A world designed for men with a “just make it pink” mentality
(But let’s try to do better from now on.)
Today is March 8th, or International Women’s Day, and the entire month of March is to celebrate women’s history. Though it is always nice to be reminded of all the advancements women have made in infiltrating male-dominated industries and how women have continued to be so pivotal within society, it is disconcerting to see how much progress that still needs to be done before women can be fully equated in the “public sphere”. Many problems can be addressed here, but today, I am bringing up the issue regarding how design fails to fairly address and include women.
To give you some background about my expertise (if you can even call it that) in design, I am less than two months from completing my undergraduate degree in Industrial Design, so I am still a “newbie” and may still have a bit of artlessness in me. But as I am finishing up my degree, it has been rewarding to reflect on the many lessons I have been taught by my design professors as well as what I have learned through my design projects. However, through my reflections, I have also noticed how design can and should be improved by the next generation of designers. Before I even begin, I want to bring up how this topic has already been well-addressed, but I am so enraged by the concept and impassioned about changing it, I wanted to write my interpretation of the issue. My heated stance may be deemed controversial, but first, I ask you to hear me out.
With all that having been said, being a woman within industrial design, I have begun to notice a major flaw in design as I become more aware of the intentionality within products and branding: the vast amount of minor aggressions against fellow women through designs; whether they be everyday objects, to life-saving equipment, to even company branding.
Even while researching this issue, from the hundreds of Reddit comments ¹ and many blogs ² they led me to, I found myself stopping to think about the specifically named designs that I have also had difficulties with in the past. I thought it was just me who found it insanely burdensome while trying to pee in the bodily-specimen tube cup when having a drug screen test for my job. Only now realizing that all other women have the exact same problem as me. And all my life I have had to compromise and accommodate to certain designs to use them when they were supposed to be designed to eliminate my need to compromise in the first place. Because I have adapted to this issue so much, I barely even recognize this accommodation to poor design when it is slapping me in the face (or getting my urine all over my hand and not in the test cup).
In other words, design can be sexist. It can ignore women. It can exploit and even hypersexualize women.
Of course, not all design falls guilty to this accusation. Like tampons, since just about only women need and have a use for tampons. (Did you know that even tampons were designed by a man?!) But these “women only” designs, such as these tampons, are almost a rarity. But then again, even tampons are a showcase of this gender assumption in design: just throwing a shade of pink on a product because it is intended for women. This gender assumption simply does not excuse any specific product category or company brand into ostracizing women from having the comfortability, capability, or desire to use or be a part of a design, no matter what they are.
Moreover, the fact that a man can empathize and design for a woman, even if it is a tampon, makes me ask myself the question: is a male designer only designing for other men a form of pure naïve-ness from sheer privilege? Or is this design mentality of “just make it pink” actually intentional?
But before I continue, I should probably explain my interpretation of what constitutes a design, since there are so many different individual understandings, types, and specializations. To me personally, a design is anything one could use, complete any task or challenge with, obtain knowledge from, or even enjoy just having. So, this can range from that commercial you (have to) watch on Hulu before watching the latest documentary about Britney Spears, to the INSANE algorithm the Instagram app utilizes to customize what you see on your screen daily, to even the more simple products such as that classic coffee mug with your first name initial on the side.
All are designs. All serve a purpose. All are developed for a (special) user. Putting that aside for now, to me, the most important attribute is that a design be useable to its user. What is the point of a design if it cannot be used? Even more broadly, (and adding even more complexity to my understanding) a design can be anything tangible or intangible that gives its beholder any perception of meaning or value.
Moving forward, speaking as someone who has studied niche groups for school projects in order to create and develop a design for my chosen group and their needs, it is quite odd to think how women make up approximately half of the world’s population, yet many, many objects and products are designed without that entire group in mind. Especially in the instances when women are in fact within the group that uses the design. These designs are made for only men, and women are implicitly told they must adapt and deal with it. For example, think of how many products that all genders use that were only anthropometrically sized to fit men, like car seats and even smartphones. Do women not drive or ride in cars or use mobile phones?
Additionally, consider how the media favors men when it comes to product satisfaction or the overall message of even a television commercial, such as that Hardee’s commercial with Kate Upton stripping and slowly caressing herself while eating a patty melt that does not sexualize or objectify women at all (because all women totally eat sandwiches doing exactly that). Do women not also watch television and may eat from Hardee’s? Would these women not find that commercial offensive and objectifying, thus making them uncomfortable and maybe even agitated? “It definitely makes me want to give Hardee’s my business the next time I’m in the mood for burgers and fries”, says no feminist ever.
It is almost as if the designer, who approved one of these product’s dimension or finalized this commercial cut said, “Well, if it works for men, it works for me.” Not to mention, this said designer is also more than likely a man, since 81% of the industrial designers in the United States are men. ³ Well, to challenge that said designer’s assumption, if it only works for men, it probably is not the most useful design.
Of course, I am not just going to spill my observations and opinions about this sexism within design without providing and supporting them from hardcore evidence and examples. I am going to start off with the most chilling and unbelievable case in point. To me, the design with the most detrimental repercussions is the design of the CPR mannequin. When I picture my archetype for this particular design, I immediately visualize a mannequin with no breasts, or more plainly put, a male mannequin.
Though I have minimal instances of having to interact with a CPR mannequin, in all my experiences, I never encountered a female mannequin. This can pose significant problems for those who are CPR-certified and are dependent on when emergencies that require CPR are occurring. If someone who is CPR certified encounters a woman who needs recitation, but only ever practiced on a male mannequin, will this change in human anatomy cause this woman her life simply due to the mannequin design? It has been shown by a 2017 study from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine that men have a 23% increased chance of survival compared to women because of this fact of the lack of training on female CPR mannequins.² Just something to think about.
