Hidden Behind Hardware
It is the year 1990. I am visiting my father’s workplace for the umpteenth time, looking forward to the video games that I will get to play on one of the copious desktops in his office. As the next few years pass by, I would become proficient at playing Prince of Persia, Dangerous Dave, Gods, and Aladdin, just to name a few favourites. However, at the time of Prince of Persia 2’s release, I would not be able to finish the game due to the time limit that was preset in the game. Until, one day, my father and a few of his colleagues had inspected and solved this time limit issue: They erased one letter from a command line by accessing the game’s coding program. One letter erased meant unlimited game time in Prince of Persia 2, which further meant I could take as long as I needed to finish this game. Did I get to finish the game? Of course I did. While I continued to visit my father’s workplace often, I would see men working in their offices at their desktop computers as well as their laptops, allowing me to become comfortable with the impression that the computer technology field was for men, run by men. It would take the next 23 years for me to find out that the history of computer software programming was at the hands of women when it first began.
Before I begin to discuss the history of computers and software, it is important to define the terms computer and software. Here is the current definition of computer, according to Oxford Dictionaries:
An electronic device which is capable of receiving information (data) in a particular form and of performing a sequence of operations in accordance with a predetermined but variable set of procedural instructions (program) to produce a result in the form of information or signals. (Definition of Computer, para. 1)
In the mid-1900s, a computer was not a machine but a person (Bosker, 2013). The workers were called computors, a person who computes (Fritz, 1996). Their jobs were to solve equations and then use plug boards to punch in numbers. The machines they worked with manually are labelled hardware whereas the software, as defined by Wendy Chun (2005), is a “set of instructions that direct a computer to do a specific task” (Mirzoeff, 2013, p. 66), a term that did not exist at the time. The very first computer created in the United States of America was called the ENIAC: Electronical Numerical Integrator and Computer and was “unveiled to the public on February 14, 1946, at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania” (Rojas & Hashagen, 2000, p. 121). If the hardware was worked on by Eckert and Mauchly, who worked on the software? “Six ‘computers’ were selected in 1945 to be its first programmers”: Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli, Jean Jennings Bartik, Frances Snyder Holberton, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Frances Bilas Spence, and Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers, para. 1). Upon conducting research on the six female programmers, I found out that they were not credited for their work until 1997, 51 years after the release of the ENIAC (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers). This discovery has been credited to Kathy Kleiman, who has spent over two decades on their stories and created the ENIAC Programmers Project (ENIAC Programmers Project, 2015).
In addition to shedding light on the careers of the women of the ENIAC, this project further explores the history of software programmers and examines the possibilities of other women who worked in this field when computers were first introduced. In hopes of collecting names of women in the computer programming industry and their careers, the goal of this project is to share and shed light on the continuing issue of gender in the field of technology using the theories of visual culture, and more importantly, to highlight the effort, dedication, and sacrifices of the women who made computer programming what it is today by showcasing their biographies on the open fields of social media.
Before I begin to discuss the history of computers and software, it is important to define the terms computer and software. Here is the current definition of computer, according to Oxford Dictionaries:
An electronic device which is capable of receiving information (data) in a particular form and of performing a sequence of operations in accordance with a predetermined but variable set of procedural instructions (program) to produce a result in the form of information or signals. (Definition of Computer, para. 1)
In the mid-1900s, a computer was not a machine but a person (Bosker, 2013). The workers were called computors, a person who computes (Fritz, 1996). Their jobs were to solve equations and then use plug boards to punch in numbers. The machines they worked with manually are labelled hardware whereas the software, as defined by Wendy Chun (2005), is a “set of instructions that direct a computer to do a specific task” (Mirzoeff, 2013, p. 66), a term that did not exist at the time. The very first computer created in the United States of America was called the ENIAC: Electronical Numerical Integrator and Computer and was “unveiled to the public on February 14, 1946, at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania” (Rojas & Hashagen, 2000, p. 121). If the hardware was worked on by Eckert and Mauchly, who worked on the software? “Six ‘computers’ were selected in 1945 to be its first programmers”: Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli, Jean Jennings Bartik, Frances Snyder Holberton, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Frances Bilas Spence, and Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers, para. 1). Upon conducting research on the six female programmers, I found out that they were not credited for their work until 1997, 51 years after the release of the ENIAC (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers). This discovery has been credited to Kathy Kleiman, who has spent over two decades on their stories and created the ENIAC Programmers Project (ENIAC Programmers Project, 2015).
