A thread to ask basic questions about feminism

And by the way, driving loads of miles and on motorways, is driving "behaviour".

Funny you think that's sexist.

But the group of people most likely to be injured, aren't the people you're talking about.

Women are disproportionately more likely to be killed or injured because the cars are built for people who are heavier and bigger than them.

The cars weren't built with the idea in mind that "oh, bigger, heavier people drive more, therefore are more likely to be in accidents, therefore let's design the car around their needs".

They were built with the idea that the average person, is a man. It's not a deliberate conspiracy, just an assumption that women are "other", not fully integrated into the human race.

I find it very interesting that you are so focused on proving that the world isn't designed around men and men's needs and the assumption that the default human is a man. Why are you so emotionally invested in that idea?

I note you've focused on the cases you think there might be an argument and ignored the heart and working structures one.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves

I remember reading about a chain of hotels who did research into the temperature visitors preferred in their room. They found that women preferred the room slightly hotter than men. They set all their temperature controls to the temperature level preferred by most men.

Delightful though all your anecdotal reminiscences are, they don't exactly make a cast-iron case.

If I was running a business where the cost of heating was a consideration, I'd set the temperature lower because it's cheaper to do that, and for people to turn the heating up if they need it, than to set it higher and have people opening a window.

FastidiaBlueberry

Men are more likely to be in serious accidents because of their driving BEHAVIOUR, something they have control over.

There could be several reasons for this statistic. Could it be that men are more likely to be injured because they drive more miles per year on average than women? Or could it be that they are more likely to be injured because of the location of their driving (motorways rather than towns) where high-speed crashes are more likely? Either is possible. Leaping on the most sexist analysis possible to explain the reason why men are more likely to be in serious accidents doesn't really advance your argument.

Women are more likely to be injured in those accidents because the cars have been built for men, not people.

The car has not been 'built for men'. It has been designed to reduce the risk of injury to the group of individuals most likely to be injured.

You are completely missing the point if you start waffling on about something totally unrelated.

The world is designed for MEN not for PEOPLE. As Alice says, there are simply stacks of those examples. The default assumption among most people (women as well as men) is that to take the average man and design stuff around him, is reasonable. It isn't. Half the species are not men.

I am not missing the point. You are using this example - of vehicles designed to reduce injury in a particular way - as 'proof' that the world is designed for men. I am explaining that in this case, there is no evil patriarchal conspiracy to injure women but a logical process to reduce the risk of injury to the group of people most likely to be injured. Further, as I pointed out at the bottom of my last post, the data you quoted from is out of date and more modern cars with dual-deploy airbags operate differently in a crash.

Fastidia, my comment was tongue in cheek.. I hope you took it that way and your reply was equally ironic..

TheDoctrineOfSnatch I don't think there is such a thing as a basic question about feminism. There are some interesting posts on this thread though..

I am interested in previous comments about the world being built around men and that (in essence) the infrastructure is so oriented to traditional roles that it is very difficult to make headway towards equality. In some ways it is a question that I think plagues men as much as women.. without starting a separate debate, kitchen sinks are generally too low for men to comfortably use as are ironing boards, baby change facilities are often located in ladies toilets and whilst there are many facilities for lone mothers there are far fewer for lone fathers.. these issues affect men as well as women and there is a lot to be said for changing these things.. but then commerce has to go with the majority and in most cases loan parents are female and the majority of buying decisions about household appliances etc are made by females.. so commercially it makes sense the way things are.. while this is the case it therefore makes sense for family units to make decisions about how they structure their lives around practical concerns and so from the simple choices (who takes baby to change when you are in a restaurant) to the more difficult life choices (who should go back to work after baby is born) are based around life as it is not as it should be..

Hi mjltigger what is your basic question about feminism?

oh men, please don't forget the men, don't you know you can't mention women without making it really clear that you mean men as well?

I think we can assume that in this context, women means men too.

You know, like when we're always being told that mankind includes women.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 17-Sep-12 11:45:28
messy - Dont apologise for posting a lot! Its absolutely fine. I want this to be a safe and supportive thread for women to ask and answer questions about all brands of feminism

and men?

Men are more likely to be in serious accidents because of their driving BEHAVIOUR, something they have control over.

Women are more likely to be injured in those accidents because the cars have been built for men, not people.

You are completely missing the point if you start waffling on about something totally unrelated.

The world is designed for MEN not for PEOPLE. As Alice says, there are simply stacks of those examples. The default assumption among most people (women as well as men) is that to take the average man and design stuff around him, is reasonable. It isn't. Half the species are not men.

"But looked the perfect height for the average man."

Then that must have been the case.

Fastidia there's stacks of those examples. Clara Greed wrote a book about the built environment and how it's designed for men. Like the stuff about suburbs vs cities, the former being for the private realm the latter being for the public realm, the way bus routes favour moving from one to the other rather than travelling patterns that often fall to women eg taking the kids to school, shopping etc. The one that stuck in my head was the height of seats at bus stops, designed to be at the right height for a man's legs to hit the floor and prop him up, not a woman's. Of course of you're a man these things are all invisible to you.

