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.
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.