Dear Brian,
I am perplexed by your lengthy attack on Joy Rankin's presentation. The author of a book, you castigate a scholar's 20-minute presentation. Most incredibly. Yyu criticize her for being ignorant of history, but at the same time, you do not consider your ignorance of gender studies to be a problem. This is the exact problem with privilege that SIGCIS and other groups are contending with.
It's no longer a secret that there were a lot of women in computing. From Jennifer Light to Hidden Figures, we are sure that women were there. Recently, Marie Hicks has given us a solid study of how the women were filtered out through procedure and system. It is not that computing was from the start hostile to women, but it does seem as if as it developed it became so. This is in line with what other feminist historians of science have noticed (cf. Schiebinger's comment about the number of female astronomers). An analysis of this process is sorely needed.
By the way, only a man could say that an attack on a woman was not important because others spoke up to protest. You might be interested in the rich and growing literature on microagreessions and how they impact diversity in STEM. Given the pervasive interest in enhancing diversity in computing and STEM more generally, I am uncertain why you feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field.
I applaud Rankin and others for their solid work in this difficult area. Their findings are not, as you suggest, anomalous misreadings of history. Contending with the pervasive and persistent sexism (and other isms) in STEM will be the challenge of the current generation of scholars. I feel lucky to be at NYU, where such conversations are at least entertained without polemical attacks. Your screed, though, shows how far the profession has to go.
Chris Leslie