The odds of serious injury or death for female car crash victims is 73 percent higher than for males

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Okay. Firstly, one single study does not a whole story make:

One of my key points, ironic considering I've probably linked more studies from UMich alone than the sum total of studies from UVA in this entire thread. But go on...

not least because there are a lot of other countries in the world.

A lot of other countries in the world with varying standards for vehicle safety, road construction and maintenance, and record-keeping for data relating to transportation, you mean. Also ironic, considering as far as I've noticed I'm one of two people in the thread to have posted data and studies from outside the US (the UK study I posted on the first page).

Also, mileage is not necessarily the best measure - time spent driving may be a more useful one.

Well, then you'll have to take that up with the NHTSA, because that's their metric.

Secondly, the characteristics of crashes become important. Getting T-boned in a city pulling out from a junction is likely to occur at low speed and not involve serious injury. A head-on collision from an unsafe overtaking manoeuver or swerving off the road into a tree at 60mph on a country road is likely to have much more drastic consequences.

So, the UMich study I just linked actually does that, at least in terms of angle and location of collision. In fact, one of their key suppositions based upon their findings was that women aren't [EDIT: Typo. My fault.] uniquely disadvantaged in certain collision types, due to reduced stature (as a class) negatively affecting visibility.

I don't think people are claiming driving is deadlier to women than men. They're arguing cars and their safety features are less favourable to women than they are to men.

Which literally means driving is deadlier to women than men.

Men manage to get killed and severely injured in much greater numbers mostly through their own behaviours.

Citation please. "Men are more likely to engage in riskier behavior" != "men die more because of risky behavior".

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Don't worry, feminists are already designing new seats that do a much better job at protecting women from danger. Granted that danger is seeing a man sitting with his legs slightly ajar, but aren't microaggressions like manspreading far more damaging to women as a whole than petty concerns like vehicular safety in our patriarchal society?

 

[Saelune]

Kinda like how if dudes stopped wearing heavy wool suits in office buildings, businesses could save money on air conditioning and the average woman that worked for them would be more comfortable.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html]?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Kinda like how if dudes stopped wearing heavy wool suits in office buildings, businesses could save money on air conditioning and the average woman that worked for them would be more comfortable.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html]?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on 'problems' like office thermostats and manspreading is actually its own problem because they can make the people complaining about them seem so...privileged. All it does is remind me of the "first world problems" meme from way back when. It can undermine feminist efforts to solve far more serious problems in the fight for gender equality by making them come off as having run out of anything of substance to complain about. It isn't about not being able to attack more than one problem at a time or relative privation, but almost something more akin to crying wolf, that people will take your claims of oppression less seriously if "My office is slightly colder than I would prefer" is even in your top 100 list of examples that change needs to be made.

 

[Saelune]

Kinda like how if dudes stopped wearing heavy wool suits in office buildings, businesses could save money on air conditioning and the average woman that worked for them would be more comfortable.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html]?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on 'problems' like office thermostats and manspreading is actually its own problem because they can make the people complaining about them seem so...privileged. All it does is remind me of the "first world problems" meme from way back when. It can undermine feminist efforts to solve far more serious problems in the fight for gender equality by making them come off as having run out of anything of substance to complain about. It isn't about not being able to attack more than one problem at a time or relative privation, but almost something more akin to crying wolf, that people will take your claims of oppression less seriously if "My office is slightly colder than I would prefer" is even in your top 100 list of examples that change needs to be made.

Dismissing sexism as trivial as 2 degrees of temperature is sexist.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Kinda like how if dudes stopped wearing heavy wool suits in office buildings, businesses could save money on air conditioning and the average woman that worked for them would be more comfortable.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html]?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on 'problems' like office thermostats and manspreading is actually its own problem because they can make the people complaining about them seem so...privileged. All it does is remind me of the "first world problems" meme from way back when. It can undermine feminist efforts to solve far more serious problems in the fight for gender equality by making them come off as having run out of anything of substance to complain about. It isn't about not being able to attack more than one problem at a time or relative privation, but almost something more akin to crying wolf, that people will take your claims of oppression less seriously if "My office is slightly colder than I would prefer" is even in your top 100 list of examples that change needs to be made.

