To think it really is a man's world?

Greengully says, in response to kitchen cupboard & worktop heights being default male despite women's proportionate domestic burden:

1. "We can't" - very emphatic! - "have a scenario where the default is to accommodate the minority" (said in direct response to the concerns of an average-sized woman).

But also that

2. We shouldn't be "bothered" by [kitchens being better suited to the build of a - relative - minority of users (average sized men)].

Really, it's too easy. What do such posters hope to achieve by skimming the surface of these issues, avoiding all nuance and complexity and detail, when readers can see that that's what's happening?

I mean, it's fine by me - I love a good debate, and it makes our case for us. I'm just not sure why they bother.

The more interesting question for me, is did the author of invisible women realise this fairly obvious detail but publish anyway.... you decide for yourself.......

No need for the mysterious tone and painful excess of ellipses. No need to decide for yourself - there's all too much of hat going on here without any foundation for the decisions being made!

Instead, just read the book to see how she addresses the issue through analysis of peer-reviewed studies and precise statistical analysis.

Or... maybe there is a need for the mysterious tone and excess of ellipses: deflection in place of rigour.

The above is a response to 1) my comment, "Your responses are disregarding other posters' points, strawmanning with reductive rhetorical tricks and over-simplifying complex issues." and 2) my link examining how men and women are physically different.

You couldn't make it up.

Q.E.D.

(And a helpful object lesson in unconscious irony).

I love this sort of dismissive approach. "Oh, it's not that big a deal". It's like the default way to dismiss the issue and ignore the systemic ways in which women are not taken into account. It's so sad that it's so effective even loads of women buy into it.

I'm not ranting about kitchen cupboards. I'm not campaigning on the issue of kitchen cupboards. I fully accept there are much more important things. What I have been doing however, is using kitchen cupboards as a really great example of the many many things that have been built to suit men, and the dismissive attitude when this is pointed out as yet another example of how women's needs/desires are simply not that considered that important.

As for lowerng it - that's the point. I can't. Becuase it's too expensive to buy custom made cupboards that would fit underneath. Stoves and washing machines and dishwashers are designed to fit under standard height counters, so I can't do it in my current kitchen, even if I had the money. Which is why it's my lottery dream.

@Elbowpatch testing is not being mandated globally yet. Also that link is still using the hybrid III 5 percentile. It has breasts, sure, but it's apparently just a scaled down version of the 50percentile male version so I'm not getting excited quite yet.

@ThatDaringEagle 1 in 4 women have been raped and sexually assaulted in the UK in their lifetimes, and 97% of UK women have been sexually harassed (according to the UN). 1 in 4 have experienced an abusive - mostly violently so -relationship in the UK, so the fear and potential for rape compound this trauma. It is not comparable to anything that men experience on mass anywhere in the world. This is why we say it is a man's world.

This is not an attack on men - these are just the facts. Be one of those men who can empathise with women and form healthy relationships with them. I can tell you those guys are having a much better time on a sunny Friday than the man who went on MN to undermine women's points about crash dummies. Don't be that guy - it's really sad for you.

@ThatDaringEagle It's hardly a paradox for women to be fearful when men commit 98% of rapes and women make up 94% of rape victims.

@ThatDaringEagle women are rational to be more fearful because the potential attack is going to be so much worse

@ThatDaringEagle The assault on the man is less likely to involve him having his trousers and pants pulled down and a man's penis being shoved into his anus. If rape were a risk for men in most situations (and it does happen of course), I'm pretty sure most men would want to walk in pairs as well.

It's pretty well known that men are more likely to be violently assaulted.

Wikipedia and Google AI ...and you accuse us of not present robust arguments.

What is this supposed to prove? That men are violent towards men as well as women? We know that. There is a societal problem of male violence.

What this is also ignoring is that while men might drive more women are more likely to be passengers. It's not just the driver that is at risk but passengers too.

Another interesting one to examine here is perceived danger of being attacked by the different sexes.

