The Gender Binary of Computing: Challenging Sexism in Technology
Rahul Zalkikar
May 12, 2019
Modern movements that combat instances of institutionalized sexism and gender disparity in the computing industry are the heart and soul of a larger, global force empowering women that continue to be marginalized in long-standing patriarchies. My essay will shed light on a key turning point in the history of technology that demonstrates how today’s discussion of sexism and misogyny are long overdue.
The late 1970s were humble years for the personal computing industry as microcomputers gradually transitioned from a hobbyist fancy to a mainstream tool, but nonetheless, they were critical for shaping how computers would spread during the 1980s. This growth was facilitated by communications between computer hobbyists across the continental United States and beyond, and one particularly powerful segment of these communications were through computing magazines.
Byte magazine was one of the most widely circulated magazines of its kind, reaching an estimated circulation of about 420,000 (third highest of all computer magazines) in the early 1980s. This analysis focuses on Byte’s beginnings, a time where hobbyists discussed ideas, sought help, shared opinions, and planned club events about computing technology. The average hobbyist was relatively young (students to middle-aged adults), relatively wealthy (middle to upper-middle class), and predominantly white.
You might be wondering, was the average 1970s computer hobbyist also a male?
In a May 1977 issue, Byte randomly selected a group of 2163 fully-subscribed readers to voluntarily participate in a survey. The survey resulted in a statistic heavily skewed relative to the corresponding population distribution, reporting that 1% of Byte’s readership, or “computing enthusiasts”, were Female. Despite the strong 67% response rate, it could be argued voluntary survey bias was present, or an overrepresentation of individuals who have strong opinions. Regardless, the survey of education, gender, and income was only sent to full-subscribed readers, and with no way of indicating multiple readerships per household, it is possible that many women and girls were simply left out.
The gender imbalance evident in Byte reflected its roots in earlier technical cultures such as amateur, or “ham,” radio. In a 2003 article, historian Kristen Haring identified a mutually defining relationship between gender and technology, or “men and machines,” at the center of amateur radio culture. The “technical identities” of amateur radio enthusiasts not only instilled masculinity in modern technology, it created familial divisions based on men’s anxiety over sexual identity and women’s control over the space of the home. Like a prelude to the start of an ongoing saga, amateur radio and all its imperfections soon gave way to a different technological culture formed around personal computing.
The shift from amateur radio to personal computing created the possibility for change in the gendered identity of technical hobbyists. In a letter to the editors published in the November, 1977 issue, Byte reader Leah R O’Connor shed light on the survey’s likely sampling bias. According to O’Connor, the survey represented only the “very small number of single women interested in computers” and obscured the larger number of “married women who are more interested [in computing] than their husbands.” In other words, by not accounting for multiple readers in every subscribing household, Byte had chosen convenience over accuracy.
More than just a complaint against Byte’s sampling methods, O’Connor’s letter represented a growing portion of the Byte readership who supported gender inclusion and challenged the dominant masculinity in the new world of personal computing.
The voices of men vastly outnumbered women in the early issues of Byte. Out of 675 letters to the editor published between 1975 and 1980, 548 were signed by men, 8 were signed by more than one person, and 19 were signed by women. The remaining 100 letters were written by individuals of unknown gender, hobbyists that only signed the initial of their first name. The prevalence of ambiguously-gendered readers begs the question: did women choose not to self-identify because they perceived Byte as a patriarchal forum? Perhaps the predominance of male names in early issues created an unwelcoming environment. Regardless, men also disagreed with other men about how their hobby was represented in the pages of Byte. One interesting statistic from our data of published hobbyist letters is that out of 44 letters criticizing Byte Magazine, 19, or about 43.2%, also praised Byte. Whether this phenomenon is a result of natural occurrence or editor letter-selection is left to speculation, but after reading hundreds of letters and editor replies, I am inclined to believe the latter.
