SCI-Arc has announced its Spring 2017 lecture series. And not a single female architect was included in the list. Really, SCI-Arc?
Granted, the roster includes historian and theorist Sylvia Lavin as well as the artist Amalia Ulman—but the lack of a single practicing female architect is pretty striking. In recent years, criticism has been waged at institutions for privileging men when it comes to lecture series, as well as panels, faculty, exhibitions, firms, commissions, wages, and interpersonal relations.
It’s not exactly like there’s a paucity of exceptionally talented women in the field. The Feminist Wall of Shame also took note and posted on the omission.
Or is this more to the point-
"I used to not like being called a 'woman architect': I'm an architect, not just a woman architect. Guys used to tap me on the head and say, 'You are okay for a girl.' But I see the incredible amount of need from other women for reassurance that it could be done, so I don't mind that at all."
-Zaha Hadid
There's also a quote attributed to (I think) Denise Scott Brown, where she says something to the effect of "I'm an Architect first."
There's never a discussion about the lack of female garbage men/persons is there?
This entire discussion about female architects, who cares, it should be about architecture not gender, that's totally irrelevant...can you imagine being a female architect and the only reason you're included in a lecture series is because they need to tick all the boxes, not because of your work, I would be devastated...
So randomised in your last post you just said that there are no women architects who produce work worthy of being presented in a lecture series. Did I get that right?
No Donna of course not, all I want to say is that gender shouldn't be a selection criterion in architecture, just as religion or sexuality should not become relevant when selecting architects...
There are less female architects, so maybe this is simply a reflection of that reality. Are you suggesting that the lecture series should be manipulated to reflect artificial and idealized demographic, or the real one?
Make any excuses you want. The denial of biases, whether gender binary, or gender fluid, they exist in the profession and academic realities, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Slavoj is a provocateur and asshat
institutionalization of bias is a cause of the professions lack of diversity, but it systemic not regulatory. You need a reason to denigrate the activities of a group before you can establish a set of behaviors to exclude or disenfranchise them.
and-
is all the more reason to increase representation. Practices, behaviors and responses are modeled by and learned from peers- not by repeatedly citing information from a book.
Systemic patterns (in this case bias) point to things that serve as the framework for regulatory bias. Again- you need a set of "reasons" (founded or otherwise) before you can make a rule, which would be the regulation.
And specific to this discussion the suggestion that this rests on the shoulders of NCARB (or LAAB) is thin to say the least. I'm not familiar with any regulation with those accreditation boards that requires that accredited design programs intentionally disenfranchise women.
The only counter to that argument would be the usual "they won't be happy doing this (yellow card), so they're better off majoring in something else (red card)."
1- Think about who is doing the 'splaining and;
2- their course of action to remedy the situation.
If it's to dismiss concerns of the other, because it's a foregone conclusion, or it's a favor in the long run- that's systemic.
Heres an example to break down:
...women come to the critical points in their career when they embark upon motherhood (women want children and that makes them unpromotable).
And architecture is a totally time consuming – disproportionate to any amount of any amount of money any architect is paid – business (women are driven by money, not by a sense of making or craft).
Plus the global reach of architecture today demanding unbelievable amounts of travel – national and international travel – has added to the complication (women cannot travel because its is complicated).
They get torn between their desire to have a family and be with their family and pursue their profession (women do not have the skills to structure their lives. We learned that on Mad Men).
And I think that’s really the reason that, in the long run, women are not seen where they should be at the top of the profession (not explaining why in the short run, the graduation rates plummet).
That's an example of systemic reasoning.
We talk about this issue in this week's Sessions podcast, in which you will hear me disappear.
Of note, to support Janosh's statement above: Of the ten firms represented in the Miller Prize competition, which we also discuss in the podcast and who are all young, up-and-coming firms, six of the ten are firms led by female principals.
Remember Nick Offerman's answer on the Reddit AMA when asked the question "What's the most feminine thing you do?"
Answer: " Win. "
All 124 Comments
that is sad
Don't assume their gender.
don't assume their gender? what does that mean?
I'm not sure none of the lecturers identifies as a female architect.
Oh... oK so it is mandatory now.
And the coolest thing is that Slavoj Zizek is there too... he is gonna make fun of the people who think women should be included somewhere just because there are women.
He is gonna give them hell :D
lol.. you regressive leftist idiots.
So did you just assume Slavoj Zizek's gender?
Yes I did.
Given the information I have,
Given the fact the way he looks
Given the fact the way he thinks and talks
Given the fact that he had 3 wives and has fucked the half of Slovenia.
I have assumed he is a man.
He is a communist man who hates politically correct leftist idiots and misanthropic feminists. He would send them to the gulag if he could.
I like him. a lot.