Very similar to these CPR mannequins, until 2012, car crash dummies that were based on the 50th percentile of the average male body were used to test for car crash injury severity for both men and women. ² Simply put, women, who are on average five inches shorter and weigh thirty pounds less than men in the United States ⁴, were also lumped into the 50th percentile of a male body crash dummy. Meaning, if this car crash dummy only received moderate injuries from a simulated car crash, it would be assumed that women would also only receive moderate injuries. But, as you might now think, women being smaller may have more detrimental effects compared to men when absorbing the impact from the car’s airbag and seat belt restraint. So, these moderate injuries sustained from the crash dummy may be more severe for women.
Because I drive a 2012 Toyota Rav4, which was more than likely crash-tested before more gender-appropriate car crash dummies were used, it truly scares me that improper and inaccurate safety tests and measurements were conducted to ensure the protection of me and my body during potential car accidents. Even speaking on the women crash dummies used now, it is claimed these dummies used to represent women are merely “scaled-down versions of the male dummies”, (but don’t forget adding the red lipstick though). This makes me question how reliable ANY information out there is with how a car crash with any brand or type of car will impact a woman and protect her from the crash impact.
This list of gender assumptions and “just make it pink” mentality in design goes on: ¹
There are car headrests not accommodating to certain women’s hairstyles, such as ponytails and buns, making long car rides uncomfortable as well as the risk created with women taking the headrest off the seat as a solution.
This same issue of women’s hairstyles not being accommodated to, can also be shown in hard hats that women in construction or even manufacturing must compromise for.
The problem of personal protection equipment (PPE), such as lab coats, not being sized properly for women and creating a safety hazard.
Heavy-duty work gloves, like Mechanix, only offering men sizing and forcing women to choose between gloves that will not fit or gardening gloves that will not offer that same level of protection (also these gardening gloves only being offered in the stereotypical pink and purple color spectrum…come on now).
Speaking of more heavy-duty jobs where women would need these work gloves, many power tools, such as sanders and chainsaws, are deemed too large for some women to use. Thus, risking safety for women to use it, but the solution to these complaints is to offer smaller power tools that are branded with pink color (we all know we have seen these at Home Depot).
Still on the subject of women infiltrating more male-dominated work fields, current military equipment still does not properly fit women, and these women are being told to manipulate and even cut out certain vital places within vests and gears that will then protect women to an even less degree and may even restrict them from being able to handle a weapon correctly.
Excluding women who take prescribed hormonal birth control pills within designed medical trials, when about 14% of women aged between 14 and 49 use the pill as their contraceptive method. ⁵
How about women trying to urinate within the urine specimen test tubes given as a part of a drug screening without getting their own urine all over their hands and around the tube itself…clearly designed with only men in mind.
This application can be shown even within architecture and interior designs with glass floors and staircases. Yes, these glass features are nice and cool, but how do you think a woman, who may be wearing a skirt or dress, feels walking on this glass knowing of the potential possibility of someone seeing her underwear from below.
Lastly, I have to bring this up. The awful injustices found within the sad excuses of pockets (some women’s pants even have FAKE pockets, that is, there is actual stitching on the pants that just make it look like the pants have pockets) that are found in women’s clothing and fashion.
All of these examples only brush on the subject of women not being considered within designs that are found in many common, everyday objects, as well as within male-dominated job fields where women are joining at exponential rates and slowly equalizing the gender balance of these field’s populations. Thus, it demonstrates how important it is to include more women within consumer research and development of products, wearables, and even traditional and digital advertising. Not only should this be implemented, we, as the next generation of designers, should normalize including more and more women into any consumer or user research study.
I could continue to travel down the path of how design within the mass media (Arby’s trademarked catchphrase STILL being “We have the meats.”), physical technology products (Apple continuously releasing bigger and bigger smartphones making it harder use for those with smaller hands), and wearable gear for sports (any women trying to find combat sports equipment that come in appropriate sizing and ISN’T pink) all marginalize, exploit, and ignore women from the R&D behind the design, but I think I have found a good stopping place.
But I also think it’s time design and designers also find this to be a good stopping place and begin to include women within all design.
These poor designs keep women out of doing things they want to do. They make them feel as if they do not belong. That they can never be a part of this product and brand simply because of their physical size, how they wear their hair, or even because their breasts are too large.
It is time that my age of designers do better from now on. Be more inclusive. Be more empathetic. Be more open-minded to maybe broadening the niche group from male to everyone. Paint over the gender assumption and “just make it pink” reasoning we find in current design. That is how change can be made, and I think my generation of designers are well-equipped for it. (Yes, “Invisible Women” by Caroline Criado-Perez is on my reading list!)
To close things off, here is a quote I use to help empathize with those I could never relate with, to help me understand, and to help keep things in perspective:
“Privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it’s not a problem to you personally.” -David Galder
[1]: The Reddit comment chain that 100% inspired me to write this blog. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/b9rrvr/what_everyday_objects_are_not_designed_with_women/
[2]: Ritu Prasad. (June 5 2019). Eight ways the world is not designed for women. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47725946
[3]: Ti Chang. (January 7 2021). Industrial Design: Why is it still a man’s world? https://www.core77.com/posts/103849/Industrial-Design-Why-Is-It-Still-a-Mans-World#:~:text=Closer%20to%20home%2C%20in%20the,%2C%20while%2019%25%20are%20female.
[4]: Statistics on average sizes on men and women in different countries. https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php
[5]: Statistics on contraceptive usage from the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/contraceptive.htm
