Wasn't there a period where "programmer" was the job of turning a flowchart from a "system analyst" into machine code? Basically a living compiler that didn't require a formally specified high-level language?
Yes, my mother mentioned offhand that she did it for a couple years. Didn't seem phased that it was programming - she considered the flowchart makers as the really smart ones... I can see that argument both ways.
was it harder before? Are you sure? I think your response doesn't change his argument, before tech was less relevant for the economy, so it was less stressful and had less status. That is why it wasn't interesting for men to get into it and preferred other jobs with more status and stress (and bigger salaries). But now the top companies are tech companies.
Less status, absolutely. But much harder. We work at such a high level of abstraction,we don't need to care about our resource usage much, we don't need to care much about what the machine is doing, we don't have to write everything ourselves because there are thousands of powerful libraries available for free.
So yes. Before, programming was hard, and low status. Now it's easy and high status, and men think that women aren't there because it's too hard. No, they were there when it was hard.
> men think that women aren't there because it's too hard
Who thinks that? Hard is something relative. The author says that men could be more prepared to tech because a biological predisposition that makes tech easier positions for them (better abstract thinking and more tolerance for stress, for example), while women are more prepared for other things likes taking care of others (because they are better in socializing and empathy). As tech became more competitive the women just left it for other things while men get into to get more status.
If you think that programming is a more stressful job than traditionally female jobs like nurse, teacher, or childrearing, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Yes I think so. I have been a teacher and CS engineer so for me it is clear that CS is more stressful. Nurse is something I couldn't do and when I always ask them why are they nurses they say they feel great when they help people and they know they cannot help everybody. I don't know anyone in CS who feels great when writting software.
I know plenty of people who are in CS for the challenge. They absolutely love writing software.
Also, nurses do what they do because they feel great helping people but in no way is that easy. Working in terminal care is extremely mentally taxing as many to all of the people they work with are preparing to/going to die. In the same way, nurses in the ER/ICU have to deal with people dying that are in no way prepared to die and that is also extremely mentally taxing. In regard to being physically taxing, much in the same way that people in CS have to deal with deadlines and long stressful working hours, nurses can often end up with up to 18-20 hour shifts with their off-hours and off-days classified as on call hours that they will usually get called in to work for.
Nurses definitely are in the field because they enjoy helping people but that in no way means that they have an easier job than people in the CS field.
Would playing piano be harder if you had to make your own piano? If the level of playing expected of you remains unchanged then yes, certainly.
That to me sums up the difference. It is now vastly easier to write and run a program. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Programming careers realty do have a red queen race quality to them.
I really couldn't compare it to fields I haven't worked in. But I do think that programming certainly can reach hellacious levels of stress and complexity.
How many people here programmed assembly language in middle school, but would have been stumped (or at least strained to the max in comparison) if made to read say, the Design Patterns book?
This is so true. Twenty years ago the best programmer I ever worked with was a women, and I only thought of her as the best programmer that I'd ever worked with.
Something has changed since then and I am unable to perceive or explain what it is.
I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about but my reaction to this whole "diversity debate" is that I think it's a simple result of tech (software) having become (MUCH) more people-centered. My impression is that 20, 30, 40 years ago software, like most engineering, was almost entirely associated with systematizing - but with the rise of the Internet, mobile, social networks and the increased emphasis on product development and presentation, tech has increasingly become not just people-centered but is itself now seen as an endeavor central to the interests of all modern citizens of society. This explains why there are more women now who are interested in tech, and also why there are so many non-technical women who want to break other women into tech.