Girls Inc. was looking for ways to get their girls interested in fast-paced, high-paying jobs where women traditionally have been left out. Architecture and engineering certainly fit the bill. [...]
the girls will travel to various construction sites and talk to professionals in the field. Girls Inc. also is looking to build a new, bigger facility, and the summer camp girls will play a large part in the initial design, even being given a chance to pitch their project
— newsherald.com
More on the gender gap in architecture:
131 Comments
Damn you Marc! Fucking read my mind, as I was looking for an insanely clever meme.
i do not understand your question, curtkram, nor it's place. please explain what you mean by failure and why would you ask the question.
in that case, why not anarchism (and this, jla-x, up to this present day, remains truly an ideal)? and what sort of anarchism at that.
But governments are merely one set of players. Indeed they are not even their own source of power, even if they are overbearing and tyrannical. The role of intellectuals, the current form media, economists, the military, the religious establishments....and in more ancient times, their équivalents. And of course the public itself, as self-contradictory as it might seem. Behind, beyond and besides the government, there are many more agents of social engineering.
For instance, a quite small example that I found amusing, even if humanly (and animally) alarming- and completely irrespective of governments, irrespective of agencies that force themselves on others- the recent matter of the boy who fell into the gorilla's enclosure. No longer a local or even national topic; it is global. As triviail as it seems compared to, for instance, the wars and waves of immigrations taking place. What has been fascinating, within this huge social media bubble, is seeing how public opinion is being formulated and reformulated, by the public itself or by various media, and how that has given over to different contesting discourses, centred around animal rights, our variant perceptions of human vs animal rights, even racism (given that the boy and his family were afroamericans). Each side is expanding on its discourse in order to convince and attract more traction, more following, feeding on its opposition to other discourses. This is in the complete absence of a government or an authority of censorship (at least within a certain limit I expect). And that is nothing more or less than splinters of a globally society taking on itself the burden of social engineering, of formulating its moralities and crystallizing them. This is not to be underestimated - in the long run, with successive élaborations and developments, it formulâtes moralities and worldviews that penetrate into the actual executive and legal power structure.
no, Marc. Actually I'm enjoying this particular exchange with curtkram that so far, has nothing to do with personal issues or ego. Or do you feel obliged to mark a territory here by peeing out an irrelevant acerbic remark? Can we, kindly, engage in the discussion , each with his or her own opinion or live and let live?
Marc,
Yep. All the while I am not particularly caring so much (branching to an off-topic point) as I am looking into beginning engaging services into Scandinavia (namely: Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark). Mainly at this time, I need only to worry about VAT but occassionally I may have to deal with other stuff if I have to physically go to the location but VAT is easy stuff to take care of.
I'm learning the codes as it goes.
b3ta, don't let me stop you.
Doh!
thank you Mr. Wiggins, and Marc you're a funny man, good one :)
Libertarianism - should look like this, John Conway - Game of Life or see Von Neumann
Which would be bottom-up engineering then see Chatter's Jun 2, 16 9:22 pm 3rd paragraph (boy/gorilla episode) accurate until final sentences -
This is in the complete absence of a government or an authority of censorship (at least within a certain limit I expect). And that is nothing more or less than splinters of a globally society taking on itself the burden of social engineering, of formulating its moralities and crystallizing them. This is not to be underestimated - in the long run, with successive élaborations and developments, it formulâtes moralities and worldviews that penetrate into the actual executive and legal power structure.
It's really more like a bunch of 'cultural norms' fighting against each other until one destroys the other - and now we're back to Sex, Gender, and Gender roles.
If Men are physically stronger than women at pulling trucks or planes, then Eventually, the cultural Gender role of 'men pulling trucks and planes' becomes a norm, a stereotype, a social fact based on biological fact.
Hit the reset button all you want from the top down, like this post, eventually though society works itself out based on something, no?
I thought it was simple like Architect. Doesn't depend on gender or sex.
Men are physically stronger at pulling trucks, because no one holds competitions for men around pulling their puds, but if they did hold such a competition; men would suck.
Well said Olaf.
There are quite a few women out there who are stronger than me and more athletic than me. Should I feel bad about that? Should I feel demasulinized since the stereotype doesn't always hold up? Or should I not be posting that admission in a public place since our social norms of men pulling trucks have developed such that it's a sign of weakness for me to be honest about my capabilities and my limits?
I am looking into beginning engaging services into Scandinavia (namely: Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark).
