What’s with the pointing-at-camera thing?
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
16631 readers
102 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
She's going to crash test you, dummy.
That’s how you know who is the main character.
She's trying to look inspirational but ends up looking like an overly-confident real estate agent.
Yeah I can immediately tell she’s some business huckster, doing “motivational speaking” or some shit
It's got "I can sell you this" energy for sure
load more comments
(1 replies)
We landed two rovers on Mars before medical science discovered the clitoris.
The Mars Exploration Rovers landed on Mars in January 2004.
An accurate anatomical model of the clitoris was not created until 2005.
You forgot Sojourner.
The robotic Sojourner rover reached Mars on July 4, 1997 as part of the Mars Pathfinder mission.
Fuck me. That's ridiculous. That's 12 years before mankind found the clit.
FFS…
"Medical science" didn't only just discover the clitoris 20 years ago... Fairly accurate descriptions of the structure of the clitoris go back to the 1840s. It's the textbooks used for medical training that were omitting the already known structures to the detriment of medical professionals and healthcare.
Never mind that discovering and accurately mapping something are very different. That's like saying we hadn't discovered the moon until we saw the other side.
It's a funny meme that scientists couldn't find the clit, but it detracts from the actual sexism that was preventing the known science from being taught properly to doctors.
My wording was for comedic affect. I agree with you, but it's still shocking how recently we mapped this organ in its entirety.
There's a fun article about the history of the clitoris here, if anyone's after yet more reading on this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
What does anatomically correct mean here? Should I switch to my alt account before searching?
Weight distribution and physical density.
And also taking into account that women can get pregnant, and ride cars at various stages of said pregnancy, right?
Right?
Without looking up the details, I'm just gonna assume both facts are correct (no anatomically correct women dummies before 2023 and a pregnant dummy in 1996), by saying that the 1996 dummy was a pregnant man. Only two years after Arnold Schwarzenegger started in Junior.
Height is a big factor too
Height is a big factor. Being taller than average I notice a lot of backbreaking standards. Especially if I have to use facilities modified for shorter or wheelchair bound people. Look at airplane seats for example. Why do I have to pay more for a seat that won't crush my knees? And decorations; quite often I will go to a place festively decorated where things are constantly bumping me or in my face. There was even a fancy balloon arch used at one place I had to move out of a doorway to get through.
Why do I have to pay more for a seat that won't crush my knees?
I mean, it sucks, but the larger seats do cost the airline more to provide. I pay more for shipping inanimate objects that are long, even if they're the same weight.
We aren't long inanimate objects, we're human beings and we deserve to be treated better than a can of sardines.
Dr., this is Captialism; that level of empathy is toxic.
Yes, we're human beings, so airlines do a different pricing strategy, where everyone pays the same price and everyone gets the same amount of space.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Test dummy with boobs, im guessing
I'm guessing it has to do with interaction between seatbelt and boobs. And all previous tests just assumed a flat chest.
Boobs squish at crash forces. The pressure with crash testing is keep every variable consistent so that results can be compared over time. I read an article years ago about the trouble of maintaining a supply of "tea rose" colored underwear for that reason.
Gonna be real, "crash test dummy" is getting me caught up here.
Has an "anatomically correct female crash test dummy" actually helped? What even is an "anatomically correct female crash test dummy" and how does it encompass all women's body types in a way that the, assumedly anatomically correct male crash test dummy wouldn't accommodate?
I am absolutely uneducated on this but to my uneducated mind this sounds like getting riled up over a non-issue.
Crash test dummies test the impact of vehicle accidents on human bodies. While more men than women are injured in vehicle accidents, they are more frequently involved in them in the first place. Women are 17% more likely than men to die in the event of a car crash, based on university studies in the US, and 73% more likely to sustain serious injuries in a front-end collision (Invisible Women, p186). In the world of crash test dummies, ‘human body’ has really meant ‘male body’; the first anatomically correct female crash test dummy was only created in 2022.
https://www.theactuary.com/2023/02/02/when-human-isnt-female
Before intervention
17% more dead women than men
73% more injured women than men
When women are in fewer crashes overall
I appreciate your effort to find that data but it doesn't really address any of my original questions.
Also, from what you've quoted at least, there is no differentiation between drivers vs passengers.
Your data absolutely shows there is a problem, it just doesn't show that the problem is the lack of an "anatomically correct female crash test dummy".
I don't think whether they're driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level, people should be expected to sit in any of the seats of a car, so I'm making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements.
The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it's going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.
I don't think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago, I guess manufacturers need to buy these and then use them in their in-progress designs. Cars on the market that have used these dummies during design are probably only new designs sold in the past year or so.
I also can't seem to find it with a quick search, but I vaguely remember reading about this when it was new a couple of years ago, and there's a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren't reflected equivalently with women's safety. But maybe take that with a pinch of salt unless you can actually find the source
so I'm making the fairly safe assumption they put dummies in various different seating arrangements
The source doesn't use data from crash test dummies but from real life crashes. So we can't take seating arrangements for granted if it could meaningfully effect the numbers.