The December 1975 cover of Byte prompted a months-long debate about the role of gender in the microcomputer hobby. The illustration depicted a stereotypical family-father, mother, and three kids-opening gifts on Christmas morning with Santa Claus peeking from behind the tree. On the screen of a video terminal, adorned with a bow, are the words, “Computers: The Ultimate Toys.” The man in the cover is is looking excitedly at the computer, and his facial expression and bodily reaction (holding the rest of the family away from the computer) demonstrate possessiveness and obsession as he isolates himself and the machine from the family. Meanwhile, the facial expression of the boy is one of curiosity and appeal, while the girl’s is one of reservation and perhaps even fear. The woman, presumably the ‘housewife’, is expressing clear contempt towards Santa, who seems to return a somewhat ambivalent, slightly apologetic expression for bringing this machine into the home. This cover not only propagated the notion that computing is for men, it reinforced the stereotypical view of ‘housewives’ who don’t understand or aren’t interested in computers. By presenting computers as toys for men, the cover encapsulated the dominant masculinity of early computing culture and its enforcement of patriarchy within in the family.
Several readers reacted negatively to the representation of their hobby in the Christmas illustration. In a letter to the editors, B L Donelan criticized the magazine cover for going in the wrong direction “in terms of getting home computers accepted by the non-participating percent of the household,” or by wives and daughters. Julius T. Marinaro, meanwhile, took issue with the notion that computers are merely “toys” for men. In a sarcastic letter from October, 1976, Marinaro quipped, “the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.” If hobbyists hoped to be taken seriously for their technical achievements, this cover was not helping.
Beyond the magazine’s cover, some Byte readers also debated the use of masculine pronouns throughout the magazine. W C Welborn Jr. was one such reader, writing, “If the gals are offended by the use of masculine pronouns, then fine - print ‘em all in the feminine gender. Most men couldn’t care less." in a letter from June 1977. Welborn Jr.’s response to the increased frequency of gender inclusive pronouns in Byte was challenged by Carol J Pruitt in her letter ’Modes of Expression in English Idiom,’ as she cleverly dismissed the notion that Byte had no female readership in response.
While calling for gender inclusivity in the magazine, Pruitt downplayed the necessity of a grammar ‘crusade’, or forcibly including phrases such as ‘his or her’ in a sentence instead of simplifying it as a whole. Despite her criticism, Pruitt ended her letter with praise for Byte, admitting it’s the only magazine which she can read without “wincing every so often.” Byte readers were invested in the future of the magazine and the technology.
The pronoun debate opened space for a broader discussion of gender and computing culture. A male hobbyist by the name of Zhahai Stewart took issue with masculine pronouns being used in the magazine, but went beyond that to advocate for proactively building women’s interest in computers. After all, noted Stewart, the “first programmer” was Lady Ada Lovelace. The editors resisted taking responsibility for the predominance of men among their readers, instead placing the onus on “the other 50% of the human race” to develop their own interest in computing.
The debates in Byte about the representation of women in surveys, illustrations, and pronouns reflected a key turning point in the discussion of gender in technology, and more specifically, personal computing. Yes, older discourse supporting the cultural separation of men and women in technology remained dominant in magazines and society alike in the 70s and 80s. But, this time period also brought newer, progressive discourse facilitated by hobbyists like Leah R O’Connor, B L Donelan, Carol J Pruitt, Zhahai Stewart, and many others in an effort to challenge sexism in technology.
Ada Lovelace continues to be celebrated as an icon in technology by advocacy organizations dedicated to women in computing. Today, she is featured in the Computer History Museum as a key person in the transition from calculation to computation and the history of computing. In many ways, the ongoing legacy of Ada Lovelace symbolizes the persistent voice of women challenging masculinity in technology. Yet, the arguments among Byte readers in the 1970s feel all too familiar, despite more than forty years and the mainstreaming of computer culture. So perhaps the real question is-how long will it take?
Help equality in technology through education and research (support women in STEM):
- https://findingada.com/
- https://www.awis.org/
- https://girlswhocode.com/
- http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/