Inclusive Design: How a Man-Made World Is Failing Women

For decades, the world has been designed around a narrow idea of the “average” human body. In her new book Man-Made (Harper Business, out since 7 July 2026), designer, educator, iF Jury chair person and former Nike and Reebok creative executive Karen Korellis Reuther argues that this average was never neutral, and often not even real. In conversation, she explains why inclusive design is not only an ethical imperative, but also a major business opportunity. Excerpted from FUTURE OF XYZ Season 8, Episode 11!

Karen, your book is called Man-Made. How do you define “man-made” in the context of design today?

When I talk about man-made, I mean a world that has largely been designed by men, for men — and one that has often left women out. That includes the products we wear, the tools we use, the public spaces we move through and the systems that surround our bodies every day. The point of the book is not simply to criticize that reality, but to show how we can make it right. We have inherited a built world full of blind spots. Now the question is: how intentionally can we redesign it?

You make the case that designing for women is not only a matter of fairness, but also a business opportunity. Why?

Women represent half the planet - around four billion people. If we design products, spaces and systems without properly considering women’s bodies and experiences, we are ignoring an enormous part of the market. I often say: you can bank on women. Gender diversity in design is not just about who sits at the table, but also about who we design for. When companies take women seriously as users, customers and decision-makers, they uncover opportunities that have been overlooked for far too long.

Where does gender bias in design become most visible?

On one end, you have products that are simply dismissive, such as sneakers designed around the anatomy of a male foot and then “shrinked and pinked” for women. You also see examples where products marketed to girls or women cost more without offering better performance or protection. But the consequences can become much more serious. Police uniforms that do not fit properly, protective equipment that does not account for women’s bodies, operating tables that do not adjust low enough for female surgeons, crash test dummies based on male bodies, or CPR training mannequins that do not reflect female anatomy - these are not minor inconveniences. They affect safety, health and even survival.

You describe the “average” body as one of design’s most persistent myths. What is the problem with designing for an average user?

The average was never truly average. We have known this for decades. After World War II, the US Air Force measured thousands of pilots to find the “average pilot” for cockpit design - and discovered that no such average person existed.And yet, design has continued to rely on this idea of a normal body. In many cases, that “normal” has meant: male. Once you design around a male average, everyone else has to adapt. My argument is simple: one size never fits all. And that includes many men as well.

You spent 25 years in the sportswear industry, including leadership roles at Nike and Reebok. What did that teach you about gender and design?

It taught me how deeply the male body has shaped our design standards. In sportswear, we moved fast, we innovated constantly - but we were still often measuring against a male average. The question should always be: Are we protecting her body in the same way we protect the male body? Is this shoe really designed for her anatomy? Is this equipment supporting her performance and safety? Looking back, I realize that even when women were in the room, we did not always have enough power, confidence or data to challenge the assumptions built into the process. That is one reason I hope the book helps designers ask better questions from the beginning.

In the book, you talk about backcasting as a way to redesign the future. Why is that important?

Forecasting looks at current trends and projects them forward. But if current practices are part of the problem, forecasting can keep us trapped inside the same systems.Backcasting starts somewhere else. It begins with the future we actually want — for example, a built world designed for a wide range of human bodies — and then works backward to identify the actions, policies and design decisions needed to get there.I have a sense of urgency about this. If we already know that the world was largely designed around male bodies, then we do not need to keep debating that. We need to decide what a better future looks like and move toward it faster.

In today’s political climate, terms like inclusion and diversity can be contested. How do you respond to that?

For me, this is not about ideology. It is about measurement. Women’s hands are different. Neck musculature is different. Pelvic structure is different. The angle from hips to knees to ankles is different. Bodies experience products and spaces differently.Take office temperature, for example. The so-called “thermostat wars” are not just a matter of preference. They reflect physical differences in how bodies retain and produce heat. So when we talk about inclusive design, we are not talking about a philosophy. We are talking about reality and about designing more accurately for human beings.

What can designers, companies and consumers do now?

Everyone has a role. Consumers can point out when the built world does not work for them. They can make visible what has too often been treated as normal or unavoidable.Designers have the power to invent differently. They can question the brief, challenge the default and design for a broader range of bodies from the start. Leaders, meanwhile, need to build talent pipelines, but also empower, advocate for and promote women. Because women will not forget that women exist. And if we want better products, safer spaces and smarter systems, we need more women not only as users, but as decision-makers.