
How One Hardware Startup Solved Silicon Valley’s “Woman Problem” (2015) - mattiemass
https://backchannel.com/how-one-hardware-startup-solved-silicon-valley-s-woman-problem-76e3ee581534
======
t0mbstone
The article states that they get more male applicants than female, but then it
also states, "Women know where the women are" and that they have a relatively
equal ratio of male/female employees.

So basically, they "solved" Silicon Valley's "Woman Problem" by turning away a
large number of qualified male applicants and hired from the smaller pool of
females.

Sounds like gender discrimination to me.

A truly non discriminatory workplace would have a ratio of male/female
employees that was in line with the ratio of qualified male/female applicants
(even if that meant more males than females). Just saying.

~~~
nickff
I think you are getting to the core of the disagreement here. You can have a
process that either ensures equal treatment or ensures equal outcomes (for
certain groups), but you cannot guarantee both. The only way to guarantee both
is for all groups of interest to be emotionally, intellectually, and
preferentially identical.

Essentially, you can view any (HR or other) process as a function, and you can
either guarantee a 'fair' function, or a 'fair' result, but not both unless
you restrict the inputs.

Some people prefer to have equality of treatment, while others prefer equality
of outcome; I think this is why people disagree so vehemently on this issue,
and rarely change their minds or compromise after a debate.

~~~
bryondowd
Good way of putting it. I think most people would prefer equality of both
treatment and outcome, if possible.

Additionally, I suspect that it is possible, just not in the short term (or
even decades, possibly). But in the long term, I think that if you achieve
equality of outcome, then new norms begin to take root, and eventually, you
can remove any artificially created inequality of treatment and still get an
equal outcome.

Your function example really nails it down if you consider it cyclical, with
the output being averaged with previous inputs and then re-entered as input.
So, inequal input to an equal function generates inequal output. But if you
change the function to be inequal but opposite to the existing input, then
your output becomes equal. When you average it, it becomes inequal again, but
less so than the original. Once your average approached equal by repeating
this, you can replace your inequal function with an equal one and your system
should remain fairly stable. Essentially, your function just needs to
compensate for biased input, and if there is no biased input, it can behave
equally.

However, simply having equal treatment/function with inequal
outcomes/input/output results in a system that just remains the same.

So basically, affirmative action type steps could potentially lead to an
environment where those steps are no longer necessary, and can be removed,
achieving actual equality.

But maybe I'm an idealist.

~~~
nickff
I don't know if you're an idealist, but you seem to believe that there is
strong feedback in the function, which is something that I am somewhat
skeptical of.

If income and examples/role models were the primary inputs, I'd have to agree
that your feedback model would work. The problem is that there seem to be
fundamental differences between many groups in IQ, EQ, and preferences. In
addition, men and women have different life experiences beyond how society
treats them, as men cannot experience what it is to carry a child to term, and
men are less likely to breastfeed their children; if this type of experience
is a relevant input to work productivity or preferences, a 'fair' system will
probably create unequal outcomes.

~~~
bryondowd
Perhaps there are some factors that would lead to unequal outcomes that would
not be corrected, but I expect that these, including the ones you describe,
would have significantly smaller effects than what we currently have. And I
expect that those would have been the initial impetus causing a runaway
feedback effect which would cause what we have.

So, really we have two functions. One function produces the number of men and
women applying for the jobs. The second function produces the number of men
and women occupying the jobs. The second function is the one we've discussed
wanting to control to be either fair or unfair. And yes, with inequal inputs,
a fair function produces inequal outputs.

The first function, we are assuming for now is beyond our control, and the
inputs to it are largely unknown and/or beyond our direct control. It is a
product of experiences, societal norms, encouragement, discouragement, and
personal interests. The first function directly generates the inputs to the
second function. As I understand it, you are postulating that this first
function is inherently inequal to the point of generating the current
applicant proportions we are seeing, and that the output of this function is
not significantly impacted by any inputs that are the output of the second
function (feedback effect). I would argue that the first function, while
possibly inequal, is not sufficiently so to create what we observe, and
instead, is reasonably impacted by the output of the second function. Thus,
the feedback effect.