Obviously no one wants violence on any person of whichever gender whether walking home at night or getting public transport or whatever . However there is a paradox here, while men 'feel' less threatened they are in fact far more likely to be a victim of a physical assault.

This is in response to a poster up the thread who said she resented her male colleague that he felt safe enough to have a snooze in a taxi to his hotel. He may have felt safe, but feelings aren't always right & are subject to the person feeling them

E.g. This is what Wikipedia says on it:

'Men are commonly less fearful of violent crime than women despite the fact that men are at much higher risk of being victims of violent crime than women.[12][13] This phenomenon appears to be a paradox and is termed by researchers as the "fear of crime gender paradox".[14][15'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men#:~:text=Men%20are%20commonly%20less%20fearful,of%20violent%20crime%20than%20women.

We had this in our home city, where I served on a board and it emerged that young men were more likely to walk home alone & this was a big factor in why they were getting assaulted more apparently than women who would always insist on walking with a friend apparently....

I'm not permanently pissed off. Acknowledgement of an issue doesn't automatically mean anger or permanent annoyance.

I'm going to stop my pretty little head getting worked up about irrelevant things now and go and have some lunch. Hopefully I'll be able to reach the cupboard!

I'm not commenting, I'm questioning, there's a subtle difference which I appreciate may sadly be beyond you...

Read the book if you want to know the detail. I'm not doing the work for you.

It takes a special kind of confidence to attempt to critique a book and it's author having never even read it.

Oh yes of course - if only a few women got killed why does it matter? It's not statistically significant after all.

How tall are you? We can't have a scenario where the default is to accommodate the minority. You have altered your kitchen, which is what anyone should do if they are that bothered.

I suppose it is for each of us to decide what we are bothered about. I just couldn't live life permanently pissed off like this.

I'm not commenting, I'm questioning, there's a subtle difference which I appreciate may sadly be beyond you...

The more interesting question for me, is did the author of invisible women realise this fairly obvious detail but publish anyway.... you decide for yourself.......

Perhaps try reading the book before commenting on what the author did or didn't say.

Like I said, It's possible to be concerned about both. Dismissing what you refer to as 'trivial' concerns makes you part of the problem imo. Even if it doesn't bother you, it's not difficult to understand why it might bother someone else.

I actively campaign and fundraise for domestic violence charities and I have dedicated a huge part of my career to improving employment outcomes and conditions for women. That doesn't stop me being slightly pissed off at the minor inconveniences that could easily be solved if someone had just considered women in the process to begin with. (the seatbelts in my husbands car...I'm looking at you!)

To be fair, the same men are nasty about all women's football, not just the USA team.

I can see it as an omission sure if we now realise that it made a significant difference in car safety for women!? However if it didn't (which I strongly suspect it didn't), it's just bringing up an irrelevant fact to get many women worked up & cause needless debate like we see right on here for instance!!

E.g. BTW, I've since looked it up Males still drive 70% more miles per annum than females on average. So can posters at least see that to this day it would make sense to crash test with an average male crash dummy at least 70% more often??

This percentage was probably far higher when they first designed & regulated for the use of crash test dummies - hence the anomaly- it just reflected the representation of drivers on the road .

P.p.s. if the main reasons women are sadly more likely to get injured or killed in collisions when they have them is because they're more likely in smaller & lighter cars and that they are less physically robust.... then tbh not having a female crash dummy for testing cars back in the day was just irrelevant ,outdated twaddle.

The more interesting question for me, is did the author of invisible women realise this fairly obvious detail but publish anyway.... you decide for yourself.......

I think the point is that the 'trivial issues' all contribute to the default human being seen as male, which is actually very serious - it isn't about the kitchen cupboards, it's the 'male as default thinking' that leads to women's heart attacks not being diagnosed because they present differently from men's, for example.

I'm one, so is my mum. We both have had kitchens altered over the years to make it more usable and always have a kickstool. I have to ask random people to reach down things from the top shelf of supermarkets. It's not a huge deal really but things are just that little but trickier.