Dismissing sexism as trivial as 2 degrees of temperature is sexist.

I didn't dismiss sexism as 2 degrees of temperature. I dismissed that 2 degrees of temperature was sexist. That's exactly what I was pointing to as the problem. When fighting sexism is equated with fighting for slightly higher office temperatures, fighting sexism is made to appear trivial, because the matter of the office thermostat is trivial. I don't want fighting sexism to be perceived as trivial because it isn't, but when feminists or whoever else claims to be fighting against sexism focuses on these trivial matters they make the fight against sexism seem like a fight over trivial matters.

 

[Saelune]

Kinda like how if dudes stopped wearing heavy wool suits in office buildings, businesses could save money on air conditioning and the average woman that worked for them would be more comfortable.

YEAH! Stupid sexist men and their sexist corporate-mandated dress codes! Stupid corporations and their sexist...ADA compliance [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html]?!? Why don't workers with disabilities that include heat sensitivity and respiratory problems just get heat stroke and die to preserve women workers' God-given right to not put on a cardigan, by God!

You guys ever want to question why I'm so ardently anti-feminist and anti-social justice in its current social media-age form, refer back to this post.

Ignoring problems is a problem. You seem to be showing a pattern.

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on 'problems' like office thermostats and manspreading is actually its own problem because they can make the people complaining about them seem so...privileged. All it does is remind me of the "first world problems" meme from way back when. It can undermine feminist efforts to solve far more serious problems in the fight for gender equality by making them come off as having run out of anything of substance to complain about. It isn't about not being able to attack more than one problem at a time or relative privation, but almost something more akin to crying wolf, that people will take your claims of oppression less seriously if "My office is slightly colder than I would prefer" is even in your top 100 list of examples that change needs to be made.

Dismissing sexism as trivial as 2 degrees of temperature is sexist.

I didn't dismiss sexism as 2 degrees of temperature. I dismissed that 2 degrees of temperature was sexist. That's exactly what I was pointing to as the problem. When fighting sexism is equated with fighting for slightly higher office temperatures, fighting sexism is made to appear trivial, because the matter of the office thermostat is trivial. I don't want fighting sexism to be perceived as trivial because it isn't, but when feminists or whoever else claims to be fighting against sexism focuses on these trivial matters they make the fight against sexism seem like a fight over trivial matters.

The problem is tons of sexism and bigotry has just become so normalized and in-grained that even mentioning it makes too many people flip their shit. Instead of taking a step back to actually truly consider the deeper problems, people want to just dismiss it as trivial complaining instead of having actual discussion about it.

 

[Agema]

One of my key points, ironic considering I've probably linked more studies from UMich alone than the sum total of studies from UVA in this entire thread. But go on...

Of course, one of the simplest measures is also arguably average cost for car insurance; the implication being that lower car insurance prices indicates fewer, or less severe, crashes. Insurance companies might not be publishing their data, but they're sure as hell using data to inform their prices.

A lot of other countries in the world with varying standards for vehicle safety, road construction and maintenance, and record-keeping for data relating to transportation, you mean. Also ironic, considering as far as I've noticed I'm one of two people in the thread to have posted data and studies from outside the US (the UK study I posted on the first page).

The standards of vehicle safety, road construction and maintenance and record keeping will be relatively similar across the developed world. Sure, you don't necessarily want to compare the USA with India and Vietnam, but...

Well, then you'll have to take that up with the NHTSA, because that's their metric.

Probably because it's easiest to reliably measure (as cars have milometers), and it's better than not recording anything at all.

So, the UMich study I just linked actually does that, at least in terms of angle and location of collision. In fact, one of their key suppositions based upon their findings was that women aren't [EDIT: Typo. My fault.] uniquely disadvantaged in certain collision types, due to reduced stature (as a class) negatively affecting visibility.

Yes, I read that. And whilst it implies they aren't disadvantaged in certain collision types, they may well be in others. Other studies clearly suggest reduced stature causes visibility disadvantages.

I don't think people are claiming driving is deadlier to women than men. They're arguing cars and their safety features are less favourable to women than they are to men.