In addition to shedding light on the careers of the women of the ENIAC, this project further explores the history of software programmers and examines the possibilities of other women who worked in this field when computers were first introduced. In hopes of collecting names of women in the computer programming industry and their careers, the goal of this project is to share and shed light on the continuing issue of gender in the field of technology using the theories of visual culture, and more importantly, to highlight the effort, dedication, and sacrifices of the women who made computer programming what it is today by showcasing their biographies on the open fields of social media.
The first electronic computer called the ENIAC, short for Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, was released in 1946. Six women were the sole software programmers for the ENIAC. The role of the women as computer softwares was quite strong during the World War II was taking place. However, the history of women as strong software programmers has since been omitted. The following is a brief overview of the six programmers of the ENIAC:
Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli
Also known as Kay McNulty or Kay Antonelli (in the picture retrieved from WITI), Kathleen Antonelli was one of the original six women hired to work as a programmer for the ENIAC in 1942 (Fritz, 1996). Born in Ireland, Antonelli immigrated to America with her family in 1924. In 1942, she graduated from Chestnut Hill College for Women in Philadelphia “as one of the three math majors in a class of 92 graduates. Her math courses included college algebra, math history, integral calculus, spherical trigonometry, differential calculus, and partial differential equations” (Fritz, 1996, p. 16). As cited by Fritz, Kay McNulty says, Just after graduation, I happened to see an ad in the daily paper. The Army was looking for women with a degree in mathematics - right here in Philadelphia. I called Frances Bilas and Josephine Benson - my fellow math majors. For some now-forgotten reason, Josephine Benson couldn’t meet with us. In any event Fran and I went in together for the interview and were both accepted one week later as computers, SP-4, a subprofessional civil service grade. The pay was not spectacular, but at that time, and with no work experience, it was very welcome. We received notice to report to work at the Moore School. (Fritz, 1996, p. 16) |
When Antonelli first started working at her new job, she remembered seeing about 12 women and four men working there, from which she recalls meeting Lila Todd (her profile can be found on p. 22 of this paper), Willa Wyatt (her profile can be found at p. 24 of this paper), Ella May Henderson, and Mary Gibbons (Fritz, 1996). “The presence of women in this men-only school caused a lot of ‘rubber necking’ at the water fountains” (Fritz, 1996, p. 16).
Jean Jennings Bartik
Jean Bartik (in the picture below, retrieved from WITI) was the youngest of the six programmers. She was hired in 1942 to work for the ENIAC as a programmer (Fritz, 1996; Hally, 2005). However, according to Bartik, they were not titled as programmers but computers. Hally cites Bartik: I was the only woman mathematics major in my college. The jobs market was a big difficulty and we thought all we could do was teach school, and I definitely did not want to teach school. My calculus teacher knew that and she received this recruiting notice from Aberdeen Proving Ground looking for women math majors and she gave it to me. I applied for the job as a ‘computor’ - my title was ‘computor’! (Hally, 2005, p. 10) |
Bartik, after the war, continued to work with colleagues that “converted the ENIAC into a stored program machine, making it easier and faster to program larger and more sophisticated problems” (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers, para. 10). Jean Bartik also worked with BINAC: Binary Automatic Computer, designed the principles and a memory backup system for the UNIVAC I: Universal Automatic Computer, the first commercial computer, and wrote reports that would help companies and businesses understand how the new computer, microcomputer, would work (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers).
