kennedy's address above. I'm a computer illiterate, having my first E-mail conversation (is this called a conversation?) Imagine my delight when while reading George Gilder's remarks, I discovered the excape key. I may learn to love computers after all. I'm already enjoying the spectacle of a new technology being used to conduct an old conversation. Computers may be strange to me but notions of gender difference are as familiar as my yellow pads. Women have traditionally been considered ill-suited to do whatever jobs it would have been socially or economically disruptive for them to do. The professions - law, medicine, and business - and the more lucrative trades were exclusively male for much of our history, partly because it was believed that women were dumber than men, less analytic and ambitious, as well as weaker. "Scientific" theories about gender difference were always used to justify gender discrimination (just as theories about racial difference were used to justify racism.) Darwin asserted that men were more creative, energetic and courageous than women, who, he suggested, were not as evolved as men. He associated women with the "lower races." (Guess which races he meant.) Of course, George, I don't know as much about evolution as Darwin did, but I do know a dinosaur when I see one. l9th century sceintists also kept themselves busy weighing the brains of famous men, in the belief that brain power was a function of weight. But, as feminist Helen Hamilton Gardener pointed out, no man's brain, not even Byron's, was a match for the brain of a whale or an elephant. "Almost any elephant is an entire medical faculty," Hamilton wrote. Still, sceintists persisted. "The brain of a woman is inferior in at least l9 different ways to the brain of a man," a former U.S. Surgeon General asserted in l880. Hamilton tried to disprove this notion by bequeathing her own brain to researchers at Cornell University, who found that it "equalled the best brains in the Cornell collection." Today, popular, pseudo-science about the brain focuses on left brain/right brain theories. (Here pseudo-science merges with New Age). Popular theories feminize the right side of the brain and masculinize the left. (Since the right brain is associated with spatial perceptions and the left brain with verbal ability, this means that women should be beter at chess than men and worse at learning how to talk, but never mind.) More important to biological determinists today than theories about the brain are theories about genes. Practically everything, it seems, is said to be genetic, which means nothing is anyone's fault and nothing is changeable. We have alcoholism genes, homosexual genes, and now, it seems, we have computer genes. (We really ought to have a biologist in on this convesation to explain how genes work: it's not that simple.) How convenient all these theories are for men who want to maintain their monopolies. Actively discourage girls from succeeding in math and science and then count the number who change to humanities majors in their sophomore years as evidence that women are naturally uninterested in math and science. When a woman has been forced into a corset all her life, Helen Hamilton Gardener remarked, it's hard to judge her natural shape. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 20:57 EST From: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst , George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com>, "Mary K. Flynn" <0006186670@mcimail.com>, LA Times List Subject: Re: our discussion list (fwd) For those of you who still have time left in your day to ask more questions, here's an interesting slant on the gender issue. The folks on Ziffnet (which can be found on CompuServe) are holding a week long forum on how to market computer stuff to women. There have been many unsuccessful attempts to attract women into computing including one I remember called "WomensWare" which was sort of a practical database for the home. It came packaged on a clothes hanger. Thankfully, it died a quick death. Also, to take up where Mary left off, one of the gratifying things to see regarding women in this industry is how well they do once they are there. I think that women are born communicators and they are eloquent liasons between the technical world and the rest of the world. They can be "in the club" but still relate to those who aren't. This is a crucial skill. --Robin Today on ZiffNet What Do Women Really Want in a Computer Ad Campaign? It's no secret that the male-dominated computer industry has traditionally geared its advertising and marketing campaigns to men only. But that scenario may be changing. A March 21 article in PC Week Inside, called "The Other Half," cites some pioneering new approaches to marketing computers to women. These and other issues are being discussed this week in the Women Online forum (GO WOMAN) with a number of special guests, including Ellen Guon, author of Pickle Wars; Vivica Stone, president of Stone and Associate Educational Software and make of a program designed specifically for girls; and Carolyn Leighton, president of Criterion Research and founding executive director of the International Network of Women in Technology. ZiffNet's Sandy Donnelly hosts the event, which runs through Friday, April 1, in the Women Online of the Executives Online Forum (GO EXEC to Message Section 17 or GO WOMAN directly). >From