A podcast is born! "Archinect Sessions" will be a weekly podcast discussing recent news items and happenings on the site. Hosted by Archinect's founder and publisher, Paul Petrunia, along with Editorial Manager Amelia Taylor-Hochberg, the podcast will also pull on the expertise of special weekly co-hosts, whether other Archinectors or players within the architecture community at large.
Our first episode focuses on the issue of gender in the architecture world, prompted by the recent news post from ACSA, "Where are the women? Measuring progress on gender in architecture". We're joined by co-hosts Donna Sink and Ken Koense, and special guest Lian Chikako Chang!
To listen to the "Archinect Sessions" podcast:
Our aim is to expand perspectives on important news topics and highlight the site's major going-ons. You'll hear from a diversity of voices, and will have a chance to add your own to the mix.
Show Notes from Ep. 1 of "Archinect Sessions":
Archinect news items covered:
ACSA Atlas project
Equity vs. Equality:
Aptitude differences between men and women
Nathan Ensmenger: Researcher reveals how “Computer Geeks” replaced “Computer Girls”
Michael Porter quote: architecture as a "gentleman's profession"
Donna's Mentorship Challenge forum discussion
Archinect forum discussion on phenomenology
Sheryl Sandberg's Lean-In movement
Cosmo's "The Computer Girls" 1976 article:
and don't forget to check out Ken's pictures from Turkey in the gallery! Bonus: Archinectors' dog pics.
51 Comments
dogs? really? calling someone a dog is offensive in any culture but especially in chinese culture. i would say you guys should know better but your history of hypocrisy proves otherwise.
nice job dancing around the 'special treatment' aspect, too (what we need to do is give special treatment but it's really not special treatment but we just need to give short people another box to see over the fence yay!)
So, I'm going to go out on a limb here, FRaC, and suggest that you have no problem with depriving people that have a difficult time reading small print, from materials that have larger print, just because that would be a too steep a step for someone like yourself? Too much help, not enough pulling themselves up by their bootstraps?
Perhaps you've had better experience as someone of privilege and you never needed a mechanism to level the playing field for you, but there are many out there, as Donna noted, women in the states we're only recently able to open a checking account what, 50-60 years ago? I bet you have had that problem, right?
As for the dog reference, stop being such an emotional tool. Respond to the charts, stats, and quit the deflecting;
http://www.snark.me/2008/10/on-internet.html
um, no. no problems with people using bifocals or adjusting the text size on their mobile device or women opening up checking accounts.
are you seriously arguing that 20-something year old women today drop out of the architecture field because women couldn't open up their own checking accounts two generations ago? are women really that delicate? i don't think so.
whatever happened to 'i am WOMAN, hear me ROAR!' ?
i heard a lot on that podcast about how we need to fix this 'problem' but not a lot of proposed solutions. there was the suggestion about lots of time off for having babies ... is that it? what else would 'level the playing field'? is 3/32" text too small for women to read on construction documents? is that it? please don't keep this a secret, i'm just a privileged white man i don't know what boxes women need to see over this oppressive fence.
Condescension suits you. Typical.
Is the solution life/work balance? Perhaps. Is the solution a supportive culture, whereby women are not just promoted, but supported and can create successful outcomes, and not promoted just in time to stave off crippling stupidity by their male counterparts? Ala, CEO of GM and Yahoo? Yes. Is the solution a generally more supportive work culture, spousal support, community support? Yes. Better healthcare options, better childcare options, head start, a real FMLA?? Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Is a corporate culture, where women need to rely on Karma, and faith in the system, to reward women in due time the solution??
http://rt.com/news/194740-karma-women-microsoft-criticism/
For the record, I'm arguing that women shouldn't have to fight for things that men never had to fight for, and are basic to all human rights. Respect.
If its solutions, then easy things are flex time, time off to manage kids/life, and consciously asking women for input. Discussing it, even if there are no solutions offered, is a useful part of the process. Simply saying its bullshit if the conclusions are not actionable is nonsense.
Women are often treated improperly in architecture (and just generally, actually). I've seen it all my life, across three continents and especially so in Japan.
