'Too simplistic' is my verdict.
On 6th November 2019 the BBC website published an article called "What would a city designed by women look like?" This article made the following observations.
1) Toilets- It is well known that men need less toilets. My observation is that public toilets (especially in other European countries) are hard to find. Normally you have to pay for the privilege. This is particularly challenging for disabled people. People with the power limit access to free toilets to save money. The general public elect their politicians. They get what they elect. I fully support more toilets- but women are in a majority when it comes to the electorate. Vote for toilets!
2) Play areas- Dito above. As fathers' roles change, they too should be voting for play areas. This is what children would vote for...rather than lower taxes.
3) Car free areas in cities. Again, is this to do with gender? There is an enormous capitalist lobby (mainly men here I guess) who want us to continue to burn petrol, and drive cars. It's a major part of our western economy. We have to vote against it. When the cities of Europe where built, women did not have the vote. The power structure in our society go back to male only models. This is where the changes need to occur. They are deeply institutional. They also ignore the young, the old, the disabled and gay/lesbian people.
On 5th June the BBC website published an article on the book called Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men written by Caroline Criado Perez.
 |
| A great question- But surely there are more hard hitting examples? |
1) CPR Manikin dolls. These are usually 'male shaped torsos. - My view is that you will never see a torso like a CPR manikin. If you do - you won't need to do CPR. I am guessing that the lack of breasts to to reduce titters. Many men actually have 'man' breasts.
2) Spacesuits. This is an obscure error which affects very few women in the world. I think other examples could be more hard hitting.
3) Military Equipment. Again, surely- it is obvious why military equipment is male-centric. It's mainly men who are into killing. Most equipment will be mass produced to a minimum budget (a bit like hospital or prison food.)
4) Car-Crash dummies. This is a fair criticism I feel. But dummies do include children. Also Asian men are statistically shorted than European men. They are also much slimmer, so perhaps the problem is the tests are done on a model of the engineer themselves. This is a bit like Anthony Gormley, who argues that as an artist he is limited to looking at the world from within his own body.
5) Smartphones. These change with the fashions. Sometimes they are big, sometimes small. I thought you could buy the size that suits you? I find it hard to believe that these phones are male-eccentric. It rather stretches a point.
6) Sports Attire. The article highlights an upset young girl who cannot buy basket ball clothes in her size. The famous player she writes to discovers that her size exists, but within the boys range. This is simply a labeling problem that was rectified. Is it sexism? Would we say the same if boys have to buy ballet clothes designed for women? What about horse riding kit? On second thoughts this is unlikely to happen because boys are unlikely to accept female clothing, where girls are often prepared to purchase male clothing. This is probably an example of the supremacy of Power. Items associated with power tend to appropriated by the less powerful. Hence we all wear blue jeans.
7) Science gear. This is simply to do with sexism and demographics. The more women come into science, the less they will be a minority. Minorities nearly always have to fit in with the majority. The irony here is that there are more women in the world than men. We are waiting however for more female scientists, and politicians for than matter.
8) Office space. This is an interesting one. The argument here is that the average office temperature is set for the temperature comfortable for men. Perhaps this applies to large call centres. But not where I work. In my office there is the battle of the temperature gauge. The males stand aloof, but maybe this says more about me. (As I say, I am not an environmentalist- I am not aware of 'temperature' particularly (I am aware of the gas bill).
I have lived in a majority female world for a lot of my life and note the how things look from the other side. It's a pleasant world and I do not feel hard done by.
1) ID badge makers in school reception areas. These days when you visit a school a machine makes you an ID badge. It usually takes a picture of my upper torso.
2) Gorgeous men. Interestingly I think it is culturally acceptable in women majority offices to have big pictures of gorgeous men, like Daniel Craig in the office. In my office we have a life size cardboard cut out. I do not think it would be acceptable to have a similar woman cut out. Staff talk about how the new manager looks gorgeous, and makes their heart flutter. Not acceptable to talk the other way round.
3) Children Centres. I helped to run a fathers group in Hinckley. Our first job when we got to the building was to take down the pictures of women's breasts.....(breast feeding). Such images just make fathers feel inadequate.
4) Child mental health training. Where are the men? Nearly everyone who attend the child mental health training I offer are female (and I am sure it's not to do with me- or Daniel Craig who always accompanies me.) The mental health promotion of our children is in the hands of women.
5) Sport radio. I am a minority in my family. It was only when traveling with a friend and his family to a wedding that I realised that I have not been able to listen freely to sports radio for many years! Oh cruel world!
6) Little Cars. As a friend of the small car, I find they are not designed for people as tall as me. I can not see the speedometer because my line of sight is too high. I have to duck down to look below the top of the searing wheel......".Me Lord."
So what would a city look like designed by women? By definition I can not say, but I can conjecture.
1) City's begin with people. People begin as little babies. For me the quality of life of little children is a gauge of how well the rest of us are living. I would expect child care to be central, with facilities to support young families (for dads and mums alike.) I would expect play areas that are well maintained. Grandparents would be designed into this pattern too.
2) Educational centres that include parents/carers, especially mothers. While children are predominantly cared for by mothers, the time that children are in education offers mother an opportunity to invest in themselves.
3) Road safety. Car ownership is male-centric 76% of males own a car compared with 69% of females. The population splits (like the brexit vote) into 49% male to 51% female. Statistically more women are exposed to risk on the pavement than men, with more deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians than to cyclists or motorcyclists. designing safer streets will address this balance.
4) Parks and green spaces. Places for people to relax and recuperate are likely to positively affect women, who spend more time with little children, and older people, who again are biased towards women. Women are known to be politically more left wing in their views. They are more prepared to have the state spend their money on the quality of life in cities, but they have less money than men in the first place.
5) Social Housing. Young people are likely to need social housing. Also the elderly and retired. These are areas when if society does not priorities housing, the poorer groups will be forced out and have to move. The rich can choose to move. But that is their privilege.
