Thread:
HULK SMASH
Okay. There are a lot of good points in the article, but I really wish people would stop banging the “women are so teeny tiny!” drum.
In a homogenous population, yes, the women will be shorter and smaller than the men. I’m smaller than all my male relatives.
But I’m also 175cm.
At work, which has a pretty diverse population, about half the men are shorter than I am, some by quite a lot. There is no way we could use an article like this as a starting point to implement changes to improve ergonomics and safety features.
The point is safety gear, car seats, and loads of other things need to come in a broader variety of sizes. Perpetuating “women are tiny compared to men” makes it harder for small men and big women.
There are car manufacturers I won’t even consider because of how their headrests are fixed for men’s average height, which means they give me headaches and I worry that I’d snap my neck if there were an accident.
From the article…boy oh boy, haven’t I lived through this:
The formula to determine standard office temperature was developed in the 1960s around the metabolic resting rate of the average man. But a recent Dutch study found that the metabolic rate of young adult females performing light office work is significantly lower than the standard values for men doing the same activity. In fact, the formula may overestimate female metabolic rate by as much as 35%, meaning that current offices are on average five degrees too cold for women. This leads to the odd sight of female office workers wrapped in blankets in the summer, while their male colleagues wander around in shorts.
That was getting to be an issue for my partner in her Subaru, but fortunately the headrests can be completely removed. So I took it out and turned it backwards.
Safety wise, probably not a great solution, but she can drive it comfortably now.
And the following reminded me of something a friend who is a piano tuner once told me: women tuners are few and far between, and they have to teach each other the work-arounds because all of the training is based on male physique: longer arms, broader shoulders, longer torso, etc. She said it’s a big reason why there are so few women tuners: most drop out because of the pain (if they haven’t been taught by another woman).
Little data exists on injuries to women in construction, but the New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health (NYCOSH) points to a US study of union carpenters that found women had higher rates of sprains, strains and nerve conditions of the wrist and forearm than men. Given the lack of data, it’s hard to be sure exactly why this is, but it’s a safe bet to attribute at least some of the blame to “standard” construction site equipment being designed around the male body.
I’m average size, about 165 cm, but desks, kitchen cabinets, desk chairs, etc. tend to be built for much larger people. Not sure about keyboards because I have special requirements.
I’m 5’8", so a bit short but not super-short. But I have a short torso and longer arms, proportionally. I constantly feel like I’m sitting at the kiddie table. I always remove the arms from my office chairs.
I can’t own Toyotas and Subies, they fuck up my back.
And those is why any article which cites PETA as a source automatically fails:
Loads more where this stuff came from. As far as I’m concerned, they’re a hate group using animal rights as cover.
That “proportional” is the killer.
I have a short torso but longer legs. Nothing, whether it’s clothing, furniture, what have you, hits in the right place. Even if it’s designed for someone my height, it doesn’t fit.
Designed around men misses on more than just size, though. There’s also shape. Metabolic rate has been mentioned. In medicine, it’s even worse. Men and women don’t even experience heart attacks the same way, yet our data around symptoms and treatment is all about men.
Things that are designed around women are either things men will never use, or “pinkified” versions not meant for serious use. But rather than design suitable tools, women are simply told that we’re the ones not suitable.
I’m the same.
The other side of this is that it used to be, even if you lived modestly, you’d have at least some stuff that was custom-made for you (or altered). Now mass-produced clothes are incredibly cheap, but make all sorts of assumptions about the bodies which will wear them.
Ditto for furnishings. The house I grew up in had higher kitchen counters and deeper stair treads because my dad built the house, and he took into account that he and my mum were tall. So few people get the option to make those kinds of alterations anymore.
WWII especially saw a lot of standardisation to reduce material usage. After the war, that trend continued. For the production lines of the 1940s it made sense, but I really doubt it’s needed now.
On a similar theme…
Woah about the period relief.
Basically sums up how I feel. She may actually be a bad boss, but the way it is being weaponised is sexist.
If you feel you can’t back her solely because of this, but then stan for Bernie or anyone else with a track record of bad behaviour to staff, then you are being sexist.
Absolutely, yes, we should demand better treatment of staff, but from all the candidates, not just the women. Because if it’s not okay when a woman does it, how the fuck does being a man make it acceptable?
My parents’ is the opposite. The cupboards are built lower because my mom is short and it makes it easier to reach at least the lower shelves.
This is one of the things that makes home ownership versus renting a dream of mine. Sure, there’s less maintenance you have to do if you rent, but owning means that I can choose the fixtures (elbow operable sink taps, please!) to suit me instead of the lowest common denominator (or cheapest wholesale price).
I need to park this somewhere where I can find it again. It’s got all the definitions and examples, not just the original chart:
Well, this makes me mad enough to Hulksmash something. Half the population experiences menstrural cramps, less than half the population experiences erectile disfunction. The math, alone, defines ending research into this drug a piss-poor business decision.