In my first proper job, the superficial reality was that a female co-worker who started the same time as me was required to vacuum the office on Monday mornings and serve tea to everyone every morning, and to guests/clients when they came in. This was uncomfortable to me so I got my own drinks. I regret not speaking up and not stepping in to help clean to show how absurd that whole system was. I quit my job to go work in London. She quit to work in a place where she didnt have to act as the cleaning lady. The dirtier underlying reality was that she was also most certainly paid less than me and was expected to quit when she got married and certainly if she had a kid.
It is perhaps a bit different now. Certainly for larger companies it is. It is more certainly better in USA and Canada than in Japan in a lot of ways. That being so, my feeling is that its just out in the open here and that the bullshit is just as real in the rest of the world. More passive aggressive, than outright aggressive. The outcome is the same. Women don't get the opportunities that men do. It is a waste of talent and time and is worth changing.
Anyone talking about architecture anymore?
Guess not.
For the record, I'm arguing that women shouldn't have to fight for things that men never had to fight for, and are basic to all human rights. Respect.
you want respect, yet you dismiss my being dis-respected multiple times by a group of people calling me a 'white dog' and laughing. that's the hypocrisy i'm talking about.
i don't know ... there are often threads about how bad the pay is, how long the work hours are, and how under-appreciated all architects/designers are. perhaps the reason women leave the field is because they are generally smarter than men? how about that?
You? I don't recall you being mentioned? Aren't you being emotional?
So, this is about men, whoa is men? Poor guy, on top for all these years and now you've got your turned out pockets and sad face. :(
There there pumpkin.
You, specifically, are not the problem, we, men are the problem and we, need to figure out how to be part of the solution. But your Ayn Rand, rugged individualist tude, is not going to bring changed. Collectively, whether you, or the other libertarians like it, needs to happen and by this discussion, of which you are a contributer, is happening.
Get me, dawg?
Step one: wrap self in cloak of "architecture critic/podcast/curator"
Step two: discuss feminism/politics
Step three: stir up vitriolic debate/ don't talk about architecture
Step four: repeat
FRaC, I'm sorry you feel like the podcast was comparing you to a dog. We weren't; it's a joke about a very famous cartoon about dogs being on the internet and it was related to my comment that we can't really know who we're debating with when we engage in debates on the internet. With the podcast, some people will know who *I* am, at least, when we discuss things in the forum.
We're hoping the podcast will be another way to deepen the discussions - and yes, including architecture. The article about the David Adjaye Sugar Hill project, for example, which has still only generated a relatively small amount of commentary. Darkman, we have different topics planned for each week; this week the ACSA Atlas Project published new statistics, which generated a LOT of commentary, so that's what we discussed.
We're interested in hearing what topics people want to hear about on the podcast, and suggestions for guests, as well as commentary from forum commenters, too...
Oops, it seems the famous cartoon is not in the show notes, here it is - it has a Wikipedia page.
And while reading that page, I remembered - this is true, swear on a stack of holy books, and has nothing to do with the gender in architecture discussion - that in my first half a dozen posts on Archinect I was attempting to sound like a youngish male, because I was nervous over anonymity. I think I used the word dude a few times.
Oh please don't patronize me. You guys (and gals!) kept coming back to those 'white dogs' *snicker snicker* and it was very disrespectful. It's a common tactic to debase opposing points of view, just look at beta's responses in this very thread. But please don't act like I'm stupid by explaining you weren't attacking me and others who disagree with you with such a classless comment.
Believe what you will, FRaC. On the internet, we're all dogs.
I'm not sure that Darkman actually listened to the podcast, Paul prefaced the podcast by noting that this particular news item, blog post, was one of the most commented on this past week, hence the lead podcast. Also, Darkman, I noticed all of the threads, blogs, news items you've started about architecture, which of course leads me to wonder; are you operating under another name, and posting tons of material?
I'd respect dissenting views more, if they were intellectually honest, and acknowledged some basic facts, and didn't take a Rush Limbaugh, Aynn Rand approach to the world. For instance, John Huntsman, I wouldn't vote for the man, but I'd listen to him, and he's not an intellectual light weight.
