I know this has been the subject of many discussions and AIA mandates etc. but I know that a lot of offices discriminate against hiring women. One common reason I hear at the firm I work for is "girls don't like pulling extremely long hours". (I hate this firm).
Why is this not a bigger discussion, and treated more of a behind-the-scenes bureaucratic item?
Not sure, but if the profession wants to keep the current/next generation it will need to find a way to keep women in the field. My current office is pretty much split 50/50. We all pull the hours when needed.
Women are smarter, thus know that longer hours result in overall lowered productivity. It upsets insecure males when females are better at something than them.
Aug 7, 17 5:05 pm ·
·
James Cargill
Very true, proven in this bell curve
Aug 11, 17 11:32 am ·
·
rich_9999
James, I hope you are being sarcastic? That IQ bell curve shows men at the highest end of intelligence are significantly overrepresented. This explains why men are overrepresented in the top positions.
Also, this thread has reminded me why I quit my Architecture job, working with such limp-wristed weasels became insufferable.
Not sure, but if the profession wants to keep the current/next generation it will need to find a way to keep women in the field. My current office is pretty much split 50/50. We all pull the hours when needed.
Aug 7, 17 5:58 pm ·
·
corbismyhomeboy
My current office is also 50/50. Our firm has a second smaller office in NYC that is comprised solely of 4 women. We actually joke about needing to hire men to keep the ratio closer to 50/50.
Aug 8, 17 9:20 am ·
·
James Cargill
I say we pay them more because they are clearly better than Trump-voting white men
Not to turn this into a political discussion or anything, but the US voted in the most unqualified person in history to president because the other choice is a woman. So there is this general deep seated misogyny.
As for architecture, I think that this profession is so ego-centric and men tend to be more confident and self-important while women tend to be honest about what they know. Hence I think some offices might want to hire more bullshitters!! They sell the project I guess. I hate when I see how men and women talk about their tasks at work with men always making a big deal of their work.
It had nothing to do with gender and everything to do with everything else.
Aug 7, 17 11:15 pm ·
·
archietechie's comment has been hidden
View comment
archietechie
Lol...are you muslim? You sound salty.
Aug 8, 17 2:57 am ·
·
citizen
Funny how "confident and self-important" you come across, bakhet, while being so confused on basic things.
Aug 8, 17 1:05 pm ·
·
Medusa
I hate when I see how men and women talk about their tasks at work with men always making a big deal of their work.
Haha, true. I guess since we are literally incubators of life, everything else seems meh by comparison. Like, "Oh, you won an AIA award? That's cute. I just expelled an 8-lb. human being from my body and went to work three days later."
Aug 10, 17 9:28 pm ·
·
James Cargill
SO TRUE BAKHET. Literally every white man I talked to said they voted for Trump because they hate women and minorities. What is this country turning into... literally nazis
Aug 11, 17 11:30 am ·
·
Jake Jarmel
Well then maybe you should talk to me and my wife's boyfriend. We both voted for Hillary. I just love these sweeping statements from posters like you.. a not!
Aug 11, 17 12:49 pm ·
·
shellarchitect
What about the ones who voted for Obama 4 years before?
The current generation of firm owners and principals grew up and went to school when the number of women in architecture was much lower. The really hard-core misogynists I have come across went to school in the 1970's. I hope that as this older generation retires or dies off, their anti-female bias will disappear out of the profession with them.
Josh my office is also more or less 50-50 in terms of the numbers yet when it comes to more senior positions one finds fewer and fewer women at the top. As for the article cited, which I admittedly did not read, it says black women in the title. There is very little diversity in terms of black architects, especially women black architects. Again this is even more prevalent as one looks at senior positions. One could argue this is a lingering vestige of times before as the youth is slowly becoming more diverse.
The other argument I've seen noted multiple times in regards to the film industry- though applicable here and in many white collar professions- is that people hire people who remind them of themselves when they were young. So in essence white men hire and promote white men first. As a white man I've witnessed my female colleagues get passed over despite my having essentially the same experience. It is shitty for them yet at the same time I'm not going to turn down a promotion. In the few instances I've been in a position to influence hiring I've attempted to be inclusive, but what I've seen is a vast majority of white candidates coming out of schools.
This last part could very well be related to the generally low payback of the degree and the fact that if a young person doesn't see anyone who looks like them doing something they can't see themselves doing it. Case in point the first female black astronaut, Mae Jemison, cited seeing Ohura on Star Trek as a defining reason she believed she could be an astronaut. How many American movies and tv shows are there about architects and how many of those characters are portrayed by anything other than a white male? I'm fairly certain the second answer is close to or exactly zero.
It's a complicated issue and there is no straightforward answer or solution. To make sweeping generalizations that women aren't this or that is flat out not true and only perpetuates the problem. Some of the best architects and designers I've ever met are women and or minorities who lack neither ego nor willingness to work late.
Aug 7, 17 6:40 pm ·
·
shellarchitect
Given the long careers and amount of time it seems to take to advance, I expect architecture to be amoung the last professional careers to reach "equality." I suspect that equality amoung sexes will take far less time than racial
I went school when the proportion of women students to male was 50/50 and every firm I've worked in has been 50/50 - most of my PAs are women - they are pretty sharp on design - i'm basically their Revit modeler - My current PA doesn't suffer fools lightly - heaven help you if you don't have the answer - she will take you apart
Agreed shell. The longevity is a big factor as many of the most senior have been practicing upward of 30 years. When they started women and minority's were pretty much non present.
Xenakis - indeed I've noticed more and more lower level PAs and PMs. The tide appears to be shifting toward something closer to equality.
In school we actually had a slight majority of women in the major.
Aug 7, 17 8:07 pm ·
·
James Cargill
I think what you and Xenakis are ignoring is that you make more than your female, transgender, twingender, or other gendered colleageus. And should have to see your pay cut or their pay boosted to fill the gap.
I'm only buying one if my money goes directly to minorities and women
Aug 11, 17 11:34 am ·
·
Jake Jarmel
My Asian-American trans-gendered architect 'wife' is extremely interested in a shirt! Please provide a link for those shirts that represent they. Thank you!
I've found the people who are most concerned with the various 'ism's of our society generally have some personal issues. i.e. the average performing white dude that blames affirmative action for not getting a promotion. The unqualified female PM who blames sexism for not getting the next promotion. The older architect who never learned how to even print a PDF blames age-ism for getting laid off.
I've worked with tech savy 65 yr olds and amazing female architects and I never hear the word discrimination come out of their mouths. It's the under-performers who seem to latch onto it. Why would you even want to work at the firm in OP's post, let them dry up and die, that is not the situation at most firms. Do your best, prove the haters wrong and if they still can't recognize it, you don't want to work there anyway.