akst@netcom.com Wed Mar 30 18:32:00 1994 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 18:30:34 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Akst Subject: Women in Computing Forum (fwd) To: LA Times List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 16:39:54 EDT From: Karen Frenkel To: Dan Akst Subject: Women in Computing Forum LA Times Forum on Women in Computing I have just finished filming a documentary for Public Television that addresses the same questions as this forum. The one-hour film is tentatively entitled Minerva's Machine: How Women are Changing Com- puting. Over 40 people on both coasts were interviewed, including computer scientists and computer company executives, sociologists, developmental psychologists, sexual harassment and gender discrimi- nation lawyers and their clients, computer science students (from grade school to graduate school), and their teachers. The program will revolve around four in-depth profiles of women in computing. George Gilder's statement that there are few women in computing because males dominate leading edge activities is, at best, simplistic. The reasons for unequal gender representation are complex, as we learned from our interviews and research. As one sociologist explained, boys and girls exhibit different styles of programming. Boys generally use the "hard master" style--they conduct a monologue with the computer, commanding and writing code according to a structured, linear plan. In contrast, most girls employ "soft mastery," engaging in a dialogue and even a negotiation with the computer in order to see what works. Their way is to interact and explore what the computer can do, rather than to conquer the box, as males try to do. In school, girls get their hands slapped for programming the "wrong way." As a result, they believe that they are not good at programming, become discouraged, and stay away. Yet truly creative, virtuoso programmers draw on both styles in order to maintain their "leading edge." Think of all the talent that is being deterred and lost unnecessarily. The idea that women are not capable of excelling in computer science because they are biologically not fit is absurd, and irrelevant. Tired of the worn out nature/nurture debate, one exasperated developmental psychologist told me, "It doesn't matter what causes differences between men and women and boys and girls. What matters is our evaluation of these differences. Regardless of whether or not growth hormone or nutrition causes height, we don't discriminate between people who are five foot four and five foot seven. In the same way, if we really did allow for different ways of knowing and thinking in our society, then it really wouldn't matter what causes particular preferences and styles of thinking and doing." Yet, as the developmental psychologist went on to say, we do live in a dual society that calls attention to the masculine and feminine and assigns value to each. There are numerous, concrete reasons why women either do not enter the field of computing, enter and drop out, or top out before reaching their full potential. And I have not even addressed how alienating violent and misogynistic video games are to girls, how parents unwittingly perpetuate the notion that girls are not mechanically minded by buying or not buying certain toys, etc. These issues will be fully explored in Minerva's Machine. For now, suffice it to say that many bright women in computing report cumulative fatigue--they get tired of fighting every step of the way, especially while watching how relatively easy it is for men to succeed. As we move further into the information revolution, society cannot afford to exclude or lose women, who represent more that half the population and are half the professional workforce. If the information revolution is to really work, people of all kinds should participate both as inventors and users of the technology. Karen A. Frenkel Executive Producer Minerva's Machine ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 14:37 EST From: George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Subject: re: women in computing (fwd) Wendy Kaminer's response is typically feminist: throw some dirt and change the subject. A belief in the differences between the sexes is alleged to imply racism, genetic determinism, and male superiority. I actually believe that male and female brains are different and that in many ways the female brain is superior: for example, female brains manage a much more complex endocrinological system, more sensitive social perceptions, and verbal subtleties. I have shown in several books that women are sexually superior and that men are more dependent on marriage, and hence on women, than women are dependent on men. Women are healthier and play the central roles in procreation. A society could survive the deaths of nearly all its young men, but would go extinct if its women were not protected. But men in all societies are more aggressive, competitive, enterprising, mathematical, and tall. It so happens that computer science is heavily a mathematical pursuit and that the computer business is one of the most competitive on the planet. But as the father of three girls, one of whom I am currently teaching calculus, phasor algebra, trigonometry, and other advanced engineering math at age 13, I resent the idea that my observation, shared by everyone on this