FRaC, please, you're breaking my heart. Poor, put upon, white guy. I won't patronize you; you haven't written anything about gender inequity that's worth respecting.
I will say, that you're the only one, thus far, to take offense to the "dog" joke, and for a white conservative, you're taking this rather personally, and sounding like those tea-party types that cry, "you're bullying me" whenever they get called out for their idiocy. So be my guest, if you feel comfortable in wrapping yourself with the "victim" title, I'm sure you'll have no shortage of Fox News pundits rushing to your aide, but you'll have no sympathy from me.
Feel me, dawg?
changing workplace gender politics has a direct effect on development patterns, housing choices, and urban design. drive-only suburban living is one of the big impediments to gender equity in the workplace (at least in this country) - and I'd be curious to see if markets with higher rates of public transit/walking/biking also have higher rates of gender equity in architecture...
That article that the Michael Porter "gentlemen's profession" quote comes from is really good. It continues to astound me that so little practical Professional Practice education is included in most architecture school curricula. I taught it for a few years at Ball State (I loved it - such a fun class to teach) and frequently heard comments from students similar to this: "No one ever talks about this stuff in any of our other classes" which concerned me because these were graduate-level students who had never heard of a single way to market yourself or structure a fee or anything similar!
Poor White Guys
Any disrespect FRaC imagines is well earned.
I like the idea of a panel discussion of current news. 70+ minutes is a bit long to listen through though - any thoughts on condensing this?
The comment on the motives of posters interested me and seems worth separate discussion. Why do people post here - especially behind a pseudonym?
I think most of the more thoughtful posters enjoy thinking about issues beyond their everyday work and use this as a chance to exercise some analytic capabilities. I don't personally expect to influence anyone, nor would I hope to. I'm doing this for fun. A pseudonym makes it easier to regard any attacks as impersonal, and lets me write things I might actually disagree with just to test the argument.
Some posters are somewhat one-sided and simply express whatever opinion first comes to mind. Often reading through the series of one-off statements is pretty interesting, and kind of informative as reading some sort zeitgeist on issues even if it never leads to thoughtful discourse.
And then there are trolls, who aren't necessarily bad. The better trolls do this for entertainment rather than vitriol, and their comments tend to be witty and worth reacting to.
midlander, the whole question of why people comment, either anonymously or not, is really interesting.
I have always loved the threads that turn into a long line of one- or two-line snarky zinger comments - those are the ones that are like a release valve from the workday.
Then the threads where someone asks a straightforward question, like What is an alternative to vinyl tile? or Can anyone identify this building from the picture? - those threads can be so satisfying because they are so frequently answered entirely in the spirit of being helpful.
The Professional Practice threads also usually seem to be full of good advice.
I also think of the comments as a journal for a lot of people, a place to test ideas and work through their own positions on various topics. Writing your thoughts down makes you organize them somewhat coherently, obviously.
Then there's the overarching question of networking and how a community of people can build up around shared interests. Personally, I have gotten two paying gigs and am awaiting signing a contract on a third, and I've hired one other Archinecter, all based just on posting on Archinect. It *is* a very small profession.
After initially being turned off by the topic list which was 8/10 about feminism, I decided to listen anyway because I needed some lunch musak in the park. Thanks.
Was surprised that there was tiny bit of discussion about architecture topics though at the end mostly. I did look at the Sugar Hill project in person this weekend and it looked overwrought--like that old SNL skit with Phil Hartman selling the purposefully nasty car that was nice on the inside so nobody would break in. Ugly. Ugly. Ok on inside.
My response to these statistics and "feminist wall of shame" is that it employs a generally hostile tone of us vs them. That commenters are dismissed as angry white men is interesting since the feminists are also dismissed the same way.
Everybody would like a diverse workplace, but I don't see how waving around pie charts does any good. This current feminism 2.0 seems like nostalgia for the 1970s, when things actually were unequal. Now there are a ton of well-educated women from rich backgrounds tweeting about their disadvantage-many times to justify their career mistakes to fellow rich friends in the media/facebook. At some point, don't you have to be the change you wish to see? Or in regard to Beyonce-Dunham feminism, sticking feathers on your butt doesn't make you a chicken.
