To think it really is a man's world?

[TreatTreat]

We all know it is, but itv1 confirmed it even more for me today by calling the Euros tournament the 'women's euro tournament'. TV stations sure as hell don't introduce men's tournaments with their gender in the introduction.

And? When crash test dummies were introduced they were based on the male body. That's a fact.

Just to address other responses now read...

Why aren't women doing this for themselves?

Read the thread title. Then the thread. Then Invisible Women.

Seems weird to complain about wanting men to accommodate us when designing things if it is going to be at their detriment.

Strawman absolutism. Compromise would be reasonable.

Unless you're assuming that men are unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes to society that could transform women's lives (calling a wish for this "weird" would seem to support this interpretation), in which case, that may help to answer your first question.

It categorically is true. The hybrid iii family was invented in 1976. Further advances have been made since then.

I never stated these were being tested as a standard. They should be.

I am 5ft5. Not massively weirdly short or anything.

Who uses kitchens more? Women,
But who BUILDS them? Men.

Why is the default size and shape set up for men? If women had been designing them from the start, I'm sure the default would have been to make them a bit lower, and to figure out a solution to the high shelves AND the cleaning issue.

Whenever I mention my cupbpards to the ceiling thing it's always hilarious. The men all go, "but why wouod you have that - you wont' be able to reach the top". If I point out the cleaning - they say it's not that big a deal. If I sy I already can't reach the top shelf, they chuckle patronisingly and say something like, "ah, yes, women do struggle don't they? You just need a man around." [see my earlier post about how "it just is the way it is"]

The women on the other hand? Haha, they all sigh longingly. Agree it's a genius idea and discuss how we could use those super high top cupboards...

with all due respect, I couldn't give a toss if genuine crash test dummies exist. I care if they are being used to actually test safety. And they are not. We know this. This is something that has been researched and reported on, at length. this is not just me, with my little female brain, "thinking it's true".

In addition, a quick google tells me that they might have first being introduced in 1976, but that was the original standard male. I've also learnt, just in the last 3 minutes, that the female "represents the smallest segment of the adult population" (so not women specifically) and is based on "scaled data" of the male 50th percentile dummy.

Can't say I'm leaping up with excitement about this one.

Yes. But before that they were using men and women's bodies. Now there are dummies to represent men, women and children. We aren't living in the past.

I'd say lowering a cupboard a few inches isn't all that transformative. There are bigger issues at hand to focus on. Namely women's safety.

Haven't been reading along, but just found this. Knew there was something that summarised it.

Re: "robustness".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/the-weaker-sex-science-that-shows-women-are-stronger-than-men

I think you are really making a mountain out of a molehill here. I was expecting you to say 4'11.

I think you are really making a mountain out of a molehill here.

The type of response women have been putting up with for years.
Don't make a big deal out of it, stop complaining, adapt and shut up about it.

Agreed. It is something that has been overlooked for far too long and a genuine aggrievance women should have. Tall kitchen cupboards not so much.

Yeah, it's a kitchen cupboard. The option for bespoke units has already been discussed.

The robust comment from pp was in relation to physical differences and the different outcomes of car crashes on male and female bodies.

At last a sensible & informed post.

So the most likely reasons women get a higher percentage of more injuries & fatalities in road accidents is most likely due to women driving lighter & smaller cars in general and hence not having a much protection from impact in collisions and the fact that men are more physically robust than women in general.

In all likelihood, the crash test dummy thing is pretty bogus, since regulations have for some time now included the 5 percentile small female as part of the regulations.

The last thing to consider for objectivity here (I realise that this is a lot to ask for for some here), is that when car crash dummies were introduced initially men did most of the driving & miles on the road, therefore it probably made more sense to base the crash dummy on the most likely driver to be involved in an accident I.e. approx the average male, and then design safety around that. I mean they also didn't make 6'6" 230lb crash dummies for extra large men, cos they simply understood they weren't as likely to be driving as the average driver....

Even today, I'd guess men still drive far more miles per annum driving than women on average (easily ratified by insurance data on driving, where we self report our approximate annual mileages imho), as there tends to be more men who drive taxis, delivery trucks, etc, etc as well as in most couples the man does more longer driving more often IME.

And lastly, the answer to the 'question ' was in the question, there are still more males killed & injured on our roads than women, and by some margin, so have any of ye possibly considered that the crash dummy being 5'9" & 75kg could be fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things!?

Just a thought.....

Can't we be bothered about both? The big things related to safety AND the little things that make women's day to day lives easier?

Oh heck. It's a good thing I'm going out to lunch. This is getting annoying.

Your responses are disregarding other posters' points, strawmanning with reductive rhetorical tricks and over-simplifying complex issues.

I mean, it's great - more evidence for the intelligent reader of what these issues are - but it's also exhausting to read.

I wouldn't know which of the misunderstandings/misapprehensions or cynical swerves in your recent posts to start with, and don't have time - friend here any second - but hope you may go back and see ig you can spot a few. It's clear other posters can. If you genuinely want to make your case, engage with the points made by rebutting them directly and precisely.

Just one of the many:

To state the painfully obvious, I'm well aware of the context to the original focus on robustness - it was related to my own posts. And the article isn't self-evidently irrelevant - unless you've the medical expertise to comment.

“When we were there on the neonatal unit and a boy came out, you were taught that, statistically, the boy is more likely to die,” says Joy Lawn, director of the Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive, and Child Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She explains that, globally, a million babies die on the day of their birth every year.
But if they receive exactly the same level of care, males are statistically at a 10% greater risk than females. What makes baby girls so robust remains mostly a mystery.

How? The assumption you made is that women don't do enough to create their own items, facilities, treatments of medical relevance, etc. All these things require participation in the public sphere of work and the professions.

I referred to that sphere of work and the professions, in which women are materially disadvantaged, and also to more pressing social concerns, on which women have had to expend their energies fighting for rights whilst men, who already take them for granted, have been free to pursue other matters.

Can you explain precisely how that is tangential, because it seems entirely relevant to me.

I think it's fair enough to introduce it as women's euros or women's football. Historically, football has been a game that men have played. Therefore by default it generally means men. When the Euros started, it was only men's euros. So it clearly meant men.

I don't see the problem with calling it women's football. It's what it is.

You can be bothered about anything you like but it must be exhausting! I can't say I know one woman IRL who sees this as an issue. But MN is a bizarre place at the best of times.

It's interesting that the only posts @ThatDaringEagle deems 'interesting an informed' are the ones that agree with him.

Anything else is dismissed or ignored even when it is supported by evidence.
Funny that...

with all due respect, I couldn't give a toss if genuine crash test dummies exist. I care if they are being used to actually test safety. And they are not.

It has taken far too long, but they are.

For example:

https://www.ancap.com.au/want-to-meet-our-dummy-family

It's annoying to point out men and women are physically different...? OK. I thought that was just common knowledge.

it probably made more sense to base the crash dummy on the most likely driver to be involved in an accident I.e. approx the average male, and then design safety around that.

Can you not see that this was an appalling omission even then?

Bizarre that women might be concerned about things that make their life difficult? it's all part of the bigger picture for me and living in a world that favours men on many levels is exhausting. It needn't be like that.

Bizarre to get worked up over a kitchen cupboard you could have lowered if you were that bothered.