Aug 7, 17 11:09 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
You seem like the blond white male that has not seen any first hand discrimination happen to you. There are a lot of whiners in the profession, but if you think that the lack of diversity is not a real concern, you gotta be kidding me. By your stupid logic, all talks of anti-racism shouldnt be happening, as its just the losers that latch onto it. Riiiiiiight...
Aug 8, 17 12:58 am ·
·
archi_dude
That's so discriminatory of you! Ha ha, no I've just witnessed the complete opposite during my career. While it's probably more of being in LA I've worked under more Latino PM's then white and at the new firm many more female. The theme I've witnessed is, nobody wants an idiot on their team, race/gender isn't the deciding factor. HOWEVER, I work in middle of the road corporate so yes I'm sure it's out there, my point is, whenever I hear the complaint in person, generally it's a cover up for a personal short comings.
Aug 8, 17 9:09 am ·
·
sameolddoctor
So you agree that you are a white male. Point closed
Aug 9, 17 3:03 pm ·
·
James Cargill
Wait did you just accuse this person of being a white male and then saying because he is a white male he must be racist? It's hard to keep up here.
Interesting how positive the white men feel in regards to racial equality while all men seem to be consistently trending toward the positive about how women are equal. So in both cases the ones not in question believe things are better than those who are directly affected.
Yes, there are some really telling and strange things on in the report, like the chart about the perception of proper representation. The chart describing diversity by title is also telling if you read it longitudinally. You can see peoples dropping out of the profession at particular stages in their career.
Aug 7, 17 11:21 pm ·
·
James Cargill
Its crazy how people perceive their place in the world isnt it? If you read the rest of the report you'll see that people perceive racism and sexism to be a bigger problem while in academia
Woman speaking here. I've worked at firms with good ol boy agendas and firms without it. Of course it exists but of course it isn't everywhere. Running my own show now and I think it is an advantage to be a woman precisely because it is different, it is not maintaining the status quo, it is memorable, novel and exciting. Client love it. And I have two very young kids to care for as well. It means I get more done with less. Clients are actually more accepting of family and flex time than firms are.
With the old white male boomer architects being unable to adapt to our millennium (17 years in, wtf?) and just complain (Hi Weltschmerz!) or either burn out or dropping like flies I guess this will even out rather sooner than later, thankfully.
On a personal note, all the women I graduated with (except maybe one), 50-50 ratio male-female are now working at Starchitects around the world and some are running projects you see featured on architecture blogs and in magazines while even having a family. And here I am, 30 something white male architect working less than full-time (sometimes from home, like now when I'm working on a book) and taking care of my son while my girlfriend brings home most of the bacon. I've been hired by and worked for female principals and with female (project) architects and designers and when necessary we all worked our asses off to get things done and get them done properly.
Aug 8, 17 4:57 am ·
·
shellarchitect
that's funny,
Aug 8, 17 7:43 am ·
·
shellarchitect
sorry, accidently hit "enter"...... most of the women I graduated with are now either totally out of the profession or working part time.
(total class of 30ish, 50% women)
Ive worked in a lot of firms and many have a very male chauvinistic attitude that I have found quite shocking. Building sites are even worse. At least we dont tend to put up female model calendars anymore mind. Its a terrible career for a woman to have to make any headway in, the only successful woman in the industry that I have come across have been extremely ruthless and far tougher than any men I've worked with! But I have found the women Ive met have also been mostly very intelligent and practically minded and probably very frustrated with us men - because lets face it most men in this industry dont know what the hell they are doing half the time. And yes I am a male architect.
Aug 8, 17 6:52 am ·
·
randomised
" because lets face it most men in this industry dont know what the hell they are doing half the time."
Speak for yourself, I know exactly what I'm not doing.
I wonder if there's an element of the architecture culture of all-nighters, working 60+ hours per week, lack of flexibility that has scared some women off in the past. A lot of women really want to be moms and have families, and many in the profession give the impression that architecture is an all-or-nothing type of career.
Aug 8, 17 9:30 am ·
·
randomised
But how do you know, are you a woman that wants to have a family and be a mum? All these assumptions people/men make for women (just in general not directed towards you per se) must drive 'em nuts...oops now I am making generalised assumptions too.
Aug 8, 17 12:05 pm ·
·
corbismyhomeboy
Yes I am actually. And to echo what someone else has said on here as well, most of the women in my firm (which is about 50/50 ratio) are all without children for various reasons. The women that do have children - one has college age children, and two have kids in preschool level. And they both waited to have kids until they were at senior level in careers. So now they're juggling school events and a lot of work travel to meet clients, manage projects, etc., It seems extremely stressful.
Aug 8, 17 1:26 pm ·
·
randomised
I always find it weird that you never hear of the fathers of those kids having to juggle things around or being extremely stressful how to combine a family with work. After the women stop nursing their babies it is perfectly possible for the fathers to play a bigger, more significant role in the upbringing of their own offspring, why is it always assumed to be on the shoulders of the mothers? And on a different note, why do ambitious educated women allow the father of their kids to get away with it? If they would step up to the plate the women wouldn't have to be the only ones making all those professional sacrifices, but it would be a shared responsibility, just like parenthood should be.
Aug 9, 17 3:15 am ·
·
sameolddoctor
Corbis is full of shit
Aug 9, 17 3:19 pm ·
·
corbismyhomeboy
?? I'm sorry that you have some inexplicable issue with my comments. That'll teach me I suppose.
2- I'm in a good place w (mostly) good experiences
3- I left to gain control of my career
4- I got out of architecture
I'm willing to bet we all know each one these persons, as demonstrated by the anecdotal information. There are people in the thread who have offered testimonials of sorts. But we can't address trends if we don't look at a broader set- hence the importance of the AIA diversity survey.
More to the point, because it asks the same questions of everybody, it reveals stresses based on gender which is the matter at hand. And we can't forget people like Rosa Sheng who ar leading efforts to identify, address and correct negative experiences among women related to gender bias.
Aug 8, 17 9:51 am ·
·
citizen
I'd add 3.5- I branched out within the field to find other opportunities (e.g., teaching, research, public sector, building, furniture-making, writing, etc.)
These things will change naturally overtime as older generations die off and the younger ones grow up and take the reigns.
In the meantime, everyone needs to chill out and stop politicizing every god damn thing. It's really exhausting and it's going to cause a backlash if people become fanatic (oh wait I think that already happened).
Just chill, we live in a new age and the paradigm has already shifted; just let it happen.
Aug 8, 17 10:36 am ·
·
sameolddoctor
It really is not about "politicizing" everything - what is wrong is wrong. Lack of diversity is wrong, period.
Aug 9, 17 3:20 pm ·
·
A.I.
You create the opportunities and make sure laws are set up to prevent discrimination. Then the people themselves will naturally choose what they want to do and ascend as society evolves under those new policies-which are already there.