Maybe you do have to spend the weekends doing that bathroom detail--though I agree that IDP is a joke that probably does more to hinder women architects than white men do. I voted for Obama and am a feminist, but "feminsts" reveal their true calling when they argue not for issues that affect the women inside of architecture instead of the bourgeois makers which would justify their intentions rather than sounding like empty entitlement.
How, exactly, are statistics "hostile"?
Statistics can be hostile when they are used to fill a narrative...one that women need women role models--when oddly I, Darkman, was inspired to do architecture by a female architect. Or that men are holding women back--when nobody is complaining about lack of female plumbers or real estate agents or magicians...why does architecture get singled out? Because it is the ultimate artsy overeducated burgeous profession.
"So to the Church of Feminism and the Niceness Thought Police, I say: Let a thousand black orchids bloom." - Maureen Dowd
Statistics are what they are, but I've said before that Zaha, a black orchid possibly (whom I was the first to defend--and who turns out was working on a health clinic in Thailand I think) is a much more inspiring on her own than pie charts (though not the one that inspired me, ha). That charts are being paraded around by dubious characters reminds me of reporters who fly into Ferguson to report on how racist St Louis is before leaving the next day. Diving deeper into the world than statistics reveals more inspiring characters from all walks of life. There is a limit to what data can tell us...
And one more thing Batman used a pseudonym, but to the Joker I guess he was a troll. Same with Neo and the Matrix (which I can see has parallels with political correctness).
http://jezebel.com/kirsten-dunst-thinks-ladies-in-relationships-should-wif-1557845533
Here's a great "think-piece" brought to you by "feminists"
Statistics instead of revealing women and men as individuals seeks to box us into definitions. Red state, blue state, this or that. Brutalism, suburban. Sometimes we fit into categories, but most do not, except for the categories and groups they are brainwashed into fitting into.
Politics has ruined architecture.
Okay, I'll bite, how is equal pay for equal work, recognizing the relative non-existent roles for women in architecture, women not staying in the profession, and women getting 18% of the awards, feminism 2.0? How is equity and equality, feminism, and by that I mean, the political equivalent of calling Obama a Marxist for trying to advocate for a living wage for working poor, politics?
This is basic, run of the mill stuff, far from anything so sinister as Feminism 2.0. Snark intended.
I voted for Obama too, it doesn't mean I'm in favor of drone strikes.
OMG, there is sexism and racism in the world! If it weren't for the pie chart nobody would have known!
I mean, c'mon.
This is like 3D Printing....it was around in 2004 but for some reason now it's, like, soooo trendy. There were plenty of women at my lecture series back in the day too, but now women get to come, as long as they speak about lady issues!
The purpose of Dunst/Jezebel piece again, in your own words?
Darkman, I love how you use plumbers, real estate agents? - I think that one is a bit odd, as the numbers there seem pretty 50-50, and oh, the plight of the magicians, to make your point. Perhaps, I see some career envy, I mean rather odd choices, but I can see a bit of a thread. However, if there is a gender parity problem inside those professions, I bet women are no less pissed off, and perhaps the reason we, here on Archinect don't hear about the inequity, is rather simple; WE'RE Architects, and those other professionals don't care what happens in our profession, or on this site, but please, you magic plumbers, selling real estate, feel free to let me know I'm wrong.
Back in my day, there were not plenty of women lecturers; I saw one Zaha lecture in my five years at GSAAP.
I was seeing 3d printing in 1994.
Well since the commenters here are mostly men, I guess Archinect is sexist. End of story.
But stats don't tell the story.
The Dunst story shows feminist contempt for anyone who doesn't fit their narrative. There can't be strong women and strong mothers.
I guess you can always hire a nanny to raise the kids when you occupy the old money bourgeois.
You want to base discussion on a thread, and have it mean something? Ok. Your prerogative. However, I'll note, 3 of the 5 people on the podcast are women, and probably more informed about sexism, in this or in any other profession, but keep on with your man-splaining.
