|
|
|
|
|
|
by jterrys
1737 days ago
|
|
|
>https://mjosefweber.medium.com/the-first-computers-were-huma... I cringe when I read ill-researched essays like these because it informs a relationship between women and computing that back then genuinely did not exist. For the vast, vast majority of women in the field of computing at this time, they were nothing more than glorified calculators. Yes, there were a few women scientists and mathematicians (by few, I mean literally handfuls). Yes, it was a male dominated field. But the overwhelming majority of women working in this industry at this time did secretarial style busywork. It wasn't glorious. It was underappreciated. It sucked. These types of essays are a genuine attempt to rewrite a history that did not exist. It is literary gaslighting the likes of which the article we are discussing right now is attempting to rectify. |
|
|
I'm not sure what you are saying? Could you clarify?
What is "secretarial style busywork"?
Is this article also "ill-researched"?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/history-human-...
What would a better researched view of history say?
I'm not trying to troll you or make you write an essay here - just trying to glean the main points of what you believe so I can see your point of view.
Are you familiar with the view that the "Turing Test" was first conceived by Turing as a challenge to discern the gender of a human hidden behind a screen?
In my comment I was trying to point to Turing's interests in the nature of gender and humanity. I find that expansive and prescient in the sense that "computing" to us moderns is more about NLP than calculating maths, and yet, it's all the same thing under the hood.