Women in the architecture workplace is, oddly, a subject that does not receive a lot of press. Perhaps it is because from the time of school onward, women in the field are indoctrinated into being either as “hard,” “iron-like” or on a practical level, unbathed and unhygienic, as their male counterparts in order to be accepted. Indeed, at one school in Los Angeles, the women actively cultivate a hardened exterior that rivals any of their male classmates. Those who do not relinquish obvious signifiers of womanhood are dismissed as either attempting to “sleep their way to success” or as “lightweights.”
Before you go running for cover from what you think is another diatribe against men, read a little farther. There is an interesting article in the Economist regarding high-level women corporate leaders. Basically, there are four findings which are based on business school studies, including one from Harvard for some legitimacy.
First, there is a dearth of women in corporate leadership. Second, women who head corporations tend to be more talented than their male colleagues because they had to be in order to overcome the exaggerated privileging accorded to men. That includes not simply sexism, but also other things such as mentoring which can be precarious for women not wanting to appear to curry favor or risking seeming impropriety. Third, corporations headed by women tended to have greater profitability, though a caution here: causation was not clear, merely correlation.
Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule. One firm here in L.A., as I’ve referred to in a related article, is headed by a woman who unfortunately seems intent on running it into the ground. However, there are other extremely successful architecture firms in L.A. whose C.O.O.’s and Managing Principals are women that provide their firms with vision, innovation, and smart business plans.
Now we get to the fourth observation, which proposes a major reason for the dearth of women in corporate leadership. This will no doubt surprise many, and completely undermine all those years many women architects have cultivated that hard, non-sexed persona. Simply put, fewer women pursue high-level career opportunities because of motherhood. This is further supported by a recent study from The World Bank, which finds that women’s time is, indeed, more limited than men’s. Why? Childcare and housework.
Let’s add a few more studies. Another found that women tend to be discriminated against by their bosses because their supervisors attribute a “bifurcation of loyalty” to women who are mothers. In other words, women are seen as not as “focused” as their male counterparts because they are supposedly split by the competing realities of motherhood and work. Polls showed that men who left work because of a child-related emergency were not viewed negatively; women were. Couple this with another study that showed that men constantly judged women as having “less vision” than their male counterparts. Significantly, women judges did not skew their conclusions based on the gender of their subjects. And finally, like it or not, women are still the primary caretakers, though men obviously do much more than they used to.
So, for those who are qualified and want it, what is the best approach towards change? Policy. Obviously it isn’t going to change overnight. But addressing the major factor of motherhood, one thing, as suggested in the Economist article is to extend both maternity and paternity leave. Another is to provide better childcare once women return to work. Childcare that is more flexible like in Western Europe so that the hours match the working hours of parents. Additionally it would be helpful to institute flexible working hours for parents.
And we don’t have to wait for government policies to change, which can be glacial. Firms can augment those government benefits already in place. For example, here in the States, firms can extend the paltry paternity leave sponsored by the state (a measly six weeks) at least another 2-4 weeks. Another is to institute flex-time for employees who are parents, regardless of their gender. Onsite childcare might be another good opportunity that would honestly save firms a lot of money whose employees are always leaving early to retrieve their children from off-site facilities with fixed hours.
Again, the benefits are enormous. Happy employees are productive ones. And in this economy, where firms do tend to want more for less, a little investment in the future of their employees will reap constant rewards for years to come.
Sherin Wing is an independent scholar. She received her Ph.D. in the Humanities from UCLA. She has published articles on issues and subjects ranging from the economy and architecture to social and cultural history. She is also a frequent contributor to Metropolis, Architect Magazine and other publications. Follow Sherin on Twitter at @xiaying.
Sherin Wing, Ph.D., is a social historian who writes on architecture, urbanism, racism, the economy, and epistemology (how we know what we know by researching and examining the agendas inherent in our sources of information) to name a few issues and topics. She is dedicated to exploring issues in ...
5 Comments
and of course to not focus too much on one gender, the benefits of child rearing should also be extended to fathers, for instance paternity leave rights similar to mothers.
This is a good start to this much needed conversation. Unfortunately, it only addresses corporate firms. Most small and mid-sized firms struggling in the current economy can't afford paid maternity or paternity leave, and workers are not covered by FMLA in companies with fewer than 50 employees, so new mothers and fathers often seem like they are committing career suicide. The attitudes towards women and family don't necessarily improve in smaller firms vs large corporate firms, and the policies are often completely ad hoc, based on the whim of the principals, producing stressful and uneasy situations. Flextime and working from home can be a good model for smaller firms, but other benefits are out of the question. This needs to be a much broader discussion. Articles like this have been repeated over the years, but attitudes are not changing.
is this article missing a first paragraph that explains the point? is the first paragraph a quotation from another article? the quality of the writing is shockingly poor, i am sorry to say.
there are many gender-related issues in this profession that are well worth discussing, but to relate the lack of women in leadership positions to expressions of femininity is extremely shallow. 'unbathed and unhygienic, as their male counterparts in order to be accepted'...huh? 'a hard, non-sexed persona'??--double huh?
'One firm here in L.A., as I’ve referred to in a related article, is headed by a woman who unfortunately seems intent on running it into the ground. However, there are other extremely successful architecture firms in L.A. whose C.O.O.’s and Managing Principals are women that provide their firms with vision, innovation, and smart business plans.'--this is a personal observation tenuously tied to the gender of the primary actor followed by a perfectly obvious (if unsourced) statement.
'Let’s add a few more studies'---yes, let's. please cite your sources.
the discussion of work-life balance is a bit better, if deserving of its own, more comprehensive article.
i feel very strongly about these issues and am dismayed (a bit angry, frankly), to see them addressed so superficially.
'women in the field are indoctrinated into being either as “hard,” “iron-like” or on a practical level, unbathed and unhygienic, as their male counterparts in order to be accepted. Indeed, at one school in Los Angeles, the women actively cultivate a hardened exterior that rivals any of their male classmates. Those who do not relinquish obvious signifiers of womanhood are dismissed as either attempting to “sleep their way to success” or as “lightweights.”'
this is actually offensive...all about appearances and perceptions, and not remotely about 'design leadership'.
Thought the article was really concise and hit on some important topics that are gritty and not often discussed, I hope to hear more from the author about perceived impropriety and discriminatory remarks that are made about women who actually do succeed and do well, or for that matter, the dearth of successful married female architects, who are not one half of a power couple. I particularly appreciate that more than discrimination against women the article focuses on how the profession is somehow breeding an incompatibility between a healthy family life and success, which get in the way of both men and women leading fulfilled balanced lives instead of only career focused one.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.