Richard what is it that you believe is going to make you at all marketable in any of those places? Why would somebody looking for a residential designer in Sweden hire a drafter from Oregon with no portfolio and no references?
Scandinavia has no shortage of designers, quite the contrary, and there is a plethora of those educated in US architecture schools, both native citizens and American ex-pats. What could you possibly market about your services that would make them a desirable option over somebody who is already located in Scandinavia, with more experience, more education, and a portfolio of work?
Curt, that does not make any sense. You are confusing individual attributes with General sexual attributes. In general men are physically larger and stronger than women. There is no question about it. It's a scientific fact.
eeayoeeayo,
Richard what is it that you believe is going to make you at all marketable in any of those places? Why would somebody looking for a residential designer in Sweden hire a drafter from Oregon with no portfolio and no references?
Scandinavia has no shortage of designers, quite the contrary, and there is a plethora of those educated in US architecture schools, both native citizens and American ex-pats. What could you possibly market about your services that would make them a desirable option over somebody who is already located in Scandinavia, with more experience, more education, and a portfolio of work?
I'm not asking your permission nor am I discussing this here.
This isn't a competition of quantity of projects or quantity of years in an NAAB accredited architecture program or quantity of portfolio work.
If I worried about having more education or more years of experience than anybody else in the world or Scandinavia or anywhere else in the world, or more projects in portfolio, than I wouldn't even bother with the profession or running a business in the field.
If it was about quantity, none of you would be Architects or running a firm because all of you would be non-starters but thank God it isn't about quantity.
Regardless, thanks for the feedback.
Lets return to the thread topic.
"Traditional societal role of men working (as they had prior to role of hunting for food) is societal. This evolves." rwcb
did it evolve into living in your parent's basement trolling the internet?
i only bumped this thread because i saw a video on youtube i thought was pretty cool.
https://www.facebook.com/NOVASecretLife/videos/10153886046224145/
basically it says jla is smart because science says boys are better at math.
No one is talking about intelligence. But again, you are confusing individuals with populations. This really isn't very hard to understand. Maybe you are blinded by your human bias? Let's talk gorillas. Silverback male gorillas are larger and stronger than female gorillas. This fact does not prevent Suzy the gorilla from being larger and stronger than bob the gorilla. Did you ever take a logic class?
i'm just saying you are dumber and weaker and smaller than girls. that's all.
while some people might hold a bias towards thinking men are big and strong and smart, maybe you're not the person to be carrying that banner. you're not smart enough to compete with girls. it's science. that's not hard to understand.
so when you think to yourself 'men can't help who they're attracted to,' perhaps because you don't realize you're not a gorilla, think of the influence on your daughter, who (assuming she's pretty young still) will eventually reach a point where she discovers her sexuality, and boys around her of the same age will be going through the same difficult time. and she will say to herself, 'they can't help themselves' because that's what you taught her. that's important because you're her first male relationship. she will always carry your beliefs with her. the way that you understand the world, that girl will quite possibly be abused and raped because girls are small and weak and stupid.
but you know damn well that's not the case. plenty of girls are strong and smart and don't have to put up with the shit you create.
somewhere i think you're missing some basic important "human bias." i hope i can help you understand why it's important for you to figure that out. without that bias, bad things happen.
^Completely Illogical. You are creating a fake opposing argument by cherry picking my posts and skewing them because you not able debate the topic at hand and the actual comments that I made. Again, you are unable to understand a very basic concept (the difference between individuals and populations). I'm not going to argue for things that you misunderstood. I know many women who are strong and smart, but that's not the point Olaf was making. If the NFL were coed what do you think the proportion of men to women would be?
I don't know what the point of your argument is anyway curt. If you are saying that women are capable of doing things as well as men in an established society I would agree. I am just acknowledging that there is a real biological difference that gives men a natural physical advantage. As Olaf stated, that advantage manifests to define gender roles and establish social order in the early formation of societies...It also creates inequality between the sexes. This means that Anarchy would not be a good way to achieve equality as it would lead to tribalism and decentralized oppression. The discussion was about the integral relation between biological sex and gender. If you do not believe this is true please provide an anthropological example of a society where the opposite is true. I can't imagine a single anthropologist disagreeding with Olafs statement. Also, for the record, I do believe that women should and could achieve the same social status as men. I also know for a fact that some women can beat the shit out of some men (I've seen it.) I'm not sure how or why you twisted my statements.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with the young girls, aspiring to one day become architects or engineers, going to summer camp to learn is these dreams are for them individually?
