This is not a gender problem, it's pedagogical. My granddad would be intimidated to learn to code for those exact same reasons. I assume that having a name like Ladies Learning Code somewhat entices women to approach programming with the perspective that the pedagogy will be different. Playing on the notion that there's an alternative way to explain code to different gender might be a good marketing ploy, but I'm wondering if it's not also doing a disservice by perpetuating the myth.
They're not afraid of this by chance; this is a rational fear arising from a hundred, a thousand previous encounters with men, even trained teachers, who were abjectly unable to interact with women in a way that left them feeling comfortable. This is of course not to say that such men do not exist, as they surely do. But after a decade or two of experience, why roll the dice?
They're not afraid of this by chance; this is a rational fear arising from a hundred, a thousand previous encounters with women, even women in management, who were abjectly unable to interact with men in a way that left them feeling comfortable. This is of course not to say that such women do not exist, as they surely do. But after a decade or two of experience, why roll the dice?
Now that I've flipped the genders, do you see how offensive your comment is?
My general view: if women are avoiding computing due to the stereotypes and intolerance as you describe, then good riddance.
No. I'd recommend you also ask a woman for her opinion, though, in case my male-ness has prevented me from seeing the obvious.
For future reference, statements made about privileged groups are not, generally, as offensive as those made about the unprivileged. For example:
My general view: if men are avoiding childcare due to the stereotypes and intolerance as you describe, then good riddance.
From another perspective, would you think it reasonable for black men to avoid tech because of "a thousand previous encounters with [white]men who were abjectly unable to interact with [black individuals] in a way that left them feeling comfortable"?
My first thought when I read the article was "lol 'built a wordpress.org,' nice." Then I realized I was being an idiot and that it's great that they're learning. But something didn't jive---excluding my little sister, at no point can I remember teaching a female anything technical without getting either impatient or patronizing.
But, as I think about it, both are signs that I wasn't really there to teach. I was either trying to impress them, or uphold my self-image of being smart, or something else that wasn't teaching.
As a single guy of no particular attractiveness studying a technical subject, I consider myself a member of what one could call the aspirational class of the social world. I don't feel satisfied with where I am in life. Considering the low value we place on teaching in our society, I'm pretty sure teaching would not be a good way to remedy this.
I wouldn't be surprised if many male teachers of technical subjects aren't really happy to be teaching at all. Wallowing in their discontent or outside ambitions, perhaps they're unable to fully engage in the empathy required for good teaching. Questions "obvious" from the instructor's point of view will be brushed off or scorned, reflections of his self-hate. A male student hearing this will think, "Fuck him, I'll learn this anyway." A female student will think, "Why on earth am I hanging out in this environment?"
A better solution might be to teach women (and men) to accept and understand different styles of communication. And that class shouldn't be gender-specific.
In regard to programming, another commenter had a great solution. Get some books, make a github account, learn to code. You have complete anonymity on github. It's a place where all aspects of your individuality can drop out of consideration except the most important in the context: your ability to understand and write code.
This is a somewhat prejudiced argument; try switching the roles, or maybe adding ethnicity in there, and you'll see. “Everyone knows” etc.
Of course, that's not to say it must be untrue. The (at least perceived) alternate pedagogy does seem to work, so I'm all for it!
Of course, I imagine there are plenty of women who would never attend a class called "Ladies Learning Code," but they might be receptive to a different strategy. The point is that having multiple fronts in this war on computer illiteracy may be more effective than having a single big one.
I encourage you to think less like a software engineer and more like a hacker. These people are gaining greater digital literacy. They are gaining the tools to solve their own problems.
Only a few of them will take up software as a profession. They will be subject to the same filtering process as everyone else.
> If we allow the future of the web, software, hardware, video games, etc. to be conceptualized, created and maintained by just one sector of the population, it’s impossible to expect that it will serve the needs of the entire group.
> We recognize the power of diversity and want to seek ways to attract more women and girls in to the tech industry – for their own personal benefit and the overall potential of the industry.
suggest the goal is to substantially change the face of the industry. And the existing filter is entirely inadequate for a large number of candidates only moderately interested.
The program fails if most of the women, upon exiting the program, start programming with men and say "This isn't like Ladies Learning Code!" and either quit programming altogether or simply join other groups of women to program.
What does this actually mean? The sentence itself seems to indicate that the class was focused around learning to program by building a WordPress clone. My suspicion based on reading the whole article is that she took a class showing her how to use WordPress to create a blog. If she doesn't know the distinction, I'm skeptical that she really learned to program in any meaningful way.
