Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:18PM   Printer-friendly

Temperatures are set based on formulas that aimed to optimize employees' thermal comfort, a neutral condition of the body when it doesn't have to shiver to produce heat because it's too cold or sweat because it's too hot. It's based on four environmental factors: air temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity and humidity. And two personal factors: clothing and metabolic rate, the amount of energy required by the body to function.

The problem, according to a study in Nature Climate Change on Monday, is that metabolic rates can vary widely across humans based on a number of factors -- size, weight, age, fitness level and the type of work being done -- and today's standards are based on the assumption that every worker is, you guessed it, a man.

Or if you want to be really specific, a 40-year-old, 154-pound man.
...
Kingma and van Marken Lictenbelt's work builds on research out of Japan which found that the neutral temperature for Japanese women was 77.36 degrees (Fahrenheit) while it was 71.78 for European and North American males.

5.58 degrees is a significant difference. Is it better for half the people in the office to be sweaty than half the people in the office to be chilly?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:56AM (#218885)

    That's not what the SJW crowd use the word for. In gender studies, the patriarchy is a system of oppressive male dominated society where women are disadvantaged by nebulous things such as institutional structures and subconscious cognitive biases. They literally think that a meritocracy is oppressive to women because it "unfairly" favors men.

    That's not uncommon for them, a lot of politically charged words like racism get "sociological definitions" and are used interchangeably along with the real words. I'm pretty sure it's intentionally confusing.

    You realize that it was illegal for women to vote or hold public office in the US for about the first 100 years of its existence, right? It think the flawed historical analysis is yours.

    SJWs think the patriarchy exists and is widely prevalent today. And no they aren't talking about the middle east or Africa, they mean western societies.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by darnkitten on Thursday August 20 2015, @04:17AM

    by darnkitten (1912) on Thursday August 20 2015, @04:17AM (#225282)

    ...disadvantaged by nebulous things such as institutional structures....

    -

    Anecdote is not evidence time...

    -

    I worked retail for a time, for a Store Manager who deliberately arranged the sales floor and store room so he could literally trap women--staff and customers, and hit on them. He had been transferred in from another division. Women stopped coming into the store during the hours he was there, and female staff quit. Complaints from male staff were ignored, because we "weren't [ourselves] directly harrassed." He lasted for a few years after I left, until he harassed a VP's secretary, who had enough pull to get him fired.

    I also worked as a shop foreman under a new Technical Director. He was a great boss, patient, understanding, and a great teacher--to the men. if one of the men made a mistake, he would sit with him, show him what he did wrong and how to correct it, multiple times even. If a woman made even a slight mistake he would "jokingly" suggest that they were "too dumb to do the job," but wouldn't help them. He would find fault in their construction work or their draughtsmanship, even when it was of a higher quality than the men's work. If they complained to me or asked me for help, he publicly belittled them, because they were "crybabies, who couldn't handle the pressure." He hired men with NO experience or even without any RELATED experience in the field over women with years of direct experience. His contract would have been renewed, had I not made a point of finding out when his contract review was, so I could speak up. Management liked him--he was pleasant, and completed his projects on time and within budget. We ended up losing all the women who had worked for us in the time he was there--they just left the industry. A waste. None of the men came back, either--they were only there to get paychecks, and had no interest in the field.

    -

    ...subconscious cognitive biases.

    -

    Today, I run a small rural library.

    Despite having TWO female paleontologists (one dinosaur) and a married pair of antarctic scientists as well as female doctors, a female firefighter and female ranchers, business owners AND military personnel in our town of about 700,

    I still

    (just today, in fact)

    hear parents or other adults tell little girls

    "oh, you don't want to read THAT, that's a BOY BOOK!"

    ...when all she wants is a book on spiders, sharks or dinosaurs.

    (boys of that age already won't read "girl books," even with action and explosions, at least in front of other kids).

    -

    --This ends today's episode of "Anecdote is not evidence." Please feel free to imagine the cutesy theme music of your choice.