Frances Snyder Holberton
Holberton’s photograph, retrieved from WITI, shows that she also went by the name Betty, short for her middle name, Elizabeth. She was the oldest of the six on the team and was hired in 1942 for the ENIAC. Fritz writes, Following an excellent Quaker school education at the George School in the Philadelphia area, Betty graduated in 1939 from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in journalism, one of the few colleges at Penn open to women and providing an opportunity to take undergraduate courses in other colleges of Penn. She joined the Philadelphia Computing Unit at the Moore School on August 19, 1942. Jointly with Jean Jennings, she developed the trajectory program used to control the operation of the ENIAC during the highly successful public demonstration in February 1946. (Fritz, 1996, p. 17) |
Holberton, after the war, continued to work with Mauchly and Eckert, and was the key in writing the instructional coding, C-10, for UNIVAC I as well as designing the control console, computer keyboards, numeric keypad and the first sort-merge generator for UNIVAC I. “She served on the COBOL committee to design the first business language to operate across computer platforms, wrote standards for FORTRAN and served on national and international computer stands committees for decades” (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers, para. 11).
Marlyn Meltzer Meltzer (photograph retrieved from WITI) graduated in June 1942 “with a major in what was then called social and English and a minor in business” (Fritz, 1996, p. 22). She heard from a friend that hiring was taking place at the Moore School and that if she knew how to “run a calculator,” she would have a good chance of getting hired. She was hired by John Mauchly’s wife, Mary, as soon as she found out that Marlyn knew how to “operate an adding machine” (Fritz, 1996, p. 22). |
Frances Bilas Spence
Spence (photograph retrieved from WITI) was not able to share a lot of information about her work with Fritz due to the death of her husband (Fritz, 1996). She graduated from Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia wanting to begin her career as a teacher. Her major was in Mathematics with a minor in Physics. Chestnut Hill College was where she had met Kathleen McNulty, with whom she became best friends. In an interview with Fritz, Frances shared, Just after graduation, Kathleen called me about an ad she had seen in the newspaper recruiting math majors to work for the Army at the University of Pennsylvania. As she reports, we both applied together and I was happy that we were both accepted. Even though it was hard work and I had a lot to learn, I felt great satisfaction in knowing that I was making a small contribution to the war effort. (Fritz, 1996, p. 23) |
Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum
Teitelbaum (in photograph on the right retrieved from WITI) had passed away by the time Fritz was writing his paper. She had a degree in Mathematics from Hunter College; she was hired by Adele Goldstine. Ruth stayed with the ENIAC the longest and left to get married and raise a family. “As the converter code was introduced in 1947 and 1948, the ENIAC programming team changed, but still included a large percentage of women. Ruth is the only one of the original six to have died as of this writing" (Fritz, 1996, p. 17). An excerpt from WITI’s Hall of Fame page states, Marlyn Meltzer and Ruth Teitelbaum were a special team of ENIAC programmers. As “Computers” for the Army, they calculated ballistics trajectory equations painstakingly using desktop calculators, an analog technology of the time. Chosen to be ENIAC programmers, they taught themselves and others certain functions of the ENIAC and helped prepare the ballistics program. After the war, Ruth relocated with the ENIAC to Aberdeen, Maryland, where she taught the next generation of ENIAC programmers how to use the unique new computing tool. (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers, para. 7) |
The work of these women allowed for the first electrical computer to work. They physically had to program the machine using “switches, cables and digit trays to physically route the data and program pulses through the machine” (WITI, The ENIAC Programmers, para. 3). It is important for these women to be known in the world of technology as they were the first creators of software. Though this term may have not been present at the time, using algorithms and solving numerical equations for the machine to work would be considered software today. Kathy Kleiman has been credited with discovering the buried history of the six women who worked with the software of the ENIAC and has spent over 20 years shedding light on their stories. She has created the ENIAC Programmers Project and has recently released a documentary about these women, premiering in the Unites States amid the research and writing of this paper (ENIAC Programmers Project, 2015).
The computer, as we see it, can be placed into one of the most simplest of forms if compared to an iceberg. What we, as a society, are able to view with our naked eye above the vast ocean is the hardware of the computer and what lies beneath the water is the software; it exists but is invisible to us at the time. The history of women in the field of computer programming works in an equivalent manner. It exists under the ocean, on par with the software of the computer, invisible to the naked eye, whereas the men working with the hardware of the computer become the tip of the iceberg, apparent within our field of vision. The ethical dilemma at work here, however, is not that the larger part of the iceberg naturally sits under the ocean but that it has been deliberately positioned there so that it is invisible to society, thus, software becoming hidden behind hardware.