FastidiaBlueberry

By that I mean the normal assumption that "man is the measure of all things". That man is the default human and woman is "other". Men's stuff is seen as stuff, whereas women's stuff is seen as women's stuff. For example if you are in a serious car accident, you are 50% more likely to die than a man in a similar accident in a similar car because the average car is designed for an average man - not an average person, an average man. Because men are people, but women are women.

This claim is incorrect on several levels. I assume you're referring to the 2011 study in the American Journal of Public Health?

That study indicated that men are three times more likely to be in a car crash that leads to serious or fatal injuries. As a consequence vehicles are designed to offer greater protection to men, because men are at greater risk.

The figure you refer to was a 47% greater chance of injury, not a 50% greater chance of death.

The study also dealt with older vehicles with more simplistic airbag systems. Modern dual-deploy airbags take in to account both men and women.

The case you cite is not an example of 'patriarchy'.

Is Shulamith Firestone's book The Dialectic of Sex readable? I have not tried it, but imagined it to be turgid, fierce, or both. So surprised to find her short stories in Airless Spaces very plainly written, lucid, humane and empathic (toward both sexes).

"For example if you are in a serious car accident, you are 50% more likely to die than a man in a similar accident in a similar car because the average car is designed for an average man - not an average person, an average man. Because men are people, but women are women."

If you're a man you're far more likely to be in an accident in the first place.

"As a result of this, women having heart attacks are far less likely to survive them than men, purely and simply because they're less likely to be diagnosed in time to save their lives. Because they aren't men and their bodies aren't showing the same symptoms most men's bodies do."

Despite that men are still far more likely to die from heart disease than women.

I'm not saying more attention shouldn't be given to women re: heart disease, but as with car accidents, claiming that the differences are due to the 'patriarchy' is to embrace ideology over statistical fact.

As for the police, I wonder how many operational 'accomodations' have been made so that a 5' 1" and a 5' 3" munchkin wouldn't be left to chase down a 6' 2" suspect on their own.

oops, sorry for the essay

My take on it is that we live in a male supremacist culture which doesn't actually recognise that it is male supremacist because it is so normalised and internalised and it genuinely believes that although we all used to be terribly sexist, everyone's equal now. Women have made enormous gains in the last century or so but every single gain has been followed by a backlash and we still haven't achieved liberation. The only way we can, is if our society stops being male supremacist.

By that I mean the normal assumption that "man is the measure of all things". That man is the default human and woman is "other". Men's stuff is seen as stuff, whereas women's stuff is seen as women's stuff. For example if you are in a serious car accident, you are 50% more likely to die than a man in a similar accident in a similar car because the average car is designed for an average man - not an average person, an average man. Because men are people, but women are women.

In the police force, there used to be a height restriction which was set at a level that most men could reach and most women couldn't and many people genuinely thought that was fair and equal, because if women couldn't achieve the average height men could, it meant that they didn't have the right to be in the force - because the force was designed for people who were men, not people who were men and women and it took them ages to realise the structural unfairness, of demanding that women be like men, instead of being like women. No institution has ever demanded that men adapt to women's norms but most institutions demand that women adapt to men's norms and if they can't, it doesn't prove that the norm is wrong, it proves that women can't hack it.

Until very recently, the British Heart Foundation has been giving our population advice about how to spot a heart attack which is totally inaccurate for women. Everyone knows what a heart attack looks like - except they don't, they know what a heart attack looks like for a man. When women have heart attack symptoms, they present very differently from men - not usually chest and arm pains. As a result of this, women having heart attacks are far less likely to survive them than men, purely and simply because they're less likely to be diagnosed in time to save their lives. Because they aren't men and their bodies aren't showing the same symptoms most men's bodies do.

That's what I mean about men being considered the default human. The world and pretty much all its institutions (except female-only ones) are designed for men and women are expected to slot into them on the same basis as men do. So when women do things men don't do - like having babies and taking maternity leave - that behaviour is seen as aberrant as it doesn't fit into the norm. The norm being, what men do.

My version of feminism is about changing the world and its institutions so that they are designed to fit the whole of humanity, not just half the species. I don't want to be equal in an unequal set up, because that means that I will always be playing on an uneven playing field. There won't be real equality until we equalise the playing field.

messyisthenewtidy
"That's why Fm is good for men also, if only they would realise it!!"

Telling someone that relinquishing their inherent social privilege will be good for them sounds contradictory, so the statement is ignored.

Thank you Eats and messy.

I like the idea of equality, but in terms of equality of opportunity, because I don't feel that as a women I am coming from the same standpoint as a man. There are things that put me at a disadvantage, and things that maybe give me an advantage?

I consider myself (in private) to be a feminist, however I would probably NEVER say it, not because I'm ashamed but because I don't have the academic learning/knowledge to back myself up.

There's a nice thread here where people are already doing this, which might be a bit busier.