People often ask me if that’s the reason women don’t go into architecture or leave architecture, but I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s one single reason. I think for decades it has been a combination of lots of little reasons - being the only woman in the room, not being respected on construction sites, and add into that working hours, balanced with wanting to be a parent, all those things together have discouraged women. But I do see it changing. — Forbes
In 2019, the rise of female leadership and representation in architectural academia has become more apparent then ever. In practice and academia, women have risen to position themselves amongst a male-dominated profession. Yale has Deborah Berke, Cornell has Meejin Yoon, Columbia has Amale Andraos, Princeton has Mónica Ponce de León, Harvard has the newly appointed Sarah Whiting, and recently Pratt Institute has announced the deanship of Dr. Harriet Harriss.
With the following institutions showcasing women leading the charge, what exactly does this mean for increasing equity and representation to the profession? In a recent interview, Deborah Berke chats with Forbes about what needs to happen in order for gender disparity to dwindle.
During her interview with Heather Senison, Berke talks numbers and shares why women have turned away from the profession. When asked about architecture schools and if institutions need to do a better job at attracting female leadership and students, Berke poignantly responded, "I do think that the schools can help model more inclusive professional behavior going forward. The schools think their job is over, and they can just brush their hands and say, "well, solved that problem." It's ongoing, it's employing women faculty members. When there are design reviews, having male and female participants. Having lecture series with male and female speakers. It's modeling the behavior we want to see in the profession. And I think, along with doing this for women, we also need to do it for all underrepresented populations in the world of design and construction. In my mind, it's really all one conversation because I believe that the profession of architecture needs to look like the public it serves, and that's everyone."
The way I see it, to say "I don't see color" or "I don't see men & women, just people" is to say "I don't acknowledge the ways in which you've had to struggle where I haven't, so I will judge you as if you haven't struggled." And I think *that* is counterproductive.
All 9 Comments
Social engineering doesn’t work, and it’s counterproductive. Sexism is also not responsible for all of the gender proportions in all fields. That’s absolutely not the case. Yes, sexism is a factor....one of many things though. Inate differences in Interests between men and women is a big and real factor. It’s not just humans, and it’s been proven. Of course, you’ll probably say that science is sexist, but it’s not. We cannot expect an equal 50/50 split in everything. Until the correct natural split is determined, the degree of sexism, family pressure, etc can not possibly be accurately determined. There are more female doctors than male doctors. Plenty of fields where the opposite is true. There’s nothing wrong with uneven gender proportions so long as it’s due to natural tendencies, abilities, and interests...sorry, not gonna ever have a naturally occurring 50/50 split of male and female nurses, firefighters, cops, engineers, caregivers, psychologists, etc even if we can completely remove 100% of all inequality. We ought to make access and opportunities equal to all, but we shouldn’t be artificially attempting to create a pc image of what we want that to look like through social engineering.
This orthodoxy is going completely unchallenged in academia.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
An interesting study about toy preferences in monkeys...this is why we can’t always cave to pressure to be politically correct. Have to question everything and piss people off to get to truth...especially this leftist orthodoxy that try’s to shut down anything that questions it. Again, not saying that sexism and al these social things don’t exist. They do. Just saying that you can’t determine the degree until you account for the other variables.
The goal is not and has never been a 50/50 split in anything, and any arguments against this false premise are a distraction from actual disparities and a reality of sexism that many (correct, not all, but many) women face in many fields. Architecture included.
No it is not. It’s a grown up analysis of what’s happening rather than a reactionary conclusion based on political narratives. It’s actually completely necessary to balance out variables between two groups before you make conclusions about one thing or another. And yes, my point is exactly that in an ideal world you won’t necessarily get a 50/50 split, therefore you need to find what you would get, otherwise when can you say mission accomplished? That’s of course not the goal with the leftist ones, it’s to continually find grievances...without them, the entire philosophy crumbles. It’s all based on power dynamics.
Maybe we find that women naturally are more interested in pursuing architecture...and the natural split is 60/40....that would suggest there are more cultural forces in play...why do you assume that it would suggest less sexism is to blame?
