A way of implementing the serving-vs-kitchen separation that avoids that problem (and actually the way of doing it I initially envisioned after reading the post) would be that within each workplace there is a separation, but different workplaces are split between the polarities of separation. That way any individual’s available options of workplace are, at worst, ~half of what they could be with mixed workplaces, regardless of their preference.
(Caveat that an individual’s options could end up being less than half the total if there is a workplace-gender correlation overall (creating an imbalance of how many workplaces of each polarity there are), and an individual has a workplace-gender matchup which is opposite to the trend, but in this case at least that individual’s lesser amount of choices is counterbalanced by the majority of people having more than 50% of the max choices of workplace fitting them.)
In theory this would be a great solution; in practice I would expect coordination problems, as most (almost all?) people who start companies would simply go with the majority model.
Analogically to the current situation where people often say “if you believe that X are discriminated against in industry Y, why don’t you make an Y company that would employ only X?” That sounds like a reasonable proposal—people cannot discriminate against X at workplace if everyone at the company is X, and if you are the only company providing great working conditions for X, you should be able to pick the greatest talent without having to pay them more. Sounds like win/win! And yet, calls to make such companies are not answered by examples who already did that. So this proposal sounds like something that people approve verbally, but no one wants to do the experiment with their own company.
A way of implementing the serving-vs-kitchen separation that avoids that problem (and actually the way of doing it I initially envisioned after reading the post) would be that within each workplace there is a separation, but different workplaces are split between the polarities of separation. That way any individual’s available options of workplace are, at worst, ~half of what they could be with mixed workplaces, regardless of their preference.
(Caveat that an individual’s options could end up being less than half the total if there is a workplace-gender correlation overall (creating an imbalance of how many workplaces of each polarity there are), and an individual has a workplace-gender matchup which is opposite to the trend, but in this case at least that individual’s lesser amount of choices is counterbalanced by the majority of people having more than 50% of the max choices of workplace fitting them.)
In theory this would be a great solution; in practice I would expect coordination problems, as most (almost all?) people who start companies would simply go with the majority model.
Analogically to the current situation where people often say “if you believe that X are discriminated against in industry Y, why don’t you make an Y company that would employ only X?” That sounds like a reasonable proposal—people cannot discriminate against X at workplace if everyone at the company is X, and if you are the only company providing great working conditions for X, you should be able to pick the greatest talent without having to pay them more. Sounds like win/win! And yet, calls to make such companies are not answered by examples who already did that. So this proposal sounds like something that people approve verbally, but no one wants to do the experiment with their own company.