I Think that the camp is a great thing. The topic evolved into something else because the issue of gender was brought up....and the idea that a gender neutral program would be better.
is -> if
The Non-gendered Yoruba Family
Thus far I have shown that feminist concepts emerged out of the logic of the patriarchal nuclear family, a family form that is inappropriately universalized. In this section drawing from my own research on Yoruba society ofsouthwestern Nigeria, I present a different kind of family organization. The traditional Yoruba family can bedescribed as a non-gendered family. It is non-gendered because kinship roles and categories are not genderdifferentiated.
Significantly then, power centers within the family are diffused and are not gender-specific. Because the fundamental organizing principle within the family is seniority based on relative age, and not gender, kinship categories encode seniority not gender. Seniority is the social ranking of persons based on their chronological ages. Hence the words egbon refers to the older sibling and aburo to the younger sibling of the speaker regardless of gender. Seniority principle is a dynamic and fluid; unlike gender, it is not rigid or static.
Within the Yoruba family, omo the nomenclature for child is best translated as offspring. There are no single words denoting girl or boy in the first instance. With regard to the categories husband and wife, within the family the category oko, which is usually glossed as the English husband, is non-gender-specific because it encompasses both males and females. Iyawo glossed as wife, in English refers to in-marrying females. The distinction between oko and iyawo is not one of gender but a distinguishes between those who are birth members of the family and those who enter by marriage. The distinction expresses a hierarchy in which the oko position is superior to the iyawo. This hierarchy is not a gender hierarchy because even female oko are superior to the female iyawo. In the society at large even the category of iyawo includes both men and women in that devotees of the Orisa (deities) are called iyawo Orisa. Thus relationships are fluid and social roles are situational continuously placing individualsin context-dependent hierarchical and non-hierarchical changing roles that are. source
jla-x: I am just acknowledging that there is a real biological difference that gives men a natural physical advantage. As Olaf stated, that advantage manifests to define gender roles and establish social order in the early formation of societies
Scientists:
The study suggests that it was only with the dawn of agriculture, when people were able to accumulate resources for the first time, that an imbalance emerged. “Men can start to have several wives and they can have more children than women,” said Dyble. “It pays more for men to start accumulating resources and becomes favourable to form alliances with male kin.”
Dyble said that egalitarianism may even have been one of the important factors that distinguished our ancestors from our primate cousins. “Chimpanzees live in quite aggressive, male-dominated societies with clear hierarchies,” he said. “As a result, they just don’t see enough adults in their lifetime for technologies to be sustained.”
The findings appear to be supported by qualitative observations of the hunter-gatherer groups in the study. In the Philippines population, women are involved in hunting and honey collecting and while there is still a division of labour, overall men and women contribute a similar number of calories to the camp. In both groups, monogamy is the norm and men are active in childcare.
Andrea Migliano, of University College London and the paper’s senior author, said: “Sex equality suggests a scenario where unique human traits, such as cooperation with unrelated individuals, could have emerged in our evolutionary past.”
..............
On the issue of physical strength, many of the female sex are stronger than I am, it has always been the case. My (girl) cousins could have beaten me up if they chose :)
also, as kids, in the extended family, we used to play football (what most of you call soccer), and the division was sometimes (however you see that), boys vs girls. the girls would win as frequently as the boys, they displayed as much stamina, as much strength and agility and as much anger or teampspirit or individualism as the boys.
in the meantime, I was abandoned to the post of the goalkeeper, making up songs and not paying much attention to the game :) what a stupid idea, chasing after a ball.
It might make sense at this time in a society where the society is male biased in order to shift the bias to a more neutral position but don't forget there is also boy's only summer camps. At this age, the kids are often segregated. While eventually we may need to move a more gender neutral society. This doesn't mean we neuter men and women and make them all its. It mean we eliminate social barriers based on gender orientation / biological sexes, etc. The key is to eliminate the discrimination and providing an equalized opportunities for me and women. In general, when it comes to jobs/careers, men and women are equally capable.
While we have boys only summer camps for architecture, we also have them for girls as well. It's only fair as long as we have summer camps for boys only and girls only.
If that needs to change, that would change with society. If I was looking at hiring, I am not going to look specifying equal number of persons of each gender. That simply sill placing gender in the decision process just as it is when they do the policy of having X number of people of ethnic background where its contrived that they have an equal number of people of each ethnicity.