Anecdotes I've read and witnessed seem to indicate that there are factors that
reduce the number of females who make it to the application stage that would
not exist if females were not already a minority in the workforce. Males in an
all-male team do frequently develop habits that would put off most women who
join that team as a newcomer. This doesn't have to be intentionally malicious
to discourage a woman from continuing to work in the field. If women are made
to feel uncomfortable, intentionally or otherwise, they are less likely to
stay and to encourage other women to join, and more likely to actively
discourage more women to join. And it seems very likely that a 50% female
workforce would go a long way to removing uncomfortable work environments. And
this can happen similarly at the college level before ever getting to real
work environments, with women facing friction in mostly male programs.

Then there's the conception that it is a typically male job, just because
there are many more man than women currently in it. This isn't malicious
either, necessarily, it's just the way human minds work. You see mostly men
doing something, you associate it with men. So you get a stronger unconscious
gender affinity just because that's the way it is and has been. And that
affinity leads fewer women to try the field out, fewer people to encourage
them to try it out, and more people to encourage them toward other fields or
even some people actively discouraging them, possibly those who have
previously dropped out of the field or possibly just naive types.

I'm sure there are other examples of ways that an existing imbalance in the
workforce impact the balance of those attempting to join the workforce and
making it all the way to the application phase.

Also note. I'm not making any claims as to exactly how strong this feedback
loop is. Just that it is strong enough to make a significant difference over a
significant amount of time. That time frame may be decades, or it may be
generations. I expect that at a minimum, we'd see a far greater natural
equality if it were artificially enforced for 50 years or so. After that, you
could have a system that is almost entirely fair, perhaps occasionally adding
a small balance to restore it any time it approaches a significant tipping
point again.

~~~
nickff
My personal view is that the case you are putting forward is quite tenuous,
and does not justify unequal treatment. Making a "significant difference over
a significant period of time" is simply too speculative to justify
discrimination, especially when the "significant difference" wouldn't
necessarily increase people's happiness, productivity, or life satisfaction;
one could imagine that making men and women more similar might make both
groups worse off. In addition, it seems that most groups' positions and roles
seem to be evolving (I assume mostly in their favor), and I have no reason to
believe that spontaneous evolution is any 'worse' than affirmative action,
especially in long term results.

To make your case convincing to me, you would need a clear outline of how the
plan would create a Pareto improvement (which would not necessarily be
pecuniary), and you would also need to outline a way of determining whether
the plan is working. In my view, there is a danger of executing a plan which
has no chance of working, and continuing to rachet-up the discrimination in
the vain hope that 'it might work if we try harder'. I would also require your
plan to have a much better expected outcome than the status quo.

Perhaps there is also an alternative argument which would convince me that
procedural discrimination was 'worth it', but I haven't heard it yet.

~~~
bryondowd
Well, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does go a pretty long way toward
facilitating it. So I'd say it's unlikely that the status quo of leaving a
huge imbalance in some of the most lucrative fields available today wouldn't
be worse for women than addressing that imbalance. I can't think of any high
paying fields that are dominated by women. And there is a notable difference
in average pay between men and women.

I'd agree with your second paragraph, for the most part. It is easy for a
program with the right intentions to fall into that trap. It would bear a more
in-depth analysis. I think, once started, it would be fairly easy to determine
if it is working. If a more equal workforce can't be maintained without an
increase in efforts, it probably isn't working. In fact, a sign of it working
would be a gradual decrease in the need for it. In other words, if the
workforce began to skew the other way, then the program would need to be
scaled back to bring things back in line. So, if it worked, it would be self-
terminating, and should be designed as such.

