Credit: Charley Gallay / Getty

All women live on a spectrum of misery because, we can only assume, we are women. I have endured attempted rape, and sexual assault on public transport. I have been fired from jobs for not being demure or flirtatious enough (because only two female archetypes are acceptable, and both have terrible pitfalls.) On my first day of work at a famous newspaper, a famous male journalist invited me to place a cigar in a place from which no words come. I giggled, and that giggle — it was a tragic giggle — tells you everything.
I will soon arrive, with some relief, at the glorious destination of being completely uninteresting to men. It’s called old age.
I know about misogyny, then — all women do. I know how it summons wreckage in women’s lives. I am poorer because I am a woman, I have lower status because I am a woman, and I am less confident because I am a woman. Although I am brave in print, in life I squeak like Minnie Mouse, and I wish I didn’t. I have had sexual experiences I did not want because I am a woman: and still, I know I’m lucky. I am a rich, white, western woman. Some people call it privilege. I call it the thick end of the wedge.
But I did not know how extensive — how absolute — the web of misogyny is until I read Invisible Woman: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez. I read it while shouting at my husband. Perez is a sensible, second-wave Feminist — not a fourth-wave imbecile who thinks that prostitution is a valuable human right to be defended by those noble activists previously known as pimps. She campaigned for a statue of Millicent Fawcett to be placed in Parliament Square and a picture of Jane Austen (a sanitised portrait in which Jane looks pretty, because you can’t have everything) to be placed on a bank note.
I read the book in a rage. What is sensed, and lived, by women in a patchwork across class and continent is presented, in Criado Perez’s plain, detailed and almost overwhelming prose, as a self-perpetuating and all-consuming system of oppression and denial, in which women are an appendage to men, who have designed the world entirely for their own comfort and safety. There is no anger in Criado Perez’s pages — she is too busy with evidence for that — just as there is, as far as I can tell, no malice in this vast system of misogyny. It was all done thoughtlessly, like a man running over a child in the dark. The truth is, they just didn’t see us.
The book opens with Simone de Beauvoir’s words: “Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.” Criado Perez then spends three hundred pages proving de Beauvoir right, in chapters on environment, workplace, design, health, and politics.
Almost everything is designed for men. Cities are designed for men. Transport infrastructure is designed for men: when, for instance, did a wise woman last take a baby on the London Underground, which is clearly, during rush hour, unsafe, and yet usually a woman’s work? Why is money tossed at road-building, which favours “the unencumbered man”, not provision of public transport, which more women use on their longer, more potted trails through life? Even parks are designed for men, for unless care is taken to design them for women’s safety, fewer women — and girls — will use them, and their health will suffer.
One fascinating anecdote tells how, when the toilets of a theatre were made gender neutral, it only increased men’s space, for they used the cubicles in both, while women were, due to their bodies, denied the urinals. Women spend 97 billion hours a year, she writes, looking for a safe place to relieve themselves, and this is likewise detrimental to health. Invisible Women is full of such maddening insights.
The generalisations are accurate — women earn less, have less, care more for children and the elderly (which is spun, deceitfully, as “choice”) and slip into invisibility as the system devalues them. The would-be powerful woman — Hillary Clinton, for instance — is struck down for her presumption, and replaced with a dangerous imbecile. But it is the detail that compels.
For instance, in Britain, the Pregnant Workers Directive does not apply to politicians; there is, Criado Perez writes, “no provision for them [female politicians] to vote without turning up in person”. For politicians! In July 2018 the Conservative MP Brandon Lewis was paired with the pregnant, and absent, Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson. But he forgot, and voted anyway, and he got away with it. Apple, in 2017, declared that its US HQ was “the best office building in the world”. It had a spa and a dentist. It did not have a creche.