I do think it's great that people who are mostly technically illiterate are making efforts to change that, though.
I can see how this would be a useful endeavor. In any case, yes, her language may be imprecise here but remember to be forgiving to people who are just learning!!! You are skeptical of her skills; I am skeptical of the notion that you have enough information to evaluate her skills or the class. :)
And upon further review, it seems pretty likely that the class she took is this one: http://ladieslearningcodejan14.eventbrite.com/
Unfortunately this could mean that the quality of the cource is wholy dependant on the dev assigned to you're 4:1 session.
I wonder what the screening process is. But undoubtedly a good business model for raising quick capital, with a high pivot rate, as & when it supports demand.
Think back to the first eight hours of coding of your entire life. It was probably copy-pasting stuff you didn't really understand from a magazine or a web page and watching some colors flash or text scrolling down.
It is not a lot, but it is a start. 8 down, 9992 to go to mastery.
But the second-order effects may be more important. Nearly anyone, when first introduced to computers, is "just" a user---they use the computer in the ways that are taught to them. Those of us that progress into general programmers generally had some transition phase where we were sort of "just users", typing something in or following instructions, but those things we typed in were our gateway to the next level. For me, it was typing in BASIC listings from magazines in the mid-80s on the family Apple IIe, and then figuring out that I could tweak them and make the programs do new things that weren't in the original article. For some of my students these days, it was typing in WoW macros and then learning to tweak their own.
A couple years ago, I had a student whose original entree into programming came via a web design class mostly involving HTML and largely done using a front-end app (Dreamweaver maybe?). But it was a start, and it inspired her to learn more about HTML and then eventually to take AP CS and major in it in college. I think her sex and her gender are only statistically relevant here---there most certainly are girls that play video games and will want to write macros, and there are boys that can will be well-served by an HTML-first curriculum. But she suspected, and I agree, that teaching people structured content creation will have long-term effects of increasing the ratio of females in all areas of CS.
But whether that speculation is accurate or not, let's not be dissing this person's experience because it's not programming-y enough. We don't need to be gatekeeping the secrets of the High Priesthood here; everyone needs to start somewhere. And whether Ms. Mlotek eventually goes on into "true" programming or not, she's more computer-empowered than before, so we should be happy for her, and if not her then others who go through this program, both male and female, will find their way into programming and other CS disciplines. And that is something we should all be happy about.
(PS: For those of you complaining that the post was more about feminism than programming, she warned you right there in the subhed: "Is Ladies Learning Code awesome and feminist, or just awesome?". What did you think it would be about?)
Is it me or did this make no real point at all?
Ladies learning code. Good idea, because more people coding is good, ladies or otherwise. I fail to see why the author is so amazingly hung up on whether or not it's feminist.
eg. womyn pages instead of man pages.
As the married father of a four year old daughter, I do get the sense of comfort that is prevalent in ladies clubs. Watching my daughter play with boys and girls, just boys and then just girls I have observed a noticeable difference in the intersections between the children. I have also noticed the differences in my wife's book club (all women) when its her turn to host. It's not that they exclude me or the other guy's we are friends with but, the books they read are not to my taste so I would not be able to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Although I do still need read The Girl With THe Dragon Tattoo book on their recommendation.
So reading about an women's club where they go into the basics of coding is a good thing even if most of the members never become elite programmers - they will have learned a valuable skill in a comfortable setting. That is something they can take back to work and apply now: how to talk to the programmer in a meaningful way. For my daughters generation (not just girls) I am coming to suspect that a line will be drawn between those who can make use of the technology underneath the productivity tools their generation is raised on (web/office being the most prevalent today) and learning to code in anything is a step towards being successful in any field, not just web and software.
Who is this we and how is this authoritarian power exercised?
Interestingly enough, Age discrimination in the industry continues to be ignored while the (IMO) highly debatable notion of sex discrimination in the field is the subject of countless articles and debates. At least the Japanese are honest about the fact that they don't want programmers older than 30 years of age.
The barrier to entry in this field is low. Github, for example, doesn't ask you to check a box with your sex when you open an account. Nor do I care one bit when I [pull] a project if the author was a woman.
Age discrimination exists as well, but that's not what this article is about, and you shouldn't try to grab focus with it.
> "you shouldn't try to grab focus with"
Please do not question my motivation. I had a point to make.
