When ‘Standard’ Means Suboptimal: How One-Size-Fits-Men Fails Half the World

In a major engineering firm, safety incidents among female workers quietly rose year after year, while men’s rates fell. Digging into the numbers, the safety manager noticed a pattern—injuries clustered around tools and gear designed according to an outdated ‘standard’ fit. Hardhats, gloves, and uniforms not only fit poorly, they required women to use awkward, sometimes unsafe, workarounds. The findings prompted a review that showed most purchases were based on catalog sizes calibrated to a 70kg man, with little thought to other body types.

A consultant was brought in, drawing on behavioral ergonomics principles. She explained how “standards” often borrow from whatever fits the middle of the largest group—usually, men—but when applied universally, they ignore everyone outside that norm. Feedback was collected from all staff, revealing widespread frustration, stress, and avoidable pain among female and smaller-statured workers. After testing new gear—gloves, boots, PPE—sourced for a wider range of bodies, injury rates for women dropped, morale improved, and the company even saved money on lost work time. The same lesson played out in fields as diverse as music, where 7/8-size piano keyboards allowed talented women to reach new heights, and tech companies who finally shrank smartphone designs faced fewer ergonomic complaints from women.

Take stock of every tool, piece of equipment, or device you rely on, and question whether it's actually designed to fit you—or just 'the average guy.' If you, your colleagues, or friends have noticed difficulty, discomfort, or even minor injuries, make it known: start a conversation, suggest trialing alternatives, or contact responsible suppliers. Use your collective findings to advocate for procurement policies that insist on real-world fit for all. Sometimes, getting safer and more effective gear really does begin with noticing how the so-called 'standard' quietly stands in the way.