The masculine standards of life

Who shaped the modern world we live in? Who wrote the laws, planned the cities, and drew the boundaries of scientific research? More importantly, what kind of human was taken as the basis while all this was being done? When we look at the foundation of the modern world, we mostly encounter the same figure: The white male.

For centuries, men who held political, economic, and scientific power to a large extent, especially in Western societies, did not just make the decisions; they also determined what would be considered normal, standard, and universal. The male body was accepted as the measure of the human body; it was assumed that its physical characteristics, needs, and experiences represented the entirety of society. Women, on the other hand, were seen as a group outside this standard, whose differences had to be accounted for later. Yet, women were not an exception to humanity, but approximately half of it.

We are often not even aware of the extent to which this approach affects our daily lives. From the medicines we use to the cars we drive, from protective equipment in workplaces to countless details of daily life, we encounter traces of the same mindset.

The problem was not that women are different from men, but that the male body was mistaken for the human body itself.

For example, when the effect of a drug on humans is being researched, which body is taken as the basis?

It may sound unbelievable today; however, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted a policy in 1977 that severely restricted the participation of women of childbearing potential in early-stage drug research. This approach was only changed in 1993. The justifications included hormonal variability and potential pregnancy risks. However, the exclusion of women from research also brought with it significant gaps in knowledge regarding the effects of drugs on the female body. Because the same drug does not always work the same way in female and male bodies; absorption, metabolism, and even side effects can differ.

Even smartphones are not outside this debate. As screens get larger, one-handed use can become difficult. Hand size and the reach of fingers affect how comfortably a phone can be used. So, how much are different hand sizes taken into account when technology is being designed?

A similar problem appears in occupational safety equipment. From masks used in hospitals to hard hats on construction sites, from gloves to protective vests, male body measurements were the determining factor in the design of many pieces of equipment for a long time. Female workers, on the other hand, have had to work with equipment that was too big for them, restricted their movements, and sometimes even reduced their level of protection.

The office temperature debate is also one of the interesting examples of this. The history of the thermal comfort calculations used today dates back to the 1960s. The metabolic values taken as the basis in these models were based on the characteristics of an average man. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2015 revealed that this approach could overestimate women's metabolic rates. In other words, the problem of a woman feeling cold in the office may not always be a personal sensitivity; the comfort model used itself may not represent everyone sufficiently.

However, the issue is not limited to designs that make our daily lives easier or harder. Sometimes the consequences of these standards directly concern our safety as well. For example, automobiles...

The safety of the automobiles we use every day, which carry our families and loved ones, was also tested primarily based on the male body for many years. The primary dummy used in crash tests represented a man approximately 175 centimeters tall and weighing 78 kilograms. Smaller dummies representing women, meanwhile, were often based on a smaller male body rather than the unique characteristics of female anatomy.

Automobile manufacturers were measuring safety; but whose safety?

Think about it: Two people getting into the same car, wearing the same seatbelt, and experiencing the same accident—one is a woman, the other a man. We assume both are protected to the same degree. Yet, research shows that this is not always the case.

Traffic safety research conducted in the US reveals that in some types of crashes, women carry a higher risk of injury compared to men. Moreover, this difference does not stem only from height and weight differences; vehicle design, seating positions, and the safety systems used can also affect the outcomes.

Therefore, an automobile passing safety tests successfully does not mean it provides the same level of protection for everyone.

So, can this situation be changed?

The work of the Swedish automobile manufacturer Volvo offers a remarkable answer to this question.

Volvo has been studying real traffic accidents since 1970; it researches how people are injured, and how body characteristics and different crash conditions affect the outcomes. With the E.V.A. (Equal Vehicles for All) initiative it launched in 2019, the company opened the safety research it had collected over the years to the use of the industry. According to research covering more than 50 thousand accidents and more than 80 thousand people, announced in October 2026, the overall risk of injury for female drivers has decreased by 88% when comparing 1970s Volvo models with 2010s models.

This result does not mean that automobiles are now equally safe for everyone. However, it shows how much safety technologies can develop over time. What is remarkable in Volvo's approach is the inclusion of women and people with different body characteristics in the research during this development process.

Today, new crash test dummies that represent female anatomy more realistically are being developed. However, the real issue is not just producing new dummies; it is making these models an integral part of safety tests and automobile design. Because safety is not achieved only by complying with standards; it is also necessary to question who those standards represent.

Actually, the whole issue starts here. For years, when a single human body measurement was accepted as the standard, other people not fitting this measurement were evaluated as if it were their deficiency. Yet, what was lacking was not the people, but the standards that did not sufficiently account for them. Moreover, the subject is not limited only to women; children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and people with different physical characteristics can also fall outside standard definitions in a similar way.

True progress in science and technology is not just about producing faster cars, more effective drugs, or more advanced systems. It is also about being able to question who these developments are designed for. Because a person's safety, health, and right to life should not depend on how well they fit another person's body measurements.

And perhaps we no longer need to redefine the “standard human,” but rather question whether such a standard human exists at all.