

NYT: “MEN invented the internet” - TDL
http://boingboing.net/2012/06/03/nyt-men-invented-the-inter.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

======
tomjen3
I won't comment on the merits of this article, but before anybody comments,
please take a moment to consider if what you to say is new. We had this
dicussion recently, and having the same discussion isn't productive.

~~~
lomegor
Maybe you are right and it's an old discussion. But repeating things and
repeating discussions is in no way a bad thing. In fact, most of the ideas
presented here on Hacker News are repeated ideas, maybe with a twist.

Either way, if you are tired of this discussions don't participate on one, but
don't tell other people to not discuss. Maybe someone new here wants to
express his/her ideas or maybe someone old really loves discussing this topic.

------
angrycoder
Grace Hopper was a complete badass. Here is an interview with her on Letterman
circa 1986: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ0g5_NgRao>

------
cantastoria
_Women may have been invisible, but the work we did laid the groundwork for
more visible advancements now credited to more famous men._

But what aspects of that work specifically led to the invention of the
Internet? If "laying the groundwork" is the criteria then Newton, Tesla and
Turing had a hand in inventing the Internet as well (an assertion I think few
would make...). The fact that Lovelace and Hopper were women and programmers
doesn't mean that "women" deserve credit for every invention that came after
them.

~~~
lomegor
Of course they don't deserve credit for every invention after them. I think
the basic premise is that if you are going to say that only men's
contributions to computers and the Internet are important, you are probably
wrong as many women have advanced the field.

If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific
inventors. But the Internet is not one but many technologies put together
invented and developed by different people, which include men and women (maybe
not specifically Lovelace).

Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet,
is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of
cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were
an oppressed group.

~~~
coridactyl
> Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the
> Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the
> invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's
> because they were an oppressed group.

That is indeed an interesting juxtaposition, and I'd particularly note the use
of the word "enough." That would suggest that in discussions on the history of
technology, it is implied that there is some arbitrary threshold at which
mentions of the contributions of a minority group (not necessarily an identity
minority; i.e. in a women-dominated field you'd say the minority is the men,
etc.) will be disqualified.

For instance, it is indeed "mostly true" that black people did not make many
contributions to the automotive industry or its technological development.
Richard Spikes' contribution of turn signals
(<http://www.snopes.com/business/origins/blackinv.asp>) is perhaps notable or
even significant, but not necessarily critical, so this could serve as an
example of that statement. Does that mean that the hypothetical phrase "White
men invented the modern automobile" in a hypothetical article about a black
man being ostracized from the auto industry in 2012 is racist? Or is it merely
an acknowledgment of the fact that white men get the credit because they
structured the industry to give it to them, by excluding everyone else? Or is
it both?

~~~
cantastoria
_That would suggest that in discussions on the history of technology, it is
implied that there is some arbitrary threshold..._

But there's nothing arbitrary here, we know who invented the Internet. None of
them where women. The argument that women could have contributed but didn't
"because they were an oppressed group" is just an absurd couterfactual. Who
knows what would have happened? You can say anything you want...

 _Richard Spikes' contribution of turn signals..._

Richard Spikes invented the turn signal. Full stop. Saying he contributed to
the invention of the automobile is as absurd as saying that Edison or Tesla
contributed to the invention of the turn signal. No one would say that because
the turn signal stands on it's own. Using your line of reasoning, Richard
Spikes invented the turn signal with contributions from who knows how many
women and other minorities.

 _Or is it merely an acknowledgment of the fact that white men get the credit
because they structured the industry to give it to them, by excluding everyone
else?_

That doesn't mean women should get a historical "participation trophy" just
for being somewhere and doing something in computing while the actual
inventors where developing the Internet. It's insulting to them and women (and
Al Gore...).

------
spindritf
That's nitpicking at its worst imho and can only lead to articles that have
longer disclaimers and footnotes than body.

<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html>

------
Tangaroa
NYT: The tech industry is male-dominated and sexist.

BB: The NYT is male-dominated and sexist for pointing it out.

Flagged as bullshit.

~~~
lomegor
Really? Maybe BB did say that, but that's not of the point of the article at
all. Most of it is just criticizing the NYT views that men's contributions to
computers and the Internet were more important than women's contributions.

~~~
Tangaroa
The "NYT view" was a crude stereotype of the tech industry and the
stereotypical male nerd tech worker, introduced to justify the article's
position that the tech industry is male-dominated and sexist. There's plenty
wrong with it.

And as a matter of fact, the contributions of men did heavily outweigh the
contributions of women because women at the time were NOT ALLOWED to become
engineers in most of the United States. In the rare places where it was
allowed, high school advisors discouraged women from going to college and
college advisors discouraged women from taking advanced math. Society was
generally sexist and the potential for women to contribute was suppressed.

In the tech industry, women were allowed to become computer operators because
it was seen as a natural progression from being typewriter operators, and
because the tech industry was more progressive than the NYT gives it credit
for. The heavy math, engineering, and design work was mostly done by men
because, with rare exceptions like Hopper, they were the only ones with the
skills and training to do it.

~~~
lomegor
You are right. I was just saying what I thought the article was saying not
what I believe personally. Saying that the article's argument is saying the
NYT is sexist and male-dominated is an over-simplification, and in it's
essential part, not true.

