How One Hardware Startup Solved Silicon Valley’s “Woman Problem” (2015)

https://backchannel.com/how-one-hardware-startup-solved-silicon-valley-s-woman-problem-76e3ee581534

by mattiemass • 10 years ago

33 120 10 years ago

SlashmanX• 10 years ago

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

steverb3• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

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.

digler9994• 10 years ago

were she a big burly guy

Is that really a gender issue, or is it a threatening-demeanor issue ? What if she were a vociferous, large black woman who had an aggressive, threatening personality ? Still a woman, but at least as big of a "perceived threat" as a "big, burly guy".

What if she were a rail-thin effeminate homosexual male ? Lower perceived "threat level", perhaps would have earned her the same nickname ?

one of the many issues that makes this gender-division thing murky is that a lot of the time, but not always, men are physically larger and more aggressive. I suspect that more testosterone generally yields higher aggressiveness (and I've experienced this first-hand after weight lifting at the gym and generally feeling more aggressive ). My point is, its human nature to defer to a more aggressive human, and while gender typically has some correlation, it could be the aggressiveness (not always the gender) responsible for womens' collective withdrawal from the field.

techdragon2• 10 years ago

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 "mansplaining", 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.

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

women to engage in the behaviour since they aren't "men" how can they be "mansplaining",

Stuff like this is really bothersome. Another example is when a woman is clearly being a misogynist, but thinks that's impossible because she's a woman too. The worst and most sexist things I've ever heard were from white professional women who think the rules don't apply to them, epsecially if they are discussing younger more attractive women or poorer, less educated women. And in the workplace no less!

I think we live in an absurd level of PC pressure and I think that partly explains why guys like Trump are doing so well in the polls. People are just sick of navigating this stuff and its all fairly arbitrary. Ignoring this isn't doing anyone any good, especially the Democrats who keep losing elections. Not sure what the solution here is, but I hope the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. The fact that 'mansplaining' is in the iphone dictionary is especially odious. Its a straight up slur. Being a tonedeaf know-it-all knows no gender.

parenthephobia5• 10 years ago

Another example is when a woman is clearly being a misogynist, but thinks that's impossible because she's a woman too.

Do you mean misandrist, perhaps?

Misogyny is literally about hating women. A woman can be a misogynist, but only by hating women. A woman (or a man) that hates men is a misandrist.

Somebody who hates people regardless of gender is a misanthrope.

The fact that 'mansplaining' is in the iphone dictionary is especially odious. Its a straight up slur. Being a tone-deaf know-it-all knows no gender.

Of course mansplaining is a slure. Misogynist is a slur as well. That is the point of that sort of word.

parenthephobia5• 10 years ago

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.

fit2rule• 10 years ago

Thats great for those enlightened enough to understand the phrase with some comprehension. Alas, all of humanity is not that wise - I've had to deal with 'mansplaining' too many times from women, as well as men, for it to make any sense for there to be any gender-form in the phrase. And justifying this just doesn't make any sense. Its a terrible phrase, and should be replaced with something that doesn't imply that the phenomenon has anything to do with ones sex.

Because it doesn't. And that is sexism.

jm_l• 10 years ago

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.xojane.com/issues/why-you-ll-never-hear-me-use-te...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/phoenixandolivebranch/2013/02/w...

http://halginsberg.com/lets-stop-using-terms-like-mansplain-...

billmalarky• 10 years ago

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

You make a valid point, but some words are just inappropriate for most contexts because the general lack of understanding of them causes unnecessary tension. To me this is a clear flaw in a communication model that I believe "mansplaining" falls under.

Another example would be the word "niggardly." These words pretty much only have use in an academic setting at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%...

drdeca3• 10 years ago

Have you seen people regularly use the word "mansplaining" to describe the actions of any women (while knowing that the person they were referring to was a woman)?

I don't believe that I have seen that.

The meaning of words is not their etymology, but it is how they are used and understood.

And, ime, people seem to use the word "mansplaining" to refer to actions of (people that they believe to be) men (or corporations?).

Perhaps your experience differs on this topic though?

13thLetter2• 10 years ago

Mansplaining is gender neutral if it is used in a gender neutral way.

I'm just imagining the furor if someone said that about, say, "harpy" or "hysterical."

techdragon2• 10 years ago

I find it surprising that I see so many negative votes in a thread of discussion that, considering the subject matter, is extremely civil and respectful.

I was actually concerned I would be down voted, I've got a few, no loss to me. But I'm amazed at some of the down votes I see deeper in the thread... :-/

alvern• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

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.

