A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
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.
"Medical science" didn't only just discover the clitoris 20 years ago... Fairly accurate descriptions of the structure of the clitoris go back to the 1840s. It's the textbooks used for medical training that were omitting the already known structures to the detriment of medical professionals and healthcare.
Never mind that discovering and accurately mapping something are very different. That's like saying we hadn't discovered the moon until we saw the other side.
It's a funny meme that scientists couldn't find the clit, but it detracts from the actual sexism that was preventing the known science from being taught properly to doctors.
My wording was for comedic affect. I agree with you, but it's still shocking how recently we mapped this organ in its entirety.
There's a fun article about the history of the clitoris here, if anyone's after yet more reading on this.
I love the part in the article you linked about Ben Shapiro, really made me chuckle. wonder how he felt after believing that lie.
You forgot Sojourner.
The robotic Sojourner rover reached Mars on July 4, 1997 as part of the Mars Pathfinder mission.
Fuck me. That's ridiculous. That's 12 years before mankind found the clit.
FFS…
What does anatomically correct mean here? Should I switch to my alt account before searching?
Weight distribution and physical density.
Height is a big factor too
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.
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.
We aren't long inanimate objects, we're human beings and we deserve to be treated better than a can of sardines.
Dr., this is Captialism; that level of empathy is toxic.
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.
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.
And also taking into account that women can get pregnant, and ride cars at various stages of said pregnancy, right?
Right?
Without looking up the details, I'm just gonna assume both facts are correct (no anatomically correct women dummies before 2023 and a pregnant dummy in 1996), by saying that the 1996 dummy was a pregnant man. Only two years after Arnold Schwarzenegger started in Junior.
Hey! Leave Otto's girlfriend out of this!
I'm guessing it has to do with interaction between seatbelt and boobs. And all previous tests just assumed a flat chest.
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.
Test dummy with boobs, im guessing
What’s with the pointing-at-camera thing?
She's trying to look inspirational but ends up looking like an overly-confident real estate agent.
Yeah I can immediately tell she’s some business huckster, doing “motivational speaking” or some shit
It's got "I can sell you this" energy for sure
She's going to crash test you, dummy.
That’s how you know who is the main character.
She wants you to join the United States army
Seems to satisfy the ask.
I mean, I knew medical research was misogynistic but this is still somehow shocking.
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.
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
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".
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
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.
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.
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
First thing that springs to mind is the chest strap on a seatbelt interacting with boobs
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.
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...
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.
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.
I feel like this probably isn't the preferred terminology.