A thread to ask basic questions about feminism

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

We havent had one of these threads for a while. This is a thread to ask basic questions about feminism. It doesnt matter how silly or trivial you think your question is. This is the place to ask it.

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.

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?

Sorry I dont understand your comment to me at all?

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.

Hi mjltigger what is your basic question about feminism?

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..

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.

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.

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.

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

Funny you think that's sexist.

Kim that suit sounds interesting.

FastidiaBlueberry

I had a huge post but MumsNet ate it, so you'll have to do without it. I'm certain that you're only interested in the views of people who agree with your female supremacist worldview.

I suppose that you've got to expect feminist views on a board about feminism. Irksome though that may be.

I was expecting some, but there don't seem to be any.

There are fewer than there used to be, I agree, as many posters have been driven away by male trolls who seek to derail feminist discussion. It gets quite wearing after a time.

Hi mjl

Yes the "assumptions" the world works on can be a PITA for both sexes, it's true. Hence why messy said Feminism is good for men also as it liberates from gender straitjackets. I am glad you are pissed off by adverts targeting "domestic" products at women, I am too. I think the changing table situation is improving, perhaps more by virtue of the disabled toilet situation improving and the two being co-sited, but it is getting there.

Speaking of who gets hurt in car accidents, I remember years ago being told that the person most likely to be injured or killed in a car crash was the one in the passenger seat, beside the driver. So if (for social reasons that we need not get into at this point) a couple are most likely to be in car that the man drives, it leaves the woman in the most vulnerable position.

There is also the question of whether an accident is more likely if a woman is driving, or a man.

Oh how disappointing having to do without flatpack's post. I love the way equalising the playing field, is seen by misogynists as female supremacist.

Here's another analogy: you know those shops you can get special tin openers etc., designed for left handed people. Because the rest of the world is designed for right handed people and unless you are left handed, you don't realise just how inconvenient that is - when you're left handed, you have to re-string the guitar, hold whatever it is upside down, etc. (I'm not left handed btw) Mostly left handed people simply adapt to this because that's the way the whole world is from when they are tiny, and then when you buy them something from one of those stores they say:"OMG I can't believe how much easier it is to do this now!"

This is not a result of a conspiracy of hatred against left-handed people. It's just that most people are right-handed, therefore most designers and engineers don't actually take into account the fact that 10% or whatever it is, of people are left handed, so they disadvantage them without noticing or realising that they're doing so. Right handed people are mainstream, left handed people are other than mainstream.

It's what happens to women all the time. The difference being, that women are 50% of the population, not 10%, so it is far less expliquable in terms of proportions of population. The only reason women are as othered as left-handed people is because we still live in a male supremacist system which perceives every attempt to equalise the playing field, as a bid for female supremacy.

Tei Tetua I always insist my kids sit in the back and they get pissed off with me, but I've always just thought about it as being safer. I guess I must have read that at some point, I can't remember ever knowing that, I wonder if it's still true?

www.thefreedictionary.com/death+seat

Well, there you are then. One reason women are more likely than men to get hurt in car accidents is that they're probably the front-seat passenger rather than the driver. We could speculate on whether the accident would be less likely if the woman were driving, too.

Has anyone ever noticed how rare it is to see a woman driving a car with an adult male passenger? It would be a good game to liven up a car journey to get the kids to call out any time they spot one.

I used to do a long commute to London to work. It was really amusing in the mornings to see a man and a woman drive up to the station - the bloke would get out the driving seat and go into the station, the woman would get out the passenger seat and into the driver's seat. In the evening it was reversed: woman drives up to station, meets hubby (it's obviously the sort of relationship where she calls him hubby) gets out the driver's seat and into the passenger seat. Husband gets in driver's seat.....

I first notice it and thought it was odd, then I began really noticing it and counting how often it happened (passing time waiting for the inevitably late train in the morning or queueing to pay for car park in the evening) and I estimated that it happened with about 80% of couples.

That was in the late 1980s and through the 1990s though: I would be interested to see if that is still the case.

Any other commuters noticed this?

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.

Spot on. Thanks Fastidia.

I do have another point / question.. I have known many different types of feminists with very different views and I do believe that equality is something different to what we have now.. but there is a theme within most of the more strong minded of feminists that I have always found very distressing.. more distressing than blaming men for all that is wrong and looking for every excuse to rate women over men.. that is the way some 'feminists' look down on and even in some cases are positively horrible to women who chose to be 'housewives' or have a 'hubby' or like having doors opened for them or being driven around by their boyfriend in 'his' car. Surely the point of equality is CHOICE and FREEDOM to choose???