The ideal is not using race or ethnicity or sex/gender orientation at all in the decision making process. The key is looking at the job applicants as a person seeking a job or eventual career. Should one care if the applicant for a position has a penis or a vagina. No. It shouldn't matter. We should be focusing on the fact of what they bring to the firm/employer that is job position related.
While I maybe physically attracted to women with nice figure, form, and beauty. When it comes to a job, we have to focus on what they bring to the business not just because they have a nice body.
This takes a certain self-discipline on that part.
This can be a challenge for some men and some women as well. We have natural and psychological biases that we have to check at the door along with the ego.
Well, I'm awful at sports as well. I'm sure most women can destroy me in football. Just talking about averages not individuals.
jla-x,
The thing with the studies and averages changes with the sampling. Were women traditionally on average less physically strong as men in British/American culture, yes. Was that because they were biologically that way or was it because of how they grew up.
When a man and women has equal physical education opportunities, for example, they would be comparable relatively equal. Especially if they have equal conditions throughout life including physical chores and other physical activities.
Be careful about the data sampling and averaging.
Geez Rick, it's basic scientific fact. I'm not a scientist, I didn't make it up, but this is about as well known a fact as the earth rotating around the sun. I'm baffled that some people are actually questioning this. There is nothing sexist about acknowledging that every scientist on earth is probably correct in their assertion that men are larger on average then women. Yeah a fucking Female Swedish ninjutsu master may be larger and more powerful than a flat footed Pygmy male, but that's not what I was saying. Lol. Anyway, gender equality is good! Gender fluidity is good. Gender neutrality is not good, because it relies on a political, social or institutional suppressive/oppressive force. If one day in the distant future we all evolve into a single gender then that's fine, I just don't like the idea of authorities pushing it on people. Government should be separate from society. Governments job is to ensure and protect liberties, not to mold social behaviors...
jla-x,
It's not necessarily biological scientific fact. Statistical science (if that is truly a science), maybe. Lets remember when data collection began. I'd look at the data collection process a bit more closely and the actual analysis. If we look at the statistical studies, is the difference in men and women, aside from obvious physical difference in terms of sex organs and chest/boobs, is the the difference because of physical difference in bones and muscle fibers or is it different because of experience in life in a given society.
For example, are women typically weaker because of biology or because social structure does not have women lifting heavy objects around. Are they weaker because we have the boys doing the physical chores and not the girls or is it actual physical biology.
That is something statistic gatherers and statisticians may not take into account in their analysis. Mens tend to build muscles in a society where men tend to do the more physical labor work and heavy lifting and in a society where women are treated like delicate flowers. Could that really be the biggest determining factor in differences seen in statistics?
Just a point there. It's obvious scientific fact that a person who lives a highly physical life style where lifting and moving heavy objects that the person builds up the physical body condition.
You can compare an Arnold Swartzenegger to a petit swimsuit model. Men often like women petit and not very muscular (big muscles body builder) because they are generally perceived as more sexier figure. In a male dominated society, that is exactly what you got. Our society for example in America is still that and even in other societies that have only in a very short period of time have began a more egalitarian society.
I'd give it more time for more analysis over the course of more generations in for life style culture has a more equalized treatment of men and women including equalized upbringing such as not treating women as delicate flowers. I'd say things become more equal from a physical point of view. Strength, physical strength condition, etc. would become substantively more equal.
Are they larger physical build than women? Perhaps. Is that because of societal treatment or actual scientific basis. Are men naturally stronger than women in terms of capability of lifting and moving heavy weight or is it because our society treatment of women as delicate flowers and keeping them away from doing the heavy lifting / physical labor chores during the upbringing? It is an effect of a societal structure or actual biology.
I don't know if that has been properly analysed, yet.
jla-x, from your perspective, what are the differences between gender neutral and equal gender, beyond the issue of male or female sex (as in mere physical) differentiation?
and do you see the différences you have in mind impose natural (biologically deterministic) boundaries, limits, frontiers - call them what you will- between men and women within the family context, the social, economic, professional contexts and so on?
and, finally, would it be reasonable to therefore transpose these natural boundaries and limits that you percieve to seperate the two sexes (as mentioned above, différences that transcend beyond the aspect of mere biological divergence) into societal ones that inscribe within them gender-based norms, with all the moral and legal conséquences that this might precipitate?
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.