• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    20·
    2 days ago

    I have a book to recommend:

    Imagine a world where your phone is too big for your hand, where your doctor prescribes a drug that is wrong for your body, where in a car accident you are 47% more likely to be seriously injured, where every week the countless hours of work you do are not recognised or valued. If any of this sounds familiar, chances are that you’re a woman.

    -Invisible Women, by Caroline Criado Perez.

    I believe I first heard her interviewed on the 99% Invisible Podcast.

  • Moon@slrpnk.netEnglish
    10919·
    3 days ago

    We landed two three rovers on Mars before medical science discovered the clitoris.

    The Mars Exploration Rovers landed on Mars in January 2004. (See the reply below for the earlier one I forgot!)

    An accurate anatomical model of the clitoris was not created until 2005.

        • multifariace@lemmy.worldEnglish
          191·
          3 days ago

          Height is a big factor. Being taller than average I notice a lot of backbreaking standards. Especially if I have to use facilities modified for shorter or wheelchair bound people. Look at airplane seats for example. Why do I have to pay more for a seat that won’t crush my knees? And decorations; quite often I will go to a place festively decorated where things are constantly bumping me or in my face. There was even a fancy balloon arch used at one place I had to move out of a doorway to get through.

          • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            74·
            3 days ago

            Why do I have to pay more for a seat that won’t crush my knees?

            I mean, it sucks, but the larger seats do cost the airline more to provide. I pay more for shipping inanimate objects that are long, even if they’re the same weight.

            • wildwhitehorses@aussie.zoneEnglish
              6·
              3 days ago

              Then why don’t we also pay be weight? I’d love to be able to pack an extra 20kg in my bag as I weigh at least 20kg less than the average male.

              • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                3·
                2 days ago

                That’s my whole point. If you’re gonna ask the airlines to give different amounts of space for different sized people, don’t expect your tickets to stay the same price.

                The current system is that the ticket prices are the same (price fluctuations happen but not based on the size of the passenger), and that everyone of a particular fare class gets the same sized seat.

              • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                21·
                2 days ago

                Because that would be discrimination. Otherwise they absolutely would do it lol

            • dr_robotBones@reddthat.comEnglish
              111·
              3 days ago

              We aren’t long inanimate objects, we’re human beings and we deserve to be treated better than a can of sardines.

              • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                3·
                3 days ago

                Yes, we’re human beings, so airlines do a different pricing strategy, where everyone pays the same price and everyone gets the same amount of space.

              • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                22·
                2 days ago

                Then you can pay more for your ticket. Simple fact is, to save money on fuel, the airline has to use the smallest possible airplane and have high seat density. Luxury airlines like Emirates or Etihad might have lower seating density but you’ll pay extra for the tickets.

                Emirates CEO is asking Airbus to start building the A380 again, but in a new more fuel efficient version. Even gave them some design ideas. Reason being, that huge-ass plane can be better optimized for comfort due to economies of scale. Unfortunately I think they’re using a lot of that space for first class, which gets showers and shit.

                In the US, supposedly JetBlue has more space in economy than the big 3 tend to. Willing to bet it’s more expensive too, but I wouldn’t know, I’ve only flown European airlines and cheap to midrange ones at that.

      • MadMadBunny@lemmy.caEnglish
        25·
        3 days ago

        And also taking into account that women can get pregnant, and ride cars at various stages of said pregnancy, right?

        Right?

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      16·
      3 days ago

      I’m guessing it has to do with interaction between seatbelt and boobs. And all previous tests just assumed a flat chest.

      • Dr. Bob@lemmy.caEnglish
        17·
        3 days ago

        Boobs squish at crash forces. The pressure with crash testing is keep every variable consistent so that results can be compared over time. I read an article years ago about the trouble of maintaining a supply of “tea rose” colored underwear for that reason.

        eta: http://www.lipkie.com/humor/1999/990430_36.htm

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.netEnglish
    39·
    3 days ago

    Seems to satisfy the ask.

    I mean, I knew medical research was misogynistic but this is still somehow shocking.

  • SomethingBlack@lemmy.worldEnglish
    325·
    3 days ago

    Has an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy” actually helped? What even is an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy” and how does it encompass all women’s body types in a way that the, assumedly anatomically correct male crash test dummy wouldn’t accommodate?

    I am absolutely uneducated on this but to my uneducated mind this sounds like getting riled up over a non-issue.

    • AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      Previously what was used was a male crash test dummy but sized down. The word “dummy” makes it easy to overlook, but they’re pretty technologically impressive bits of kit. They take into account the density of different tissues and their relative distribution in the body, and there are strategically placed sensors to measure the force distribution at different levels. It doesn’t encompass all women’s body types, in much the same way that the male dummy doesn’t encompass all men’s body types.