Dunst, and I quote: "And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I'm sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That's why relationships work…"
I dare say Jodi Foster might be offended, my mom might be offended, and many other women might be offended.
Hell, I'll say it; I'm offended. I don't want to be anyone's knight, I don't want to save anyone. I'm offended by her overly simplistic take on why relationships work. Her idea only shifts the dialog back, what, 65 years? But hey, I'm sure she'll be fine taking a back seat Ryan.
Darkman: "Politics has ruined architecture."
Can you explain that one, too?
I was surprised that the first podcast was "Where are the Women?"
Politics generates strong opinions, and is therefore more popular than discussing buildings, even interesting debates like Sugar Hill.
I see so many women in architecture forums, but the lack of architecture dialogue makes it seem like there is a cause and effect. I know NYC magazine editors who don't care about the issue that love the women in architecture story because of its easy narrative and villains and lack of anything design related (so boring!). It's become the heroin for arch schools and media but it strays too far from anything resembling a buildable future.
More directly, politics ruins your ability to see architecture.... Kimmelman's head is so warped by politics he can't see Sugar Hill for what it is. His commentary is actually wrong for the opposite reason--he said it's nice on the outside but not on the inside when the inverse is true. But when you are politically minded you may have preconceived notions.
i'm curious about the neo/mr. anderson relation to batman/bruce wayne
my thought would be that bruce wayne hid behind batman for his safety and convenience. he couldn't playboy it up as a rich kid during the day with the expectations that go along with being a hero.
neo was a chosen name to reflect a chosen life - what the guy wanted to be, or perhaps what he could be. mr. anderson was his given name and his given life. it's more of a message of being free rather than being afraid.
But when you are politically minded you may have preconceived notions.
Well, when you're architecturally minded you may have preconceived notions, too.
Darkman, as has been said: we discussed the gender topic on the podcast this week because 1. it was in the news and 2. it was a highly commented-upon thread. The idea with the podcast is to add another dimension, we hope, to the topics that people seem to want to talk about on the site. So highly commented topics will get attention. If you want to hear about architecture on the podcast, then talk about architecture on the site.
I've always thought the purpose of the AKA was to be in a 'character' to express a point, like a comedian. Give the comment some edge to make it clear. Sure you might offend some people, but isn't that the point, to make people uncomfortable, to think outside their usual stream of thought?
with regard to aptitude it's all genetics, I guarantee it
Madison is a morning person who rambles into tangents in seconds, loses her shit when people don't understand the make believe rules of the game, especially her rebellious younger sister Mickey, and everything has to be beyond perfect or we've failed. genetics
Most my career success in NYC is due to two women who essentially adopted my dumbass - guarantee men wouldn't do that. I volunteered this year to do their women owned business apps, pain in the ass amount of paperwork. Myself, like many of the male architects I know pretty much get all our work by word of mouth, no networking, no mixers etc...
I did listen to entire interview mixed in between some good techno via Soundcloud (Columbus Day). I don't think the format is bad, a quick cover of the archinect news, blogs, etc...the main topic is most the meat and 70 minutes is fine...its better than posting while at work, not that I have time anymore for that - may explain my low salary back in the day.
(btw, Archinect's anonymous/real name is easy to figure out, if I post a new thread it shows up history for both my real name or AKA. If I change my AKA it changes throughout the site)
Listen Ladies men are good at two things - Silence and Violence.
Huntin'.
We like only five things: War, Football, Construction, Fishing, and Beer.
Five because that's all we can count on one hand as we drink God's nectar from the other - Beer.
The first thing you do in War is Mobilize. The first thing you do in Construction is Mobilize.
Football - see George Carlin's Football or Baseball Where do you think RFI, RFQ, UON, AFF come's from? The Military, master of Acronyms.
Fishing - We like to be alone ladies, we like silence, we like isolation, we like being the last man on earth - who cares if our architecture isn't livable?
Beer. Well if there aren't any ladies around we can always have a beer, open a monastery, flood the planet with make believe information and influence humanity through drunkin' scripts.