Which literally means driving is deadlier to women than men.

No, it doesn't. Driving is deadlier to men, because more men die from driving (absolute and relative to distance travelled).

Men manage to get killed and severely injured in much greater numbers mostly through their own behaviours.

Citation please. "Men are more likely to engage in riskier behavior" != "men die more because of risky behavior".

Would you also require a citation for the sun rising in the east every morning? "Risky behaviour" is entirely straightforward to explain increased fatalities when considering human interactions with large, heavy, high velocity lumps of metal.

To be more specific, we're not even talking about men in their entirety, of course, but under-30-year-old yahoos getting a buzz or trying to impress their mates.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Don't worry, feminists are already designing new seats that do a much better job at protecting women from danger. Granted that danger is seeing a man sitting with his legs slightly ajar, but aren't microaggressions like manspreading far more damaging to women as a whole than petty concerns like vehicular safety in our patriarchal society?

Ok, show of hands. How many people on this forum have heard anyone mention manspreading in the last 3 years that wasn't a strawman attacking feminism?

For that matter, how many people on this forum have heard anyone say that manspreading was a serious feminist issue at all? Last time I asked, there was one person who once heard that from one other person one time.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Don't worry, feminists are already designing new seats that do a much better job at protecting women from danger. Granted that danger is seeing a man sitting with his legs slightly ajar, but aren't microaggressions like manspreading far more damaging to women as a whole than petty concerns like vehicular safety in our patriarchal society?

Ok, show of hands. How many people on this forum have heard anyone mention manspreading in the last 3 years that wasn't a strawman attacking feminism?

For that matter, how many people on this forum have heard anyone say that manspreading was a serious feminist issue at all? Last time I asked, there was one person who once heard that from one other person one time.

There was a time I was with you. I genuinely thought that the manspreading thing was something one wacko said that anti-feminists jumped on and blew out of proportion. I still believe that's how it started. But then feminists kept doubling down on it. My personal theory is that feminists didn't want to cede any ground to their detractors so rather than just letting the ridiculous notion die they decided to come up with arguments as to why manspreading is actually a legitimate and serious issue to walk out when someone brought up manspreading to mock them and then a select few actually started to believe it. Just recently there was the story of the woman who won some awards for designing anti-manspreading chairs that blew up to be mocked and memed. And that's my point, for many men and women the only times they hear about feminism doing anything these days is when stories of feminists focusing on something like manspreading or sexist air conditioning go viral for being ridiculous, morphing the public perception of feminism in a negative way.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Of course, one of the simplest measures is also arguably average cost for car insurance; the implication being that lower car insurance prices indicates fewer, or less severe, crashes. Insurance companies might not be publishing their data, but they're sure as hell using data to inform their prices.

Women paying less for insurance than men on average is a misconception [https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/02/12/517466.htm], as newer studies found. Only in the teen and young adult categories do men pay more than women, on average.

You're attributing positive intent to companies where, quite frankly, there is little if any. Insurance companies' interest is in maximizing profit, and they're going to charge as much as they can get away with. If data allows them to reach that point, bully for them, but likewise for gender stereotypes. Likewise you forget data, when applicable, won't be based upon outcome for the driver, but rather profitability for the company. It's the same deal that goes into vehicle recall calculus; the decision to recall isn't based upon vehicle safety, but rather potential cost to the manufacturer.

The standards of vehicle safety, road construction and maintenance and record keeping will be relatively similar across the developed world. Sure, you don't necessarily want to compare the USA with India and Vietnam, but...

Funny enough, it's probably more apt to compare the USA to India or Vietnam than Eurozone countries. The US being a first-world country with a third-world infrastructure is no joke, especially when it comes to maintenance standards.

Yes, I read that. And whilst it implies they aren't disadvantaged in certain collision types, they may well be in others. Other studies clearly suggest reduced stature causes visibility disadvantages.

Indeed other studies have, and this is why discussion of non-belt safety devices matters -- for example, the gendered impact of side and rear visibility devices. However, relative to the study, the unexpected high gender disparity in accidents where the at-fault party collides with another vehicle in an attempt to merge (left vs. right) suggests there are factors other than visibility problems at play as the results contradict what one would expect otherwise.