I'm sorry if it wasn't your intent to steal focus. What you did, whether intentional or not, is a common derailing tactic.
If he hasn't seen any compelling evidence of [Issue X], then for him it remains unresolved. Rather than being offended that his mind isn't made up the right way, you might consider sharing whatever evidence makes you convinced that [Issue X] is a problem.
assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason (from dictionary.com)
That seems like a perfectly fitting word to me.
As I said in the other reply, there is no way to perfectly measure discrimination. If you don't trust the various testimonies by women in the tech industry and would rather plug your ears, please do not further this discussion.
Links to check out:
"CS education works best for people who already know how to code before they begin. CS teaches the theory behind a practice in which they assume you already have some skill..."
"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts..."
"Women are less likely to jump up and say “me! me! me!” "
"Recognize the need for work-life balance. Most women still have primary responsibility for children and home."
I didn't bother with your other links.
"I believe CS and Web Development currently select for certain masculine qualities that are largely unrelated to someone’s prowess as a coder. I believe it is these tangential code-cowboy qualities women are unable or unwilling to emulate, and not their skill or capacity for abstraction, problem solving, creative thinking, or communication — All of which actually make them better developers."
"Scholarships like the one Google proposes aren’t meant to give women of lower merit something they don’t deserve, they are meant to circumvent the discrimination that extremely talented women still face."
You also pulled your quotes completely out of context.
I realize the author doesn't believe that spending time on your work, improving your skills and solving abstract puzzles matter. Maybe she's right, though I prefer employees who don't need hand holding. But that's irrelevant - rewarding autodidacts, puzzle-lovers and hard workers is not discrimination.
"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts when practical applications where you can see the why and how might work better for women (and a hell of a lot of men). I like yummy algorithms, but we could make CS education more accessible by putting them in context."
Your third quote has to do with the environment that exists— not because women don't inherently participate.
From the article: "She said that CS is the only science where the participation of women is getting worse not better. We have a problem. We’re geeks (supposed to be good at problem solving). So let’s figure it out!
I think we should look at:
[The bulleted list from which I quoted some items]"
According to her, these particular items are reasons why women specifically are not participating in tech.
And again - focusing a CS class on algorithms is not discrimination.
No one is saying a class on algorithms is discrimination. Are you intentionally misconstruing her article or are you truly this confused?
I'm not addressing the issue of gender discrimination.
I'm saying that your rhetorical approach, which seems to be "loudly proclaim that everyone should magically see things the same way I do," is ridiculous.
Look, if lack of diversity can only be explained by discrimination, you need to show that the field where women are most underrepresented - higher mathematics - is also the most rife with discrimination. I've never seen a female mathematician suggest it is. How do you explain this?
Just because you have not seen it does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't have any experience with higher mathematics, but let's take programming. Would the existence of a women-centric programming club be proof enough of the discrimination women face? What about the blog posts of women in CS courses expressing their disdain for their male classmates/teachers? Or the attempts to attract women into the field?
Would a whites-centric golf club be proof enough of the discrimination white people face? Would a blog post of a white man in basketball expressing disdain for his black teammates similarly be evidence of discrimination against whites?
I know this isn't what a lot of HNers like to hear, but discrimination exists whether you can measure it with a ruler or not. This is one of those things where you have to piece together anecdotal evidence with an empirical lack of women to get the answer.
If you're sure it is, and you're actually interested in these questions, investigating discrimination in tech when you could be investigating discrimination in higher mathematics is like studying swedish-norwegian racism when you could be studying black-white racism.
You don't need personal experience, just casually google it for a while and report your findings.
Your analogy doesn't make sense to me because, again, I'm not familiar with higher mathematics. I can't say, "Yes, higher mathematics relates to the tech industry like racism against Norwegians relates to racism against black people."
Another non-realistic explanation would be that women collectively do not want to go into tech despite being equally good at it as men. As in, there isn't any discrimination, and they would be just as suited as men, but most women just go, "Meh. Don't care." for some reason.
I've heard both of these things and neither of them make any sense.
- I am /of the opinion/ that young women have greater social intelligence and nuanced sensitivity than young men.
- And, that (IMO) here in America there is a prevalent negative social attitude towards nerds/geeks/intellectuals.
- Matters have certainly improved since the realization that "nerds" can become tycoons, and some are recognized. But it should be noted that this does not indicate a change is societal attitude towards geeks. Linus Torvalds is not a household name. Zuckermann is well known, but he is a business success and celebrated for his business (and yes, social), and not technical, acumen.
