Tech Firms Have An Obsession With 'Female' Digital Servants (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Alexa, Tay, Siri, Cortana, Xiaoice, and Google Now. These technologies all have one thing in common -- they are digital servants aimed at a mass-market audience that feature a "female" voice or persona. And it's not just the voice or persona of the digital persona we interact with that is biased. The results of those interactions also demonstrate male favoritism. It took Apple more than four years to fix Siri's responses to questions about abortion services, and yet the company didn't seem to have any problem programming Siri to search for prostitutes and Viagra. Here's the gender breakdown for the tech workforce of each company:
Microsoft: 83.0% male, 16.9% female
Google: 82.0% male, 18.0% female
Apple: 79.0% male, 22.0% female
Amazon: 61.0% male, 39.0% female

Comments

Female voices are easier to understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Female voices are easier to understand. This has been known for decades. It has nothing to do with exploitation. As if you could even exploit a computer program in the first place.

Re:This, it's marketing basics

[khasim]

Siri also has a male voice option. I have a friend and that's the option she chose.

Re:Alternate hypothesis

[Anubis IV]

Another hypothesis: this is an imaginary problem, since Siri debuted with a male voice in other regions (e.g. UK and France) and is capable of being changed to either male or female voices in all or almost all major regions. I haven't checked, but I'd assume the same is true for Google Now and that Microsoft and Amazon are likely working on the same thing too. At best, there may be an argument that this is an American cultural issue, but suggesting it's a general tech industry problem would require that we ignore the obvious evidence to the contrary, namely, that these products aren't female by default for all users.

Re:This, it's marketing basics

[ArylAkamov]

Nice of the summary to skip over that and go straight to SEXISM

Re:Amazon

[phizi0n]

Amazon's actual numbers here: https://images-na.ssl-images-a...

"PROFESSIONALS" = 74.5% male
"TECHNICIANS" = 88.8% male

"LABORERS & HELPERS" = 54.6% male

Re:*TRIGGERED*

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually most automated voices are female because a female voice is easier to hear against background noise. Outside of the traditional tech area from this article I can think of two more I hear on a daily basis. The parking ticket machines where I park my car and the next station announcement on the public train that I catch. Male, deeper, voices would be much harder to hear against the background rumble of the city. This applies to any technology where a use case is mobile.

Re: *TRIGGERED*

[sonamchauhan]

Its the use-case that matters. All these assistants are 'speak' close to your ears. Your ears also receive predominantly 'bassy' background noise, as you mentioned. A higher pitched sound is different enough to be more easily isolated from the background buzz.

Quite Opposite

[DrYak]

Thats exactly why hunter-gatherer languages are full of high pitched tongue clicks: prey cant hear the hunters talk because the sound stops at the first tree.

So high pitch is the frequency range we have evolved to communicate with.
- both the ability to express (clicks, consonnants and hisses)
- and the ability to hear (our ear do cover the necessary range)

Explain me again how this is an argument, against using female (higher-pitched) voices ?
How your explanation of physics contradicts the parent poster that higher-pitched voices are better heard ?

Ever walk past a nightclub ? Notice how you can usually hear the bass drum through the walls but not the rest of the music ?

(BTW, your explanation is incomplete. The dominance of basses isn't only due to the diffusion being proportional to 1/f . It's also due to the way how different material conducts different frequency ranges. Few night club are completely in the open).

So you've (more or less) successfully demonstrated that most noise that get the farthest and dominates the most is low-frequency.
Given all this low-frequency noise, please explain me again why you think that the parent is wrong in proposing that a high pitch voice (say a soprano - high range female) would be better heard against such low-freq noise than a low pitch voice (bass - low range male) ?

If you are going to attribute something to the laws of physics you should probably know what they are first.

If you're going throw around science in your reply, maybe you should pay attention of this peculiar field called Psychoacoustics.
It's science, it works and it's what nearly every modern audio compression algorithm runs on.