panel, that women around the world are less involved in computers than men are, makes me somehow a dinosaur. Any society, however, that fails to come to terms with the profound differences between the sexes will likely go the way of the dinosaurs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 15:47:57 -0600 From: Nancy Baym To: Daniel Akst Subject: Re: our discussion list (fwd) Mary K. Flynn writes: >I'd love to hear some examples. I'm not quite sure what you'd like to see examples of, but anyone with Usenet access can peek in to the group, rec.arts.tv.soaps and see for themselves what's going on. >I'm also curious to know more about >what you mean by interpretive. I have a philosopher >friend who believes soap plots are constructed >so that you want a particular outcome; she finds >the plots most interesting when it's not clear >which outcome you're supposed to want (should you >want Dixie to end up with Tad or his not-so-evil twin?). By interpretive I mean simply that the assertions are not matters of fact which can be determined right or wrong. Your friend raises some good points. I think soaps construct their stories so that they open up multiple possible meanings, people may disagree on what they want to have happen. The ambivalence about outcomes you mention is probably one factor in enjoying a storyline, but even stories like this can drag on to where everyone seems to hate it (Tad-Brooke-Dixie being a good example of this). There are so many things going on in soap involvement, which is of course the main reason people want to talk to each other about soaps so much! >Also, on the 3 percent participation--how does that >compare to other forums? I wonder if primarily male >online discussions have a higher or lower percentage >of participation. This I don't know. For clarification, the 3% are the heaviest posters, those who write over 10 messages/month and together generate 46% of the messages. There are not any gender differences within this, that is, the proportion of men/women among heavy posters is the same as it is among lighter posters. My intuition is that participation probably breaks down fairly similarly in other fora, though I would REALLY like to see more work on this. The other mailing lists and newsgroups I participate in seem to be dominated by a few voices who do most of the talking. >It seems to me that women have >less practice--and are therefore less comfortable with-- >expressing their opinions in public ... I don't know about this. Women and girls spend a lot of time voicing their opinions to one another. R.a.t.s. is one particular sample of women, and maybe they differ in some way from other women (though probably not from other women on-line), but I don't see any evidence to indicate any kind of ineptitude or reticicence about expressing opinions. Indeed, it's a group that is remarkably savvy about doing so with humor and graciousness. I see hundreds of women relishing the pooling, comparing and justifying of opinions publically. Enough to make r.a.t.s. much higher traffic than the vast majority of other (primarily male-dominated) newsgroups. It seems significant to me that r.a.t.s. seems to be carrying more messages by women that any other group on Usenet, which is far larger than any other newsgroup system, including all commercial nets and bulletin boards. Though I don't feel I know the rest of the groups well enough to make any arguments about what the significance really is... But I'm willing to bet it has nothing to do with genetic differences between men and women! Nancy Nancy Baym "Education is the only place where Speech Communication people try to get the least for their University of Illinois money" -- my mom Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 18:19 EST From: "Mary K. Flynn" <0006186670@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Cc: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com> Cc: LA Times List Subject: re: women in computing (fwd) Nancy, thanks for your response. Your study sounds very interesting. As a 20-year veteran viewer of All My Children, I just may pop in on r.a.t.s. one of these days. George, I'm trying to follow your arguments but I'm perplexed. If men are genetically better designed for mathematics, what is the point of teaching your 13-year-old daughter calculus, trig, etc? There'll always be a guy around who can do it better, in your view. I also don't understand why the historical evidence you refer to leads you to the conclusion that mena nd women are genetically different--all of it could be explained by socialization, not biology. Does anyone else on the panel believe there are genetic differences between men and women? I, for one, don't--though I do believe there tend to be some general behavioral differences (with zillions of exceptions), but I think they stem from the different training we give girls and boys. Some of the signals we send are so subtle we don't even notice them. I try to be very vigilant about this stuff, buying gender-neutral clothing for the kids we know, but I fall into old habits sometimes too. For example, when my husband I were Christmas shopping, we chose a Fisher Price garage for our nephew and a Madame Alexander baby doll for my best friend's daughter. It was only later that we realized what a different set of messages--and training grounds--we gave to each child. Who knows? If my parents had given me a