------
SlashmanX
That whole 'mosquito' thing is very odd. From reading it seems that this was a
sexist remark and women everywhere have had to deal with similar comments when
in actual fact it's nothing to do with her being a woman, moreso the fact that
in her role, she was a tiny bit annoying. Anyone in that role, man or woman,
would've had a similar 'nickname' just from the nature of the role itself

~~~
steverb
It's possible it's a reference to her voice. But not having met her, I don't
know. It's also possible, that were she a big burly guy they might not have
treated her the same way.

Either way, it sounds like the place handled it appropriately, which is
awesome.

~~~
oh_sigh
> It's also possible, that were she a big burly guy they might not have
> treated her the same way.

Sure, but he may have just been referred to as a meat head, a dumb lug, etc.

Also, the lady was in charge of enforcing safety rules. People almost always
hate that person, even if they are saving their asses. See how OSHA reps are
treated on job sites as an example.

~~~
steverb
Definitely true.

Heck, I hate the OSHA guy myself, and the union enforcement guy, and anyone
else who it seems is trying to keep me from just getting shit done.

------
peterwwillis
_" It’s also no accident; a commitment to gender diversity is at the core of
the company’s DNA."_

Some people make the tech industry gender imbalance out to be primarily driven
by sexism/misogyny, when I think this article makes clear it's more about
chauvinism and bias. If everything goes well, in the future we will have a
balance of gender in the tech industry. But we will still be left with
elephants in the room.

People associate with, and hire, people like themselves. That extends to
gender, race, economic status, education, sexual preference, religion, etc.
The fact that this company has _zero black employees_ is probably not because
they're racists - it's more likely due to personal bias, which drives both
hiring and corporate culture.

I don't think this company has solved a problem. They're hiring based on bias
just like all the white male-led tech companies. They just have a slightly
different angle. (Or at least, that's what I get from the article, which may
have been written with a very specific spin)

~~~
reefoctopus
>If everything goes well, in the future we will have a balance of gender in
the tech industry.

Why are you so sure of this? What if the natural balance is 80% male? There
are many industries where this is the case. Even if businesses become
increasingly discriminatory against male applicants, it isn't going to change
that those who spend time learning the requisite skills are more likely to be
men.

~~~
peterwwillis
First off, there is no natural balance to an industry, because they aren't
natural. They do have norms, though.

Second, saying tech businesses are going to become 'increasingly
discriminatory' against men is like saying that after desegregation and the
civil rights movement we got 'increasingly discriminatory' against white
people sitting in the front of a bus.

Third, there's no scientific/factual basis for why men might spend more time
learning tech skills. It's not like 80% of men around the world sit around all
day thinking about debugging kernel drivers. More than likely it's social
conditioning and gender stereotypes that lead to the impression that men are
simply more interested in, or better at, technology-related skills.

If you don't believe in gender stereotype, imagine if your mother taught your
sister how to work on the family car, and told you to go back inside and play
with your tea set because your pretty clothes might get dirty, and that this
happened when your brain was still forming a very early world view.

~~~
reefoctopus
Replace natural balance with equilibrium if the term natural makes you
uncomfortable. My point is that there are innate differences between men and
women, and these are reflected in their preferences for different types of
work. There is a reason there are more women than men in nursing, that there
are more male plumbers than female, and wishing for a different reality
doesn't make it so.

>Second, saying tech businesses are going to become 'increasingly
discriminatory' against men is like saying that after desegregation and the
civil rights movement we got 'increasingly discriminatory' against white
people sitting in the front of a bus.

The difference between my example and yours is that nobody is preventing women
or minorities from applying or working in the desired positions. Nobody has
legislated away their rights. The position you're advocating is quite similar
to segregation. White men are only allowed on the "bus" after the front fills
up with women.

There are many evolutionary reasons why men might spend more time building
tools. I've noticed that it is politically acceptable to say that women make
better caretakers or that they are more sociable, but that it is no longer
politically acceptable to do the same with positive traits in regards to men.

