Thanks, Leah, for the review and for all the connections you've made to coalitional ideas between feminism and disability. You and readers might be interested in "visitability" (https://visitability.org/) as an architectural/social concept—retrofitting homes for some basic access, even if not full universal design. I love the elegance of this idea: taking the status quo and reworking its structures in a pragmatic way.
I love making food, especially baked goods and desserts, for friends with allergies and dietary restrictions. Honestly I like it so much that I think it borders on selfishness. I just live for the incredulous responses I get when a crowd of people realizes that dessert they were practically inhaling was 100% vegan.
I do think that being raised vegetarian has influenced my attitude towards others' dietary restrictions. I dislike it when a vegetarian dish is just a one-size-fits-all attempt to swap a meat protein with a vegetarian one, often without real thought towards taste. I always suggest to friends when making a dietary accommodation that they should go at it with the attitude of making something they love to eat that just happens to satisfy the accommodation. Chana masala with basmati rice is infinitely better as a vegan and gluten free dish than, say, a mushy vegetarian patty on a crumbling gluten free bun.
Thank you for your piece, Leah. As someone on the autism spectrum with an urban planning degree, this is something I think about. I notice the difference in physical objectives, but recently I have been wondering about other not necessarily physical city features, such as crosswalk timers. I do not have great motor skills, meaning I walk slower and a bit "off." Whenever I cross a busy intersection via foot with a timer counting down, I am keenly aware that I have limited time, especially when I have a purse or backpack with me. I've been wondering if there is any data on timers and whether they accommodate everyone's (or at least people with mobility issues) time needed to get across safely.
This is probably my benighted libertarian side speaking, but I worry about the idea of designing everything to work for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society--yes, even though I'm part of the weaker half. I think my concern specifically is a version of the law of unintended consequences.
In the case of disability design--or rather, since we're talking about women too, and we're not definitionally disabled--all-ability design?--in this context, I worry that we're talking ourselves into a much more expensive solution to a series of admittedly pervasive problems than we realize.
Take for instance the podium issue. To have a set of podiums that collectively accommodate all heights, from the enormous LeBron James to the petite Amanda, would be more expensive than having a single podium; an adjustable podium is more expensive than a non-adjustable podium. That's a relatively trivial matter, but then start thinking about the car crash dummy problem Leah raises in her linked talk. If dummies were designed to represent not only average men but also average women, we would no doubt ultimately be looking at safer cars--but also, due to the additional testing, design, and safety features, more expensive cars.
Even in the medical field, where it might seem that testing drugs on women as well as men is a no-brainer, the additional complexity of the female cycle and pregnancy probably means studies would need to be longer, more plentiful, etc.--and therefore more expensive, meaning that treatments and drugs are ultimately more expensive as well.
The increased costs of designing a society for everyone will, of course, ultimately be born by everyone, including those that such a society is supposed to help--just as the costs of the child tax credit (which my husband and I do appreciate!) ultimately show up in the inflation that is currently causing our grocery bills to balloon.
I'm not necessarily trying to argue that we shouldn't design a society that is more accommodating to women, the elderly, the disabled, etc. But it's important I think to bear in mind that this isn't a cost-free solution to the problem of being, well, human, and therefore different from one another. And maybe a better solution than trying to remake everything physically to suit everyone is for human beings themselves to be more accommodating. That's not going to solve the car safety problem, but it might help in less dramatic situations. If every house on my street had to put in a mandatory wheel chair ramp, that is not necessarily a better solution than people being willing to help each other up the two front steps on an as-needed basis. But of course, the interpersonal and design-based solutions are not mutually exclusive; in an ideal world, everything is designed to fit everybody, and everybody is kind!
Finally, I wonder if the desire for a world that everyone can navigate easily is not, in its own way, a kind of individualism. Yes, people should be thoughtful in producing their products--especially when they produce for groups that are different from themselves (e.g. men for women) or are otherwise in danger of being marginalized. But on the other hand, asking for a world physically designed so that I need never ask for help is asking for a world in which I don't need to interact with people who are (in the world as it exists) stronger and more able than me. That world is less scary for me to live in, and perhaps more convenient; but I'm not sure it's _better_ than an interdependent world. (Fun scifi concept there!)
