"Women are living in a physical world that is too often designed without them in mind"
Product design desperately needs to drop the notion that things can be made based on an "average-sized" human being, writes Karen Korellis Reuther.
Female firefighters arrive at the scene of a fire ready to fight flames, but find themselves fighting with their gear. En route, they are taping their too-large gloves around their wrists to keep them from falling off. They walk with their toes elevated just to keep their poorly fitting boots on.
Their most critical piece of equipment, the SCBA (self-contained breathing apparatus), sits higher on women than intended due to their hip structure. The higher-sitting SCBAs can then bump the backs of their "standard-issue" helmets (also too large), knocking them forward and obstructing their vision. An improperly fitting helmet can break the airtight seal of this breathing lifeline – risking exposure to smoke, heat and toxic gases.
Women may not always notice the extent to which their physical ecosystem is ill-fitting
Female firefighters experience a four-times-greater rate of injury, often with lifelong consequences, compared to their male counterparts. And we can reasonably attribute partial cause to personal protective equipment that doesn't fit.
Women and men inhabit the same world, yet it doesn't suit them equally. Women may not always notice the extent to which their physical ecosystem is ill-fitting, as they've become so accustomed to discomfort that it is accepted as fact.
From what women put on their bodies to what their bodies interact with and the environment that surrounds them, women are frequently left behind as a result of living in a physical world that is too often designed without them in mind. A world mostly designed by men, for men.
As a designer, I know it doesn't need to be this way. Opportunities for improvement abound once we recognise one size does not fit all, acknowledge women are not simply smaller men, and stop minimising their distinct physicality.
The promise of a safe, hospitable, and comfortable built world starts with dismissing the myth that designing to a male standard is sufficient. It's not; it's how we got here.
To understand these male standards, we must look to human factors – specifically anthropometrics (body measurement) and ergonomics (human interaction with the man-made world). Design for the human body spans millennia; the ancient Greeks used ergonomic principles in the design of tools and places.
When proportions map to a male-based bell curve, women land at the margins
In the 1830s, Adolphe Quetelet collected massive amounts of data to build his statistical model of "normal". In his A Treatise on Man and the Development of his Faculties, he calculated an average using only male measurements, arguing this was the ideal body for all. Quetelet concluded that "everything differing… would constitute deformity and disease", setting the stage for men's bodies to be considered superior and women's inferior.
Some of his findings live on today: his body mass index (BMI), used to estimate body fat, continues to be a universal standard. When proportions map to a male-based bell curve, women land at the margins – resulting in a built world that is not only insulting and uncomfortable, but dangerous and deadly.
In 1950, United States Air Force (USAF) lieutenant Gilbert Daniels conducted an "Average Man" study to find the "average" sized pilot. USAF assumed designing cockpits for this average pilot would fit most.
Daniels measured over 4,000 airmen and found that none met the "average". Zero. He concluded that designing for the "average" meant designing for no one, famously stating: "Any system designed around the average person is doomed to fail." The USAF responded by designing the cockpit to fit the pilots.
Despite this proof, biomechanical individuality failed to revolutionise the broader consumer market. The man-made world stubbornly continued to view male bodies as the typical gold standard, facts be damned.
Industrial designer Henry Dreyfuss led the analytical application of human-factors data to product design. His groundbreaking 1960 work, The Measure of Man, gave architects, engineers and designers access to standardised human dimensions. Data was based on the fittest demographic – primarily white males in their 20s – and ignored the old, disabled, and women.
We must definitively acknowledge there is no standard or 'happy medium' for human body dimensions
The Measure of Man and Woman was published more than 30 years later, but the belief that men were the standard remained. It convinced many that using the fifth-to-95th percentile of male body size ensures most people can comfortably and safely use a product. It doesn't; it leaves out about 65 percent of the female population.
In an era characterised by rapid technological progress, we're no longer constrained by the methods of measure that were established decades ago. But dismantling the persistent "law of averages" – the tendency to treat the male body as the default, or the "happy medium" when setting standards for physicality, design and performance – continues to be an uphill battle.
For example, the widespread belief that "one size fits most" is often treated as objective truth, when in fact it reflects and reinforces a male-centred norm. The good news, however, is that norms are not fixed.
When new evidence disrupts accepted truths, belief systems can shift – and so, too, can the built world that rests on them. To build a more hospitable world for women, we must definitively acknowledge there is no standard or "happy medium" for human body dimensions.
Messages of women's empowerment shaped my own life. Like many women, I've experienced moments of true empowerment, and I've also watched progress slip away.
But there is no speech, protest sign, or knitted pink cap that can erase the physical differences between women and men. Progress for women won't come from denying difference, but from embracing it.
We are more than ready to move beyond just acknowledging physical differences, and start designing for them
The challenge facing us is reconciling the importance of gender equality and equitable treatment while acknowledging the biological and biomechanical differences that inform the design of the built world.
Design has access to powerful technology led by good data that begins with difference rather than forcing conformity. It can unlock better performance, fewer injuries and greater equity.
Global technology group Humanetics is an example of an organisation seeking to innovate with the understanding that there is no normal. It uses highly personalised human body data to inform design across a range of fields, from the military to firefighters, police officers, and the trades. The company attracted attention last year for its THOR-5F crash-test dummy, based on the body of a small woman.
Women are 73 percent more likely to be injured in a car accident and 17 percent more likely to die than men. And yet, the US auto industry is reluctant to adopt state-of-the-art, biofidelic dummies, possibly due to an unwillingness to admit past shortcomings, the financial implications of doing better, or likely both.
With today's technological capabilities, we are more than ready to move beyond just acknowledging physical differences, and start designing for them. This does not mean that female bodies should be valued any differently from men's. Quite the opposite: they should be valued equally, which demands design that accounts for their specific realities.
Only with this understanding can we accept that biological and biomechanical differences are real without reinforcing harmful stereotypes, power imbalances and social inequality. An understanding that will awaken a movement to end "average".
Karen Korellis Reuther is a designer based in Boston, Massachusetts. She was formerly vice president of creative direction and innovation at Reebok and global creative director at Nike. She teaches on the design engineering programme at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design and founded the Inclusion by Design event series, hosted by the Harvard Grid. Her first book, Man-made: How We Designed a World That Leaves Women Out, and How We Can Make It Right, was published in July 2026.
The photo is by Benoist via Shutterstock.
Dezeen In Depth
If you enjoy reading Dezeen's interviews, opinions and features, subscribe to Dezeen In Depth. Sent on the last Friday of each month, this newsletter provides a single place to read about the design and architecture stories behind the headlines.
The post "Women are living in a physical world that is too often designed without them in mind" appeared first on Dezeen.
