To think it really is a man's world?

First off, if it is probable/demonstrable that women are more likely to be injured in car crashes because their bodies are less robust than males - surely that’s something to factor in to safely features and testing. You seem to be suggesting that shrugging shoulders and saying ‘oh well, can’t be helped’ is a reasonable response to that.
Secondly, you haven’t read the book. You have no idea if the author appears to imply anything - it may well be clearly and rigorously considered as part of their research. You wouldn’t know, you haven’t read it.
The smaller, lighter vehicles thing could well be a factor, and is presumably something both male and female drivers can consider when choosing such a car, but if they are more likely to be driven by women then perhaps their safety features should be tested to the average female body, rather than a man’s.

You do remember correctly @Catiettethe book is balanced and draws upon a wide range of peer reviewed research as well as official data and statistics.
It’s not a ‘man bashing’ book and often points out that many of the issues don’t come about because men are purposely trying to exclude women but that they are historical practices or oversights. The book also address how things are changing and improving.

Again, there's so much I could challenge here, but there's no point. Just two examples to sum up why, then I'm back to my coffee for good this time. I'm glad you're still enjoying the battle, but it's coming across to me as a little Hiroo Onoda, so I'm leaving it here now. I won't be back.

used to be previously based on the average male dimensions

This is wrong. It's not simply - or even primarily - about dimensions. I've explained this several times, and it's made clear in the 300- thoroughly researched pages you're dismissing. If I remember rightly, these pages also address the "counter-arguments" you're relying on from anon. on the internet and a half-remembered radio interview (ETA - NB. may not be remembering rightly, and friend has borrowed my copy so can't check - acknowledging fallibility, again, important).

At any rate, either you're not reading my posts properly, or you're not understanding them.

Re: "abusive". Your words: "That's just cos you're obviously a tool & can't contribute to the debate without trying to get personal. So right back at you!!"

I've resisted anything as direct as this throughout. It's been difficult. And that previous sentence is as close to "abusive" as I've come.

I'm in the cafe with my coffee, and am planning to stay that way. Once again, I wish you well.

I love how a thoroughly researched and fully cited book is dismissed as "some publication" in favour of Google AI and Wiki.

That one person who partly agreed with @ThatDaringEagleis doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Btw Google AI and Wikipedia don’t constitute robust critical analysis… just saying 🤷🏼‍♀️

It is indeed your prerogative to dismiss a well-reviewed piece of meta-research explaining the relevance of complex female physiology in favour of an anonymous poster on the internet concluding without proportionate supporting evidence that the issue in question is merely size and weight.

You're right it's absolutely my perogative. The anonymous poster on the internet has no agenda & introduced themselves as somebody who has worked in this sector. They said one of the issues identified in studies were that women were far more likely to be driving smaller & lighter cars, and hence sadly likely get more easily injured in car collisions. When they posted this I recalled hearing this previously from an expert from the AA when being interviewed about this very issue I.e. why women are more likely to get hurt in car collisions when they occur.

Then there is the common sense element, that men are simply more physically robust than women e.g. I used to play rugby, and I know very well that either of my sisters who also played sports, would have been badly injured had they tried to play in the same rugby matches as I got through with nothing but a few skin burns.... that is just common sense.

Finally, you try to go on a little self proclaimed 'victory' lap (ahem) by stating 'the thread has served its feminist purpose for wider readers as a direct result of your input - I guess it's all to the good.
Everyone's happy! 😊'

Firstly, I thought the thread was to discuss was it really a 'man's world'?

I merely discussed & debated the issues in earnest for which I've had you & 1 or 2 other abusive posters on here try to label me as some sort of anarchistic, misogynist, just cos I don't accept some publication's claim that the reason more women get injured in car crashes is because blooming car crash dummies used to be previously based on the average male dimensions. This 'thesis' simply didn't stand up to a common sense test initially, & has slowly been picked apart thru this thread by people who actually worked in the sector.

Honestly, the level of critical thinking and gratuitous labelling of someone who at least tried to exercise some thinking here is quite pathetic. And that frankly makes some fervently espousing the 'poor woman' agenda while handing out unnecessary labels on here look like myopic, angry, stereotypical, misandrists!!

Are you happy to be one of those!?

Good luck to you & enjoy the coffee with your fellow "lovelies"!?

I think that was the plan. 😉 Good luck to you, anyway. 🙂

I'll give it a skip, thanks all the same;)

So - anyone want a coffee? ☕🍰

It's so difficult online. I re-read my post above from late last night, and now think it sounds kind of obnoxious - not who I am IRL - or online, I hope... I find you have to monitor your posting style so closely to make sure you're being true to yourself and sufficiently respectful to others, and that can be so hard when you also want to convey how fabulously risible a reply is, without being face-to-face.

But even face-to-face, of course, we'd struggle to do that. Cos, safety. Another way in which it's a man's world - I think many have no idea how much we modify our words and behaviour to stay safe.

What was it? "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." It's a bit of a, "Heads you win, tails you lose", thing though: laughter's so often our best - and most appropriate - response, as here... but so hard to convey appropriately online, and just not sensible IRL.