      Lots of little differences between male and female bodies cumulatively result in the vehicle collision injury stats that others have quoted elsewhere in this thread. Things like the centre of mass being different, the outline of the pelvis/hips (which also affects the way one sits), women having a greater body fat percentage, that body fat being distributed differently to men’s, women have less muscle. Then there’s boobs, which aren’t just something that can hinder seatbelt placement, but they can also be heavy, and bouncy, which means that the forces involved in a collision can be multiple times more than their weight, which contributes to whiplash and other injuries. On top of this, there’s probably a bunch of other factors that we aren’t aware of yet, but a more comprehensive testing process could help us to understand what differences between male and female bodies actually matter when it comes to vehicle safety. For example, on average, women tend to have longer hair than men, but I don’t expect that would particularly impact injury rate in a vehicle collision. Women having larger breasts than men however, is most certainly a factor that contributed to the stats for women’s injury rates being so much higher than men’s.

      On top of all this, before a dedicated female crash test dummy was designed, the downsized male dummy they were using was laughably small — the male one was designed to be the size of the average man at the time, whereas the downsized male one was so small that it only represented the smallest 5% of women at the time. That just seems absurd to me, but it’s what you get when 50% of the population are treated as an afterthought, I suppose.

      On the question of does an anatomically correct dummy help, it’s a complex question because it takes time for the developments in car safety to actually make it out to the consumer, and even now we have a better crash test dummy for women, some manufacturers have been sluggish in implementing it into their testing — though now at least it’s possible to apply pressure and say “hey, why are you not using this in your testing when women are at much higher risk when in one of your cars”. Previously, manufacturers who were challenged on this could just shrug and blame the lack of an anatomically correct female crash test dummy, and development of one of those took a lot of time and research expertise, so wasn’t something that could be done trivially. Now the resource exists and the industry has less of an excuse.

    • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
      434·
      3 days ago

      Crash test dummies test the impact of vehicle accidents on human bodies. While more men than women are injured in vehicle accidents, they are more frequently involved in them in the first place. Women are 17% more likely than men to die in the event of a car crash, based on university studies in the US, and 73% more likely to sustain serious injuries in a front-end collision (Invisible Women, p186). In the world of crash test dummies, ‘human body’ has really meant ‘male body’; the first anatomically correct female crash test dummy was only created in 2022.

      https://www.theactuary.com/2023/02/02/when-human-isnt-female

      Before intervention

      17% more dead women than men

      73% more injured women than men

      When women are in fewer crashes overall

      • SomethingBlack@lemmy.worldEnglish
        298·
        3 days ago

        I appreciate your effort to find that data but it doesn’t really address any of my original questions.

        Also, from what you’ve quoted at least, there is no differentiation between drivers vs passengers.

        Your data absolutely shows there is a problem, it just doesn’t show that the problem is the lack of an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy”.

        • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          3 days ago

          I don’t think whether they’re driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level, people should be expected to sit in any of the seats of a car, so I’m making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements.

          The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it’s going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.

          I don’t think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago, I guess manufacturers need to buy these and then use them in their in-progress designs. Cars on the market that have used these dummies during design are probably only new designs sold in the past year or so.

          I also can’t seem to find it with a quick search, but I vaguely remember reading about this when it was new a couple of years ago, and there’s a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren’t reflected equivalently with women’s safety. But maybe take that with a pinch of salt unless you can actually find the source

          • ByteJunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
            141·
            3 days ago

            I don’t think whether they’re driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level

            But it does! For example, if the driver seat offers better protection than the rest of the car, and women are more often than men in one of the other seats, it would explain the results and the dummy doesn’t add much.

            But if the fatality rate for women in the front passenger seat, for example, is the same as for men in that same seat, that’s were probably having an “anatomically correct female crash test dummy” can be very helpful in understanding why these crashes are killing more women than men.

          • SomethingBlack@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            3 days ago

            so I’m making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements

            The source doesn’t use data from crash test dummies but from real life crashes. So we can’t take seating arrangements for granted if it could meaningfully effect the numbers.

            The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it’s going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.

            The sample size is irrelevant if cultural factors exist that could skew the results. Cultural factors like men are more commonly taxi/Uber/bus drivers, men are more likely to drive with their partner as a passenger than the inverse, etc.

            I don’t think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago

            That’s a fair point, I don’t expect there would be enough data for anything conclusive.

            there’s a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren’t reflected equivalently with women’s safety

            That would be an interesting read. I’ll have a look for it.

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.worldEnglish
        111·
        3 days ago

        One reason male crash test dummies are not representative of female vehicle occupants in an accident is that seatbelts do not sit in the correct position on female bodies, because of their breasts.