To address your last point - "In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M
University and Melissa Hines of City University in London stunned the
scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the same sex-typical
toy preferences as humans. In an incredibly ingenious study, published in
Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically
masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a
soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral toys (a picture book and a
stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the
monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring how much time they spent with
each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly
greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed
significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The two sexes did not
differ in their preference for the neutral toys."

Wishing for a different reality doesn't make it so.

~~~
vtech325
Except that's not the whole picture: [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-
sense/truth-women-stem-ca...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-
women-stem-careers/)

The natural state of tech industry is far from what your proposing.

------
sawyer
_This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly._

This seems like such a toxic philosophy to me. One of the worst things you can
do for a workplace is stifle honest conversation and criticism, and this focus
on not "micro-aggressing" will do just that - the way it has in colleges over
the last few years.

~~~
tptacek
Businesses are not colleges.

~~~
beeboop
I think you will agree a tyrannical workplace that stifles honest conversation
and criticism is a pretty shitty place to work, and perpetuates the unhealthy
power imbalance between employers and employees. A workplace shouldn't be a
kingdom of the CEO where his word is law, at least not as it applies to your
everyday behavior and speech. Exceptions of course to expecting widely
accepted professional behavior.

~~~
coke12
No, I don't agree. Nobody should feel uncomfortable in their workplace,
especially if the reason for discomfort has nothing to do with work. Comments
about gender, sexual orientation, and race are almost never appropriate.
College is a very different environment because people go there to learn
holistically.

~~~
beeboop
I poorly worded the parent comment. I agree with everything you said. It's
when you take "nobody should feel uncomfortable in their workplace" to the
absolute extremes that things become difficult, which is what a discussion
about "micro-aggressions" becomes. At what point does someone's
uncomfortableness with something become invalid? It's obviously not limitless.

~~~
coke12
No, but most companies filter out the most unreasonable people in their hiring
process. I think you're making a caricature of these people's attempts to
support their coworkers. "Microaggressions" in this context means that you
should be careful about the little things you say, because you're in a
multicultural workplace.

------
jeffdavis
They should lead with their business successes (even if not profitable, they
can talk about customer satisfaction, compelling use cases, differentiation,
and growth), and follow up with "and we are also a great place for women to
work, and we think other businesses can be, too".

If you choose business as a battleground, then you are implicitly setting up
the success criteria as business success. So leaving that out and just
focusing on hiring ratios and employee happiness feels incomplete.

~~~
Dain42
It's foolish, and, honestly, kind of offensive, to imply that pushing
diversity and at the same time pushing business success are somehow at odds
with each other. There was an excellent segment that talked about almost this
exact thing on Reply All a few weeks ago. If you skip to the second half, I'd
recommend listening to it. They talk about how businesses benefit from
diversity, how diverse groups perform better and get better results than
groups chosen just on "qualifications", and they also address the annoyance at
the fact that "success" and "diversity" are seen as competing goals, in stark
rejection of evidence. They also talk about how things that don't seem like a
big deal can really wear minority employees down:

[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/52-raising-the-
bar/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/52-raising-the-bar/)

~~~
13thLetter
"It's foolish, and, honestly, kind of offensive, to imply that pushing
diversity and at the same time pushing business success are somehow at odds
with each other."

Offensive? We're not even allowed to disagree with you about meta-level issues
now? Nobody is being insulted or harassed, no one is being subjected to
prejudicial remarks about any facet of their being -- and yet it's still,
somehow, offensive?

~~~
Dain42
By saying, "Pushing to get more even representation is at odds with business
success or product quality," which is often outright stated and even more
often pretty directly implied, people are basically saying, "Those 'diverse'
people are inherently poorer workers with worse quality output." That's the
subtext, and that's what I think is kind of offensive about that line of
argument.

------
alvern
Coming from a machining background, the product they have created is a
$2000USD mini mill with the largest tool being a .125" endmill. Their specs
list a precision of .001". Now is that TIR, X/Y travel, or backlash?

The work envelope is 5.5x4.5x1.35 which is small. This looks like a purpose
built PCB mill.

Does PCB manufacturing require a $2k+ mill? Is sampling a PCB not cheaper?

