Core77

Yea or Nay? Super-Fast Fingernail-Painting Machine Meant to Engage Females With Technology

From NASA to the Nailbot

By Rain Noe - April 25, 2016

in Tech

The issue of females being underrepresented in STEM fields isn't an easy one to unpack. The dismal statistics can also place an undue burden on the minority of females that do make public strides in STEM, unfairly asking them to represent their entire gender in addition to achieving their personal dreams. So I have mixed feelings about the following female-targeting invention, and want to see what you think:

Enter a caption (optional)

The Nailbot is currently in development by Walia's company, Preemadonna, which has "a focus on girls and women—with technology that is relevant to their lifestyle." On the one hand, I dislike the notion that cosmetics ought be the lifestyle gateway into technology for women. On the other hand, I'm loathe to fall prey to the current malaise of people becoming offended for the sake of groups to which they do not belong; as a hetero male who's only had colored nails when I've missed with a hammer—I'm as clumsy as I am cosmetically unadventurous—I'm in no position to say what is or isn't good for females or those who enjoy painting their nails.

Walia and Schulz

Furthermore, it's impossible not to respect both Walia for devising a new product idea and building a company around it, and the hidden-in-the-machine's-guts efforts of company co-founder and R&D head Casey Schulz, a female robotics engineer with a NASA pedigree. Both have impeccable credentials to boot: Walia has an MBA from the University of Chicago, a BA in History and Gender Studies from Northwestern University, is a certified volunteer domestic violence counselor and serves on the Board of Advisors for a nonprofit that steers young girls towards STEM fields. Robotics expert Schulz has an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University and a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Santa Clara University. You could do a lot worse, regardless of gender.

Enter a caption (optional)

The IndieGogo campaign failed earlier this year at just 22% funding ($150,000 wanted, $33,467 pledged). The project appears to have since secured alternate funding and is actively taking pre-orders.

But this discussion is not about the funding, it's about your thoughts on the merits of the project. What say you? Females among you, would you purchase one of these? Parents among you, if a female dependent asked for one of these as a birthday gift, would you be happy to supply it? And most importantly, if a product is designed to introduce females to technology, does it matter what the product does, or which door it comes in through?

o

Favorite This
Q
6

Comment

Comments

Tal Flanchraych

9 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Imagine this: someone invents a machine -- doesn't matter what it is -- that makes you so much more efficient that you suddenly have two hours of extra free time each week, guaranteed. In our day and age, two hours is huge! And imagine that machine is only a couple hundred bucks at most, and would potentially work successfully for 50% of the people you know! Would you consider that a trivial and unimportant and potentially "offensive" product to expect people to get excited about?

"I dislike the notion that cosmetics ought be the lifestyle gateway into technology for women. "

This is a values issue. You perceive cosmetics and other women's beauty areas as being inconsequential, and not as "cool," "important," or "relevant" as the areas men find exciting -- and thus us women should be upset that such a low bar is being set for us. But the reality is that for most of us women, cosmetics play a huge part in our daily lives and any innovations in the space are incredibly exciting! I think many women haven't been interested in this type of technology exactly because no one is addressing the areas we give a shit about and affect our own daily lives.

As a woman in technology, I think this is a brilliant idea. I've been talking about a manicure machine for years and wishing someone would build it. The female beauty regimen is a HUGE pain point that is grossly underserved by technology. It's not about the actual hair or nails or cosmetics. It's about the time, money, and energy us women spend on this crap.

To look put together, every single morning, I spend about an hour on hair and makeup. In addition, I spend another additional hour or two a week on shaving, plucking, tweezing, you name it. And And right now, because I'm so busy, my nails look like shit.

For women, a manicure is a 2+ hr ordeal. I have to get to the salon, wait my turn, sit there for an hour without being able to use my hands (no phone! It's torture) and then get back to my home/office/wherever. And then after a week my nail polish starts chipping, which is pretty unacceptable in a professional environment, so I have to go do it all over again. And not to mention it costs $20-50 each time. I can't imagine how working moms have time for this crap, but in many professions, nicely manicured nails for women are an unspoken expectation so they don't have a choice. And frankly, we also just like having pretty nails.

In that context, you can see that a nail machine is actually a huge innovation, and has the potential to excite women who have never even considered the possibilities of technology to address their needs. And that there is nothing offensive about that at all.

!Report as spam
- Rain Noe
  
  Tal Flanchraych
  
  9 years ago
  
  Z
  
  Z
  
  Reply
  
  Tal, you wrote:
  
  “Would you consider that a trivial and unimportant and potentially ‘offensive’ product to expect people to get excited about?”
  
  The word “offensive” doesn’t appear anywhere in the entry; where are you quoting that from?
  