There is nothing the government can or should do to force diversity. I don't see a campaign to make 50% of construction workers female? But under your logic (lack of diversity is wrong, period) there should be a concerted regulatory effort to force the labor industry to have even, proportional divisions across race and sex. This is ridiculous!
Women have come a long way and public policy has evolved to a point where there is no literal hindrance as there was before.
The "inconvenient truth" is that a work/internship based path to licensure is a big factor in this. Its easier to blame old white guys though...but then the same crowd sees no issue in old white guys being put in a gate keeper position. I really don't get it.
That work/internship based path to licensure is demonstrably baised against women and thus needs to be changed?
Or that women are inherently unable to work in a work/internship based path to licensure environment based on an argument that is similar to the former google employee?
My firm (arch and interiors) is overall about 50/50, and the arch portion specifically is about 60/40 M/F. The thing is, with the exception of one woman who's already a mom (in her mid 30s), every single other female on staff is in her early 30s and childless. I know at least one, probably the most promising, is looking to have kids soon and she can't be alone.
I would expect motherhood to cull the talent over the next few years while I, a man, leapfrog them. Then the cycle gets repeated. This year 2 of those women got their licenses, so hopefully they gain at least a little job security/confidence from knowing that they'll have opportunities when/if they return, should they chose to have kids.
Aug 8, 17 11:23 am ·
·
joseffischer
That seems just... awful. Why on earth would having a kid set you back in their career enough that you'd expect to leapfrog them all. Is 2 months maternity leave (typically unpaid) really that big of a gap that they get back and you've stolen all their projects? I'm so confused.
Dan Lyons has some really fascinating insight about discrimination in start-up culture. Although not directly about architecture I think he brings up some really good points about hiring being tied to "office culture," something a lot of new firms who try to ape silicon valley participate in.
He basically says that basing hiring decisions on whether or not a person "fits into the culture" is a backhanded way for young, white guys to hire other young, white guys, perpetuating the lack of age, race, and gender diversity in the startup tech world. The specific example that I've heard often is "I'd hire someone who I'd like to get a beer with after work."
I think the way a lot of emerging practices in various industries operate is being influenced by the hype around start-up culture, so I don't think we can sit back and "let change happen," as it's not just the old white guys in the established firms we have to worry about.
Perpetuating the myth that Corbis and bowling have, that women cannot have a career and children, or that men cannot be contributors in their upbringing (despite random's description of being the primary caregiver) only serves to delay any progress.
AI's comment that 'it will just happen' is also a backward mentality. The only reason diversity amongst women and minorities has made any progress whatsoever is because people have continued to make it a goal and to discuss how it can be accomplished.
At a recent diversity workshop my firm hosted, a speaker noted that by not actively pursuing diversity/inclusion (particularly in those scenarios which such diversity is clearly lacking) one is essentially perpetuating a noninclusive environment.
It isn't enough to say let it happen, or yeah we don't discriminate. Based on surveys such as the ones Marc presented, it's clear that white male dominated professions need to explicitly be welcoming so as to make certain that women and minorities with great talent know they will have opportunities at such places to thrive. Otherwise why would a woman/minority person have any reason whatsoever to believe bringing their talent to a white male dominated firm is worth their effort.
My question today and as I move up through the ranks, is what can I do to be welcoming? How can I encourage my firm to hire diversely? What can I do on an individual level to make my non white male colleagues know that I appreciate their talents and view them as equals without being awkward, condescending or self righteous in the process? These are of course rhetorical. It will remain a constant learning process, but it's something I feel is important not just morally but in order to stay relevant to the younger generation with shifting demographics and perspectives. I encourage other men in my situation to at least consider this, even just think about it from time to time, rather than dismissing equality as some lassiez faire utopian inevitably.
Aug 8, 17 1:14 pm ·
·
corbismyhomeboy
I don't mean to perpetuate a myth. I meant that older office cultures with less flexible work hours, work environments may have prohibited, whether intentionally or not, women who want to also pursue having families. A lot of women (and men) are now reaping the benefits of more flexible work lives, and I hope that practice continues and spreads as more firms start to see the benefits.
Whoa hold on a second. I didn't perpetuate any myth - I related the data from my current office, and reiterated that I hope the women choose to come back to the work force if/when they decide to have kids.
I'm from Canada where we get 12 months of maternity leave, and can split it up how we want. Men can take the entirety of that leave if they choose. I don't plan to have kids so I don't expect to leave the work force, even temporarily, basically until I retire. That's not the same for other people, and while the tide is hopefully changing, the majority of new mothers do leave the work force for at least a year or four.
It might have been subtle but my point in describing the women's ages is that we literally have one woman on staff, out of 9, who has children. All are under 35. Why? Because those women who have kids tend not to return to work. We have tried very hard to get our interior design manager to return after her maternity leave, but her husband makes more money in commercial real estate, and so they chose for her to be accepted stay at home parent. And my firm pays very well.
There are no women in senior positions at my firm because none have returned from maternity leave in the past 12 years, and possibly longer.
But do you pay really well if no one comes back? Granted there are other reasons why people don't come back but the "well paying" might not be as great as you think compared to other firms.
Aug 9, 17 11:43 am ·
·
sameolddoctor
"There are no women in senior positions at my firm because none have returned from maternity leave in the past 12 years, and possibly longer." You're full of shit and kool-aid if you think that its happened organically, that no one came back. Its engineered that way.
Aug 9, 17 6:53 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
sameold, you have no idea what you're talking about. I wouldn't presume to know what happens at your office, so kindly strip off. My employers have literally had 6 lunches with this woman, trying to bring her back. Maybe she's leading them on, I don't know. Anyway none of the women in question have taken positions at other firms overseas that time, so it can't just be our office culture alone. I refuse to believe that's it's all offices, too, since several very successful firms in my city are women owned or co-owned.
Aug 9, 17 11:59 pm ·
·
James Cargill
They should offer the woman more money than the average man and flexible hours.
I never claimed it was peer reviewed. Again, this is from my own office, and it's accurate. This is a discussion after all. And I didn't really offer much of a personal opinion either way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing your personal experience. I was actually referring to how you and archinine were talking cross purposes. But with the survey data we can actually have a conversation about the group at hand with a shared contex- without mansplaining which is what I'm trying to avoid. And I don't really feel the need to do that when I can point to Denise Scott Brown's omission from the Pritzker, or the long standing history of women who felt the need to say they were "architects first" in order to suppress gender criticism (reference women in coding-a crazy history). I would also point to
Apologies one more time. The women in coding references: here, here, and here. This impacted architecture most notably in the 60's.
Aug 8, 17 9:16 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
Thanks. That's a lot to delve into. I don't think I'm going to solve this problem tonight.