Seems to me like you (and many others) are attempting to apply a quantitative measure to what should be a qualitative goal, and then using the inevitable impossibility of that measurement to dismiss the qualitative arguments
Nope. I’m simply supporting equality of opportunity, and rejecting an obsession with equality of outcome. I’m also saying that you can’t make claims about perceived imbalances unless you determine a base point.
“What should be a qualitative goal”. Can you elaborate? I don’t think that quotas are a qualitative goal. I think that quotas are actually the opposite. Also, the term quota suggests some quantitative notion no?
And I'm saying that equality of outcome follows from equality of opportunity, and that the current disparity in outcome is reflective of an inequality of opportunity.
And more importantly, this isn't entirely because of explicit sexism among architects. It's an issue that encompasses all of society, and a solution that creates a real equality of opportunity is a societal solution, not an architectural one.
However, that doesn't mean architecture can't take a more proactive position in creating equitable (not equal) opportunities for people for whom those opportunities have been historically denied.
“And I'm saying that equality of outcome follows from equality of opportunity, and that the current disparity in outcome is reflective of an inequality of opportunity.” Not true. See below
In my mind, it's really all one conversation because I believe that the profession of architecture needs to look like the public it serves, and that's everyone.
c'mon t-duds, that's the goal of a 50/50 split (and racial quotas, too)
Most people involved in these conversations acknowledge that "..needs to look [more] like the public it serves.." is a correct interpretation and "..needs to look [exactly] like the public it serves.." is not a correct interpretation.
Like I said to jla, it's a counterargument against point no one is trying to make, which - inadvertently or otherwise - upholds an unjust status quo.
Interior design is overwhelmingly female. Looked Like 95/5 as a student...do we need to get more male ID students. Seems sexist?
I think in a more just world we would have more male interior designers.
Lmfao
But facts suggest otherwise.
What facts?
Why?
"But facts suggest otherwise" ...what facts are you talking about?
In Nordic countries where equality has been pushed further than anywhere ever, there are way greater disparities in many fields, medical, STEM fields, etc. rather than getting closer to a 50/50 split, the opposite has happened. Men and women as populations, not individuals, have different interests and tendencies. Why is this so all of a sudden controversial? Not saying that individuals can’t be on either extreme, just saying that overall population differs. These schools are looking at groups and making conclusions based on some idea or ideal of what they think it’s supposed to look like if all sexism is weeded out.
Do you have a link for that claim?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553592/
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/?amp=1
Well documented...look up gender equality paradox...
I find it odd that people actually question that men and women like different things. How many women you know listen to death metal?
Thanks for the links I'll read up on this tonight.
Don’t know if any info on architecture specifically...for all we know, it can be more attractive to women for whatever reason...just saying, none of this matters unless you are playing equality of outcome games...otherwise, you do what you can to remove barriers and let the chips fall however they will.
Historically speaking, interior design has was socially "demoted" towards stereotypical feminine qualities. It used to be only males in the profession. ( Gottfried Semper himself was a interior decorator -not a "designer"). Actually there was an Archinect podcast years ago, where the speaker briefly touched on that ....I'll post it here if I have time to track it down. That "demoting" and prescribing wholly feminine values to a profession was social engineering, to use your favorite catch all phrase. As more women started to enter the profession past the 20th century it was no longer a uniquely gentlemen's profession, i.e. no longer a status symbol for men. Interior design was progressively construed to be materialistic, domestic, and an artificial medium. Nowadays that prevailing stereotype still persists.
That’s interesting. I don’t recall saying that social factors are insignificant though. What I said is that claims of social factors are unmeasurable unless you establish a base point. This isn’t an opinion, it’s how any study must be conducted. When people in academia make unacademic claims I find it part of a troubling trend that places identity politics over pursuit of truth.
Never said you did. I'm not interested in getting into a he-said/she said with you. I'm providing context on why your initial post is ironic, though you meant it to be poignant. It shows you don't have a holistic understanding on how we are arriving to certain points in history.