Very true. On the whole I avoid men like this as much as possible.
Occasionally they’re called out by other men too so they can see their views aren’t universal.
I remember a man referring to my husband looking after our child as babysitting and other men calling him out on it.

No they didn't. Viagra was being developed for angina - spontaneous erections were a side effect, which led to its development for ED. Should they just have ignored the fact that they'd discovered a potential treatment for a condition affecting millions of men?

I've not read the whole thread but I was thinking the other day with Wimbledon being on when someone was interviewing Andy Murray congratulating home on being the first person to win two Olympic gold medals. He responded something along the lines of first male - and that Venus and Serena had about four each.

So often womens accomplishments are side lined.

Same with football, "not since 1966 have England won the world cup'". Completely negating the Lionesses accomplishment. I know womens football isn't anywhere near as popular but completely sidelining it into non existence happens all too often

@HighLadyofTheNightCourt the only thing I dont like about mumsnet is that when someone comes on and derails conversations and is not necessarily engaging in good faith, it's so much harder than in real.life just to walk away and continue your actual conversation elsewhere. A man like this in real life you would laugh at him, tell him hes a dinosaur and we would all go.off to have coffee, without him, and then actively avoid him in the future. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

And btw nobody actually cares whether you the read the book or not. The point is you can’t critique something you haven’t read.
And reading an article that has been adapted for a newspaper audience doesn’t mean you’ve read the full book. It can mean you decide the book isn’t for you, but you can’t review the content of something because you ‘think’ you know what it says.

We don’t offer gender studies. A disappointingly predictable answer.

It’s clear that you’re keen to undermine all kinds of literature that you deem to have a feminist agenda but you’re just making a fool out of yourself now.
Especially if you’re suggesting that the inclusion of feminist leaning literature on a university reading list is simply to dismiss feminist perspectives and that male academics are doing this to prove a point. It’s quite pathetic that you think like that tbh. We don’t include texts on reading lists to please our audience, we’re not Waterstones.

It might surprise you but there are a significant number of men who don’t think like you. They can see inequality and they aren’t threatened by women addressing these deep rooted societal issues , in fact they work with us to challenge inequality, sexism and misogyny. They wouldn’t dream of coming onto a predominantly female platform simply to tell women they’re wrong.

Clearly you’re not one of those men, every post you write is dripping with misogyny and sexism. You think you’re writing insightful, intelligent arguments full of ‘gotcha’ moments that prove your superiority over a group of silly women. But that’s not how you are coming across and like a previous poster I’m pleased because you’re doing a fabulous job of proving that the feminist cause still has work to do.

Ah look, I'm sure it's an interesting book in some respects, one that I might pick up on a rainy holiday if I had nothing else to do tbh, but that's just me.

It probably appears on the syllabus of some gender study courses & modules, or other such vital courses, and let's be honest here, even the academics tutoring those type of courses probably realise they're feminist agenda modules for feminist agenda students, I.e. they know their audience.

They certainly do. Sadly it is getting worse.

Hm. "Anatomy" a better term than "physiology".

Attention to detail to the last - no real argument without it.

It is indeed your prerogative to dismiss a well-reviewed piece of meta-research explaining the relevance of complex female physiology in favour of an anonymous poster on the internet concluding without proportionate supporting evidence that the issue in question is merely size and weight.

I mean, as I said earlier, it's also your prerogative to conclude the earth is flat, and evolution a monkey-filled fever dream. 😃

I'll just leave you one last warning that you're really not coming across in the way you appear to think you are. I suspect this won't bother you especially because...

1. Either you're well aware of this bc you're trolling. Or
2. This subject matter isn't really accessible to you.

As you're clearly basking in a misplaced sense of your own superior understanding either way - and as I'm happy that this thread has served its feminist purpose for wider readers as a direct result of your input - I guess it's all to the good.

Everyone's happy! 😊

It’s a respected book which draws upon a wide range of academic research across multiple disciplines. My university library has a number of copies and in my department alone, it features on the reading lists of 4 modules. Three of the academic’s who complied these reading lists are male, one is a professor.

but yeah, it’s just twaddle aimed at hysterical women 🙄

There's an excert from the book in this thread , and frankly that's enough for me anyway.

I think I'm probably not really it's target readership :).... the author can flog things like test crash dummy bs theories to those who might appreciate that kind of twaddle more, I wouldn't!!

Are you really still critiquing the content of a book you’ve not even read?
How do you know it’s bollocks WHEN YOU’VE NOT EVEN READ IT!!
She could be agreeing with you for all you know 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'm not sure what you're getting at tbh, it appears that the main reasons women are sadly more likely to get more seriously injured or die when they are in collisions is because they generally drive smaller & lighter vehicles, and that they are not as physically robust as men on average.

However invisible women appears to try to imply that the main reason is that the average crash test dummy was more closely based on the average man I.e. 5'9" & 75kg & hence cars were/ are designed to keep the average man safer. This now looks like it's total bollocks.... so I've decided that for myself, based on the facts & the expert opinion by a poster who worked in the sector, as that's my perogative frankly!!

PS Invisible Women also addresses the "men-are-attacked-more-therefore-" etc. gambit.

Read it!

(If you dare...)