Aug 8, 17 11:00 pm ·
·
James Cargill
Anecdotal data is dangerous, surveys of people's biases based on perception is more valid
Aug 11, 17 11:37 am ·
·
joseffischer
Somehow I missed the whole Denise Scott Brown thing. I don't really go seeking "who won the pritzker" or anything... but yeah, they definitely should give her a prtizker.
Ok but multiplie citations of m/paternity issues still contributes to an attitude of 'that's the way things are/were' even if anecdotally. Whereas the aggregate data tells a different story, one that can be addressed immediately. Which I still maintain and argue is one centered around certain people feeling unwelcome and unlikely to succeed in the field of architecture.
Aug 8, 17 6:10 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
I don't disagree, but how can that be helped in your opinion? Working for my two (male) bosses can feel like I'm in an old boys club, and I welcome a shake up that female employers might bring. But there's no guarantee of that either. As we say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Went to a all day conf. on some revised building codes for the state of Michigan a couple days ago....
I don't know if I've ever seen a less diverse group. I counted 2 black women, no black men, maybe 2 Asian men, and 30ish women out of roughly 250 architects and inspectors.
I wasn't the youngest, but the average age had to be in the 50's
Been reading a lot of evolutionary biology stuff lately. Also, paying extra close attention to this strange sjw denial of science, specifically biology. I heard somewhere about a google engineer who was in some brainstorming session about lack of female software engineers, and was fired for simply citing the Factual well established claim that women and men have biologically differing interest. Crazy. Women tend to be more interested in people, and men tend to be more interested in things/objects. He was offering a possible reason why there are less femal engineers than male. He also carefully noted that women who are interested in engineering have an equal cognitive ability as their male counterparts, so it’s not a matter of ability, but rather interests. Scientists have also established this interest difference in other primates, and have concluded that there is a biological basis for differing interests. Sure socialization probably plays a role, but to suggest that an unequal 50/50 distribution of men and women MUST signify discrimination is an oversimplification to say the least. “Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4”.
Makes sense. So what should I be fake outraged about next? Back to guns again?
Mar 2, 18 2:10 pm ·
·
curtkram
statistically, 9 out of 10 women can do your job better than you
Mar 2, 18 3:17 pm ·
·
x-jla
Women can/should be able to do anything they want. What they want to do however, seems to be biologically determined to a degree. May explain why there is less of a gap in more social professions like psychology, law, medicine, etc.
Mar 2, 18 3:42 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
And then there are women who think engineering has to do with people and making thier lives better and are turned off when others define it as not having to do with people but with objects.
Mar 2, 18 4:46 pm ·
·
x-jla
Ahh, and this is why open debate is good...without having to be pc...maybe the way the field prompts itself can help to attract women by changing that perception.
"to suggest that an unequal 50/50 distribution of men and women MUST signify discrimination is an oversimplification to say the least."
I've only ever heard this suggested by people who disagree with it in order to make a point against it.
Mar 2, 18 3:36 pm ·
·
x-jla
Typical, information or opinion enters debate that you dislike, push it from the grey to either the black or white, turn the individual who says it into a member of a enemy group, (racist, sexist, etc) and ignore/discredit said info. Tribalism. Tyranny of thought...at a social and intellectual level... is creeping up in a really dangerous and frightening way lately. The science is very well established that sexual biology affects behaviors. This is as well established as climate science. This kinda thing is the lefts version of global warming denial.
Mar 2, 18 4:19 pm ·
·
x-jla
Please for the sake of humanity try some political atheism! It’s good for you.
Mar 2, 18 4:20 pm ·
·
x-jla
Disagree with what? Forgot to ask...
Mar 2, 18 4:22 pm ·
·
x-jla
Let me be clear, I understand that sociological and structural forces exist, but to say that a 100% equal opportunity society (which I strongly want to see) will produce a clean 50/50 demographic is completely ridiculous. I support equal opportunity not equality of outcome. Those are 2 very different things.
Mar 2, 18 4:28 pm ·
·
tduds
I think you missed what I was trying to say... that no one is arguing in favor of the thing you're making a case against. And by insisting that they are, you're either blind to the point or intentionally misrepresenting it in order to paint yourself the winner.
Mar 2, 18 4:49 pm ·
·
tduds
You say "I support equal opportunity not equality of outcome." Great! So do I! So do, I believe, most people.
But I don't think we have equal opportunity yet (This applies to more than just architecture and especially more than just men / women). Making the case that 'equality of outcome' isn't possible 1) falsely begs the question that we already have equality of opportunity, and 2) dismisses the efforts of those fighting for equality of opportunity as misguided pleas for equality of outcome.
I'm not ignoring or discrediting the research you presented (it's interesting!), but I am suggesting its irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Mar 2, 18 5:02 pm ·
·
x-jla
I didn't say that we have equality of opportunity. I simply stated that even if we did, hypothetically, a 50/50 equal demographic is likely not going to be the outcome. Its a poor metric.
Mar 2, 18 5:21 pm ·
·
x-jla
Also, yes, many people are assuming that disproportionate representation equates to a lack of equal opportunity. If the metric that one weighs that against is equal outcome, 50/50, then their assumptions as to the degree of a lack of equal opportunity is flawed. Get it?
Mar 2, 18 6:14 pm ·
·
x-jla
In other words, a natural outcome may be 30/70 or 40/60 or whatever...why is this important, because we are carelessly, or maybe carefully, creating a victim mentality, or at least exaggerating the degree of oppression based off a false notion that an equal society will produce an equal proportion of male and female architects, engineers, designers, etc.
Mar 2, 18 6:26 pm ·
·
randomised
Equal opportunity ≠ equal outcome?
Apr 29, 18 3:43 am ·
·
x-jla
It’s not about ability, it’s about interests.
Apr 29, 18 11:46 am ·
·
randomised
12 out of 15 people at my work are female (but then again, I'm the only architect), what's more pressing to me is the fact there are only two people 40 or over, with one being the 60ish director of the place.
Beside the fact that humans are in fact not monkeys, thus the article cited being a poor argument (with even weaker citations therein), here’s a look into the ‘interests’ correlation, or rather one of many possible causations to said correlation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu44AqF0iI
Then of course there’s the argument that architecture is absolutely a field that delves deeply into the ‘womanly’ interests about people, connections, sociology etc. how many times on this forum and in your career, academia, has architecture been discussed as being more than ‘object making’? Is it not somewhat of a consensus that the best architecture is the kind which responds to and serves the need of the people over the celebration of form making? Sure form is great but if the program and users are ignored it’s generally considered a flop. It would almost seem as though the best architecture is, gasp, a mixed bag of the ‘female’ and ‘male’ interests. Leading us back at square one to the equality discussion.