I would describe the condition of women in the workplace as a shit storm. People who believe they are meritocrats are the least likely to be meritocrats. Universities and tech companies who boast of being ‘woke’ are among the worst employers. Bias against women is everywhere – see the archetypes — and without care and research, it thrives. Blind auditions for orchestras raised female representation by 45%. In academia, double-blind reviews (where the author and reviewer are anonymous) mean that female authored papers are more likely to be accepted, and better rated. For women to thrive as men do, their gender must, quite literally, be masked.
This bias leaks into the schoolroom — where girls learn that scientists and geniuses are male; misogyny is not inbuilt, but learned. Algorithms, invented by men, favour men. We corrupt children, and we corrupt computers, and, in turn, they corrupt us.
Every victory contains a defeat. Female soldiers are injured off the battlefield because they are forced to march in step with men. Packs that took breasts into account were not invented until 2011, 35 years after women were admitted to US military academies. Female coastguards in the UK cannot easily use the toilet on duty — see the 97 billion hours above — because the clothes are not designed for them. In 1997, a female police officer died in the UK because she removed her body armour to operate a hydraulic ram, which she could not use while wearing body armour that did not fit her because it was designed for a man.
There is too much death in this book — some caused by sexual assault, because women’s spaces are unsafe or non-existent, and some caused by negligence, because women’s bodies are forgotten. There is so little investment in pelvic floor health, for instance – men decide what is suitable for research, and they forgot the female pelvic floor — that a current scandal details how women with prolapsed vaginas had mesh inserted as a cure. Many were left with chronic pain. At least one, in Scotland, has died. Women seeking help for physical problems are dismissed as fantasists, or trouble-makers. Viagra is plentiful. So is death in childbirth.
It’s comic sometimes, if you care to laugh at darkness. The voice command software in a Ford Focus did not respond to the female driver, but it did respond to her husband in the passenger seat — because it was programmed to hear a deeper voice. Criado Perez lost me only once, when she noted that the average smartphone is too small to fit easily into a woman’s hand. Not important, I thought, but then she detailed a riot in which a female researcher could not take a photograph with one hand, while a male one could. It’s a tiny thing, but it brought disadvantage, glibly.
This is a brilliant book, then, to thump the gropers and the deniers with — the people who point out masculine suffering, which is real, to detract from female suffering, which is likewise real. Everyone should read it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA clever riposte, but also, I think, wrong in its central premise: that the creative class have underperformed relative to how another class might have done. I yield to few in my admiration for the postwar settlement; I’m not sure there’s been a happier fate in all of human history that to live through the first thirty years after World War II in democratic Western Europe. But surely we need to remember that this situation was a product of a particular era with particular demographic and social determinants. A steadily increasing population with relatively few dependents created the condition for growing prosperity; and the conditions for growth were also produced by the fact that people in 1945 had hardly any consumer goods, even those which discharged what most of us nowadays think of as fairly essential household functions, e.g., washing machines, refrigerators, telephones. The problem in recent decades is surely that most of have most of what we need; that’s the main reason economies in developed countries have stagnated. Witness the desperate efforts to keep us consuming – i.e., companies selling us ever more advanced models of mobile phones every two years, when we all lived quite cheerfully without any mobile phones at all a quarter of a century ago. What was the last invention that really implemented a dramatic improvement to our quality of life?
Secular stagnation is the norm for highly developed countries. Whether it’s the creative classes or others who achieve it, we need to find ways of living with low-growth economies. Japan’s done so with the minimum of social disruption during the last thirty years, so maybe that’s where we should start learning. In turn, the rest of the world will end up having to learn from us.
Did Japan really dodge a bullet through xenophobia? I don’t think so. Their population demographics are now dangerously skewed toward the elderly. It now has the world’s oldest population. Another 20 years of steady state and they are in deep, deep trouble.Young people are essential to any country. If you cannot create them organically then you have to acquire them. As we in the UK did through immigration. Without the young any country will eventually run out of road. Japan is way out front of those countries set to find out just what that means.
It is a good point…if robots don’t come galloping to the rescue there could be a pretty rushed, and therefore possibly chaotic, charge to get in young people from elsewhere, and that would take some managing….
