Vort Posted December 27, 2019 Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/health/stds-are-sexist-against-women-wellness/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mores Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) On 12/27/2019 at 2:12 PM, Vort said: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/health/stds-are-sexist-against-women-wellness/index.html Well, this has completely changed my mindset on STDs. Here I was thinking they were equal opportunity infectors. But clearly we need to end STDs NOW!!! due to the sexist nature of the diseases. NOW it is even MORE imperative! Edited December 30, 2019 by Mores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 Consumer Reports has a hand-wringing cover story this month about how automobile safety standards are designed around men, not women; resulting in higher mortality rates for women in the (statistically much rarer) incidences where they are involved in serious car crashes. As it turns out, most of their beefs didn’t really have anything to do with the safety standards themselves; they revolved around the fact that women tend to have lower bone density and less muscle structure and thus tend to be more vulnerable to physical trauma generally. Apparently, that means we are all supposed to Do Something; though Consumer Reports didn’t seem to have any engineering-based solutions. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Consumer Reports has a hand-wringing cover story this month about how automobile safety standards are designed around men, not women; resulting in higher mortality rates for women in the (statistically much rarer) incidences where they are involved in serious car crashes. I never understood (And yes, I know you are not saying this) the joke about women being worse drivers than men. Oddly, I've never seen a mom of four flip me off while driving 85 in a school zone. Men are much, much worse drivers than women. It's not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedleinA Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 22 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Oddly, I've never seen a mom of four flip me off while driving 85 in a school zone. Men are much, much worse drivers than women. It's not even close. That is only because they are flipping you off while going 40 over the speed limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said: ...automobile ... women... Can we just pause here to thank whoever it is that made the thing that attaches the seat belt hanger to the doorpost adjustable? There's an awkward sentence! Here, have a photo: Saves my neck from getting sawed through by the seat belt. We now return you to your regularly scheduled unironic feminist mindset post having little to do with cars (other than, perhaps, what some people do in their back seats). mordorbund and Just_A_Guy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said: Consumer Reports has a hand-wringing cover story this month about how automobile safety standards are designed around men, not women; resulting in higher mortality rates for women in the (statistically much rarer) incidences where they are involved in serious car crashes. As it turns out, most of their beefs didn’t really have anything to do with the safety standards themselves; they revolved around the fact that women tend to have lower bone density and less muscle structure and thus tend to be more vulnerable to physical trauma generally. Apparently, that means we are all supposed to Do Something; though Consumer Reports didn’t seem to have any engineering-based solutions. What they suggested is that there should be more crash dummies that represent a female human body since the two body types are different and that the current crash dummies usually only represent one body type. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. It isn't possible to design a crash dummy for every single possible shape and size of a human, but I can't fault them for suggesting that more body types are represented/studied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said: Consumer Reports has a hand-wringing cover story this month about how automobile safety standards are designed around men, not women; resulting in higher mortality rates for women in the (statistically much rarer) incidences where they are involved in serious car crashes. As it turns out, most of their beefs didn’t really have anything to do with the safety standards themselves; they revolved around the fact that women tend to have lower bone density and less muscle structure and thus tend to be more vulnerable to physical trauma generally. Apparently, that means we are all supposed to Do Something; though Consumer Reports didn’t seem to have any engineering-based solutions. You mean... a woman can't just identify as a man and gain higher bone density? WHAT? Traveler and Still_Small_Voice 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 13 hours ago, Scott said: What they suggested is that there should be more crash dummies that represent a female human body since the two body types are different and that the current crash dummies usually only represent one body type. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. It isn't possible to design a crash dummy for every single possible shape and size of a human, but I can't fault them for suggesting that more body types are represented/studied. There are. Just like there are for children. Humanetics has become a science all to itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted December 30, 2019 Report Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, anatess2 said: There are. Just like there are for children. Humanetics has become a science all to itself. According to the article (I am no expert on the topic) the "female" crash dummies (all of which were designed years ago) being used in the safety standards tests are just slightly smaller scale "male" dummies and should be updated. If this really is true (again, I am no expert on the topic), I can see it as a good idea to update them. I'd sure want my wife to be as safe as I was in a car accident, if it were possible (though it may not be completely possible due to physical differences). Edited December 31, 2019 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted December 31, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, Scott said: What they suggested is that there should be more crash dummies that represent a female human body since the two body types are different and that the current crash dummies usually only represent one body type. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. It isn't possible to design a crash dummy for every single possible shape and size of a human, but I can't fault them for suggesting that more body types are represented/studied. Point 1: I don't believe it. I do not believe there is only one type of crash-test dummy and that it's reflective of men. I think that's a misrepresentation and a distortion of fact, aka a lie. Not that I think you're lying, @Scott. But I wasn't born yesterday, and this sounds just exactly like the kind of baseless claim that feminist axe-grinders love to level. Point 2: I have no expertise or even experience in crash-test-dummy theory. But a few seconds of reflection has resulted in a short list of questions that would be useful in determining how we construct crash test dummies: What kind (i.e. sex and size/age) of people are most involved in automobile accidents? What kind of people are most injured in automobile accidents? What kind of people could most easily be protected from injury in an automobile accident (i.e. low-hanging fruit)? In coming up with these questions, which as I mentioned took me all of a few seconds, I didn't detect in any of them an obvious bias toward or away from female-shaped (or male-shaped) crash test dummies. So the mere possibility that there are more "male" crash test dummies than "female" does not in itself mean a darn thing. Edited December 31, 2019 by Vort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, Vort said: Point 1: I don't believe it. I do not believe there is only one type of crash-test dummy and that it's reflective of men. I think that's a misrepresentation and a distortion of fact, aka a lie. Not that I think you're lying, @Scott. But I wasn't born yesterday, and this sounds just exactly like the kind of baseless claim that feminist axe-grinders love to level. So it's all a big conspiracy that even the automakers are in on? https://www.volvocars.com/ph/why-volvo/human-innovation/future-of-driving/safety/cars-safe-for-all I don't think there was any intentional bias when it comes to crash testing (and the article doesn't say that there was), but if crash dummies need to be updated to reflect different body types, then it is a good idea to do so (even if every single body type can't be reasonably be tested). I don't see this as a feminists plot. Safety testing changes with time; this is not unique to crash testing. For example, in my line of work guardrail standards were recently updated due to the change in vehicle choice among the population (i.e. more crossovers/SUVs/trucks when compared to sedans). It is never a bad idea to look into updating safety standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted December 31, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Scott said: So it's all a big conspiracy that even the automakers are in on? Yes. That is exactly what I wrote, practically word for word. Good job in interpreting my writing so accurately. Quote https://www.volvocars.com/ph/why-volvo/human-innovation/future-of-driving/safety/cars-safe-for-all This is a marketing page. it includes unsupported and frankly unbelievable statements, such as: "In 2019, most automakers still produce cars based exclusively on data from male crash test dummies." Quote I don't think there was any intentional bias when it comes to crash testing (and the article doesn't say that there was), but if crash dummies need to be updated to reflect different body types, then it is a good idea to do so (even if every single body type can't be reasonably be tested). I don't see this as a feminists plot. Do you suppose there's any intentional bias in the way the marketing page you reference was written? Quote Safety testing changes with time; this is not unique to crash testing. For example, in my line of work guardrail standards were recently updated due to the change in vehicle choice among the population (i.e. more crossovers/SUVs/trucks when compared to sedans). It is never a bad idea to look into updating safety standards. Nor did anyone suggest it was, least of all me. It's less than honest of you to imply otherwise by the obviously biased wording of your response. Edited December 31, 2019 by Vort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 9 minutes ago, Vort said: Yes. That is exactly what I wrote, practically word for word. Good job in interpreting my writing so accurately. OK then. Personally, I can see that if crash dummies can be improved to include more body types, then it would be a good idea to do so. I guess I'm in on the conspiracy as well. The article never said that there was any intentional bias against women, only that crash dummies should be updated to reflect the different body shapes. If you really think that qualifies as a feminist plot, then I guess it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 14 hours ago, Scott said: OK then. Personally, I can see that if crash dummies can be improved to include more body types, then it would be a good idea to do so. I guess I'm in on the conspiracy as well. The article never said that there was any intentional bias against women, only that crash dummies should be updated to reflect the different body shapes. If you really think that qualifies as a feminist plot, then I guess it is. I'm just surprised you think they don't do this already. Seriously... Humanetrics. Largest manufacturer of crash test dummies. Anyway, like any business in existence in the United States of America, automobile manufacturers meet the regulations set by law and no more. So, if the regulation is met by only male crash test dummies (not saying this is the case, I actually don't know the safety regulations for American cars, only that they now require rear cameras... if they require rear cameras, I can't imagine they won't require females and children to pass safety requirements too), the automobile manufacturer will not go through the expense of building a car for other dummies. Automobile manufacturers who exceed safety regulations do so as a marketing tool to elevate themselves from competition. In any case, all kinds of crash test dummies are available in Humanetrics. It's simply up to you whether you want to buy a $10,000 brand new car or a $45,000 one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still_Small_Voice Posted December 31, 2019 Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 Article states the following: "Cases of gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis have reached the highest levels ever recorded, according to a recent report from the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention." This is another reason among many to live the law of chastity in my opinion. Vort and scottyg 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.