That was fascinating/depressing, sounds like an important and overdue book.
So far the only comment was the shameful one by "xndgg" who at least apparently had the decency to feel ashamed enough not to want the comment linked to their usual username. And at least it was quickly [flagged][dead].
I think the issue is the world is built for the average. Try being really tall and doing the dishes in a normal sink. Your back aches after bending over the entire time. Then there is finding your self on the hall floor with blood everywhere trying to figure out what just happened. Turns out the meter box was just a little to low for your head to clear.
Impossible to prove, but a plausible theory. It's incredibly useful for women to know when 28 days have passed. It's significantly less useful to men.
There's no real basis to assume why a man would have made that calendar, and yet, quite often that assumption is made, because women tend to be forgotten.
Apparently, the periods hypothesis is not favoured for a variety of reasons... And just because counting to 28 is more useful to women than men (men and women who tracked the moon phases for millennia don't agree) doesn't make it more likely to be periods counting.
Plus the numbers on the bone are not 28 but "are understood to indicate 9, 19, 21, 11; 19, 12, 13, 11; and 7, 5, 5, 10, 8, 4, 6, 3"...
Not only is it bizarre that crash tests are done only with male dummies, it's also bizarre that they're only done with average dummies. Nobody is average. You want cars to be safe for unusually tall, short or heavy people as well, don't you? The sexism of the situation makes it even worse, but even if you ignore the sexism, it seems really hard to justify such limitations on safety tests.
8 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] threadAlso, no one is preventing women from building cars.
So far the only comment was the shameful one by "xndgg" who at least apparently had the decency to feel ashamed enough not to want the comment linked to their usual username. And at least it was quickly [flagged][dead].
There's no real basis to assume why a man would have made that calendar, and yet, quite often that assumption is made, because women tend to be forgotten.
Apparently, the periods hypothesis is not favoured for a variety of reasons... And just because counting to 28 is more useful to women than men (men and women who tracked the moon phases for millennia don't agree) doesn't make it more likely to be periods counting.
Plus the numbers on the bone are not 28 but "are understood to indicate 9, 19, 21, 11; 19, 12, 13, 11; and 7, 5, 5, 10, 8, 4, 6, 3"...
9+19=28, here it is!
LOL that's numerology, not science...