~~~
jordanb
Haha yeah they could have just re-branded a Sherline mini mill, had better
specs, and even paying retail for it they would have made a healthy profit at
$2000 a pop.

------
jldugger
> It starts with the hiring process.

So this hardware startup solves the problem by making it that much harder for
everyone else.

------
techdragon
So ... can we men get a gender neutral term for "mansplaining" ?

Men are not the only ones who do this. Yes the name comes from a male biased
behaviour in the tech community but I have witnessed plenty of this out in
about in non tech fields... "oh your an man, there's no way you would
understand" or starting to explain something before asking if I need an
explanation how it works, because why would a man ever need to know how a
thing, like say a sewing machine, worked...

Calling it "mansplaining" (which is in my iPhones dictionary!?) does nothing
to help stamp out this behaviour as undesirable. It arguably provides excuses
for women to engage in the behaviour since they aren't "men" how can they be "
_man_ splaining", and contributes to its continued existence by allowing this
"mode of interaction" to continue regardless of gender.

Other than that. Awesome company, and I hadn't heard of the product despite
having a need for something like that. So I may buy that milling machine in
the future which is pretty cool.

~~~
parenthephobia
Words are not their etymologies. Mansplaining is gender neutral if it is used
in a gender neutral way.

A woman who understands the meaning of mansplaining will not believe that it
is only bad to be patronizing[1] if you are a man because the word
"mansplaining" exists, any more than she would believe she is not a human
being because the word "mankind" exists.

Conversely, a woman who is already of the opinion that men can't understand
how sewing machines work isn't going to be shamed into adopting a new opinion
because somebody coined the word "condesplaining".

[1] Of course, "patronize" is a gendered term if we go by its etymology.

~~~
jm_l
I agree, I also think it unlikely that the adoption of the term 'mansplaining'
encourages non-men to patronize more people.

On the other hand, what I understand from the criticism of the term is that it
hurts some people to hear it used. We choose our language because we don't
want to cause others pain; when someone tells me that calling someone a b*tch
causes them pain I stop using the word around them. If I have reason to
believe that using the word causes a lot of people pain then I stop using it
in public. Similarly, lots of people (some reference below) are pained by
words like 'mansplain' and 'manspread.' If someone tells me that they are
pained by it, I don't go and try and convince them that the word is actually
fine to use and they shouldn't be pained, I stop using the word.

REF:

[http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-
language/2015/feb...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-
language/2015/feb/12/allow-me-to-explain-why-we-dont-need-words-like-
mansplain)

[http://www.xojane.com/issues/why-you-ll-never-hear-me-use-
te...](http://www.xojane.com/issues/why-you-ll-never-hear-me-use-term-
mansplain)

[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/phoenixandolivebranch/2013/02/w...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/phoenixandolivebranch/2013/02/what-
my-feminism-is-and-why-im-not-okay-with-mansplaining/)

[http://halginsberg.com/lets-stop-using-terms-like-
mansplain-...](http://halginsberg.com/lets-stop-using-terms-like-mansplain-
and-manspread/)

~~~
undersuit
>On the other hand, what I understand from the criticism of the term is that
it hurts some people to hear it used.

It has a negative definition. It was chosen to be a gendered word, a tongue in
cheek attack on the prevalence of accidentally gendered words like mankind and
manslayer. When we are moving away from words that use the root word man to
avoid accidental gendering, why would a new word be created that is gendered
if it is not an attack on that gender?

------
ameister14
Ah, good. The problem is now solved. Silicon Valley is saved.

