Really? Maybe BB did say that, but that's not of the point of the article at all. Most of it is just criticizing the NYT views that men's contributions to computers and the Internet were more important than women's contributions.
The "NYT view" was a crude stereotype of the tech industry and the stereotypical male nerd tech worker, introduced to justify the article's position that the tech industry is male-dominated and sexist. There's plenty wrong with it.
And as a matter of fact, the contributions of men did heavily outweigh the contributions of women because women at the time were NOT ALLOWED to become engineers in most of the United States. In the rare places where it was allowed, high school advisors discouraged women from going to college and college advisors discouraged women from taking advanced math. Society was generally sexist and the potential for women to contribute was suppressed.
In the tech industry, women were allowed to become computer operators because it was seen as a natural progression from being typewriter operators, and because the tech industry was more progressive than the NYT gives it credit for. The heavy math, engineering, and design work was mostly done by men because, with rare exceptions like Hopper, they were the only ones with the skills and training to do it.
You are right. I was just saying what I thought the article was saying not what I believe personally. Saying that the article's argument is saying the NYT is sexist and male-dominated is an over-simplification, and in it's essential part, not true.
Where does she say that the NYT is male dominated? Where does she say that the NYT is sexist? As far as I can tell she is only pointing out that the person who wrote the article is ignorant of reality. That has nothing to do with being male-dominated or sexist.
BB: The NYT is male-dominated and sexist for pointing it out.
Flagged as bullshit.