Brotopia

Recommended in Ruined by Design for its look at Silicon Valley’s darker sides. I know of the author because she appeared on the show Silicon Valley; it seemed like an interesting read.

And it was indeed eye-opening. It made me understand the pervasive sexism even at those levels, and how women are systematically held back by VCs, colleagues, and managers. There are compelling stories (Google, Sandberg, Slack).

IT is seen as a meritocratic environment, but in truth that is a myth, since the rules were written by men for men. Take logic tests, for example, like the Cannon-Perry Test, which focus on traits coded as masculine that might be compatible with this work, such as logic, yet they carry bias.

The book then discusses bias in hiring, which makes it a vicious cycle: since it is harder to hire women, you look for fewer of them, and they are less encouraged.

On Google, which started well, thanks in part to Sandberg, but has now lost its way.

The bro culture of newer startups, like Uber, is disturbing. It lingers on the parties and clubs they frequent, and a woman either goes along despite the discomfort or risks being shut out. A large part of the book focuses on these cultural points.

Another focus is VCs, who have their own biases and very few women. Without their capital, companies do not grow. But how do we identify their biases?

A final point on trolls on the web, which clearly was built by people who did not think much about these situations, given that women are the ones harassed more often. Stronger moderation tools are needed.

I will close by saying that the book introduces many successful figures with their ideas and has a central point that is clear and well explained. It left me a bit disillusioned about the current state of the Valley; I hoped it would be better by now. I will keep these lessons in mind, especially the advantages of having a diverse team with diverse ideas, and how we all have implicit biases and need to keep them in check

On meritocracy

“More fundamentally, meritocracy is impossible to achieve, because, as Young says, a meritocracy is always based on an imperfect definition of merit and often narrowly defined to favor training, connections, and education primarily available to the wealthy. Take Stanford. Because Stanford is filled with students with top high-school GPAs and SAT scores, administrators can pat themselves on the back and say, “We only admit the best students. We’re a meritocracy.” The students are encouraged to think similarly. But is it just a coincidence that the median annual family income of a Stanford student is $167,500 while the national median is roughly one-third that? Did those high-achieving students naturally get high SAT scores, or did they benefit from their parents’ paying for tutors and sending them to private schools? Privilege accumulates as you advance in life. If the college you attend is the basis of your future employment networks, then it is impossible to say that your employment success is solely based on merit.”