Human equals man; Why the default settings of our society’s design are in need of a system-wide reboot
By Ellen Lundy
Humankind is composed of both male and female and yet, the term has become synonymous with the former. The ‘average’ man is the standard to which we are all held. So, while the feminist movement speaks out against blatant biases, society whispers its favour toward men. Through the cars that we drive, the phones that we hold in our pockets and the data gap through which many women slip through each day.
History is no friend to women. It tells the story of him. ‘His’ story. As children in school, we learned of kings and conquerors. Seldom was a line left to acknowledge the women that helped shape the modern day.
This is an example of blatant bias. But what about a one-size fits all approach that is unsuited to women?
Medical research is ‘based on the assumption that the male can serve as a representative of the species.’ As a result, health issues such as reproductive diseases that solely affect the female body go under researched.
This ideal has a trickledown effect into all aspects of life; have you ever found a classroom too cold? However, while you are pulling on a jumper, a boy sitting next to you seems perfectly comfortable in his t-shirt? This is because temperature regulations are largely dictated by an algorithm designed in the 1960s for a 154-pound male.
While we discuss in detail the impacts of the gender pay gap on the feminist movement, thousands of biases slip under the radar, their impact drowned out by the already deafening discourse around feminist issues.
The classic example is that of the crash test dummy. Women are 47% more likely to die in road traffic accidents, despite men being more likely to not wear a seatbelt, as road safety testing procedures such as the standard seating position and the crash test dummy are based on the average male in a vehicle.
Since 2011, it has been EU regulation to include a female test dummy. However, the dummy need only be tested in the passenger seat and is not truly female but rather a scaled-down male dummy. This performative protection of women’s safety aims to placate women’s fears but, in the process, earns a collective sigh from women across the globe.
There are many more unfortunate examples. Have you ever noticed that a man can use his iPhone with one hand while a woman will be seen using two? Tech journalist, James Ball, claimed that smartphones wouldn’t get any bigger as ‘they’ve hit the limit of men’s hand size.’
Apple is infamous for catering to a male audience; their health app, launched in 2014, conveniently neglected to include a period tracker. In fact, US Siri users found that the AI could find prostitutes and Viagra suppliers, but not abortion providers.
So, what is the core issue with these design faults?
It comes down to the misunderstanding of the feminist movement. We strive for equality. But, to achieve that, we must recognise the physical differences between man and woman. Therefore, if equality does not create fairness, then it is equity which the feminist movement requests.
Take toilets, for example: while equal floor space for men’s and women’s bathrooms may seem fair, it is not truly equitable. Men benefit from both urinals and stalls, effectively giving them more toilets. Meanwhile, women often spend 2.3 times longer queuing due to menstruation, pregnancy, or accompanying children – factors that increase time spent in the restroom. True fairness means designing for actual need, not just spacial symmetry.
The toilet issue lays bare a deeper truth: equality is not always equity. Like a dress hemmed for one body but handed to another, the rules of the world, as stitched by men, often leave women exposed to the cold edge of inconvenience.
This treatment of humankind as one singular entity and using men as the figurehead only ensures to hinder equality between genders. I can imagine the thoughts of any misogynist reading this article now.
‘They asked for equality. And now, we design a world in which we all live by the same standards, and they still are not satisfied. Typical.’
It is almost laughable to think how anyone could believe that this was the form of equality that women fought and died for.
Women should not be more likely to die in car accidents. Women should not be more likely to freeze at work. Women should not have to suffer from reproductive diseases that are under researched.
And yet, this is the world we live in. Feminist issues are like the head of a hydra; cut one off and three more grow in its place. But we must keep fighting to reveal the hidden injustices. It is the only way forward in creating a fair society.
So, if you read this article from your desk in a chilly office, do me a favour and turn up the thermostat. We have too long played according to the rules of man. It is time to turn up the heat and see if they can stand our moment in the sun.
SOURCES:
- https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/06/a-mans-world-why-are-cars-designed-and-built-with-just-male-bodies-in-mind
- https://medium.com/hh-design/the-world-is-designed-for-men-d06640654491
- https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
- https://econlife.com/2020/04/male-bias-for-one-size-fits-all/