- The field, in my experience, is one of the most meritocratic in existence today in our society (which is the primary reason I continue a professional practice). I would code for fun, regardless.
- But, it is certainly true in my experience that the workforce was and remains preponderantly male, although it seems to have improved (but see below).
The summation of above considerations gives support to a thought that is further reinforced by a consideration of the female colleagues I have worked with over the past 20 years:
Every single one was either an immigrant (1 Israeli, 1 Romanian, 1 Pakistani, 1 Brazilian, & recently quite a few Indian and/or Russian/Eastern European women), or, the designated brainiac social minority group that themselves celebrate cerebral members, e.g. Jewish and Asian Americans, etc. In fact, my first female coworker (who happened to also be my boss/team-lead) was a Cooper Union grad and a Chinese American.
Finally, let me tell you a very simple human fact: most of us men in the field would probably be very happy to have a more balanced work environment. So the thought that we would go out of our way to discriminate against women flies in the face of both personal experience (I interviewed and selected the Israeli and the Romanian as the de facto CTO of a startup in '89), and my general understanding of my fellow male geeks.
(Also, note that I made an effort to reach out to a fellow geek (female, of course) that I only know via her github projects. She confirmed that "agism" was what concerned her most.)
None of this is to offer a conclusive explanation, but I am of the strong opinion that:
when the day arrives that (American) society adopts the same social respect/capital towards its cerebral members that it currently affords business, media, and sports personalities, will be the day that will see young cerebral women make the (intelligent and thoughtful) choice to enter into the field (and related fields, such as Mathematics) in greater numbers.
You aren't willing to debate it, which is a perfectly legitimate (if elitist) sentiment to express.
Your entire strategy in writing has been to combat while loudly saying you aren't going to fight.
When I lived in Japan it seemed like nobody even got a job until they were 30...
I have worked with one female developer in my entire career.
Also, minorities tend to congregate in supportive environments, so you will find a bimodal distribution of organizations with peaks at many or no women, and trough at 1 or few women.
I know this is an old question, but how are we raising our young women to shy away from these things? Why is it acceptable to let young girls get away with not having to learn the small bits of technical language that will help them develop an interest and feel confidence with these subjects at a young age?
Also, I would like to journey to this mythical world of yours where programming is considered an "elite" job.
I am part of a profession that has created a significant amount of recent world wide change, like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and almost every innovation on or related to the web since it's beginning.
There is a different between programmers (Like the ones Microsoft hires), and people who can program (Like the ones a small website will hire). A programmer knows more than just programming, he knows data structures, algorithms, programming language theory, how operating systems work, and a lot more, because it makes him better at his job.
If that isn't elite I don't know what is. (Lawyers and doctors can change the world, or they can practice their craft on everyday matters, and there is a wide variance between full on doctor and nurse/physician/ect., it is the same with programmers [We just haven't labeled the different tiers yet])
The higher status that programming gets, the more women I expect to enter the field. Not less.
Our major's lab probably isn't as bad as some, but there are still plenty of times that I could see a woman not feeling welcome in that room. I try to call them out on it, with the help of some other people, but it's only a marginal thing.
We also got some grant money to teach a general intro to CS class (marketed to freshmen, with a word choice aimed at females) that was very successful (and covered topics from basic programming, to algorithms and data structures, and touching on a lot of fields like cryptography, AI, graphics, ect.) 2 quarters after that class and our ratio of female majors has gone from 1:9 to 1:7. (Which may also be other factors)
But at least our majors lab has stopped singling out women for their gender...
Of course I think this still happens. I'm not shocked, just frustrated. I'm wondering what we can do as individuals to change this.
Are sexism and discrimination real problems? I think they are. I also think programs like Ladies Learn Code are important and encouraging, but there are no powerful men or fumbling neckbeards preventing women from accessing the knowledge that would empower them as developers.
It seems like the class the author took was "WordPress with Wes Bos," since she mentioned that he was the lead instructor
But the point is not to make someone employable as a "hot-shot startup whizz"; just to teach them some basics so they can communicate with devs as equals.
And anyway, it would be worrying if just taking a few coding lessons would qualify someone to be employable as a programmer at all :)
Compared to back-end programming it's harder to learn by accident (surprisingly so), it requires less common character traits, it's less rewarding in the weird programming sense than coding neat gems in ruby. But the demand is huge because most projects has bigger front-end than back-end these days.