ISL• 10 years ago

If they can make it easy for someone to use, and they get more than $2k of value from the thing, everyone wins.

jkot• 10 years ago

Affordable mill is not new idea for startup. This one used Atari :-) http://jacquesmattheij.com/the-start-up-from-hell

sawyer• 10 years ago

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.

tptacek18• 10 years ago

Businesses are not colleges.

escherize• 10 years ago

Right, businesses collapse under their own weight when you stifle honest conversations.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

Startups are more like colleges than businesses. You drink a lot of beer, play ping pong, get no sleep, and after 4 years you're broke and moving back in with your parents.

goodcanadian6• 10 years ago

True, but most environments will benefit from open and honest (and civil) discussion.

beeboop9• 10 years ago

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.

tomjen32• 10 years ago

No, we make more money.

But that doesn't mean being formal or faking professionalism is the best way to make money.

BossHogg• 10 years ago

If you can't have an honest conversation without being insulting or degrading, you're the problem.

kefka3• 10 years ago

"I'm offended so you need to shut up."

Is no way to have proper communication. And that's the point with branding things as "micro-aggressions". Its an effective social construct to silence someone by branding them as discriminatory. Usually, without proof.

jkyle4• 10 years ago

Microaggression is, by definition, to casually denigrate others by repeating or affirming stereotypes for the purpose of discounting contributions or establishing the dominate class as normal and the minority class as aberrant or pathological.

It is the exact opposite of honest conversation and criticism.

Some examples would be dismissing a woman's analysis because "women are bad at math". Turning to the one female colleague in the room and telling her to go get some coffee. Suggesting that a minority is unqualified and a diversity hire. Labeling LGBT coworkers as psychologically unsound. Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

Having a policy against toxic environments is not, itself, toxic. Even if it makes some men who hold the above opinions feel "on guard". Because they should feel on guard about not spouting such vitriol.

kefka3• 10 years ago

Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

I'm for equality, and the area around FMLA is not equal, by any means.

That issue is caused by the risk that women of child-bearing age have with regards to our laws on FMLA. Women (of child bearing age) are an inherent risk with strong legal ramifications if ignored. Once pregnant, they can effectively get up and leave their position. Depending what they were doing, can cause significant team problems. And the employer is required to provide their or a similar position back when they return. I'm sure the actuaries have calculated that risk appropriately.

To fix that, all gov't needs to do is apply FMLA to all parties in a relationship when one in it is pregnant. Then the actuarial cost equals itself out. Equality is approached.

tomjen32• 10 years ago

In theory. In practice lots of things can be seen more than one way.

You can ask the women to go fetch coffee because she is closests to the door, because it is her turn or because she is a woman.

In practice it means you never ask the women to get coffee, even when she is sitting closest to the door and you would have asked a man in the same situation.

And the trouble isn't that you have to actually shut up about racists shit, the trouble is you constantly have to ask yourself "could this statement be read the wrong way" - it is like posting everything you do on tumblr, where the term originated.

digler9994• 10 years ago

Some examples would be

none of those is micro. Those are egregious acts of sexism and discrimination in my book.

To me, a micro aggression would be very nuanced stereotypes and bigotry ( "let's have Wong do it, Chinese guys are great at math" ), or a condescending "let me know if you need help" from a male to female when she clearly already knows how to do it. Saying "I'll take it, this one's a man's job".

mavus• 10 years ago

This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly. This is a company where the first bedrock rule is that nobody gets interrupted, and the second is that everyone gets their say.

If you take the whole quote from the article, it doesn't seem like it would stifle honest conversation at all, if anything micro-aggressions would reduce open communication by making people believe their input is valid or wont be heard.

t0mbstone2• 10 years ago

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.

bryondowd4• 10 years ago

more applicants != more qualified applicants

You leave out the possibility that the smaller pool of female applicants happened to have more of the highest quality applicants. That could potentially be explained by more quality filters being in place on women before ever reaching the application stage. What those filters might be isn't really important, but I could come up with several possibilities. They would be pure guesses, of course.

Edited to add: This effect of course would decrease greatly as you scale up. For instance, imagine there are 700 men and 300 women looking for jobs in your area, and women have been pre-filtered somehow such that they skew to high quality significantly more than men. You can hire the best 50 people and end up with more women than men, but by the time you are hiring the top 600 people, you're going to have more men than women. So, this works for a smaller operation better than a larger one, at least for creating an observable result. That said, perhaps changing the hiring practices of many larger companies would have an eventual secondary impact on these mysterious filters.

t0mbstone2• 10 years ago

The problem is that it sounds like one of the factors they are using to determine whether or not someone is "qualified" is whether they are a female.

The article clearly states:

"It starts with the hiring process. Applestone doesn’t just pick through the applicant pool that comes to her; she goes out and actively looks for qualified women."