Or is this more to the point-
"I used to not like being called a 'woman architect': I'm an architect, not just a woman architect. Guys used to tap me on the head and say, 'You are okay for a girl.' But I see the incredible amount of need from other women for reassurance that it could be done, so I don't mind that at all."
-Zaha Hadid
There's also a quote attributed to (I think) Denise Scott Brown, where she says something to the effect of "I'm an Architect first."
There's never a discussion about the lack of female garbage men/persons is there?
This entire discussion about female architects, who cares, it should be about architecture not gender, that's totally irrelevant...can you imagine being a female architect and the only reason you're included in a lecture series is because they need to tick all the boxes, not because of your work, I would be devastated...
So randomised in your last post you just said that there are no women architects who produce work worthy of being presented in a lecture series. Did I get that right?
"can you imagine being a female architect and the only reason you're included in a lecture series is because they need to tick all the boxes, not because of your work, I would be devastated"
I've never in my life heard a woman express this sentiment. But if I had a dime for every time I heard a man assume a woman would act this way...
Since I'm a male I feel comfortable suggesting that we stop considering gender because gender has never held me back. I also lack empathy. And critical thinking skills. But I'm totally cool with the status quo.
No Donna of course not, all I want to say is that gender shouldn't be a selection criterion in architecture, just as religion or sexuality should not become relevant when selecting architects...
Tduds well that's a good thing I suppose, isn't it.
Seems like the writer is acting as a pied piper for readers. Where are your articles when Sci-Arc hosts AIA|LA POWERFUL: Women Leading Design Symposium for the past two years or when single female architect such as Amale Andras or Ellie Abrons and Mira Henry have lecture at the school... just saying. Also, I all for more women architects, designs, etc. lecturing.
randomised, do you think the lecture committee just couldn't find any prominent female architects to invite? Or maybe they thought that no one has ever heard from these young-up-and-comers Peter Cook, Neil Denari, or Slajov Žižek so they should be given a shot?
There are less female architects, so maybe this is simply a reflection of that reality. Are you suggesting that the lecture series should be manipulated to reflect artificial and idealized demographic, or the real one?
This is a symptom , not a problem. The problem is your precious selectivly permeable membrane that has filtered out talented women and minorities...ncarb, and arbitrary state license laws...
I'd suggest that representation is important in academia, so if "manipulation" takes place to ensure a diversity of voices, that's acceptable.
jla-x, you mean the real demographic that women make up half the population of both the general world and of architecture school student bodies?
In the higher up levels of the profession...the firm owner/partner level where licensure is often a requirement. Idp, and any experience based pre requisite empowers employers...that empowerment turns bias and bigotry into institutionalized racism and sexism. On their own, bias and bigotry are nothing more than a disease of the mind... but now the bigot or sexist has control over some young persons future...now it has teeth...
Make any excuses you want. The denial of biases, whether gender binary, or gender fluid, they exist in the profession and academic realities, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Slavoj is a provocateur and asshat
I propose a meritocracy.
Yes agree 100% b3, my point is that the regulatory system institutionalizes those biases.
Oh, and randomised, if you'd do the homework, you'd find that only one presenter eschews any gender pronouns, and that would be the artist, Amalia Ulman.
Jlax regulatory? In academia?
And that that institutionalization of bias is the root cause of the professions lack of diversity.
The list includes a female artist and historian, "but lacks a single practicing female architect"
the complaint is that there is not specifically a practicing female architect. Its specific to the practice of architecture.
I'm not interested in how Nicholas framed the complaint, because one it's framed two ways, and two is Maya Lin licensed? Yet, many would consider her an architect.
When archinect starts featuring garbage collectors, I'll look forward to them writing about the lack of female representation, until then we'll have to suffer through seeing that fucking fat bastard Slavoj and whatever random shit he dumpster dives for to fill the fucking grill.
white male privilege
institutionalization of bias is a cause of the professions lack of diversity, but it systemic not regulatory. You need a reason to denigrate the activities of a group before you can establish a set of behaviors to exclude or disenfranchise them.
and-
is all the more reason to increase representation. Practices, behaviors and responses are modeled by and learned from peers- not by repeatedly citing information from a book.
Hey randomised, I won't assume your gender, but I will assume you're a troll until you stop acting like one.
Not sure I understand the difference between systematic and regulatory Marc.
Systemic patterns (in this case bias) point to things that serve as the framework for regulatory bias. Again- you need a set of "reasons" (founded or otherwise) before you can make a rule, which would be the regulation.
And specific to this discussion the suggestion that this rests on the shoulders of NCARB (or LAAB) is thin to say the least. I'm not familiar with any regulation with those accreditation boards that requires that accredited design programs intentionally disenfranchise women.
The only counter to that argument would be the usual "they won't be happy doing this (yellow card), so they're better off majoring in something else (red card)."
