women don’t reduce combat effectiveness. women who are forced to conform to standards only designed for men reduce combat effectiveness. a thread:

first off, if you think the solution to this problem is that women shouldn’t serve, you’re basically saying we shouldn’t fix a broken system and we should exclude half of the population from military service because... you’re lazy?

so let’s talk about SEATBELTS. my brother brought this up the other day and it was a great reminder of how I, even in 2020, live in a world that wasn’t built for me and impacts me in ways I don’t even notice. seatbelts are a great example of something designed by men, for men.

crash dummies are supposed to represent an “average” person, but because they were standardized in the 1970s, that actually means they’re 170lbs, 5’9” and MALE. (we’ll come back to the fact that the average american male is heavier than that today, so remember that)

female dummies were made around the same time, but they’re grossly inaccurate and were designed so only 5% of american women are smaller than the dummy. they’re frequently used as stand-ins for children. here’s a comparison:

so what does this mean? well since we historically haven’t had tests to gauge how women occupants fare in accidents, safety measures don’t protect them equally. and that means women are more likely to be killed or injured in car crashes because their bodies are different from men

female drivers and passengers are 47% more likely to be seriously injured, 71% more likely to be moderately injured, and 17% more likely to die in car crashes. and that’s even when researchers control for factors like height, weight, seatbelt usage, and crash intensity

men outnumber women by a ratio of 3 to 1 in vehicle fatalities. men drive 50% more than women, and about 5,000 more miles annually, but women comprise 25% of all driver fatalities, and 50% of all passenger fatalities.

women are shorter and sit closer to the steering wheel. they have less neck/upper torso muscle so they’re more vulnerable to whiplash. don’t even get me STARTED on pregnant women. but none of this is accounted for in crash testing because the standard was designed by men, for men

the US didn’t start using female crash dummies until !! 2011 !! and suddenly safety standards started falling like crazy since cars had never been forced to protect female bodies in the same way that they protected male bodies (but it’s still not a requirement for safety testing)

remember how men weigh more on average now? since female crash dummy inclusion began to make waves, some design have now begun focusing more on protecting the cab as a whole, including crumple points and air bags to protect individuals in the vehicle regardless of their size.

it’s almost as if the conversation of protecting people who deviate from the arbitrarily established “norm” is actually benefiting everyone, even men.

now think about female service members. think about how literally every single piece of equipment they use has been designed by men, for men. their body armor! their boots! their helmets! their seatbelts! hell, even their hairstyles!

men aren’t the pinnacle of combat effectiveness. but after decades of building equipment to support their bodies and creating doctrine to protect their advantages, there’s a lot women want to fight for so we can be as effective as possible too.

if you don’t think making the military a safer place for women is a priority, you’re wrong. for years women have clambered their way to the table and STILL made valuable contributions. it’s time to start clearing their path so they don’t need to fight so hard to have a seat.

we want to do our jobs well, we just need the tools to do so. stop whining and moaning about how the military is going “soft” and maybe think for a minute about how the scrutiny with which women are looking at change might actually help you too and improve the force for everyone

// end thread :)