kitchens all over the world are designed by men with counter heights, stove heights for men and not for the women who most typically use them. seat belts in automobiles are patently unsafe for pregnant women and are downright uncomfortable (and probably unsafe) for short women with large breasts. it was said that the minivan was designed for women. well the seatbelts are not. steering wheels - height and size - are better designed for men. as i grow older (and shorter), i find many things that i could formerly reach (at 5'4") are now literally out of reach without a stool or ladder. sure, i can get one, but these things should have not been put up so high to begin with. they were always a challenge for me to reach - but a younger person is safer on a stool or ladder (or box as in the case of the lectern). half the world is female. it's time to configure for AT LEAST that demographic in a spatial sense. and, after seeing the amazing ways that designers are now using space in RV's with many spaces serving multiple purposes, i feel sure they could easily build steps into a lectern or create a sturdy, light weight, collapsible one that would fit into a suitcase. i'd bet money on it.
"What accommodations have made you more aware that you aren’t welcome in a space by default?"
The world needed both the reminder that common infections that are usually no big deal for the healthy can be serious for those with risk factors and increased awareness of the truth, which is that airborne spread is a far more common means of transmission than we used to tell ourselves:
One of the great miracles of COVID restrictions, for example, was a net decrease in asthma severity, as asthmatics got time off from the merry-go-round of common infections to let their lungs heal:
I'm one of these asthmatics. But, perhaps due to an underlying connective-tissue disorder, perhaps also due to childbearing, my asthma and respiratory allergies aren't easy to control and I'm frequently symptomatic. Moreover, there's no way for me to tell these non-infectious symptoms apart from the first signs of coming down with something. Protecting vulnerable people like me is precisely why it's become more taboo to appear in public with respiratory symptoms. We are all more aware of infectious control now, and the burden to the vulnerable of casual disregard for it. But frustratingly, this means I also feel less welcome in public as one of these vulnerable people, since my vulnerability frequently shows itself as respiratory symptoms!
As parents of young schoolchildren, we're also exposed to a double helping of bugs this cold and flu season. Our household is as vaccinated as eligibility allows, but we're still catching plenty of stuff, which of course *increases* the likelihood any symptoms I have really are infectious. Before COVID, I was an active singer, including at church, but even in groups requiring singing masks and up-to-date vaccinations, I cannot in good conscience participate yet, especially if I know there are other medically-vulnerable people participating — and especially if those medically-vulnerable people include professional singers, whose livelihoods as well as health depend on not catching the symptoms I'd be showing up with (which may not be contagious, but then again may be).
I used to simply assume my symptoms were non-infectious unless I had clear evidence to the contrary, but now I keenly feel this burden of proof has been reversed. This reversal may be what's necessary to keep public spaces safe for the vulnerable, but I'm feeling the strain of the same increased awareness of vulnerable people like me also creating pressures which exclude me from public space!
I remember attending a music seminar in my university's seminary building when I was in undergrad. There were a lot of women attending the sessions, and bathrooms became a problem because nearly all the bathrooms in the building were for men; I think there might have been a single one-stall bathroom for women, but that was it. It was obvious that they did not expect women to be studying theology/ministry on the graduate level.
I'm a man almost totally blind since birth. It's worth discussingg the calls for high density housing as a solution to the housingg availability crisis in some areas. This will likely mean more stairs. Fewer ground floor apartments and one-story houses is an inconvenience for me, but a real disaster for people with other physical disabilities.
Shiffting topics, I would recommend Hello Darkness My Old Friend by Sandy Greenberg, a memoir of a man who became blind in college and was a roommate of Art Garfunkle from Simon and Garfunkle, for a sometimes startling take on the issue of passingg as able bodied. It's gradually revealed that he refused offers in standard mobility training practices. As a lifelongg cane user, I just don't understand this decision, but modern canes for the blind are pretty recent.
I love the example you highlighted of Amanda's podium, and the idea of treating people as a guest in their *own right*. The concept of accommodations that emphasize exclusion themselves is so important to highlight.
But I do wonder how to apply this concept to the feminist project? What are the tools and social expectations that specifically exclude 'women' vs exclude predominantly women but also a whole lot of other people too?
It's definitely part of the feminist project to dismantle the idea of a tall white man as the norm. But I'm wary of say, stating that providing childcare at a conference is specifically to accommodate women vs a celebration of all caregivers.