No, it doesn't. Driving is deadlier to men, because more men die from driving (absolute and relative to distance travelled).

See, you're arguing reality. That's fine. I'm taking issue with the reasoning of "once you control for reality, driving is deadlier to women". Savvy?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I think that the thermostat being set to 72 instead of 74 is a problem that can safely be ignored...

Actually, I disagree. I believe it to be a "problem" that should be called out, vocally and vociferously, each time it occurs. Notice the response when I pointed out ADA guidelines.

Heat intolerance is a common symptom of disabilities, age, certain pharmaceutical regimes, and other health problems. So much so, that air conditioning is specifically mentioned by name under ADA guidelines for reasonable accommodation and cause for job-protected leave in the event of an employer being temporarily unable to reasonably accommodate workers. This is a matter of accommodating and protecting workers with disabilities, but good luck getting people to acknowledge this.

Naturally, this goes conveniently ignored in order to sawmill about how problematically problematic my problems are. By people who are griping about casual dismissal of others' issues. And I'm sure this will be met, reflexively, by an accusation I really just want to bash feminists and don't really care about disabled people's safety. Regardless of whatever I may have going on, or my lived experience. I really don't feel I should point out the solipsism, chauvinism, and complete lack of introspection it takes to get to that point of view, but regardless here we are.

Nope, none of that matters. Young, able-bodied, white-collar women are cold, dammit!

 

[Agema]

Women paying less for insurance than men on average is a misconception [https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/02/12/517466.htm], as newer studies found. Only in the teen and young adult categories do men pay more than women, on average.

It would be more useful to refer to the last part of my post, noting the particularly high risk of younger males.

You're attributing positive intent to companies where, quite frankly, there is little if any. Insurance companies' interest is in maximizing profit, and they're going to charge as much as they can get away with.

And yet they are also restrained by competition, which compels prices down under threat of being undercut.

Funny enough, it's probably more apt to compare the USA to India or Vietnam than Eurozone countries. The US being a first-world country with a third-world infrastructure is no joke, especially when it comes to maintenance standards.

I've been to both the USA and India. I can assure you the road quality in the USA is, on average, vastly better.

See, you're arguing reality. That's fine. I'm taking issue with the reasoning of "once you control for reality, driving is deadlier to women". Savvy?

No. You're making a point which doesn't tackle the core unfairness pointed out which is that car safety features have favoured men and to some extent still do. As previously stated: equality should suggest that a man and a woman exposed to the same incident should ideally have the same outcome. An argument that there's unfairness against men when they voluntarily put themselves into danger (under no pressure to do so) is a very tough ask. At best, where you have tackled it, you have basically got no further than "it's not as bad as it might seem".

don't want fighting sexism to be perceived as trivial because it isn't, but when feminists or whoever else claims to be fighting against sexism focuses on these trivial matters they make the fight against sexism seem like a fight over trivial matters.

Honestly, I think some things like manspreading are much more humour than they are serious complaint. Feminists are allowed humour.

Office temperature is however a bit of an issue. Although I would generally think office temperatures are better set at the lower end because whilst it's easy to make oneself warmer with more clothing, it is much less practical to make oneself cooler with equivalent tactics - office dress codes and public decency and all.

 

[Silvanus]

So, you see, when someone makes a series of declarative, imperative, and/or interrogative sentences to persuade an audience towards or against a certain point of view, this is called an "argument". "Arguments" are typically supported by [...]

Jesus, what incredible condescension. I'm happy to discuss it if you want to talk like an adult.

So, what I did was read the article, think to myself "this fails the smell test, let's dig a little deeper". Lo and behold, I found information that recontextualizes UVA's claims from the form presented by the Jezebel author! Then I looked into outside sources.

What you did was criticise the Jezebel author for drawing a conclusion (you deemed) unsupported by the data (which is fair enough).

You then drew another conclusion of your own, though yours was directly contradicted by the data and by the study's explicit conclusions-- and then (hypocritically) criticised Jezebel for not reporting it as a possibility, even though to do so would be dangerously irresponsible.