8 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 32.0 ms ] thread
I love how somehow in spite of women being heavily represented in the beginnings and development of computer science and nothing standing in women's ways, not to even mention all the squandered efforts and resources to "bend the curve" of reality, somehow the fact that not a lot of women go into computer science even after qualifications are goosed and numbers are fudged, it's somehow some schizophenic delusion of a patriarchy's fault.

It's really getting tiring that women not wanting to go into computer science, or any field for that matter ... where are the cries for women trash collectors and construction workers ..., is somehow anyone and everyone's fault but women making choices and having preferences that lead them down other paths.

MIT - ten years behind some other places in this regard, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kenneth_Keller
As far as I can tell, MIT didn't have a CS department until 1975 (when it was added to the EE department to become EECS; the same year Irene Greif in the OP got her PhD).

Before the 70s, many schools considered CS as part of a Math degree or an EE degree.

Cite: https://www.eecs.mit.edu/about-us/mit-eecs-department-facts

This title seems to imply something pretty bad about MIT and gender diversity. This feels like a good argument for putting the date on older articles in square brackets rather than parens. Brackets are commonly used for editorializing quotes (which titles most often are on HN) and thus might be less confusing in cases like this.
Fun fact: The percentage of students in CS that are female is half of what it was in the mid 80s. All this hubbub is there to disguise the fact that as soon as comp sci stopped being necessary to do useful things with computers, women left in droves.