I don't think it is so bad, if there is an user base soon or later a web site will be created serving the needs of this user base, because this means profit for the site creator. It seems strange to think that to represent everybody's need the web needs to be developed by everybody.
Just to make a more concrete example, games appear to be really developed with men in mind, but this is because the population of players is mostly dominated by teenager males.
Game developers have teenager males in mind because the original game developers _were_ teenager males.
Farmville and Wii Sports show that there is a vast market for video games aimed at women that is only now starting to be explored.
As of 2011, the average age for a video game player is 37, a number slowly increasing as people who were children playing the first arcade, console and home computer games continue playing now on current systems.
Plus, video games (and consoles) are expensive. It helps to have a job. :)
I would not be so sure. We all played games like pac-man, goonies, super mario and such. I remember when we were kids that we had tons of somewhat gender neutral games, but boys were the ones mostly interested in playing. Looking back, I'm more convinced today that it was a cultural issue. Girls were simply conditioned to do "girl things". Eventually, game developers skewed their production toward their dominant market. This conditioning still exists today, but is slowly disappearing and game developers will, in time, adjust accordingly.
That's the kind of game we need.
My Dad actually bought me Ms Pac-man with my atari 2600, I never had the original Pac-man (there was no point, it was the exact same game). I only listed Pac-man because it's the more renown title of the series. I also fail to see what makes a game like pac-man, goonies or super mario gender specific. I was introduced to the Mario character by my much older sister when she had these little electronic games that Nintendo used to make (she had the classic Donkey-Kong). Nintendo eventually entered the video game arena and released their adaptations of such classics as Tetris. Even back in those days the spectrum of game themes was already large enough to cater to a diverse audience. I'm not denying that there was a gradual predominance of male oriented themes, but many of the classics were pretty much gender neutral and I don't hear many females reminiscing on them. I don't know why it should be difficult to consider that girls were simply conditioned (parents? society?) to believe that it was a guy thing.
Pac-Man logo: http://images.wikia.com/logopedia/images/6/60/Pacman-logo.jp...
Ms Pac-Man logo: http://sherisays.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ms.jpg
This is exactly what all those blog posts are talking about with regard to Arkham City and the DC New 52. The women are male fantasies of women. Ms Pac-Man doesn't appeal to women; it appeals to men.
Now you use Ms Pac-man's logo as the basis of your argument about the genderization in the game? Have you actually played any of these games? The last thing I remember from any of them was the packaging. Do you remember what the actual graphics or game-play was like at all? You force yourself to see "hyper-gendered incarnation" and to me, this is an example of what I believe the problem was originally with games: adults meddling in kids business, because they thought they saw something, that would normally have gone unnoticed to children. That's how we ended up with girls thinking that videogames are for boys. Someone had to tell them that.
Mario could have been after the golden treasure, or the secret chamber, or delivering the princess, or whatever, it made absolutely no difference to game play. People (boys and girls alike who enjoyed these games) didn't care. Ms Pac-man was a round yellow dot walking around in a labyrinth and swallowing ghosts. My friends and I played these without even knowing any English, so we had no idea what was being said in all the written messages, nor did we really care about the objective, we just enjoyed going stage after stage and defeating the "boss". In the case of Mario, we had no clue that the little person at the end of the stages was a girl, let alone a princess that we needed to eventually deliver. That's definitely not what enticed us to play and I don't believe that's what deterred girls to do the same. Mario could have been an old wizard, some type of sea monster and yes, a girl, the outcome would be the same, if there was game play, we would be there.
I haven't played any games in eons, but a quick look in a videogame store showed me evidence that today the offering in games is rather skewed toward young male. I am absolutely not in disagreement and actually agreed with the observation previously, but this was not the argument, but rather what's the root cause of the situation, since it pertains to aspect of the main debate on the thread: women and technology. The 2 games that you cited Arkham City and DC New 52, I've never heard of, so I won't dispute your claims. I would however underline the fact that they're recent releases and bear no weight in our current discussion.
Is the advertising/packaging somehow exempt from scrutiny in gender discussions? I don't see why I can't point to the packaging of Ms Pac-Man as a reason it's gendered. You do realize you're arguing against the notion that advertising intends to capture a specific audience, correct?
> The last thing I remember from any of them was the packaging.
That's great. Many people remember the packaging, and it's a huge factor in purchases.
> Mario could have been after the golden treasure, or the secret chamber, or delivering the princess, or whatever, it made absolutely no difference to game play.