The stats apparently originate from the US government, so it's going to be a pretty big sample size that should average out any differences in seating position.
The sample size is irrelevant if cultural factors exist that could skew the results. Cultural factors like men are more commonly taxi/Uber/bus drivers, men are more likely to drive with their partner as a passenger than the inverse, etc.
I don't think there are really any conclusive after stats as the product was only introduced to the market a couple of years ago
That's a fair point, I don't expect there would be enough data for anything conclusive.
there's a correlation with male safety improving with advances in the crash test process that aren't reflected equivalently with women's safety
That would be an interesting read. I'll have a look for it.
I don't think whether they're driving or not is a meaningful distinction at this level
But it does! For example, if the driver seat offers better protection than the rest of the car, and women are more often than men in one of the other seats, it would explain the results and the dummy doesn't add much.
But if the fatality rate for women in the front passenger seat, for example, is the same as for men in that same seat, that's were probably having an "anatomically correct female crash test dummy" can be very helpful in understanding why these crashes are killing more women than men.
One reason male crash test dummies are not representative of female vehicle occupants in an accident is that seatbelts do not sit in the correct position on female bodies, because of their breasts.
This is the only reasoning provided in that entire article
"An anatomically correct female crash test dummy is a test device designed to more accurately represent the body shape and dimensions of women, particularly in areas like the pelvis and upper chest, which are more vulnerable in car crashes. These dummies, unlike the older scaled-down male dummies, incorporate features like a female-shaped pelvis, breasts, and a lower center of gravity to better assess how different car safety features affect female occupants."
-Google AI Overview
Ok, I hadn't considered the differently shaped pelvis and rib cage so I'll concede that it makes sense.
Even still, to my mind (again, not educated in this area) the breasts themselves are not going to be a factor in terms of a car crash assuming seatbelts are correctly worn
Except they would be? Having breasts, especially large ones, changes where the seat belt sits. It can not be flat against the chest. Generally either is above the tits cutting into your throat, or underneath them doing...poorly as a restraint. Or maybe attempting to cut them in half but not doing well because bras won't let that happen.
I was going to say there's also the option of in-between but that is dependant on clothing, but you beat me to it 😅
You've convinced me that it's reasonable that it could effect the outcome. But in that case, we're averaging out a large variance in size, which as you said (and I agree) could change the outcome dramatically.
This was my original problem with the "anatomically correct" part of the statement. There is no "anatomically correct" male or female, only approximations. This effectively excludes people at the extremes of physical characteristics from these safety tests
We might need redesigns for seatbelts then, one that can be easily adapted to a variety of body widths, heights and chests.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Do those also account for pregnant people (masc, fem and enby)?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Than their required use. Gendered crash test dummies have been a thing for a long time, but AFAIK prior to this there was no anatomical requirements at all, including children (?). Obviously it's huge to include this since IDK a single woman who doesn't have troubles with the extremely male-focused design of all modern cars (fucking seatbelts do not play well with tits (how is this still a thing) women can't adjust mirrors to be useful since they sit below the sight envelope, blind spots, etc), but this is a bit sensationaist of a headline...
fucking seatbelts do not play well with tits (how is this still a thing)
This sounds hard to solve, especially for women with fuller bosom. I'm assuming that the car has a mechanism that allows raising/lowering the seatbelt height, and that this didn't solve the issue...
The answer would probably be a harness, like they use for racing, but it's so inconvenient to use as to not actually being a solution to a boob-squashing neck-sawing strap.
Speaking as somebody with a fuller bosom, as you mentioned, the problem is mostly the angle of the shoulder belt. There is an adjustable slide, but it only adjusts four or five inches, which simply isn't enough for the seven inches difference between my partner and I. The end of the belt is by my ear, not my shoulder. I'm constantly tugging the shoulder belt lower when I'm in the car, either passenger or driver, which is really not safe.
In 2018, I was in a car crash. I was driving a 1998 minivan and got t-boned by a 2006 SUV going 55mph. It turned the van into a banana, pushed the driver's seat over to the center. I don't remember the accident itself, but it looks like my head bounced between the B pillar and the airbag/steering wheel, it broke my glasses, cracked my skull, and gave me a subarachnoid brain hemorrhage with a 50/50 survival rate. Literally knocked me cross-eyed, so I was seeing double for forever. It also broke my pelvis into 8 pieces, sliced up my spleen, and broke a few ribs. I still have a bolt holding my pelvis to my spine. Took over a year to recover, then COVID hit while I was trying to get back to work. fml, never doing that again.
Maybe it would have been better if I had side curtain airbags, but the main problem really feels like the seatbelt just doesn't fit.
Glad you're still with us, hope you're doing well, that crash sounds awful.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I feel like this probably isn't the preferred terminology.
Seems to satisfy the ask.
I mean, I knew medical research was misogynistic but this is still somehow shocking.
view more: next ›