1- Think about who is doing the 'splaining and;
2- their course of action to remedy the situation.
If it's to dismiss concerns of the other, because it's a foregone conclusion, or it's a favor in the long run- that's systemic.
Heres an example to break down:
...women come to the critical points in their career when they embark upon motherhood (women want children and that makes them unpromotable).
And architecture is a totally time consuming – disproportionate to any amount of any amount of money any architect is paid – business (women are driven by money, not by a sense of making or craft).
Plus the global reach of architecture today demanding unbelievable amounts of travel – national and international travel – has added to the complication (women cannot travel because its is complicated).
They get torn between their desire to have a family and be with their family and pursue their profession (women do not have the skills to structure their lives. We learned that on Mad Men).
And I think that’s really the reason that, in the long run, women are not seen where they should be at the top of the profession (not explaining why in the short run, the graduation rates plummet).
That's an example of systemic reasoning.
I don't think they selected these speakers for being men but for having something interesting to say on the subjects being discussed, and I don't think they excluded women for being women. I really don't see where this focus on gender comes from. There is also no black architect on the list, does that mean it's racist? But maybe I am spoiled here in Europe and you just have a long way to go still...I probably should have checked my privilege.
But Fred, am I a troll because I don't participate in the lynching of Sci-Arc for not including women or black or etc. architects in a lecture series? Give me a break...
I'll lecture 'em, but I'm not single...
randomised, I also don't think it was intentional. But that's what Marc means by it being systemic (not systematic, jla-x).
We see lots of white architects talking, so then we think that only white guys are architects, so then it never occurs to anyone that there might be architects who aren't white guys, so no one on lecture committees goes looking for architects who aren't white guys because it seems status quo that there aren't any. And the cycle repeats, and architects of other color or gender never get to break in.
The notion of hearing from non-status quo voices is a HUGE part of the discussion in all disciplines right now - hell, it's a huge topic in the bastion of old boys club *AIA National* right now. For SCI-Arc to put together this group without realizing they might get pushback is incredibly tone deaf. I mean, I'm a Midwest middle-aged mom and *I* can name half a dozen female architects *just in the LA region* who could have been included. SCI-Arc's committee dropped the ball(s) here.
Donna: I agree completely.
As Zaha clearly recognizes in her quote above, the issue here is having role models. The best way to become the principal of a firm is to imagine yourself becoming the principal of a firm and to work towards that image; finding someone who you imagine to be a version of you, just 30 years older or whatever, is the #1 way to get this process started. A lecture series ought to present plausible roll models for all students at a school. What aspects of the speakers the students are going to identify with is a murky business, but gender is a reasonable place to start. 50/50 female/male ration in student body = 50/50 ratio in the lecture series. Unless there's a good reason to deviate, that should be the default.
Education is one of the few places where we don't have to accept the status quo (i.e. the fact that the ratio at higher levels in the profession is not 50/50), but can push for how we want the world to be. It's about shaping hearts and minds and moving towards a different reality 30 years down the line. Really it's the job of the school to offer up a vision of how they want the world to be and to work hard to carefully reflect that in things like lecture series.
I agree.
WTF. The "reflection of the profession" alibi is complete bullshit. Although the profession as a whole might be male, consider that this male dominated profession is mostly made up of commodity and corporate architecture firms that SCI-Arc has no interest in promoting or inviting to its lecture series.
Within its own world of academic practitioners and design oriented practices, women are absolutely well presented - in academia, and in firm leadership. There's no excuse for not having a more inclusive lecture series. As ever, SCI-Arc is satisfied that the radicalism that they became known for in the 70s and 80s now relieves them of any responsibility to be relevant or progressive today.
not really so well represented in firm leadership:
http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/women
it's about 10 or 15% for principals and partners
You are missing the point, which is that firm leadership for academic and design oriented practices is much more representative of the population (at least in terms of gender) than the profession as a whole. It's not like SCI-Arc is inviting the design principals from the firms that work for Toll Brothers, Kaiser Permanente, and Tilt up distribution warehouse developers.
We talk about this issue in this week's Sessions podcast, in which you will hear me disappear.
Of note, to support Janosh's statement above: Of the ten firms represented in the Miller Prize competition, which we also discuss in the podcast and who are all young, up-and-coming firms, six of the ten are firms led by female principals.
Remember Nick Offerman's answer on the Reddit AMA when asked the question "What's the most feminine thing you do?"
Answer: " Win. "
https://soa.cmu.edu/lecture/
Answer: Privilege
Oh, Max. I forget, you've been in this country since what, 2009? Did you ever finally get into that Buffalo program? You working for SOM?
No actually... in 1993 but I got your point :D
I did't go to Buffalo. I wish I had.
As for working for SOM, No I don't work there.
Must admit thou it was a nice try!
Are you one of these guys?
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.