That's a long known problem. There are standard (=male) dummies, children dummies and baby dummies but not women dummies. This causes many problems with women drivers and passengers in the case of a crash - especially if that crash is frontal https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/crash-test-bias-how-male-focused-testing-puts-female-drivers-at-risk/

I spent 7 years trying to find a good antidepressant. A friend of mine (a woman), knowing that I was a sensitive person, recommended I try the lowest dose. I found the 'right medication' right after, it's 75% of the minimum dose of a medication I already tried, which is usually prescribed just to see if there are no side-effects before being doubled. I open the small capsule every morning to empty it a bit. My doctor believes it's in my head, that I should not feel it at such a small dose. It's not the first time this happens.

If a woman under 45 is ill its dismissed as "hormone trouble". If a woman over 45 is ill it's dismissed as "menopause" No need to examine further...

Same for seats on trains. I've noticed how they are custom built for a man of about 1,75 m sitting upright. Don't dare being smaller or the back of your head will be pushed forward by the "neck rest" intended for the taller man!

They invented a male pill. It was considered to have too many side effects. So they made one for women. Same amount of side effects, but now considered acceptable.

As well as when a woman wants to be sterilized and the doctor refuses because she "might change her mind".

I would have assumed that it was because men, not being the ones to get pregnant, had less incentive to take a contraceptive pill than women.

How many women would trust a man who said "don't worry baby, I'm on the pill"?

How about this : let's denounce hormone pills as inappropriate for both sexes, since they bring those side-effects to both sides. You can just not take them anymore. There's other options available. Then there's the anti-contracept method of condoms (men), which is very commonly used though not as effective , net (female version condom)(women) which I have never heard anyone using it, and then there's vasectomy which is actual surgery ( = that is why it is not as common - not because of sexism) and for women there's IUD, which is not a surgical procedure, and impossible to be done for men.

This is false. Male contraceptives run the risk of men not being able to produce gametes even after their pill should’ve let them to. On the other hand, female contraceptives have a much lower chance of the female becoming sterile.

Most of the items on this list are problems of not taking women's perspectives into consideration, but this isn't one of them. Male fertility is not as complicated as female fertility, so it turns out to be harder to reversibly disrupt. Think about what you're asserting, here: 1) Men are not interested in controlling their own fertility -- an ability which would, among other advantages, prevent "financially trapped by pregnancy" scenarios. AND 2) Famously greedy pharmaceutical companies are not interested in supplying a market for an ongoing treatment that many men would want. Does that really seem plausible to you? As for the study, I tried to get to the original (two links deep), and it's behind a paywall. In the summary, though, researchers specified "quantitatively comparable" side effects. I note that there is no analogue to erectile dysfunction in women for quantitative comparison.

The male pill is a thing women still take theirs instead and don't insist that Male SO's use it. The reason this is seen as acceptable is because you let it be, I as a male would willing take them if my SO asked me to. Secondly almost all the real consequences of pregnancy fall upon women do you really want to trust your safeguard against pregnancy to someone else?

According to discussion on BBC radio 4, one of the reasons for the halt of the male trial when the symptoms were no worse than the pill, is that the pill would also fail a modern screening process. However, it got whitelisted in the 1960s before strict regulations were enforced. The same is true of aspirin, which would not get a licence today were it a newly discovered drug.

Thing is, a woman gets left with the results of unprotected sex. A man doesn't. Therefore, women have the incentive to remember.

I blame all the women scientists for not doing anything! Shame.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Wrong, it's been in development for decades, but was more difficult to produce an effective version without point blank chemical castration. It is now in circulation and available.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

It's not because the side efects, it's because the poor sex education,men are going to belive they are immune to STDs with the pill, and will not use a condom too.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

False! Are you ignorant of just like to create confussion?

They often have the same footprint as the men's restrooms. One key difference is that, even if you have the same number of stalls, there will still be a longer line outside the women's toilets because women have to take longer. For a pee - a man has to open a zip, whip out his penis, relax a few muscles, shake, replace and wash his hands. Women need to first get half-undressed (literally, the bottom half must be undressed) to perform the same function. Women's lines would be shorter if we were given different equipment to use. And that's without entering into menstruation delays. Really, to be equal in timing, women need more stalls.

I heard about this a while ago, and I am still shocked by it.

Practically dislocate my arm every time