SCI-Arc has announced its Spring 2017 lecture series. And not a single female architect was included in the list. Really, SCI-Arc?
Granted, the roster includes historian and theorist Sylvia Lavin as well as the artist Amalia Ulman—but the lack of a single practicing female architect is pretty striking. In recent years, criticism has been waged at institutions for privileging men when it comes to lecture series, as well as panels, faculty, exhibitions, firms, commissions, wages, and interpersonal relations.
It’s not exactly like there’s a paucity of exceptionally talented women in the field. The Feminist Wall of Shame also took note and posted on the omission.
Or is this more to the point-
"I used to not like being called a 'woman architect': I'm an architect, not just a woman architect. Guys used to tap me on the head and say, 'You are okay for a girl.' But I see the incredible amount of need from other women for reassurance that it could be done, so I don't mind that at all."
There's also a quote attributed to (I think) Denise Scott Brown, where she says something to the effect of "I'm an Architect first."
There's never a discussion about the lack of female garbage men/persons is there?
This entire discussion about female architects, who cares, it should be about architecture not gender, that's totally irrelevant...can you imagine being a female architect and the only reason you're included in a lecture series is because they need to tick all the boxes, not because of your work, I would be devastated...
So randomised in your last post you just said that there are no women architects who produce work worthy of being presented in a lecture series. Did I get that right?
No Donna of course not, all I want to say is that gender shouldn't be a selection criterion in architecture, just as religion or sexuality should not become relevant when selecting architects...
There are less female architects, so maybe this is simply a reflection of that reality. Are you suggesting that the lecture series should be manipulated to reflect artificial and idealized demographic, or the real one?
Make any excuses you want. The denial of biases, whether gender binary, or gender fluid, they exist in the profession and academic realities, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Slavoj is a provocateur and asshat
institutionalization of bias is a cause of the professions lack of diversity, but it systemic not regulatory. You need a reason to denigrate the activities of a group before you can establish a set of behaviors to exclude or disenfranchise them.
is all the more reason to increase representation. Practices, behaviors and responses are modeled by and learned from peers- not by repeatedly citing information from a book.
Systemic patterns (in this case bias) point to things that serve as the framework for regulatory bias. Again- you need a set of "reasons" (founded or otherwise) before you can make a rule, which would be the regulation.
And specific to this discussion the suggestion that this rests on the shoulders of NCARB (or LAAB) is thin to say the least. I'm not familiar with any regulation with those accreditation boards that requires that accredited design programs intentionally disenfranchise women.
The only counter to that argument would be the usual "they won't be happy doing this (yellow card), so they're better off majoring in something else (red card)."
1- Think about who is doing the 'splaining and;
2- their course of action to remedy the situation.
If it's to dismiss concerns of the other, because it's a foregone conclusion, or it's a favor in the long run- that's systemic.
Heres an example to break down:
...women come to the critical points in their career when they embark upon motherhood (women want children and that makes them unpromotable).
And architecture is a totally time consuming – disproportionate to any amount of any amount of money any architect is paid – business (women are driven by money, not by a sense of making or craft).
Plus the global reach of architecture today demanding unbelievable amounts of travel – national and international travel – has added to the complication (women cannot travel because its is complicated).
They get torn between their desire to have a family and be with their family and pursue their profession (women do not have the skills to structure their lives. We learned that on Mad Men).
And I think that’s really the reason that, in the long run, women are not seen where they should be at the top of the profession (not explaining why in the short run, the graduation rates plummet).
That's an example of systemic reasoning.
We talk about this issue in this week's Sessions podcast, in which you will hear me disappear.
Of note, to support Janosh's statement above: Of the ten firms represented in the Miller Prize competition, which we also discuss in the podcast and who are all young, up-and-coming firms, six of the ten are firms led by female principals.
Remember Nick Offerman's answer on the Reddit AMA when asked the question "What's the most feminine thing you do?"
Answer: " Win. "