Why do men have secret societies? Well if we really told each other how we felt all the time, we'd be fighting more than we do already.
Lt. Col. Frank Slade: Women! What can you say? Who made 'em? God must have been a fuckin' genius. The hair... They say the hair is everything, you know. Have you ever buried your nose in a mountain of curls... just wanted to go to sleep forever? Or lips... and when they touched, yours were like... that first swallow of wine... after you just crossed the desert. Tits. Hoo-ah! Big ones, little ones, nipples staring right out at ya, like secret searchlights. Mmm. Legs. I don't care if they're Greek columns... or secondhand Steinways. What's between 'em... passport to heaven. I need a drink. Yes, Mr Sims, there's only two syllables in this whole wide world worth hearing: pussy. Hah! Are you listenin' to me, son? I'm givin' ya pearls here.
your welcome!
I do try to talk about architecture, when I have free time. The Sugar Hill project offers a way in, because at least it is a review, albeit a flawed one at that. Other buildings are difficult to talk about without at least a first hand account to respond to, otherwise it is just responding to a picture (a very flawed form of criticism). Which is funny since there are many awards now that are judge merely by photographs (any architecture awards based on photographs should be banned).
Any and every review of architecture should include extensive interviews with the users of the building. The idea that some 'professional' critic can adequately critique a complex functional construction is absurd, and aesthetics are simply a matter of personal opinion.
OK, professional critics do serve a purpose: they are generally smart and deeply knowledgeable about their fields; they are contributors to intellectual culture, and are good writers. I'd be a much poorer architect, intellectually, if Geoff Manaugh was not doing what he does.
Post-occupancy evaluations are something that all architects should be doing regularly, to get a realistic view of how their decisions are playing out in the experience of users.
But having one of those modes of analysis doesn't preclude having the other, too. Different audiences, different intents.
"But having one of those modes of analysis doesn't preclude having the other, too. Different audiences, different intents."
Certainly, but this goes to the issue of how relevant these architectural critics are. They may inspire us individually but if it's not about improving the public realm, not sure how relevant they are. The Sugar Hill project is a great example where the critic starts talking to his own audience but ends up acknowledging the faults of the building to the larger audience who's reading this and thinking he's a fool. Again, one dosen't preclude the other, but architecture is a public art, especially when it's public housing. Let's at least acknowledge who's the more important audience in this case.
Who *is* the more important audience in an *architectural review*?
In terms of building performance, the user is of paramount importance. In terms of analyzing the practice of the discipline, other architects are the audience.
Related: look at the Moriyama RAIC International Prize. The criteria for winning are exceptionally vague; intent of the award, as far as I can tell, is to encourage architects to be inspired. But! the building also has to have been in use at least two years, and has to exhibit client satisfaction...however that might be gauged...
We talk about the award on the new podcast, by the way, which should be up shortly...
"In terms of building performance, the user is of paramount importance. In terms of analyzing the practice of the discipline, other architects are the audience."
What 'discipline' are we talking about? I would have thought the building performance would have as much to do with the 'practice of the discipline' as for the end user. This calls into question who we actually work for. Yes, are work should be understood and analyzed on multiple levels, but the end user is the ultimate judge, or else it's pure paper architecture. Don't worry though, I've never been inspired to attend the kind of party where this kind of 'analysis' is paramount. Blacks not my color anyway.
"and has to exhibit client satisfaction...however that might be gauged..."
Is this really so hard to guage? How about a simple survey? I think this kind of analysis is eschewed by many academics becasue it would highlight the gulf between them and non-architects. Be that as it may, I look forward to your next pod-cast. Hearing your actual voices is quite interesting. Donna, I'm not being snarky but you have a great radio voice and your analysis is crystal clear, regardless of wether I agree.
In terms of building performance, the user is of paramount importance. In terms of analyzing the practice of the discipline, other architects are the audience.
As if building performance has nothing to do with the practice of architecture?
Starchitects who put up hugely expensive dysfunctional buildings that are lauded as masterpieces of art fall neatly into this category.
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.