It’s not ironic at all. It’s a reality about the present. I didn’t consider the history of ID because it’s irrelevant to the point I was making. The point is, it’s nature and nurture, and you can’t make determinations about the degree that nurture has an influence until you account for the degree of influence from nature. Many statements are being made without any attempt to establish the latter, and even worse, those who attempt to talk about the latter are facing backlash for asking questions. This is why I call it an orthodoxy...because it is.
The point(s) your making do shit for you. Why? You're just a contrarian without context. No amount of verbiage can compensate for that (though you try). Nothing of what you just said was specific. So lazy, and now the discussion is a waste. Explaining alternate [valid] points of views won't amount to anything with you.
Your point of view was what? You presented a historical background of interior design. It was interesting. It wasn’t a counterpoint though. Obviously there are social and cultural factors in play. No one is denying that.
Read two replies up. That was my point. Read my first reply in this thread. That was my counterpoint to your original post specific to this comment thread. It shouldn't take me having to repeat myself in literal quotes from a paragraph four lines long and a short scroll up to make a point (again)---which is why I won't. Gauging from other comments in this section, you don't really stay on task well, and you don't keep track of what you've said...you just shrug and feign incomprehension or go off the rail on vague verbiage tangents which throws the conversation off the rails... which is sad for discussion's sake.
Yes, I read all of them. I don’t doubt the history of ID, or that changes in culture have affected enrollment. You aren’t getting deep enough. My point is that it doesn’t equate to an injustice. Men can still easily enter any ID program. Cultural pressure and natural factors can be in play simultaneously. Without blatant discriminatory barriers to entry we don’t need to try and reengineer things. Culture changes and should be decentralized imo. When culture translates into policies that affect entry then it’s a Barrier we ought to remove.
Why is their version of a just demographic outcome not simply another cultural norm being superimposed on us? What makes
their version the just/fair version?
“When I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court] and I say, 'When there are nine,' people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's ever raised a question about that.” -Ruth Bader Ginsburg
What most people on the left don’t understand is that no one would care so long as they didn’t get there by some social engineering effort. Most people believe in equality and merit. This stuff is setting us back.
"This stuff is setting us back" Read: white males.
+ Susz
Us=civilization.
"no one would care so long as they didn’t get there by some social engineering effort. " The problem I see is the eagerness to ascribe a 'social engineering effort' to any example of women entering a previously male dominated space.
“Berke poignantly responded, "I do think that the schools can help model more inclusive professional behavior going forward. The schools think their job is over, and they can just brush their hands and say, "well, solved that problem." It's ongoing, it's employing women faculty members. When there are design reviews, having male and female participants. Having lecture series with male and female speakers. It's modeling the behavior we want to see in the profession. And I think, along with doing this for women, we also need to do it for all underrepresented populations in the world of design and construction. In my mind, it's really all one conversation because I believe that the profession of architecture needs to look like the public it serves, and that's everyone."
I’m not ascribing it to women entering the profession. I’m ascribing to what people in positions of power, and in academia are actually saying and doing.
Here is an example....Asians are suing Harvard for a policy that discriminated against them...google the details...not important to my point....That policy doesn’t stand alone in isolation, it’s part of a particular leftist mindset that allows for those in power to try and shape a demographic outcome that they view as morally just.
This undermines meritocracy, equality of opportunity based efforts, and the overall liberal idea that we should judge solely on content of character and merit. This kind of thinking completely undermines western liberalism....let me remind you that western liberalism is responsible for a continuous trend towards a more just society...we didn’t get from 1920’s to now by ensuring equality of outcome....we got here by trying to ensure equal opportunity.
Is this your cause Jlax? Do you believe that having 6 women acting as deans at the same time is excessive and evidence of 'forcing the system' towards unnatural results?
I'm being a bit disingenuous because I don't have any reason to care what you think, but I'm open to the possibility you generate an amusing response.
Strawman. Stop being lazy and read what I actually wrote.
Here’s a question that will probably go unanswered...
What does a just demographic outcome look like?
A) an outcome that would happen if all societal barriers were removed,
B) an outcome that we predetermine to be just based on an even representation of all groups present in that given society?
The correct answer is A, and few would disagree. The actual disagreement is a disagreement about what "removing barriers" means, and when "removing barriers" is mistaken for "predetermining outcome."