garage when I was two, maybe I'd be a mechanic instead of a writer. Another question I have about the makeup of the panel: How many participants actually are women in the computer industry? I count one so far, Reva, since she's a sysop. The rest of us seem to be writers, thinkers, teachers, etc. Mary Dan Akst responds: Unfortunately, I've had a helluva time getting response from computer executives of either gender, perhaps because the issue is such a sensitive one. Perhaps I should have tried harder. Anyway, the members of this list are below; as you can see, a number are women in the computer industry. Some were included without being asked, except for the initial email request for participation, which invited them to say no. Bill Gates was included for awhile but asked to be removed. Terry Myers is reading these things on paper, as I understand it; since she lacks an Internet address of her own, we're using that of a male subordinate. If anyone can suggest some computer industry women who would actually participate, I would be glad to include them. It would be a small matter for me to zap them a copy of the discussion so far. On the other hand, I think the discussion has been pretty lively and interesting, so no disappointment on this end, and I'm endlessly grateful for everyone's help. The List Terry Myers--Quarterdeck Robin Raskin--PC Magazine Jo Sanders--CUNY Sherry Turkle--MIT Media Lab Karen White--Oracle Corp. Carol Bartz--AutoDesk Denise Caruso--Friday Holdings Esther Dyson--Publisher, analyst Mary Flynn--US News Karen Frenkel--documentary journalist George Gilder--author Wendy Kaminer--Harvard fellow, author Dan Malcor--LA Times techie, for emergencies Steve Manes--writer Reva Basch--The Well (Women's forum) Nancy Baym--graduate student Amy Harmon--LA Times multimedia reporter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 14:31:34 -0800 From: Reva Basch To: akst@netcom.com Subject: re: women in computing (fwd) I wouldn't identify myself as a "woman in the computer industry," although my business -- online database searching, writing and consulting to the electronic information industry -- relies heavily on computers as tools. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 13:00 EST From: George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Subject: re: women in computing (fwd) It is amazing to encounter extremely intelligent people who believe after the last 50 years of revolutionary advances in biology, neurology, endocrinology, and physiology that the differences between the sexes manifested in all societies ever studied by anthropologists are environmental. The superior male performance in mathematics is not debatable. It is a fact. However, my daughter is far superior to me in mathematical aptitude and in mechanical aptitude, just as there are millions of men better than me in mathematics. This fact does not stop me from studying math, any more than the fact that several of the female participants in this wrangle know far more than me about computers stops me from studying computers and writing about them. Speaking not as a long term student of the science and anthropology of the differences between the sexes but as a debater with feminists in my youth, I was always amazed by their inability to absorb general sociological arguments. This current discussion is supposed to be about the general issue of lesser participation by women in computing. This general question is answered by general differences between the sexes in mathematical ability mechanical aptitude, and economic roles deriving from the biological roles in families. One cannot answer these general propositions by the streams of anecdotes that are perpetually offered by feminists in this debate. If particular differences between the sexes, such as on mathematics and aggression, are found in all societies, then the argument that they are determined by the enviroment just moves the debate to a different level. The enviroment in the feminist argument becomes a force as all encompassing as biology itself. Why do human beings everywhere create an environment that makes women less aggressive and less mathematical? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 22:56 EST From: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst Cc: "Mary K. Flynn" <0006186670@mcimail.com>, LA Times List Subject: re: women in computing (fwd) I have no problem with the fact that George thinks women and men are different -- and whether that difference is nature or nuture in essence isn't really the question here. George opened his comments here by saying that men are the explorers and innovators and once the is "chartered territory" they will turn their attention elsewhere. Here are his exact words: As long as computing is a leading edge activity, it will be dominated by males. This was true of driving until the car was routinized. When the computer becomes a routine tool, men will turn to something more challenging. (quote is brought to you by the magic of cut and paste). I have problem with this concept on numerous levels. First off, the wonderful thing about the computer is its evolution. Thanks to chip innovation, the speed at which we can process information doubles every 18 months. As the speed doubles we get to harness the power to invent new graphical user interfaces that can tap into every sort of ability. I don't see any end to the wonders of