Apr 29, 18 2:47 pm ·
·
x-jla
So, are you saying that the emphasis on object focused architecture is the reason why more males are attracted? Interesting point. The monkey studies you cite have been applied to children as well and they do show a clear consistent gender preference...I see your point on object architecture though. It’s a chicken egg thing...is the architecture world dominated by object architecture because we have so many males, or do we have so many males because the architecture is mostly object obsessed (for numerous other reasons)? Probably a little of both.
Apr 30, 18 2:49 pm ·
·
x-jla
So now have to go way way back...architecture as object had/has some real historical functions across cultures. That aside for a sec...say architecture becomes more non-object based and the profession becomes more and more dominated by females over time...eventually women make up 80% of the profession. Is that ok? Women make up majority in many professions. http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2. Who cares. My only concern is how that happens. Naturally, through equality of opportunity- fine. Through social engineering-not fine. When we artificially manipulate equality of outcome we have to accept a certain degree of authoritarian policy. Never a good thing imo and very unproductive on many levels, not to mention that authoritarian power being abused as it always is. If we work on equality of opportunity, as the West has, and the eventual outcome is 20/80, 40/60, 70/30, then it is what it is. Equity is a terrible goal, and Assuming a 50/50 outcome is a terrible metric. Back to the individual as the primary concern. Classical liberalism etc. If inequality of opportunity exists in any form, we should call it out and try to reform it. Other than that, not sure what people want to do.
Apr 30, 18 3:37 pm ·
·
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.
Male/Female diversity (or lack thereof) at architecture offices
I know this has been the subject of many discussions and AIA mandates etc. but I know that a lot of offices discriminate against hiring women. One common reason I hear at the firm I work for is "girls don't like pulling extremely long hours". (I hate this firm).
Why is this not a bigger discussion, and treated more of a behind-the-scenes bureaucratic item?
Thoughts?
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
2 Featured Comments
Not sure, but if the profession wants to keep the current/next generation it will need to find a way to keep women in the field. My current office is pretty much split 50/50. We all pull the hours when needed.
403 +/- licensed African-American women...
All 33 Comments
Very true, proven in this bell curve
James, I hope you are being sarcastic? That IQ bell curve shows men at the highest end of intelligence are significantly overrepresented. This explains why men are overrepresented in the top positions.
Also, this thread has reminded me why I quit my Architecture job, working with such limp-wristed weasels became insufferable.
Thats right non! My penis has a mind of its own. I should start billing on its behalf.
The problem with having a penis and a brain is that you don't have enough blood to run them both at the same time.
Couldnt you say the same thing about a vagina and a brain ? I find this sexist and should be flagged
^idiot
Why are you saying I am an idiot?
I don't have a vagina so I couldn't say. But I do agree with Non.
Not sure, but if the profession wants to keep the current/next generation it will need to find a way to keep women in the field. My current office is pretty much split 50/50. We all pull the hours when needed.
My current office is also 50/50. Our firm has a second smaller office in NYC that is comprised solely of 4 women. We actually joke about needing to hire men to keep the ratio closer to 50/50.
I say we pay them more because they are clearly better than Trump-voting white men
Not to turn this into a political discussion or anything, but the US voted in the most unqualified person in history to president because the other choice is a woman. So there is this general deep seated misogyny.
As for architecture, I think that this profession is so ego-centric and men tend to be more confident and self-important while women tend to be honest about what they know. Hence I think some offices might want to hire more bullshitters!! They sell the project I guess. I hate when I see how men and women talk about their tasks at work with men always making a big deal of their work.
I have to disagree with most of the above
It had nothing to do with gender and everything to do with everything else.
Lol...are you muslim? You sound salty.
Funny how "confident and self-important" you come across, bakhet, while being so confused on basic things.
I hate when I see how men and women talk about their tasks at work with men always making a big deal of their work.
Haha, true. I guess since we are literally incubators of life, everything else seems meh by comparison. Like, "Oh, you won an AIA award? That's cute. I just expelled an 8-lb. human being from my body and went to work three days later."
SO TRUE BAKHET. Literally every white man I talked to said they voted for Trump because they hate women and minorities. What is this country turning into... literally nazis
Well then maybe you should talk to me and my wife's boyfriend. We both voted for Hillary. I just love these sweeping statements from posters like you.. a not!
What about the ones who voted for Obama 4 years before?
The current generation of firm owners and principals grew up and went to school when the number of women in architecture was much lower. The really hard-core misogynists I have come across went to school in the 1970's. I hope that as this older generation retires or dies off, their anti-female bias will disappear out of the profession with them.
The other argument I've seen noted multiple times in regards to the film industry- though applicable here and in many white collar professions- is that people hire people who remind them of themselves when they were young. So in essence white men hire and promote white men first. As a white man I've witnessed my female colleagues get passed over despite my having essentially the same experience. It is shitty for them yet at the same time I'm not going to turn down a promotion. In the few instances I've been in a position to influence hiring I've attempted to be inclusive, but what I've seen is a vast majority of white candidates coming out of schools.
This last part could very well be related to the generally low payback of the degree and the fact that if a young person doesn't see anyone who looks like them doing something they can't see themselves doing it. Case in point the first female black astronaut, Mae Jemison, cited seeing Ohura on Star Trek as a defining reason she believed she could be an astronaut. How many American movies and tv shows are there about architects and how many of those characters are portrayed by anything other than a white male? I'm fairly certain the second answer is close to or exactly zero.
It's a complicated issue and there is no straightforward answer or solution. To make sweeping generalizations that women aren't this or that is flat out not true and only perpetuates the problem. Some of the best architects and designers I've ever met are women and or minorities who lack neither ego nor willingness to work late.
Given the long careers and amount of time it seems to take to advance, I expect architecture to be amoung the last professional careers to reach "equality." I suspect that equality amoung sexes will take far less time than racial
403 +/- licensed African-American women...
That's terrible! Had no idea it was that bad!
I went school when the proportion of women students to male was 50/50 and every firm I've worked in has been 50/50 - most of my PAs are women - they are pretty sharp on design - i'm basically their Revit modeler - My current PA doesn't suffer fools lightly - heaven help you if you don't have the answer - she will take you apart
Xenakis - indeed I've noticed more and more lower level PAs and PMs. The tide appears to be shifting toward something closer to equality.
In school we actually had a slight majority of women in the major.
I think what you and Xenakis are ignoring is that you make more than your female, transgender, twingender, or other gendered colleageus. And should have to see your pay cut or their pay boosted to fill the gap.
Perhaps answers are embedded here...
yeah I agree with stern on that.
Imagine what an awesome world we could live in if more of the profession looked like this:
Get one for yourself here.
I'm only buying one if my money goes directly to minorities and women
My Asian-American trans-gendered architect 'wife' is extremely interested in a shirt! Please provide a link for those shirts that represent they. Thank you!