  You also quoted me as saying that "I dislike the notion that cosmetics ought be the lifestyle gateway into technology for women" and followed that with your own statement, “This is a values issue,” which I feel is a correct assessment. However, you followed that up with:
  
  “You perceive cosmetics and other women's beauty areas as being inconsequential, and not as "cool," "important," or "relevant" as the areas men find exciting -- and thus us women should be upset that such a low bar is being set for us.”
  
  Uh, incorrect. I’m not sure how you extrapolate that extremely detailed opinion, and then assign it to me, based on the sentence you quoted above.
  
  Then you wrote:
  
  “I think this is a brilliant idea. I've been talking about a manicure machine for years and wishing someone would build it. The female beauty regimen is a HUGE pain point that is grossly underserved by technology. It's not about the actual hair or nails or cosmetics. It's about the time, money, and energy us women spend on this crap.”
  
  “…For women, a manicure is a 2+ hr ordeal. I have to get to the salon, wait my turn, sit there for an hour without being able to use my hands (no phone! It's torture) and then get back to my home/office/wherever. And then after a week my nail polish starts chipping, which is pretty unacceptable in a professional environment, so I have to go do it all over again. And not to mention it costs $20-50 each time. I can't imagine how working moms have time for this crap, but in many professions, nicely manicured nails for women are an unspoken expectation so they don't have a choice. And frankly, we also just like having pretty nails.”
  
  This is precisely the type of detailed information we love to see: A discussion of the concept’s merits from the target market.
  
  Lastly, you conclude with:
  
  “In that context, you can see that a nail machine is actually a huge innovation, and has the potential to excite women who have never even considered the possibilities of technology to address their needs. And that there is nothing offensive about that at all.”
  
  Again, where is that “offensive” bit coming from? Did you read a different article on the topic that you’re transposing onto this one?
  
  I’ve read your comment in full, but I suspect you haven’t paid the same courtesy with the entry and are more eager to “share” your viewpoint than you are in engaging in an actual informed discussion where both parties actually understand what the other is saying. And that makes me sad.
  
  - Rain
  
  !Report as spam
  - Tal Flanchraych
    
    Rain Noe
    
    9 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    Hi Rain,
    
    I concede that I may have misinterpreted some of your points and made a few assumptions. I'm sorry that you felt I didn't bother reading your entry carefully, but that is not the case.
    
    Some thoughts below:
    
    "On the other hand, I'm loathe to fall prey to the current malaise of people becoming offended for the sake of groups to which they do not belong"
    
    This is where I got the "offensive" bit from -- you specifically use the word. The way I read this was that you found this initiative intuitively offensive but at the same time you were cognizant of the fact that you weren't the target audience so you were trying to resist it. And it seemed, to me, to be the reason you wrote the article in the first place.
    
    As for the values thing, I absolutely concede that I made several assumptions completely based on generalizations. I guess I was a little upset (ha! Upset at the Internet! You think I would've learned better :) ) that someone would find such an innocuous product/initiative potentially unappealing and I could only assume it was because, like many guys I know, you thought women should get excited about STEM for the same reason men do and found cosmetics to be an inferior area of interest as compared to, say, drones. That said, you never did clarify the value judgement, and I am still curious as to why you are inclined to feel this way.
    
    Again, I apologize for making a generalization; I guess confirmation bias got the best of me. I've no desire to be a troll or social justice warrior in the comments section, and really did intend for my note to be my opening to a two-way conversation.
    
    !Report as spam
  - Tal Flanchraych
    
    Rain Noe
    
    9 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    And also, lest my own comment be misinterpreted, let it be known that I DO think drones and very, very cool. But I'd think them even cooler if I had access to a manicure drone who would fly over on demand and do my nails' bidding.
    
    !Report as spam
Ramon Yip

9 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

NPR had an article about this a few months ago. According to them, 92% of girls between 9 and 17 use nail products. So the market's there. I get that.

Billing this as a way to get girls interested in STEM is misguided, though. Seems like that was just tacked on to make a social good product, since that's the buzz nowadays. Maybe I'm being too critical. "After all, a lot of boys get drawn to technology by playing shoot 'em up video games, and Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook on top of a site he had originally set up to rate who was hot and who was not on the Harvard campus."

Be that as it may, I'm much more partial to toys like Roominate, which is genuine attempt at getting girls interested in STEM.

Here's the link to the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/11/08/453290268/could-a-nail-art-printer-be-girls-gateway-to-the-tech-world

!Report as spam
- Rain Noe
  
  Ramon Yip
  
  9 years ago
  
  Z
  
  Z
  
  Reply
  
  Ramon, just read the NPR article, thanks for the link. Something about Walia's responses sound fishy to me, but I suppose that's the nature of marketing.
  
  Ultimately I can't fault Walia and Schulz for trying to do something. But I hope that more teams pop up and attack the issue from a wider diversity of angles.
  
  - Rain
  
  !Report as spam