Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men

situation, as women’s stride length decreases as loads increase, while men’s stride length doesn’t show ‘significant change’.⁴⁷ This may go some way towards explaining US research which found that a women’s risk of injury increases fivefold if she is carrying more than 25% of her body weight.⁴⁸ If packs were created for women’s bodies, heavy loads might not be such a problem, but they haven’t been. Women are more likely to find that rucksacks (which ‘have been designed primarily based on the anthropometry of men’) are unstable, that pistol belts fit poorly, and that pack straps are uncomfortable.⁴⁹ Studies suggest that a ‘well-padded hip belt allows a better transfer of the load to the hips’ so women can use their stronger leg muscles to carry the load⁵⁰ – while men’s upper body strength is on average 50% higher than women’s, the average gap in lower body strength is about half that. Instead, women compensate for packs built around typically male upper body strength by hyperextending their necks and bringing their shoulders farther forward, leading to injury – and a shorter stride length.

It’s not just packs that aren’t created to accommodate women’s bodies. It wasn’t until 2011, thirty-five years after women were first admitted to US military academies, that the first uniforms were designed that accounted for women’s hips and breasts.⁵¹ The uniforms also included repositioned knee pads to account for women’s generally shorter legs, and, perhaps most exciting of all for a general audience, a redesigned crotch: these uniforms reportedly abandoned the ‘universal’ zippered fly, instead being designed in such a way that women can pee without pulling down their trousers. But even though the existence of female bodies has finally been recognised by the US military, gaps remain: boots designed to accommodate women’s typically narrower feet and higher arches were not included in the uniform changes. According to the Washington Times, the US Army buys ‘different boot styles for hot and cold weather, mountain and desert warfare and the rain’.⁵² Just not for the atypical sex.

The peeing issue is a recurring one for women who have to spend any length of time outdoors. In the UK all coastguards are issued with a set of one-piece overalls which they are meant to put on underneath various other pieces of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as foul-weather clothing, life jackets and climbing harnesses. The double zip at the front of the overalls is great if you are a man, but, explained one woman in a 2017 Trades Union Congress (TUC) report, peeing becomes a ‘major operation’ for women as all the PPE must be stripped off, followed by the overalls themselves.⁵³ ‘As the type of incidents which we are called to regularly involve long searches which can last for many hours,’ she explains, ‘you can imagine the discomfort which female coastguards end up having to experience as a result. It has been suggested to management that the current overalls should be replaced with a two-piece garment which would allow the trousers to be pulled down without having to remove the top section, and while management have acknowledged the advantage of this idea nothing has so far been done to implement it.’

A female scientist studying climate change in Alaska was also plagued by overalls designed for the male body.⁵⁴ The extreme cold means that overalls are the most sensible thing to wear – but, again, these come with a zip. Where there are indoor toilets, this would be inconvenient and require additional time spent taking off clothes from jacket downwards just for a pee. But when there is no indoor toilet, the problem is much more serious as frostbite becomes a concern. The woman in question bought a rubber funnelled approximation of a penis to deal with the problem – and ended up peeing all over herself. Why can’t a woman be more like a man?

In the UK, employers are legally required to provide well-maintained PPE to workers free of charge. But most PPE is based on the sizes and characteristics of male populations from Europe and the US. The TUC found that employers often think that when it comes to female workers all they need to do to comply with this legal requirement is to buy smaller sizes.⁵⁵ A 2009 survey by the Women’s Engineering Society found 74% of PPE was designed for men.⁵⁶ A 2016 Prospect Union survey of women working in sectors ranging from the emergency services, to construction, via the energy industry, found that just 29% wore PPE designed for women,⁵⁷ while a 2016 TUC report found that ‘less than 10% of women working in the energy sector and just 17% in construction currently wear PPE designed for women’.⁵⁸ One rail-industry worker summed it up: ‘Size small is a) a rarity, b) men’s small only.’

This ‘unisex approach’ to PPE can lead to ‘significant problems’, cautions the TUC. Differences in chests, hips and thighs can affect the way the straps fit on safety harnesses. The use of a ‘standard’ US male face shape for dust, hazard and eye masks means they don’t fit most women (as well as a lot of black and minority ethnic men). Safety boots can also be a problem. One female police officer told the TUC about trying to get boots designed for female crime scene investigators. ‘The PPE boots supplied are the same as those for males,’ she explains, ‘and the females find them uncomfortable, too heavy, and causing pressure on the Achilles tendons. Our uniform stores refused to address the matter.’

This isn’t just about comfort. Ill-fitting PPE hampers women’s work – and can, ironically, sometimes itself be a safety hazard. NYCOSH points out that loose clothing and gloves can get caught in machinery, while overly large boots can cause tripping.⁵⁹ Of those surveyed for the 2016 Prospect survey, 57% reported that their PPE ‘sometimes or significantly hampered their work’;⁶⁰ over 60% said the same in the Women’s Engineering Society survey. One rail-industry worker explained that the ‘regular’ size thirteen gloves she was issued