Omission of women’s history is not a singular occurrence in the field of history, but one which follows a general, and long-standing, pattern. In a Thinking Allowed TV interview, Gerda Lerner, Ph.D., a historian who is considered a founder in the field of women’s history, firmly believed and stated that the omission of women’s history occurred for as long as she could remember (ThinkingAllowedTV, 2010). Although this project’s primary focus is on the omission of women’s roles in software, it is also necessary and crucial to mention that not only has this omission occurred in the field of computer software but also in the fields of building trades (Clarke & Wall, 2006), the arts (Browning, 2011), literature (Vandergrift, 1996), and in many other fields as well.
Omitting Women's Roles in Software
If the original six women had such an essential and significant role with the ENIAC, one must question why they were not credited for their work at the time. As my personal journey began to find information and answers about the women of the ENIAC in various libraries at York University, my search commenced with books about software programming and its history and then progressed to digging deeper into books that talked about the ENIAC and the women who had become hidden behind its hardware. After intentionally searching for books from various years, I will focus, in this section, on a few books whose titles lead the reader to become convinced that all one needs to know is presented, and is correct, within the ambit of the book. However, these socalled authoritative texts have left out important information about the role of women in technology. Let us begin by looking at the book Out of Their Minds: The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Great Computer Scientists (1995), by Dennis Sasha and Cathy A. Lazere. The complete text consists of 15 men who were titled as great computer scientists. In the book, information on the ENIAC fails to be mentioned, but it describes John von Neumann, as “one of the pioneers in scientific calculation” (Sasha & Lazere, 1995, p. 9).
Omission of women’s history is not a singular occurrence in the field of history, but one which follows a general, and long-standing, pattern. In a Thinking Allowed TV interview, Gerda Lerner, Ph.D., a historian who is considered a founder in the field of women’s history, firmly believed and stated that the omission of women’s history occurred for as long as she could remember (ThinkingAllowedTV, 2010). Although this project’s primary focus is on the omission of women’s roles in software, it is also necessary and crucial to mention that not only has this omission occurred in the field of computer software but also in the fields of building trades (Clarke & Wall, 2006), the arts (Browning, 2011), literature (Vandergrift, 1996), and in many other fields as well.
Omitting Women's Roles in Software
If the original six women had such an essential and significant role with the ENIAC, one must question why they were not credited for their work at the time. As my personal journey began to find information and answers about the women of the ENIAC in various libraries at York University, my search commenced with books about software programming and its history and then progressed to digging deeper into books that talked about the ENIAC and the women who had become hidden behind its hardware. After intentionally searching for books from various years, I will focus, in this section, on a few books whose titles lead the reader to become convinced that all one needs to know is presented, and is correct, within the ambit of the book. However, these socalled authoritative texts have left out important information about the role of women in technology. Let us begin by looking at the book Out of Their Minds: The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Great Computer Scientists (1995), by Dennis Sasha and Cathy A. Lazere. The complete text consists of 15 men who were titled as great computer scientists. In the book, information on the ENIAC fails to be mentioned, but it describes John von Neumann, as “one of the pioneers in scientific calculation” (Sasha & Lazere, 1995, p. 9).
Von Neumann...was intrigued when he found out about an electronic calculator project at the Moore School of Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. He joined the project in 1944, first as an observer and later as a participant, and advocated the idea of building a machine that stored instructions as well as data - the approach used in virtually all computational devices today (Sasha & Lazere, 1995, p. 9).
A footnote at the bottom of the page mentions that the “credit for creating the electronic memory goes to John Eckert” (Sasha & Lazere, p. 9). One is left to think critically and consider a plethora of questions upon discovering this information. How is it that the creator of the ENIAC is mentioned but the name of the first computer, the ENIAC, is not mentioned? How can it be that Von Neumann has been credited for his advocacy about software yet the women who actually executed the work before him are not mentioned? Why have the women been left out? Another book from the year 2000 by Martin Davis titled, The Universal Computer, mentions the work done on the ENIAC, but again falls short of mentioning any of the women that were involved; instead, Eckert, Mauchly, and Von Neumann have been acknowledged for the success for the ENIAC.