But it wasn't, and until you can see that it wasn't, you'll never understand why gender discrimination is such an issue.
> The 2 games that you cited Arkham City and DC New 52, I've never heard of, so I won't dispute your claims. I would however underline the fact that they're recent releases and bear no weight in our current discussion.
I only used those because I assumed you had prior knowledge of them. DC New 52 isn't even a game; it's a reboot of the original DC comic characters but made more "modern" which equates to all the female characters becoming slutty. I used them to prove my point that video games have rarely been female-friendly or had women in mind. Lara Croft? Appealed to young men with her chest and short-shorts. Samus Aran? Did you see what she looked like at the end of the first game? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samus_at_the_end_of_Metroi... That's on the NES!
Please, take the time to put yourself in a woman's shoes. How would you feel if every major video game ever made had either a male or male-fantasy female main character?
About Lara Croft and Samus Aran (which btw, were only introduced to the conversation to make the point that male/female protagonists have nothing to do with gameplay), I'd simply like to point out that I don't see what distinguish them so much from the Madonnas and other Britney Spears.
If you don't understand this discussion's direction, I'd be happy to guide you through it. For starters, it's about how video games have always been— and continue to be— gendered towards males. If you thought it was about something else, I can't really see why, since my original reply cemented the topic by pointing out the gendering in classic retro games.
> About Lara Croft and Samus Aran (which btw, were only introduced to the conversation to make the point that male/female protagonists have nothing to do with gameplay), I'd simply like to point out that I don't see what distinguish them so much from the Madonnas and other Britney Spears.
That's great! You're seeing how sexualized many female "role models" are. And just to round out my reply: we're not limited to gameplay here— story and graphics are more important. There's a reason Lara Croft was busty and Samus Aran wore a bikini under her suit despite it not making any sense, and it wasn't because girls love playing as them.
Does reality agree with this?
Do you have stats on the popularity of those games compared to other, gendered games? I'd be more than happy to look over them.
It's not that strange. It's hard to represent the needs of people that you don't fully understand.
When it comes to an under-represented cultural/social/racial group, I simply don't understand the market, what they want, or what is important to them. I don't come up anything like the ideas that entrepreneurial members of that group will come up with, and even once I've heard the ideas, it often takes a radical shift in my thinking to see the advantages.
Women make up roughly 50% of the population, but many industries repeatedly fail to provide the products that women would prefer -- as you've almost accidentally elucidated above with your comment regarding video games.
The idea that men can't write code which women can feel comfortable using is absurd.
Seems there might be an opportunity to address the other half of the population, for their ideas and for the market.
Definitely, the problem, if it is a problem, is due to choice women make, not due to their abilities.
The lack of women in programming isn't their fault. It's ours.
Hopefully it's apparent that having a fresh viewpoint on a problem or in a profession is valuable.
I was hoping it would be apparent that bringing in a different perspective would help a brand or profession appeal to a wider audience, but if you would like hard evidence this happens, I'm afraid I don't have the patience to research it. If that means my point is null-and-void, so be it.
although to get back to the lulz, it's Trolling with Intent to Bikini Kill ;)
But this repeated media phenomenon of people learning to code is something that really worry me -- it is like 1999 again.
It feels like when mainstream media writes that it is time to invest in the stock market; when e.g. Time write about how good it is going, it is so far over the hill that soon there will be a crash...
They have always been there (admittedly in smaller numbers then men) but they have always struck me as being excellent coders.
We have women like Ada Lovelace and Grace Murray Hopper as fine computing minds to emulate and admire.
Women have always been able to take to coding in my experience and be first class at it. They tend to be good at languages -- better than men generally -- and that includes programming languages, too.
She also was behind a lot of analysis of stuff like log table errors.
This is probably more the definition of a Systems Analyst, but that job doesn't exist anymore, so we would regard her as a coder.
If she were a man, I doubt we would be mentioning her, just like the man who her set of notes were based on (with the program done by Babbage in the appendix). Either way, it's not all that important as I don't think anyone in computer science was influenced by this work, Babbage included. He is a historical interest and ahead of his time.
When you say this, I'm not sure what you mean. Here are some possible interpretations:
(a) Most women can be first-class programmers.
(b) Among first-class programmers, some are women.
(c) Some third thing?
"The magazine I also work for, is rebuilding our website in WordPress."
I couldn't find anything valuable in the first few paragraphs. Can anyone post a quick summary of any specific facts from the article that were surprising, or are going to affect the reader's behavior in the future?