And you can see more why in reports produced for the AIA.
I've found the people who are most concerned with the various 'ism's of our society generally have some personal issues. i.e. the average performing white dude that blames affirmative action for not getting a promotion. The unqualified female PM who blames sexism for not getting the next promotion. The older architect who never learned how to even print a PDF blames age-ism for getting laid off.
I've worked with tech savy 65 yr olds and amazing female architects and I never hear the word discrimination come out of their mouths. It's the under-performers who seem to latch onto it. Why would you even want to work at the firm in OP's post, let them dry up and die, that is not the situation at most firms. Do your best, prove the haters wrong and if they still can't recognize it, you don't want to work there anyway.
You seem like the blond white male that has not seen any first hand discrimination happen to you. There are a lot of whiners in the profession, but if you think that the lack of diversity is not a real concern, you gotta be kidding me. By your stupid logic, all talks of anti-racism shouldnt be happening, as its just the losers that latch onto it. Riiiiiiight...
That's so discriminatory of you! Ha ha, no I've just witnessed the complete opposite during my career. While it's probably more of being in LA I've worked under more Latino PM's then white and at the new firm many more female. The theme I've witnessed is, nobody wants an idiot on their team, race/gender isn't the deciding factor. HOWEVER, I work in middle of the road corporate so yes I'm sure it's out there, my point is, whenever I hear the complaint in person, generally it's a cover up for a personal short comings.
So you agree that you are a white male. Point closed
Wait did you just accuse this person of being a white male and then saying because he is a white male he must be racist? It's hard to keep up here.
Interesting how positive the white men feel in regards to racial equality while all men seem to be consistently trending toward the positive about how women are equal. So in both cases the ones not in question believe things are better than those who are directly affected.
Yes, there are some really telling and strange things on in the report, like the chart about the perception of proper representation. The chart describing diversity by title is also telling if you read it longitudinally. You can see peoples dropping out of the profession at particular stages in their career.
Its crazy how people perceive their place in the world isnt it? If you read the rest of the report you'll see that people perceive racism and sexism to be a bigger problem while in academia
Woman speaking here. I've worked at firms with good ol boy agendas and firms without it. Of course it exists but of course it isn't everywhere. Running my own show now and I think it is an advantage to be a woman precisely because it is different, it is not maintaining the status quo, it is memorable, novel and exciting. Client love it. And I have two very young kids to care for as well. It means I get more done with less. Clients are actually more accepting of family and flex time than firms are.
With the old white male boomer architects being unable to adapt to our millennium (17 years in, wtf?) and just complain (Hi Weltschmerz!) or either burn out or dropping like flies I guess this will even out rather sooner than later, thankfully.
On a personal note, all the women I graduated with (except maybe one), 50-50 ratio male-female are now working at Starchitects around the world and some are running projects you see featured on architecture blogs and in magazines while even having a family. And here I am, 30 something white male architect working less than full-time (sometimes from home, like now when I'm working on a book) and taking care of my son while my girlfriend brings home most of the bacon. I've been hired by and worked for female principals and with female (project) architects and designers and when necessary we all worked our asses off to get things done and get them done properly.
that's funny,
sorry, accidently hit "enter"...... most of the women I graduated with are now either totally out of the profession or working part time. (total class of 30ish, 50% women)
Ive worked in a lot of firms and many have a very male chauvinistic attitude that I have found quite shocking. Building sites are even worse. At least we dont tend to put up female model calendars anymore mind. Its a terrible career for a woman to have to make any headway in, the only successful woman in the industry that I have come across have been extremely ruthless and far tougher than any men I've worked with! But I have found the women Ive met have also been mostly very intelligent and practically minded and probably very frustrated with us men - because lets face it most men in this industry dont know what the hell they are doing half the time. And yes I am a male architect.
" because lets face it most men in this industry dont know what the hell they are doing half the time."
Speak for yourself, I know exactly what I'm not doing.
I wonder if there's an element of the architecture culture of all-nighters, working 60+ hours per week, lack of flexibility that has scared some women off in the past. A lot of women really want to be moms and have families, and many in the profession give the impression that architecture is an all-or-nothing type of career.
But how do you know, are you a woman that wants to have a family and be a mum? All these assumptions people/men make for women (just in general not directed towards you per se) must drive 'em nuts...oops now I am making generalised assumptions too.
Yes I am actually. And to echo what someone else has said on here as well, most of the women in my firm (which is about 50/50 ratio) are all without children for various reasons. The women that do have children - one has college age children, and two have kids in preschool level. And they both waited to have kids until they were at senior level in careers. So now they're juggling school events and a lot of work travel to meet clients, manage projects, etc., It seems extremely stressful.
I always find it weird that you never hear of the fathers of those kids having to juggle things around or being extremely stressful how to combine a family with work. After the women stop nursing their babies it is perfectly possible for the fathers to play a bigger, more significant role in the upbringing of their own offspring, why is it always assumed to be on the shoulders of the mothers? And on a different note, why do ambitious educated women allow the father of their kids to get away with it? If they would step up to the plate the women wouldn't have to be the only ones making all those professional sacrifices, but it would be a shared responsibility, just like parenthood should be.
Corbis is full of shit
?? I'm sorry that you have some inexplicable issue with my comments. That'll teach me I suppose.
That's not very nice to say sameolddoctor
There are four basic scenarios:
1- I'm still in this place and hating it
2- I'm in a good place w (mostly) good experiences
3- I left to gain control of my career
4- I got out of architecture
I'm willing to bet we all know each one these persons, as demonstrated by the anecdotal information. There are people in the thread who have offered testimonials of sorts. But we can't address trends if we don't look at a broader set- hence the importance of the AIA diversity survey.
More to the point, because it asks the same questions of everybody, it reveals stresses based on gender which is the matter at hand. And we can't forget people like Rosa Sheng who ar leading efforts to identify, address and correct negative experiences among women related to gender bias.
I'd add 3.5- I branched out within the field to find other opportunities (e.g., teaching, research, public sector, building, furniture-making, writing, etc.)
Agreed, but it's still a decision based on trying to establish control.
Yes, but not to leave the field.
That's scenario number 4
These things will change naturally overtime as older generations die off and the younger ones grow up and take the reigns.
In the meantime, everyone needs to chill out and stop politicizing every god damn thing. It's really exhausting and it's going to cause a backlash if people become fanatic (oh wait I think that already happened).
Just chill, we live in a new age and the paradigm has already shifted; just let it happen.
It really is not about "politicizing" everything - what is wrong is wrong. Lack of diversity is wrong, period.
You create the opportunities and make sure laws are set up to prevent discrimination. Then the people themselves will naturally choose what they want to do and ascend as society evolves under those new policies-which are already there.