But immigration is only a temporary answer to this.
and what about when the immigrants get old?
Very well said. And the last thing the non metropolitan areas need is to be more metropolitan, with all their endless BS and stabbings etc.
sham meritocracy = low productivity.
Peter, the simple answer is that peak science and technology happened in the mid twentieth century. As scientific progress has slowed and big tech has used “intellectual property rights” to take control of the little progress that persists, it has become harder to be creative and innovative.
I genuinely don’t understand this worship or condemnation of either the metropolitan, middle class or working class. People are people. I have met people from metropolitan areas who I thought were very good, productive members of society and I have met people from there who were absolutely vile. The same goes for people from rural areas, middle class or working class. The same goes for culture, I have met good/vile people who have conservative cultural views as well as those who had liberal views. And also how do you define them? I have lived in both Rutland and London. Does someone from Rutland who goes and lives in London suddenly become ‘metropolitan’? Does someone from London who decides to live in outside become working class? I have never thought class or culture to be good predictor of a person’s character.
When have we ever had a creative Liberal or Socialist?
Those who can’t *do*, waffle on and on and on about *doing*.
The fashionable whiney, dimpling about how much of a waste of time meetings are doesn’t happen when you’re putting a new roof on a building or replacing the central heating…you have the meetings walking from the door to where the work’s happening…..
You don’t have a weekend away at events camp to sharpen the company focus when the company business is making stuff…the focus is sharpened a hundred times a week at all levels.
There is one very easy way to level up…just go to Sunderland and see the Nissan plant (which Nissan say is the best outside Japan and right up with the best in japan) , see the cluster of companies around it (that also sell to Mercedes, Audi etc) and find a report on how Margaret Thatcher’s government got them to come, become established and go on to become a globally improtant car manufacturer in a country where car manufacturing had fallen off a cliff just a decade earlier.
Then rinse and repeat in Nth Tyneside, Teesside, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Manchester and the Midlands……. manufacturing these days is digital, computerised, AI , robotic intensive…and demands high levels of creativity at all levels…. Maidstone and Andover if you like…
Going
on the assumption that freedom and risk-taking are vital to creativity, an
already risk-averse culture, coupled with the knowledge that nobody is more than
one wrong thought, tweet or misstep away from losing their livelihood, might have something to
do with the lack of creativity.
The creative classes have been up themselves for decades, ever since singers decided to call themselves recording artists.
Very well stated, but I think that you need look no further than the central banking structure that has been imposed on the reserve currency of the globe. Capital is now tightly held and innovations that require its use (most all) are only sanctioned for development when the fruits of said innovation can be identified and gleaned in advance of production. It is essentially the fully developed model of Mayer Amschel Rothschild.
“So why are the results so disappointing? Whether in economics, politics,
the arts or the sciences, this is an age of stagnation in which the
exceptions (because there always are some) prove the rule. And, make no
mistake, the creative class ” broadly defined ” is the ruling class. The
failures in our nation, and of the western world general, are their
failures.“
I think that’s too broadly defined to be useful. If the “creative class” are the ruling class, then their ruling class is surely the financial class.
“I’m lamenting the fact that the knowledge economy of the 21st century has done so little with the big advantage of a wider talent pool. The same could be said about the massive expansion of higher education ” not to mention the vast store of knowledge made available through the internet.“
Perhaps it’s intrinsic to the new technologies themselves, and their ownership.
“The creatives have dazzling global cities in which to work, live and
play. Unlike previous eras, they can continually interact with one
another wherever in the world they go. And they’ve been unshackled from
the stifling social conventions of the past ” free to be who they want
to be. And what’s more they’re constantly celebrated for it, their
cultural status elevated as that of the working class has fallen.”
So what’s wrong with spreading those benefits to all? That was the thrust of the Times article. Social democracy is not incompatible with social liberalism – in fact they tend to go together. And the real problem is that talented/educated people simply leave socially conservative towns – so how are you going to stop this?
Yes, when did everyone get so pathetic