Thanks, Leah, for the review and for all the connections you've made to coalitional ideas between feminism and disability. You and readers might be interested in "visitability" (https://visitability.org/) as an architectural/social concept—retrofitting homes for some basic access, even if not full universal design. I love the elegance of this idea: taking the status quo and reworking its structures in a pragmatic way.
I love making food, especially baked goods and desserts, for friends with allergies and dietary restrictions. Honestly I like it so much that I think it borders on selfishness. I just live for the incredulous responses I get when a crowd of people realizes that dessert they were practically inhaling was 100% vegan.
I do think that being raised vegetarian has influenced my attitude towards others' dietary restrictions. I dislike it when a vegetarian dish is just a one-size-fits-all attempt to swap a meat protein with a vegetarian one, often without real thought towards taste. I always suggest to friends when making a dietary accommodation that they should go at it with the attitude of making something they love to eat that just happens to satisfy the accommodation. Chana masala with basmati rice is infinitely better as a vegan and gluten free dish than, say, a mushy vegetarian patty on a crumbling gluten free bun.
Thank you for your piece, Leah. As someone on the autism spectrum with an urban planning degree, this is something I think about. I notice the difference in physical objectives, but recently I have been wondering about other not necessarily physical city features, such as crosswalk timers. I do not have great motor skills, meaning I walk slower and a bit "off." Whenever I cross a busy intersection via foot with a timer counting down, I am keenly aware that I have limited time, especially when I have a purse or backpack with me. I've been wondering if there is any data on timers and whether they accommodate everyone's (or at least people with mobility issues) time needed to get across safely.
This is probably my benighted libertarian side speaking, but I worry about the idea of designing everything to work for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society--yes, even though I'm part of the weaker half. I think my concern specifically is a version of the law of unintended consequences.
In the case of disability design--or rather, since we're talking about women too, and we're not definitionally disabled--all-ability design?--in this context, I worry that we're talking ourselves into a much more expensive solution to a series of admittedly pervasive problems than we realize.
Take for instance the podium issue. To have a set of podiums that collectively accommodate all heights, from the enormous LeBron James to the petite Amanda, would be more expensive than having a single podium; an adjustable podium is more expensive than a non-adjustable podium. That's a relatively trivial matter, but then start thinking about the car crash dummy problem Leah raises in her linked talk. If dummies were designed to represent not only average men but also average women, we would no doubt ultimately be looking at safer cars--but also, due to the additional testing, design, and safety features, more expensive cars.
Even in the medical field, where it might seem that testing drugs on women as well as men is a no-brainer, the additional complexity of the female cycle and pregnancy probably means studies would need to be longer, more plentiful, etc.--and therefore more expensive, meaning that treatments and drugs are ultimately more expensive as well.
The increased costs of designing a society for everyone will, of course, ultimately be born by everyone, including those that such a society is supposed to help--just as the costs of the child tax credit (which my husband and I do appreciate!) ultimately show up in the inflation that is currently causing our grocery bills to balloon.
I'm not necessarily trying to argue that we shouldn't design a society that is more accommodating to women, the elderly, the disabled, etc. But it's important I think to bear in mind that this isn't a cost-free solution to the problem of being, well, human, and therefore different from one another. And maybe a better solution than trying to remake everything physically to suit everyone is for human beings themselves to be more accommodating. That's not going to solve the car safety problem, but it might help in less dramatic situations. If every house on my street had to put in a mandatory wheel chair ramp, that is not necessarily a better solution than people being willing to help each other up the two front steps on an as-needed basis. But of course, the interpersonal and design-based solutions are not mutually exclusive; in an ideal world, everything is designed to fit everybody, and everybody is kind!
Finally, I wonder if the desire for a world that everyone can navigate easily is not, in its own way, a kind of individualism. Yes, people should be thoughtful in producing their products--especially when they produce for groups that are different from themselves (e.g. men for women) or are otherwise in danger of being marginalized. But on the other hand, asking for a world physically designed so that I need never ask for help is asking for a world in which I don't need to interact with people who are (in the world as it exists) stronger and more able than me. That world is less scary for me to live in, and perhaps more convenient; but I'm not sure it's _better_ than an interdependent world. (Fun scifi concept there!)