There is nothing the government can or should do to force diversity. I don't see a campaign to make 50% of construction workers female? But under your logic (lack of diversity is wrong, period) there should be a concerted regulatory effort to force the labor industry to have even, proportional divisions across race and sex. This is ridiculous!
Women have come a long way and public policy has evolved to a point where there is no literal hindrance as there was before.
The "inconvenient truth" is that a work/internship based path to licensure is a big factor in this. Its easier to blame old white guys though...but then the same crowd sees no issue in old white guys being put in a gate keeper position. I really don't get it.
What exactly is the "inconvenient truth?"
That work/internship based path to licensure is demonstrably baised against women and thus needs to be changed?
Or that women are inherently unable to work in a work/internship based path to licensure environment based on an argument that is similar to the former google employee?
Or is it yet another argument?
Please do expand.
My firm (arch and interiors) is overall about 50/50, and the arch portion specifically is about 60/40 M/F. The thing is, with the exception of one woman who's already a mom (in her mid 30s), every single other female on staff is in her early 30s and childless. I know at least one, probably the most promising, is looking to have kids soon and she can't be alone.
I would expect motherhood to cull the talent over the next few years while I, a man, leapfrog them. Then the cycle gets repeated. This year 2 of those women got their licenses, so hopefully they gain at least a little job security/confidence from knowing that they'll have opportunities when/if they return, should they chose to have kids.
That seems just... awful. Why on earth would having a kid set you back in their career enough that you'd expect to leapfrog them all. Is 2 months maternity leave (typically unpaid) really that big of a gap that they get back and you've stolen all their projects? I'm so confused.
Dan Lyons has some really fascinating insight about discrimination in start-up culture. Although not directly about architecture I think he brings up some really good points about hiring being tied to "office culture," something a lot of new firms who try to ape silicon valley participate in.
He basically says that basing hiring decisions on whether or not a person "fits into the culture" is a backhanded way for young, white guys to hire other young, white guys, perpetuating the lack of age, race, and gender diversity in the startup tech world. The specific example that I've heard often is "I'd hire someone who I'd like to get a beer with after work."
I think the way a lot of emerging practices in various industries operate is being influenced by the hype around start-up culture, so I don't think we can sit back and "let change happen," as it's not just the old white guys in the established firms we have to worry about.
Young white guys tend to turn into old white guys.
Implicit bias goes back...
Why would I turn away a beer? I can drink with anyone!
http://www.sfgate.com/business...
AI's comment that 'it will just happen' is also a backward mentality. The only reason diversity amongst women and minorities has made any progress whatsoever is because people have continued to make it a goal and to discuss how it can be accomplished.
At a recent diversity workshop my firm hosted, a speaker noted that by not actively pursuing diversity/inclusion (particularly in those scenarios which such diversity is clearly lacking) one is essentially perpetuating a noninclusive environment.
It isn't enough to say let it happen, or yeah we don't discriminate. Based on surveys such as the ones Marc presented, it's clear that white male dominated professions need to explicitly be welcoming so as to make certain that women and minorities with great talent know they will have opportunities at such places to thrive. Otherwise why would a woman/minority person have any reason whatsoever to believe bringing their talent to a white male dominated firm is worth their effort.
My question today and as I move up through the ranks, is what can I do to be welcoming? How can I encourage my firm to hire diversely? What can I do on an individual level to make my non white male colleagues know that I appreciate their talents and view them as equals without being awkward, condescending or self righteous in the process? These are of course rhetorical. It will remain a constant learning process, but it's something I feel is important not just morally but in order to stay relevant to the younger generation with shifting demographics and perspectives. I encourage other men in my situation to at least consider this, even just think about it from time to time, rather than dismissing equality as some lassiez faire utopian inevitably.
I don't mean to perpetuate a myth. I meant that older office cultures with less flexible work hours, work environments may have prohibited, whether intentionally or not, women who want to also pursue having families. A lot of women (and men) are now reaping the benefits of more flexible work lives, and I hope that practice continues and spreads as more firms start to see the benefits.
Whoa hold on a second. I didn't perpetuate any myth - I related the data from my current office, and reiterated that I hope the women choose to come back to the work force if/when they decide to have kids.
I'm from Canada where we get 12 months of maternity leave, and can split it up how we want. Men can take the entirety of that leave if they choose. I don't plan to have kids so I don't expect to leave the work force, even temporarily, basically until I retire. That's not the same for other people, and while the tide is hopefully changing, the majority of new mothers do leave the work force for at least a year or four.
It might have been subtle but my point in describing the women's ages is that we literally have one woman on staff, out of 9, who has children. All are under 35. Why? Because those women who have kids tend not to return to work. We have tried very hard to get our interior design manager to return after her maternity leave, but her husband makes more money in commercial real estate, and so they chose for her to be accepted stay at home parent. And my firm pays very well.
There are no women in senior positions at my firm because none have returned from maternity leave in the past 12 years, and possibly longer.
That all just drips of misogyny.
^ Kidding.
But do you pay really well if no one comes back? Granted there are other reasons why people don't come back but the "well paying" might not be as great as you think compared to other firms.
"There are no women in senior positions at my firm because none have returned from maternity leave in the past 12 years, and possibly longer." You're full of shit and kool-aid if you think that its happened organically, that no one came back. Its engineered that way.
sameold, you have no idea what you're talking about. I wouldn't presume to know what happens at your office, so kindly strip off. My employers have literally had 6 lunches with this woman, trying to bring her back. Maybe she's leading them on, I don't know. Anyway none of the women in question have taken positions at other firms overseas that time, so it can't just be our office culture alone. I refuse to believe that's it's all offices, too, since several very successful firms in my city are women owned or co-owned.
They should offer the woman more money than the average man and flexible hours.
^ the dangers of anecdotal data...
I never claimed it was peer reviewed. Again, this is from my own office, and it's accurate. This is a discussion after all. And I didn't really offer much of a personal opinion either way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing your personal experience. I was actually referring to how you and archinine were talking cross purposes. But with the survey data we can actually have a conversation about the group at hand with a shared contex- without mansplaining which is what I'm trying to avoid. And I don't really feel the need to do that when I can point to Denise Scott Brown's omission from the Pritzker, or the long standing history of women who felt the need to say they were "architects first" in order to suppress gender criticism (reference women in coding-a crazy history). I would also point to
(Sorry) the work of Nancy diTomaso (mostly race but addresses gender) on implicit bias in addition to the link above.
Point being, we all have narrow perspectives, but the survey, recorded history and research provide a common platform.
(Sorry) the work of Nancy diTomaso (mostly race but addresses gender) on implicit bias in addition to the link above.
Apologies one more time. The women in coding references: here, here, and here. This impacted architecture most notably in the 60's.