So she is ignoring the male applicants and is actively looking for women instead. That's pretty much the definition of gender discrimination.

nickff3• 10 years ago

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.

reefoctopus5• 10 years ago

Some people prefer to have equality of treatment, while others prefer equality of outcome; I think this is why people disagree so vehemently.

Yes, because those who prefer equality of outcome are wrong, and they see no problem with discrimination against me when it comes to education and employment. In order to bring about equality of outcome along gender or racial lines you would also have to create separate job markets along those same lines. Instead of competing against everyone for a position I would only be competing against white males. At some point in our history it was decided that separate is by definition not equal.

bryondowd4• 10 years ago

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.

drdeca3• 10 years ago

Hm,

I suppose that if the goal is to hire solely based on qualifications (and what salaries people are willing to work for, but that might be part of "qualifications"?), and qualifications (and prices) are equally distributed among genders among applicants, that the number of persons hired of each gender would be roughly proportional to the number of applicants of each gender.

(Wow that sentence that I just wrote sure was a run-on sentence. I hope it isn't too too badly worded.)

One might consider other motivations.

Is it possible that the proportion of applicants of each gender is influenced by the proportion of persons of each gender of those who are employed in the industry in question? (E.g. maybe persons are less likely to apply for a job if they know that their gender is in the minority in either the industry in general, or in the specific company? I don't claim that this is the case, but it does not seem fundamentally absurd.)

If this does turn out to be the case, there might be a positive feedback loop on the difference in ratios of genders, causing a small initial disparity to have a tendency to get larger over time.

Would this be a problem?

I don't know. It could be fine I guess.

It also seems plausible that this could cause some disadvantages as well. I don't know that any would be significant.

So, uh, it seems like the question is:

Is there an /unfortunate/ cause for significantly unequal proportions of genders in applicants for an industry, and if there is, and if changing hiring practices could "counteract" that in some way, should they prioritize , I guess you could call it fairness to the individual, or should they prioritize addressing some sense of "fairness" to groups as a whole?

I think this is a difficult question?

One question might be whether there is an obligation to do either. (Note: I do not mean a legal obligation.) If someone wants to hire only, say, left handed people, or only men on odd days of the month and only women on even days of the month, or only people who went to the same college as them, is there a reason they shouldn't do that?

Maybe. It seems reasonable to me that both of the options I mentioned regarding gender would be better (in the current climate) than , for example, having a policy of only hiring males, even if it is ok to have a policy of only hiring males. (I also don't know why one would have such a policy, and I think that such a policy would likely be wrong, but if it isn't wrong, I still think the other two things mentioned would both be better than it.)

Hmm.

derf_• 10 years ago

Yeah, so here's the thing:

1. Your job application probably has language that discourage women from applying [1].

2. Men tend to apply for jobs even though they don't meet all of the qualifications, whereas women tend not to [2].

So there's bias introduced before you even see the list of applicants, and given no other information, it would not be that surprising to find a randomly selected woman from that candidate pool would be more qualified than a randomly selected man.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/textio-unitive-bias...

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-conf...

digler9994• 10 years ago

why would you select any candidate at random, though ? When sifting through candidate pools, (i.e. stack of resumes), isn't it a given that we should only call the best-qualified candidates ?

jjn20092• 10 years ago

While that may be true, out right discrimination by turning away qualified male applicants is not how to correct a bias in applicant hiring, it would be extremely hypocritical to suggest that is some how okay. Give people tools to find the best candidates and they will use them, the market for tech talent is extremely competitive.

ameister14• 10 years ago

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

jeffdavis2• 10 years ago

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.

Dain424• 10 years ago

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/

13thLetter2• 10 years ago

"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?

jeffdavis2• 10 years ago

I didn't say or imply anywhere that they were at odds, nor do I think they are in general.

Rather, the business success part of the narrative was missing in this particular case, leaving an inconclusive feeling.

I recommend that you give others the benefit of the doubt and make a real effort to understand what they are trying to say, rather than assuming they are wrong merely because the comment triggers a politically-incorrect reflex. You're comment leads to an environment where people are afraid to contribute new ideas to the discussion.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

"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)

reefoctopus5• 10 years ago

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.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

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.

allemagne2• 10 years ago

What if the natural balance is 80% male? There are many industries where this is the case.

All genders, races, nationalities, and other protected classes having the same innate skills for white-collar jobs is solidly the null hypothesis. Let's see some extraordinary evidence for the alternative before abandoning it as our working assumption.

jldugger• 10 years ago

It starts with the hiring process.

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

How One Hardware Startup Solved Silicon Valley’s “Woman Problem” (2015)

Related Stories