        This is the only reasoning provided in that entire article

    • Taleya@aussie.zoneEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      First thing that springs to mind is the chest strap on a seatbelt interacting with boobs

    • YaDownWitCPP@lemmy.worldEnglish
      69·
      3 days ago

      “An anatomically correct female crash test dummy is a test device designed to more accurately represent the body shape and dimensions of women, particularly in areas like the pelvis and upper chest, which are more vulnerable in car crashes. These dummies, unlike the older scaled-down male dummies, incorporate features like a female-shaped pelvis, breasts, and a lower center of gravity to better assess how different car safety features affect female occupants.”

      -Google AI Overview

      • SomethingBlack@lemmy.worldEnglish
        54·
        3 days ago

        Ok, I hadn’t considered the differently shaped pelvis and rib cage so I’ll concede that it makes sense.

        Even still, to my mind (again, not educated in this area) the breasts themselves are not going to be a factor in terms of a car crash assuming seatbelts are correctly worn

        • RebekahWSD@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          3 days ago

          Except they would be? Having breasts, especially large ones, changes where the seat belt sits. It can not be flat against the chest. Generally either is above the tits cutting into your throat, or underneath them doing…poorly as a restraint. Or maybe attempting to cut them in half but not doing well because bras won’t let that happen.

          • SomethingBlack@lemmy.worldEnglish
            42·
            3 days ago

            I was going to say there’s also the option of in-between but that is dependant on clothing, but you beat me to it 😅

            You’ve convinced me that it’s reasonable that it could effect the outcome. But in that case, we’re averaging out a large variance in size, which as you said (and I agree) could change the outcome dramatically.

            This was my original problem with the “anatomically correct” part of the statement. There is no “anatomically correct” male or female, only approximations. This effectively excludes people at the extremes of physical characteristics from these safety tests

            • AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              1 day ago

              You’re not wrong here about how a dummy designed to “the average male” proportions" is going to exclude men whose proportions exist in the statistical extremes (and likewise for women), but a phrase that comes to mind is “All models are wrong, some are useful”. Whenever we are making a model for gathering and analysing data, it’s because the real phenomena we’re studying is too complex to be able to effectively analyse without a model. Even if we had a wide array of anatomically correct crash test dummies for many different body types, it would still be a huge simplification of reality. A huge part of research is about trying to always be mindful of this tension, and to be constantly evaluating whether our model is a good enough for reality.

              The stats for injury rates in women indicated that no, our model was failing pretty significantly in this area, so we designed different dummies, effectively updating our model. There will be more research that looks at other kinds of variation between people, and that will mean trying to account for extremes while not overcomplicating our model.

            • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              3·
              3 days ago

              We might need redesigns for seatbelts then, one that can be easily adapted to a variety of body widths, heights and chests.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    102·
    3 days ago

    Than their required use. Gendered crash test dummies have been a thing for a long time, but AFAIK prior to this there was no anatomical requirements at all, including children (?). Obviously it’s huge to include this since IDK a single woman who doesn’t have troubles with the extremely male-focused design of all modern cars (fucking seatbelts do not play well with tits (how is this still a thing) women can’t adjust mirrors to be useful since they sit below the sight envelope, blind spots, etc), but this is a bit sensationaist of a headline…

    • ByteJunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      fucking seatbelts do not play well with tits (how is this still a thing)

      This sounds hard to solve, especially for women with fuller bosom. I’m assuming that the car has a mechanism that allows raising/lowering the seatbelt height, and that this didn’t solve the issue…

      The answer would probably be a harness, like they use for racing, but it’s so inconvenient to use as to not actually being a solution to a boob-squashing neck-sawing strap.

      • faythofdragons@slrpnk.netEnglish
        7·
        3 days ago

        Speaking as somebody with a fuller bosom, as you mentioned, the problem is mostly the angle of the shoulder belt. There is an adjustable slide, but it only adjusts four or five inches, which simply isn’t enough for the seven inches difference between my partner and I. The end of the belt is by my ear, not my shoulder. I’m constantly tugging the shoulder belt lower when I’m in the car, either passenger or driver, which is really not safe.

        In 2018, I was in a car crash. I was driving a 1998 minivan and got t-boned by a 2006 SUV going 55mph. It turned the van into a banana, pushed the driver’s seat over to the center. I don’t remember the accident itself, but it looks like my head bounced between the B pillar and the airbag/steering wheel, it broke my glasses, cracked my skull, and gave me a subarachnoid brain hemorrhage with a 50/50 survival rate. Literally knocked me cross-eyed, so I was seeing double for forever. It also broke my pelvis into 8 pieces, sliced up my spleen, and broke a few ribs. I still have a bolt holding my pelvis to my spine. Took over a year to recover, then COVID hit while I was trying to get back to work. fml, never doing that again.

        Maybe it would have been better if I had side curtain airbags, but the main problem really feels like the seatbelt just doesn’t fit.