I think, to use example you cited above, that highlighting speakers and reviewers who are women / people of color is removing a barrier - that is, the barrier that so many women + POC have spoken about, of facing a group of people in a position of authority who are entirely white men. Entering a space over and over again where no one else looks like you leaves the impression that that space is only for people who are not like you. By highlighting diversity, it "removes the barrier" of this impression.
Other people view this as "predetermining an outcome" by placing value on appearance and social background in addition to professional accomplishments. I understand their point, but I disagree.
Futher, I think the question itself is flawed. We can't measure equitable opportunity by looking at the demographic result alone. We'll know that equitable opportunity exists when people who have historically been denied opportunity no longer have stories of inequality. Last I checked there are still far too many stories being told.
I think you are a good dude trying to support the right thing. I appreciate that you don’t resort to ad hominem attacks. Often times I or others will disagree with method and get get attacked on principles or morals. This not productive. It’s important for people to assume good faith in each other’s arguments.
That said, I disagree that focusing on race and gender are positive for society. Call me naive, but I grew up believing in the old liberal line of thought that you shouldn’t judge people or make issue of people immutable characteristics. This is counterproductive imo, and that ideal is what has led to much progress. I don’t see the point in throwing that out. I also find it problematic that “groups of white men” are looked at with such cynicism and skepticism. Groups are aggregates of individuals. Prejudging groups is problematic. I judge people individually.
Idenity politics and political correctness are ruining academia and politics.
From an even starting point, perhaps, but we can't have a real egalitarian or meritocratic society until we put in the effort to level the playing field. America as a society has never acknowledged that history and now that it's been "a while" we're just hoping the issue disappeared on its own. ...it didn't.
The way I see it, to say "I don't see color" or "I don't see men & women, just people" is to say "I don't acknowledge the ways in which you've had to struggle where I haven't, so I will judge you as if you haven't struggled." And I think *that* is counterproductive.
It’s not about saying “I don’t see color”. It’s about expecting people to not make that they way that they analyze, categorize, and judge others. By making a point of it, you are reinforcing the idea that your racial group is more important than your individuality. I disagree with that.
I’m a fan of Radical individuality over identity politics. That’s all. Individuals are waaaaay more diverse within groups than between them.
If all barriers are removed, we'd get to remove jlax!
Well, to get to a system that is 100% equal you certainly would have to at the very least implant some type of thought control mechanism in everyone’s brain. 100% anything requires an enormous amount of authoritarianism to achieve. Can you imagine what you’d have to do to get a room 100% clean? We can get a room 99% clean with normal cleaning, but complete sterilization requires insane amounts of control. We have to accept a small degree of inequality because zero inequality requires undesirable measures.
So yeah tinnt. If 100% of barriers were removed from the pursuit of this utopia...getting to remove people who question things would be required...can’t have any blasphemy!
Many thought control mechanisms are already in place. You are not making sense & are talking in extremes because you think it's fun to play devil's advocate. We get it. Why do you think a woman having a leadership position is the result of a pursuit of utopia? Maybe they just have some ability and somebody thought they'd do a good job. Females are good at doing tasks that are complex and require holding and considering multiple strains of thought. Male brains are good at hyper-focusing on one aspect of something. Based on this observation, both architects and deans of universities are better suited for the female brain. Let the men dig the ditches and pick up the trash. The ladies will plan and design the cities and educate the kids. I know two lady deans of arch schools personally and think both are fantastic choices for the jobs they have. I can't say the same about the male deans I know, it seems they get there through a process that resembles nepotism. At least we know these ladies didn't get where they are through being someone's nephew.
100% is never a goal so claiming that 100% is impossible is not a counterargument to the goal. Better, not perfect, is what is being sought.
tintt brings up an excellent point - stating that a woman in a position is only in that position because of her gender ignores the fact that many, many men are only in the positions they're in because of their gender. And yet that's rarely an issue.
“Why do you think a woman having a leadership position is the result of a pursuit of utopia? Maybe they just have some ability and somebody thought they'd do a good job. Females are good at doing tasks that are complex and require holding and considering multiple strains of thought. Male brains are good at hyper-focusing on one aspect of something.”