The First Computers - History and Architectures (2000), edited by Rojas and Hashagen, is a book that includes important and thoughtful articles. The chapter, The ENIAC: History, Operation and Reconstruction in VLSI, addresses the history of the making of the ENIAC but does not go further to discuss software programming of the ENIAC (Rojas & Hashagen, 2000). Computing: A Concise History, by Paul Ceruzzi (2012), provides readers with a short history of the process of computing and computers by looking at the emergence of the words computing and digital. There is information about the ENIAC and that women were part of this project and its software but does not mention the names of women on board the project. Perhaps the most eye-catching discovery, and my personal favourite of the books, would have to be one of the more recently published books, in 2002. Manfred Broy and Ernst Denert present Software Pioneers with a front cover adorned with pictures of 16 men who the authors consider to have been most influential in Computer Software. There is no comment, recognition, or indication of a single woman who was part of software programming. In the hands of a young child, the cover of the book itself would suggest that no women are considered software pioneers.
WITI, Women In Technology International, is a website by women, for women, about women in technology. It is for women to share their work and, in turn, inspire, teach, and learn from other stories about female role models in technology (WITI, WITI - Women in Technology International). It was created in 1989 and in 1997 inducted the women of ENIAC into their Hall of Fame. Therefore, my next question to the authors of the books mentioned in the paragraphs above is: If these women had been given credit for their work in 1997, why do your books, which were published after 1997, omit information about the women of ENIAC? As Ursula Franklin argues, “the historical process of defining a group by their agreed practice and by their tools is a powerful one. It not only reinforces geographic or ethnic distributions, it also affects the gendering of work” (Franklin, 2004, p. 7). If the history of computers continues to highlight the names and profiles of only the men involved within the field, then it gives men the power to say, as well as intimates, that technology is a masculine field of study and/or work. Moreover, it gives society the power to believe that technology is a masculine field of study. Leaving out important pieces of history becomes problematic and an unethical act. Why is it passable for us to leave out important pieces of women’s history? Who has control over this notion?
To Be Blinded
It is difficult to locate the roots to the ethical dilemma posed by the lack of credit given to women pioneers in the field of computer technology. However, there are some examples that can help us understand where the negative portrayal of women’s abilities began. In Light’s (1999) article, When Computers Were Women, she mentions that the profession in technology meant long-term invisibility (p. 459). Though women were going into male-dominated careers such as science, technology, and engineering, their work to this day has not been given the credit it should be. Women were given titles that were degrading, sexist, and that usually prevented their skills from being seen as influential.
The First Computers - History and Architectures (2000), edited by Rojas and Hashagen, is a book that includes important and thoughtful articles. The chapter, The ENIAC: History, Operation and Reconstruction in VLSI, addresses the history of the making of the ENIAC but does not go further to discuss software programming of the ENIAC (Rojas & Hashagen, 2000). Computing: A Concise History, by Paul Ceruzzi (2012), provides readers with a short history of the process of computing and computers by looking at the emergence of the words computing and digital. There is information about the ENIAC and that women were part of this project and its software but does not mention the names of women on board the project. Perhaps the most eye-catching discovery, and my personal favourite of the books, would have to be one of the more recently published books, in 2002. Manfred Broy and Ernst Denert present Software Pioneers with a front cover adorned with pictures of 16 men who the authors consider to have been most influential in Computer Software. There is no comment, recognition, or indication of a single woman who was part of software programming. In the hands of a young child, the cover of the book itself would suggest that no women are considered software pioneers.