kitchens all over the world are designed by men with counter heights, stove heights for men and not for the women who most typically use them. seat belts in automobiles are patently unsafe for pregnant women and are downright uncomfortable (and probably unsafe) for short women with large breasts. it was said that the minivan was designed for women. well the seatbelts are not. steering wheels - height and size - are better designed for men. as i grow older (and shorter), i find many things that i could formerly reach (at 5'4") are now literally out of reach without a stool or ladder. sure, i can get one, but these things should have not been put up so high to begin with. they were always a challenge for me to reach - but a younger person is safer on a stool or ladder (or box as in the case of the lectern). half the world is female. it's time to configure for AT LEAST that demographic in a spatial sense. and, after seeing the amazing ways that designers are now using space in RV's with many spaces serving multiple purposes, i feel sure they could easily build steps into a lectern or create a sturdy, light weight, collapsible one that would fit into a suitcase. i'd bet money on it.
"What accommodations have made you more aware that you aren’t welcome in a space by default?"
The world needed both the reminder that common infections that are usually no big deal for the healthy can be serious for those with risk factors and increased awareness of the truth, which is that airborne spread is a far more common means of transmission than we used to tell ourselves:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
One of the great miracles of COVID restrictions, for example, was a net decrease in asthma severity, as asthmatics got time off from the merry-go-round of common infections to let their lungs heal:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/07/the-pandemic-drove-asthma-attacks-down-why/619396/
I'm one of these asthmatics. But, perhaps due to an underlying connective-tissue disorder, perhaps also due to childbearing, my asthma and respiratory allergies aren't easy to control and I'm frequently symptomatic. Moreover, there's no way for me to tell these non-infectious symptoms apart from the first signs of coming down with something. Protecting vulnerable people like me is precisely why it's become more taboo to appear in public with respiratory symptoms. We are all more aware of infectious control now, and the burden to the vulnerable of casual disregard for it. But frustratingly, this means I also feel less welcome in public as one of these vulnerable people, since my vulnerability frequently shows itself as respiratory symptoms!
As parents of young schoolchildren, we're also exposed to a double helping of bugs this cold and flu season. Our household is as vaccinated as eligibility allows, but we're still catching plenty of stuff, which of course *increases* the likelihood any symptoms I have really are infectious. Before COVID, I was an active singer, including at church, but even in groups requiring singing masks and up-to-date vaccinations, I cannot in good conscience participate yet, especially if I know there are other medically-vulnerable people participating — and especially if those medically-vulnerable people include professional singers, whose livelihoods as well as health depend on not catching the symptoms I'd be showing up with (which may not be contagious, but then again may be).
I used to simply assume my symptoms were non-infectious unless I had clear evidence to the contrary, but now I keenly feel this burden of proof has been reversed. This reversal may be what's necessary to keep public spaces safe for the vulnerable, but I'm feeling the strain of the same increased awareness of vulnerable people like me also creating pressures which exclude me from public space!
Incredible talks - thanks for sharing the video!
I remember attending a music seminar in my university's seminary building when I was in undergrad. There were a lot of women attending the sessions, and bathrooms became a problem because nearly all the bathrooms in the building were for men; I think there might have been a single one-stall bathroom for women, but that was it. It was obvious that they did not expect women to be studying theology/ministry on the graduate level.
I'm a man almost totally blind since birth. It's worth discussingg the calls for high density housing as a solution to the housingg availability crisis in some areas. This will likely mean more stairs. Fewer ground floor apartments and one-story houses is an inconvenience for me, but a real disaster for people with other physical disabilities.
Shiffting topics, I would recommend Hello Darkness My Old Friend by Sandy Greenberg, a memoir of a man who became blind in college and was a roommate of Art Garfunkle from Simon and Garfunkle, for a sometimes startling take on the issue of passingg as able bodied. It's gradually revealed that he refused offers in standard mobility training practices. As a lifelongg cane user, I just don't understand this decision, but modern canes for the blind are pretty recent.
I love the example you highlighted of Amanda's podium, and the idea of treating people as a guest in their *own right*. The concept of accommodations that emphasize exclusion themselves is so important to highlight.
But I do wonder how to apply this concept to the feminist project? What are the tools and social expectations that specifically exclude 'women' vs exclude predominantly women but also a whole lot of other people too?
It's definitely part of the feminist project to dismantle the idea of a tall white man as the norm. But I'm wary of say, stating that providing childcare at a conference is specifically to accommodate women vs a celebration of all caregivers.