It matters because it's history and my daughter, for one, found it interesting. She liked the fact that other women did what I do for a living, except they didn't wear pajamas to work like I do. It matters because the world is going need a shit ton of good engineers and the more people who program, the merrier.

We don't have to sweat what happened back then too much, I think. What matter is what we choose to do tomorrow.

What matter is what we choose to do today. You can say you're going to do just about anything tomorrow but if you don't do today what enables that then your words are worthless.

I guess I just find the "see, see, women can program too" to be pretty hollow; of course some of them can, just like some men can. Why are the men any less of a role model for budding programmers than the women though; focussing on the sex of particular people doing particular jobs doesn't seem like a good way to free children from the idea that they are limited in the careers they can pursue because of their sex alone (as opposed to characteristics that might be influenced by their sex, which is truistic).

This way just seems to me to say "well unless you can find examples of people of your sex doing that job well then forget it", or worse "it's unusual for women to be clever enough to program so we're making a song-and-dance about these ones". These people, the programmers of ENIAC should be noted for their work, not their sex.

I completely agree with the sentiment not to be bound unnecessarily to historic models.

>She liked the fact that other women did what I do //

Are you comfortable with the primary characteristic that people's work is judged is the sex of the person. Why not "that these were early pioneers in my field"? I'm not saying that you can, or should, control your daughters thought output but just asking if this is really how you want to be viewed WRT your work as a female programmer rather than just as a programmer.

Disambiguation only goes so far with things. With men and women it gets close to us all be 'human' but it remains our sex is a strong identifier, and one that binds us uniquely socially. I'm trying to see your point on "see, see, women can program too", but in reality I find you indicating I'm saying things I did not. All I did was mention what my daughter said to me and using natural, non-blaming identifiers to talk about it with her. You took it took it to a whole another level by making me say things in ways that was never my intent.

I'm going to be cool with the fact you did this with my comment, but you should really consider why you feel this way about it instead of doing a hack job with my comments. I support anyone doing anything they want and if you knew me, you'd know I'm someone who considers someone's worth by their actions, not by what they look, smell or taste like.

That also goes for people who don't quite understand how to state how they themselves feel about important matters.

> "it's unusual for women to be clever enough to program so we're making a song-and-dance about these ones"

The more examples you see of people like you programming, the less of a song-and-dance you think it is. And you might perceive it as putting them up on a pedestal, but others don't.

In an ideal world, we don't have to increase the visibility of other genders in programming.

Did you have role models and examples that you looked up to who also looked like you? I think it's a hard thing to empathize with if you've always had those examples.

> "well unless you can find examples of people of your sex doing that job well then forget it"

Which is a stronger message to a child: other genders or ethnicities being held up as examples or never seeing anyone who looks like you doing what you want to do?