WITI, Women In Technology International, is a website by women, for women, about women in technology. It is for women to share their work and, in turn, inspire, teach, and learn from other stories about female role models in technology (WITI, WITI - Women in Technology International). It was created in 1989 and in 1997 inducted the women of ENIAC into their Hall of Fame. Therefore, my next question to the authors of the books mentioned in the paragraphs above is: If these women had been given credit for their work in 1997, why do your books, which were published after 1997, omit information about the women of ENIAC? As Ursula Franklin argues, “the historical process of defining a group by their agreed practice and by their tools is a powerful one. It not only reinforces geographic or ethnic distributions, it also affects the gendering of work” (Franklin, 2004, p. 7). If the history of computers continues to highlight the names and profiles of only the men involved within the field, then it gives men the power to say, as well as intimates, that technology is a masculine field of study and/or work. Moreover, it gives society the power to believe that technology is a masculine field of study. Leaving out important pieces of history becomes problematic and an unethical act. Why is it passable for us to leave out important pieces of women’s history? Who has control over this notion?
To Be Blinded
It is difficult to locate the roots to the ethical dilemma posed by the lack of credit given to women pioneers in the field of computer technology. However, there are some examples that can help us understand where the negative portrayal of women’s abilities began. In Light’s (1999) article, When Computers Were Women, she mentions that the profession in technology meant long-term invisibility (p. 459). Though women were going into male-dominated careers such as science, technology, and engineering, their work to this day has not been given the credit it should be. Women were given titles that were degrading, sexist, and that usually prevented their skills from being seen as influential.
Occupational feminization in the sciences fostered long-term invisibility. For example, beginning in the 1940s, laboratories hired women to examine the nuclear and particle tracks on photographic emulsions. Until the 1950s, published copies of photographs that each woman scanned bore her name. Yet eventually the status of these women’s work eroded. Later publications were subsumed under the name of the leader, inevitably a man, and publicity photographs rarely showcased women’s contributions. Physicist Cecil Powell’s request for ‘three more microscopes and three girls’ suggests how invisibility and interchangeability went hand in hand. In a number of laboratories, scientists described women not as individuals, but rather as a collective, defined by their lab leader (‘Cecil’s Beauty Chorus’) or by their machines (‘scanner girls’). Likewise in the ENIAC project, female operators are referred to...as ‘ENIAC girls.’ (Light, 1999, p. 459) The term ENIAC girls was later changed to the women of ENIAC (Chun, 2011).
Chun states that programming, when it began to advance in the 1950s, was not gender specific but rather it was gender neutral,
… in part because it was so new and in part because it was not as lucrative as hardware design or sales: the profession was gender neutral in hiring if not pay because it was not yet a profession. The “ENIAC girls” were first hired as subprofessionals, and some had to acquire more qualifications in order to retain their positions. As many female programmers quit to have children or get married, men took their increasingly lucrative jobs. Programming’s clerical and arguably feminine underpinnings - both in terms of personnel and command structure - was buried as programming sought to become an engineering and academic field in its own right. (Mirzoeff, 2013, p. 70)
Another aspect to consider is the fact that the U.S. Army was involved in this project; the ENIAC was being funded by the U.S. government. According to Nicholas Mirzoeff (2013, p. xxxi), there is a complex of visuality that consists of three complexes: the plantation complex (1650-1850), the imperial complex (1857-1947), and the militaryindustrial complex (1947-present). Looking at the timing of the military-industrial complex, it is where the women of the ENIAC stood and where we continue to stand today. The military-industrial complex is controlled by the government, allowing the people to choose; it is us versus them, so you are either with us or against us. In this complex, the government has control over what you see and what you do not, and what you have access to see or not see. Since the ENIAC was government funded, could it be possible that they intentionally tried to leave out the history of women and their work in technology because of a government tendency toward secrecy. Could there be a possibility that the government intended to keep women behind the hardware, working on software, so the women would, ironically, become hidden just as software is?
Women were less likely to seek credit, particularly in a field that technology pioneers had worked hard to diminish; software continued to play second fiddle to the more spectacular hardware of the computers themselves. Small wonder that, once men like Bill Gates began to dominate this field, software programming finally began to be seen as a worthwhile endeavour.
Women were less likely to seek credit, particularly in a field that technology pioneers had worked hard to diminish; software continued to play second fiddle to the more spectacular hardware of the computers themselves. Small wonder that, once men like Bill Gates began to dominate this field, software programming finally began to be seen as a worthwhile endeavour.
Proudly powered by Weebly