Invisible Women Summary

Smartphones don’t fit women’s hands. This inconvenience isn’t accidental – we live in a world built for and around men.

1. The Male Default Shapes Our Perspective

Throughout history, men have been viewed as the “default” gender, marginalizing women and their experiences. Aristotle referred to women as deviations from the norm in ancient times, and this bias persists today.

Modern representations, like emoij designs, further cement male-dominated norms. Initially, emojis defaulted to male depictions for jobs like police officers or runners. Changes only came after gender parity standards were introduced in Unicode in 2016. Historical bias is deeply embedded, demonstrated by male-centric statues or banknotes, like the UK’s tendency to prioritize male figures.

Education reinforces this bias. Studies show men are referenced three times more than women in grammar textbooks. This disparity translates to everyday systems and structures rooted in the assumption that male perspectives are universal.

Examples

• Aristotle’s writings described men as the standard and women as deviations.
• Before 2016, emojis predominantly depicted male symbols for diverse roles.
• UK statues highlight more men named John than all non-royal women combined.

2. Women’s Experiences Are Missing from Data

Policies and infrastructure often reflect male-centric planning, neglecting women’s varied needs. For instance, a Swedish town shifted its snow-clearing strategy once they analyzed how routines prioritized male commuters over female caregivers.

Transportation systems exemplify this gap. Public transit often bases decisions on the typical male commuter’s peak travel patterns, penalizing women for “trip-chaining” – making multiple short journeys daily. Ticket pricing systems aggravate this by charging women more per mile.

Such omissions cause discomfort and financial strain and show a lack of awareness in considering diverse perspectives during planning and policymaking.

Examples

• Early snow-clearing schedules in Karlskoga emphasized cars, favoring male drivers over female pedestrians.
• In Europe, transport systems underserve women’s “trip-chaining” due to poor design.
• Women traveling shorter distances often end up paying more than men due to journey-based ticket pricing.

3. Gender Data Gaps Expose Women to Risks

Gender-neutral policies often leave women vulnerable because they fail to consider basic differences. Women often face delays in accessing public bathrooms due to bathroom space being allocated equally, without accounting for women’s different needs.

These issues become life-threatening in the developing world. For women lacking private bathroom access, using public facilities can expose them to violence and harassment. Holding in urine also increases risks of health problems like infections.

When infrastructure reflects male-centric thinking, women endure both physical and social disadvantages, perpetuating the pattern of unequal systems.

Examples

• Equal bathroom allocations ignore that women often require more time and space.
• Lack of private toilets in Indian homes doubles women’s risk of sexual violence.
• Public bathroom placements often place women in unsafe situations.

4. Many Objects Are Designed for Men’s Bodies

Everyday items are often tailored to male proportions, inadvertently sidelining women. Take pianos – their standard 7.4-inch octave width suits the average male hand better than female hands, impacting women’s musical potential.

Similarly, smartphones, sized for a hypothetical male grip, often cause discomfort or musculoskeletal disorders in women. Tools and gadgets further reveal this bias, with most designed for larger, male-sized hands.

Products that aim to be “universal” actually exclude a significant portion of users, leaving women in environments ill-suited to their needs.

Examples

• Female pianists with a handspan below 7.4 inches lag in international acclaim.
• Average smartphone sizes (5.5 inches) are too large for many women’s hands.
• Male-focused designs dominate hand tools, making them harder for women to grip.

5. Women’s Safety Procedures Lack Proper Consideration

Health and safety standards hinge on the male body’s measurements. For instance, office temperatures remain based on men’s metabolic rates, leaving many women uncomfortably cold.

Vehicles are another glaring example. Crash test dummies are modeled after male bodies, even though women have different seatbelt behaviors and anatomy. Women involved in car crashes face a 47% higher risk of serious injury due to this oversight.

Beyond vehicles, workplace exposure to harmful substances lacks gender considerations. Women frequently endure higher risks from radiation or harmful chemicals but are often overlooked in safety guidelines.

Examples

• Workplace thermostats cater to a 1960s average male metabolic rate.
• EU crash safety standards don’t mandate female crash test dummy use.
• Women exposed to EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals) are at a 42% higher risk of breast cancer.

6. Women’s Health Is Diminished by Male-Centric Medical Data

Medical research often uses men as the default test subjects, failing to account for female physiological differences. As a result, healthcare and treatments frequently don’t cater to women’s specific needs.

For example, pacemakers like CRT-D devices were initially tested on predominantly male subjects. Consequently, heart treatment recommendations missed key data, leaving many women without appropriate therapy for heart irregularities.

Medical textbooks also prioritize male bodies. Women represent only a fraction of participants in clinical trials, with researchers dismissing female physiology as “inconvenient.”

Examples

• A review showed CRT-D devices reduced heart failure by 76% in women, data previously overlooked.
• In coronary stent trials, only 32% of participants were female.
• EU researchers cite cost as a barrier to studying women’s more “complex” hormonal systems.

7. The Economy Ignores Women’s Unpaid Work

GDP measurements neglect unpaid domestic labor, care work, and other essential contributions. These activities heavily support the workforce yet are invisible in economic assessments.

Unpaid work inflates household economic outputs. For instance, unpaid childcare in the US in 2012 valued at $3.2 trillion would’ve equated to 20% of the GDP. Unfortunately, excluding such work inhibits large-scale economic planning to reduce gender inequalities.

Recognizing unpaid labor’s value could drive policies like subsidized eldercare, enhancing female workforce participation. When commitment gaps decrease, economic output grows.

Examples

• Including unpaid work in UK GDP figures would increase it from £2.7 trillion to £3.9 trillion.
• $3.2 trillion of unpaid childcare in the US in 2012 matched 20% of the GDP.
• An Australian study found unpaid childcare constituted the country’s largest “industry.”

8. Women’s Political Presence Is Key to Change

With only 23.5% of global politicians being women, policy rarely reflects women’s concerns. Female politicians, however, focus more on women’s issues, such as child care, education, and social systems.

Women also face heightened abuse if they enter politics, discouraging participation. Many qualified candidates avoid taking office after observing the hostility women in power face online and offline.

Increasing women’s representation leads to improved policies. For instance, reserving council seats for women in India resulted in budgets prioritizing women’s needs.

Examples

• Female MPs in OECD countries advocated more for gender-sensitive infrastructure.
• Australian women reported avoiding politics due to fear of online harassment.
• India’s reserved council seats boosted female-driven infrastructural investments.

9. Gender Data Gaps Affect Everyone

Addressing gender gaps benefits society broadly, not just women. For example, investments in affordable social infrastructure create jobs and boost GDP. A two percent GDP investment in US social infrastructure would generate millions more jobs compared to construction investments.

When global GDP includes women’s potential contributions, it surges significantly. Closing the gap would mean $12 trillion in additional economic growth, underscoring the collective benefits of equal opportunity.

Policies that promote gender representation actively foster social and financial advantages, closing disparities and enhancing overall progress.

Examples

• Including women equally in employment boosts GDP by $12 trillion.
• Investments in social systems (e.g., eldercare) drive job growth beyond traditional industries.
• Social infrastructure allocations improve both employment and participation rates.

Takeaways

1. Actively gather women’s perspectives in every level of decision-making. Identify overlooked needs using surveys or focus groups.
2. Push for gender representation in leadership roles, including politics or infrastructure design. Advocate for balanced decision-makers across sectors.
3. Make women-aware choices in everyday systems, from product design to healthcare, ensuring their usability and inclusivity.