computing --- at least not in my lifetime. Second, and closely intertwined with this is the fact that as computers evolve it becomes less and less essential that you be mathematically inclined, or that you be an engineer, or even a computer nerd to make your "mark" on the computing world. Computers become a form of expression and exploration for everyone. Will more and more women enter into engineering, chip design, mathematics or data processing? I'm not sure. I think that part of the reason they've stayed away is not a matter of ability or inclination but of our social system. The nuclear family is probably the single biggest impediment to women entering traditional 9 to 5 jobs and sticking with them long enough to make an impact. Why do women dominate the teaching field? You think it's because they have some sort of biological inclination to teach the next generation? Hogwash! It's because you get summers off and the workday ends at 3:30 PM. I think that when there are good daycare alternatives - when you know that your children are cared for and nutured -- maybe even better than you could do it yourself-- when raising children becomes a communal effort between a man and woman and their community --- that's when you'll give women a chance to do their best work. On a personal level: I can be the Editor of the largest computer magazine today, because I stayed home with my three children and wrote freelance articles about computing until the were all in school. (Truly my initial attraction to computing was that the pay was better than most freelance writing and the work was plentiful). And even now (ages 14,12 and 8) I have an extensive and elaborate support network of relatives and paid help that get me and them through each day. My husband, great guy, and successful that he is, never had to balance the demands of family and professional life the way that I have. He writes books while I write magazine length articles. And I tell him that in part, the reason I stick to magazines is because I can't think for more than 5,000 words without being interrupted. I think many women are driven by such realities. -- Robin >From 0003741474@mcimail.com Sun Apr 3 19:03:14 1994 Return-Path: <0003741474@mcimail.com> Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 20:58 EST From: Robin Raskin <0003741474@mcimail.com> To: Daniel Akst To: George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com> To: "Mary K. Flynn" <0006186670@mcimail.com> To: LA Times List Subject: Re: Women in Computing Forum (fwd) Karen, I wonder if your findings on gender differences with computer programming will change now that programming has become more object oriented and less procedural. With new visual development environments, and the rules of object oriented programming: encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance coming into play, I wonder if women won't be better off. The things you mention, like having a dialog with the machine, and testing to see what works and what doesn't figure heavily into the object oriented model. The ability to see the gestalt of the application becomes very important too. Of course, I just wrote a column I dedicated to Lenny Bruce, where I lambasted the "fellas" who are developing some of the new language of object oriented programming. Concepts like "exposing your objects" , "naked objects", and "inserting objects into containers", dominate the language of object oriented programming. Freud would have had a picnic, huh? --Robin >From akst@netcom.com Wed Apr 6 13:27:05 1994 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Akst To: LA Times List Subject: women in computing (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 12:36:15 EST From: David Kennedy To: AKST@netcom.com Subject: women in computing from: Wendy Kaminer via David Kennedy And they say feminists have no sense of humor. I wasn't "throwing dirt" George, I was trying to provide some historical context for this discussion. (How is that changing the subject?) Since you rely so heavily on "science" it seems useful to examine some historic scientific biases. I did not imply that you are a racist, though believing that the sexes are naturally different in character and intellectual ability does make you something of a biological determinist. (I'm surprised that you consider the term "determinist" an epithet.) Nor do I understand why you bother denying your belief in male superiority; it's evident in the assertion that men are more enterprising and more likely to be involved in leading edge activities as well as more mathematical. Of course you assign superior social skills and emotional sensitivity to women; male supremacists usually do. Stressing women's superior capacity for nurturance and their relative lack of amibition and aggession is merely a way of stressing that they belong at home. In any case, I find assertions about female superiority as silly as assertions about male superiority. Women aren't "born communicators" anymore than they're born to be stupid at math, anymore than occupational segregation is natural. Consider this bit of history, cited by labor historian Alice Kessler-Harris: During World War l, when there was a shortage of male workers, women were deemed ideally suited to low level bank jobs, because they were presumed to be neat and in possession of good characters and nimble fingers - qualities that might have made them