2 things...
1. I never said that women in leadership is a result of pursuing utopia...I said that we cannot create a society based on an ideal of removing 100% of all unfairness. That’s impossible. We can get really close, and I’d argue that we have, but the last mile requires an enormous amount of control that no one wants. People on the left are trying to squeeze out a few decimal points more by policing language, these artificial quotas, finding micro aggressions, etc. Up until 98-99% it’s all obvious shit. Don’t grab ass, treat people with respect, don’t consider race or gender when hiring, etc. That last 1-2% points are where the whacky shit and dangerous shit starts like policing speech, denying debate, etc.
2. I agree with the rest. That’s my entire point. Men and women have natural differences as populations (not individuals, on average) that may be the cause of some of the disparities in demographics. That’s all I said, and you seem to agree, so why the hostility?
The natural differences, if not understood, can create an exaggerated, or understated assessment of the degree of inequality...the distance from a perfect, yet unreachable 100% in other words...Why is that important? A exaggeration of the degree of oppression can justify unnecessary authority / corrective measures. An understatement of the degree of oppression can do the opposite.
I’d say an exaggeration of the degree of oppression can also justify bad actors who are using their justifications to gain authority and power. This is why it’s important to really understand and question.
it’s nice that Ivy League schools are leading the way in promoting female leadership. Though the reductive conversation here (and in pop media) ends up being a substitute to change the subject away from the corrupt professional structure and society that wants nothing to do with architectural values. Kind of like that NYT column that featured women architects in a quick roundup that said next to nothing about anything
I don’t think that this is all about making things more just. I really don’t. I think that it’s more about pushing a certain ideology that allows for social engineering. I think the goal is the acceptance of the method. The problem is, once you get 98% there using freedom...that last 2% requires an exponential amount of energy and power and authority to snuff out. Some people are willing to accept a small degree of inequality to avoid a large degree of authority, some see it the other way around.
Is this a response to my comment? I’m not following your logic.
You have a libertarian angle here, but what is unfair to everyone involved is this weaponization of ID politics into the media woke police, the thesis being that diversity in of itself will fix the problems of the world instead of architecture itself.
I follow you. I misunderstood your original post. Yes, I totally agree.
Actually was responding to wrong post. Yes though, we are letting this stuff outshine the architecture, and ironically emphasizing the maker/personality over the product/architecture. Not really too different from the celebrity culture that already preoccupies so much of architecture...another brand of hero architect?
At least starchitecture was centered around some ideas about architecture. The media today doesn’t even to pretend to care about anything but politics. It’s too bad for talented deans like Berke to be associated with these dumb woke NY PR editors. Meanwhile creepy NYT journos can invite young female architects to be featured at the bottom of their generic urbanism stories ... hmm,
Odd how nobody in the architectural world will take on Chase for destroying their headquarters building in mid-town Manhattan at 270 Park Avenue that was designed by a female architect, Natalie de Blois, in 1950 and is one of the most attractive buildings in that city. It would really be interesting to hear what these six women deans have to say about that travesty.
^exactly
Dr. Harriett Harris does not appear to be a licensed US architect. She has some kind of British archibabble qualifications dealing with the theory of teaching and promoting women, but it not clear if she is a fully-registered British architect either.
I googled this for you, did not find any listing of her qualifications in british archibabble. but she is a chartered architect in the uk, so you can rest at ease that she is a legalistically real architect! qualifications listed at bottom of link.
https://www.pratt.edu/news/view/pratt-names-pioneering-educator-and-architect-dr.-harriet-harriss-school-of
Is she a '[Chartered Architect Technologist"?, ie 'Building Designer? That is the only place I can find the word 'Chartered' used with 'Architect' in Britworld.
i'm literally just looking this up on wikipedia for you, but yes this seems like a term for a licensed architect in one of the UK countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_architect
if you're really worry though maybe you should contact Pratt and tell them you think they just selected an unqualified PhD as dean. Maybe they hadn't looked into her credentials!
He credential appears to be her gender.
...and just like that, with one typo-including sentence, Volunteer demonstrates why women in the US are both perpetually furious and also really, really tired of men.
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.