Thanks. That's a lot to delve into. I don't think I'm going to solve this problem tonight.
Anecdotal data is dangerous, surveys of people's biases based on perception is more valid
Somehow I missed the whole Denise Scott Brown thing. I don't really go seeking "who won the pritzker" or anything... but yeah, they definitely should give her a prtizker.
I don't disagree, but how can that be helped in your opinion? Working for my two (male) bosses can feel like I'm in an old boys club, and I welcome a shake up that female employers might bring. But there's no guarantee of that either. As we say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You're lucky you don't work in a structural engineering firm.. You'll be thinking architecture is diverse xD
Never mind the less desirable professional fields that are overwhelmingly dominated by men
hahah I had a friend who dropped out from structural engineering in Uni because there wasn't a single girl in his classes.
Went to a all day conf. on some revised building codes for the state of Michigan a couple days ago....
I don't know if I've ever seen a less diverse group. I counted 2 black women, no black men, maybe 2 Asian men, and 30ish women out of roughly 250 architects and inspectors.
I wasn't the youngest, but the average age had to be in the 50's
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1827727
Been reading a lot of evolutionary biology stuff lately. Also, paying extra close attention to this strange sjw denial of science, specifically biology. I heard somewhere about a google engineer who was in some brainstorming session about lack of female software engineers, and was fired for simply citing the Factual well established claim that women and men have biologically differing interest. Crazy. Women tend to be more interested in people, and men tend to be more interested in things/objects. He was offering a possible reason why there are less femal engineers than male. He also carefully noted that women who are interested in engineering have an equal cognitive ability as their male counterparts, so it’s not a matter of ability, but rather interests. Scientists have also established this interest difference in other primates, and have concluded that there is a biological basis for differing interests. Sure socialization probably plays a role, but to suggest that an unequal 50/50 distribution of men and women MUST signify discrimination is an oversimplification to say the least. “Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
Makes sense. So what should I be fake outraged about next? Back to guns again?
statistically, 9 out of 10 women can do your job better than you
Women can/should be able to do anything they want. What they want to do however, seems to be biologically determined to a degree. May explain why there is less of a gap in more social professions like psychology, law, medicine, etc.
And then there are women who think engineering has to do with people and making thier lives better and are turned off when others define it as not having to do with people but with objects.
Ahh, and this is why open debate is good...without having to be pc...maybe the way the field prompts itself can help to attract women by changing that perception.
"to suggest that an unequal 50/50 distribution of men and women MUST signify discrimination is an oversimplification to say the least."
I've only ever heard this suggested by people who disagree with it in order to make a point against it.
Typical, information or opinion enters debate that you dislike, push it from the grey to either the black or white, turn the individual who says it into a member of a enemy group, (racist, sexist, etc) and ignore/discredit said info. Tribalism. Tyranny of thought...at a social and intellectual level... is creeping up in a really dangerous and frightening way lately. The science is very well established that sexual biology affects behaviors. This is as well established as climate science. This kinda thing is the lefts version of global warming denial.
Please for the sake of humanity try some political atheism! It’s good for you.
Disagree with what? Forgot to ask...
Let me be clear, I understand that sociological and structural forces exist, but to say that a 100% equal opportunity society (which I strongly want to see) will produce a clean 50/50 demographic is completely ridiculous. I support equal opportunity not equality of outcome. Those are 2 very different things.
I think you missed what I was trying to say... that no one is arguing in favor of the thing you're making a case against. And by insisting that they are, you're either blind to the point or intentionally misrepresenting it in order to paint yourself the winner.
You say "I support equal opportunity not equality of outcome." Great! So do I! So do, I believe, most people.
But I don't think we have equal opportunity yet (This applies to more than just architecture and especially more than just men / women). Making the case that 'equality of outcome' isn't possible 1) falsely begs the question that we already have equality of opportunity, and 2) dismisses the efforts of those fighting for equality of opportunity as misguided pleas for equality of outcome.
I'm not ignoring or discrediting the research you presented (it's interesting!), but I am suggesting its irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I didn't say that we have equality of opportunity. I simply stated that even if we did, hypothetically, a 50/50 equal demographic is likely not going to be the outcome. Its a poor metric.
Also, yes, many people are assuming that disproportionate representation equates to a lack of equal opportunity. If the metric that one weighs that against is equal outcome, 50/50, then their assumptions as to the degree of a lack of equal opportunity is flawed. Get it?
In other words, a natural outcome may be 30/70 or 40/60 or whatever...why is this important, because we are carelessly, or maybe carefully, creating a victim mentality, or at least exaggerating the degree of oppression based off a false notion that an equal society will produce an equal proportion of male and female architects, engineers, designers, etc.
Equal opportunity ≠ equal outcome?
It’s not about ability, it’s about interests.
12 out of 15 people at my work are female (but then again, I'm the only architect), what's more pressing to me is the fact there are only two people 40 or over, with one being the 60ish director of the place.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu44AqF0iI
Then of course there’s the argument that architecture is absolutely a field that delves deeply into the ‘womanly’ interests about people, connections, sociology etc. how many times on this forum and in your career, academia, has architecture been discussed as being more than ‘object making’? Is it not somewhat of a consensus that the best architecture is the kind which responds to and serves the need of the people over the celebration of form making? Sure form is great but if the program and users are ignored it’s generally considered a flop. It would almost seem as though the best architecture is, gasp, a mixed bag of the ‘female’ and ‘male’ interests. Leading us back at square one to the equality discussion.
So, are you saying that the emphasis on object focused architecture is the reason why more males are attracted? Interesting point. The monkey studies you cite have been applied to children as well and they do show a clear consistent gender preference...I see your point on object architecture though. It’s a chicken egg thing...is the architecture world dominated by object architecture because we have so many males, or do we have so many males because the architecture is mostly object obsessed (for numerous other reasons)? Probably a little of both.
So now have to go way way back...architecture as object had/has some real historical functions across cultures. That aside for a sec...say architecture becomes more non-object based and the profession becomes more and more dominated by females over time...eventually women make up 80% of the profession. Is that ok? Women make up majority in many professions. http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2. Who cares. My only concern is how that happens. Naturally, through equality of opportunity- fine. Through social engineering-not fine. When we artificially manipulate equality of outcome we have to accept a certain degree of authoritarian policy. Never a good thing imo and very unproductive on many levels, not to mention that authoritarian power being abused as it always is. If we work on equality of opportunity, as the West has, and the eventual outcome is 20/80, 40/60, 70/30, then it is what it is. Equity is a terrible goal, and Assuming a 50/50 outcome is a terrible metric. Back to the individual as the primary concern. Classical liberalism etc. If inequality of opportunity exists in any form, we should call it out and try to reform it. Other than that, not sure what people want to do.
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.