born blackjack dealers. How come it made them born secretaries? During the Depression, when there was a surfeit of male workers, experts discovered that women were ill-suited to banking work after all, partly because they were lousy at math. White collar jobs, in particular, can be easily categorized as either stereotypically male or stereotypically female, depending on what job qualifications you choose to emphasize, and how. Executive positions might be considered naturally male, if they're said to require a penchant for hierarchical authority structures and for cool, analytic decisionmaking that puts the interests of the company above the feelings of individual employees. Or, executive positions might be considered naturally female if they're said to require a penchant for cooperation and nurturance, or even nagging. Computing might just as easily have been labelled naturally feminine activity, since it requires typing skill. (Although it's worth noting that women office workers are using computers not merely for clerical work but for financial management, database management, and desk top publishing. It is invariably the women who know how to make these systems work; the men go to them for help.) We might have pointed to men's fascination with computers as evidence of the feminization of the male work force. (It is, after all, hard to imagine Hemingway on a video safari.) We might have focused on the phenomenon of men sitting at keyboards, getting soft. Instead we've fixated on men exploring cyberspace. What if we focus on virtual community? I've heard it said that [...] see essays as collections of interchangeable parts - paragraphs that can be thrown into the computer and spit out in any order. Computers have contributed greatly to the increasing incoherency of writing. (Note to Dan: I'm most interested in seeing how you edit this forum. It won't be easy.) I know that I'm the one sounding like a dinosaur now; at least I'm not sounding post-modern. But that has nothing to do with my sex. The women writers I know took to computers as quickly, and with as much consequent evangelism, as men. If there is a gene involved in my own dislike of computers, however, it may be my own particular version of the writing gene. How interesting that, like the gene for math, science, and computing, the writing gene was once considered male. >From akst@netcom.com Wed Apr 6 13:27:56 1994 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Akst To: LA Times List Subject: Women and Computing (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 12:50:54 -0500 (EST) From:JXS@MINA.GC.CUNY.EDU To: akst@netcom.com Subject: Women and Computing Well, well, it's been a pretty lively discussion since I've been gone! I'm fascinated by the extent to which the group seems so involved in thinking about what's learned and what's innate. One advantage to working on the educational/kid end rather than the industry/grown-up end is that it is easier to see developmental processes occurring. I am increasingly able to understand just why it is that the "computer gene" approach is so attractive to so many people, not just our friend George. It seems to fit so well with the evidence! After all, it rarely happens -- perhaps just about never happens -- that anyone forbids girls to use computers or have access to computers. Parents don't tell girls that only their brothers are allowed to use the family computer. Teachers don't restrict computer courses to boys only. In fact, we all know that parents and teachers often wish girls would be more involved in computing than they are. The conclusion that the boy/girl difference must be innate is so easy to reach, since nothing else seems to account for it. There are two major problems with this kind of thinking. The first is the most obvious. Computer ability can't be innate when some men are poor at computing and some women are superb at it. In fact, all educational research on gender differences in achievement in math, science and computing indicates that there are larger within-sex differences than between-sex differences. The second explanation is to my mind less obvious but far more interesting. The reason we see different behavioral outcomes but do not see the causes leading up to them (thus concluding the cause MUST be genetic ...) is that the causes are there, all right, but they are so subtle and cumulative that they are terribly hard to identify. When a boy in a computer class makes a disparaging comment to a girl about what she's doing, and what's worse the teacher lets it pass unchallenged, a tiny influence has lodged in her mind about her computing ability. One incident alone is nothing, but many of them add up to a considerable force. The girl who eventually decides in high school that computers aren't as interesting as she thought they were when she was younger surely doesn't understand the influences on the change in her thinking, but this doesn't mean she wasn't influenced. One charge frequently leveled against feminists is that we have no sense of humor, that we take umbrage at trivial, picky nothings. Well, I think that the trivial, picky nothings are probably responsible for the vast majority of the sexism in the world. After all, when the deck is stacked by a long series of subtle, tiny influences, gross bigots and evil villains aren't needed to ensure that the girl will reach the predictable result. Jo