It is a sad fact that the number of women in architecture is dropping, whilst in many other professions women have long had parity in numbers as well as pay and status. Of the Royal Institute of British Architects' (RIBA) 27,000 chartered architects, just 4,000 are women.
Whilst the number of female architecture students has grown – now 44%, we can't seem to retain them in the profession. Just 34% officially qualified chartered architects are women.
— theguardian.com
19 Comments
Can we get Zaha to leave?
No one tells women to leave. For that matter, no one tells women not to go into traditional practice upon finishing architecture school in the first place. From my graduating class of about 20 in a M.Arch I, only 7 became licensed architects, of whom 1 is a woman. The class was about 50:50 male:female. Only that 1 woman went into traditional practice so as to attain that goal. None of the others even went to work in the field. The men in the profession are not responsible for THAT. At all.
So, there are several reasons I could come up with:
- when you spoke with the women in my class at the beginning of the program, becoming licensed architects wasn't even on their radar screen while most of the guys said, "Yeah, I want to go work for an architectural firm."
- in my particular class, and vertical studios, women didn't seem as passionate about architecture as (some of) the men.
- I've met some women in school and in practice that surprisingly are to architecture what bookkeepers are to the financial world, meaning they want to work in the back office, not exert influence, and almost be "green eye shade" like - some of these ladies don't even like to talk about or critique design, which stuns the hell out of me.
- some women have different priorities and may artificially cap their career progress to balance other life goals and events.
- the culture in architecture, unlike other professions, does NOT push people toward licensure, so if someone doesn't license, then they won't be a member of the AIA or RIBA either - they'll be a job captain in perpetuity, and no one is nudging them to aspire for the actual title of architect. In other professions, if you don't get the applicable professional certification soon enough, you'll be out of a job.
Observant, I take it you're a woman? Because, how else could know women soooo well?
No. I'm quoting stats. Also, there's a reason I picked a handle like observant.
Stats? I'm gonna call you here sport, I think you have a busted hand. Aside from your "numbers" all of your assertions/assumptions are yours, and those ain't stats, bubby.
Those are the stats for MY class. Those are piss poor stats for women entering the profession upon graduating. That doesn't even reflect giving it the "old college try" and then pushing the eject button. The percentage of men who practice architecture, law, engineering, accountancy, and even health fields with the respective licenses is slightly to significantly higher than the percentage of men in universities studying those fields concurrently with women. Women often take a break to have children and raise them for a while. Some even stay out longer and take mid-level jobs to be available to their kids while in their teenage years. Most men can't, or won't, do that. If 44% of the architecture students in the UK are currently women, according to the above blurb, then why can't 44% of the licensed architects from that group, once graduated and in the workforce for a number of years, be women? Theoretically, it should shake out that way. Who's there stopping them from reaching for the golden ring? Men?
THIS
[So, there are several reasons I could come up with:
- when you spoke with the women in my class at the beginning of the program, becoming licensed architects wasn't even on their radar screen while most of the guys said, "Yeah, I want to go work for an architectural firm."
- in my particular class, and vertical studios, women didn't seem as passionate about architecture as (some of) the men.
- I've met some women in school and in practice that surprisingly are to architecture what bookkeepers are to the financial world, meaning they want to work in the back office, not exert influence, and almost be "green eye shade" like - some of these ladies don't even like to talk about or critique design, which stuns the hell out of me.
- some women have different priorities and may artificially cap their career progress to balance other life goals and events.
- the culture in architecture, unlike other professions, does NOT push people toward licensure, so if someone doesn't license, then they won't be a member of the AIA or RIBA either - they'll be a job captain in perpetuity, and no one is nudging them to aspire for the actual title of architect. In other professions, if you don't get the applicable professional certification soon enough, you'll be out of a job.]
All of ^ this, is your opinion. It's not stats, and it's relegated to what, 10 female grad students, that you went to school with? How many women are in the profession again? And, how could you possible know what men are responsible for in this profession, when it comes to the reasons why women are finding it harder to continue in the field?
Did you not read the blog post by Lian?
I read the link. It says the same thing over and over ... and over. The author is not reinventing the wheel. The author mentions work-life balance, alternative creative professions, and an assessment of whether the rewards justify the effort and investment.
Not only does those stats represent my small class, they sort of replicate themselves in the work force upon entering other geographic job markets and seeing who is there taking the A.R.E. ... and who isn't. Women simply choose not to go for it. And all these pep talk / focus group type articles like the one linked above won't change the minds of the women who simply do not want to go for it. I don't see what the problem is. And what is your gender? And why are you getting so pissy about this?
The AIA and ARE (and whatever standardized hoops)f is bullshit, just mindless hoop jumping to make architecture into a "profession." Guess what, Frank Lloyd Wright couldn't stand AIA.
From my experience, women are just as creative as men; maybe they tend to lean more towards the communicative side, but collaboration is a key generator of ideas of the design process.
Maybe the whole AIA system is sexist? It's all a bunch of technical data meant to suck the life out of design.
Every design profession is most dynamic in its early stages, then the next generation puts into place all kinds of standards meant to control and stifle it. Over-regulations lead to the kind of corporate design crap that makes you want to vomit.
Just the fact that one has to assert "women are just as creative as men" is fucked up. Architects don't like to admit it, maybe because they are always patting themselves on the back for how liberal and progressive they are, but there's still a lot of machismo in architecture. Not the caricature kind, but the quiet kind like quiet racism where because architecture is a lot about 3-d and building, some men assume men have the market cornered. Another aspect IMHO, comes from this anti-decorative stance where you can't even mention the word decoration and be taken seriously. The flip side might be, why aren't there more straight men in fashion (proportionatly)? Society maintains these artificial boundries for a fear to acknowledge the fact that the sexes are a lot more alike than not. Modernism hasn't helped, deriding the concept of beauty and just about equating decoration with a mental disorder, when we all like to decorate whether we admit it or not. Why the hell else did we get in this profession if not to make this world more beautiful (and try to look cool, and build shit and make money and...)?
I'm male, and it shouldn't take a woman, to tell a man, that their post is fucked up sexist bullshit, hinged on a very minor selection set of your own particular choosing. Honestly, I don't give two fucks about your stats, or your EXPANSIVE 50:50 class of 20 grad students. What I do find repugnant is your analysis of why women are not in the profession, and why YOU think men have played zero role in affecting women joining the profession.
As for Lian's blog, what I was referring too, was the excoriating interrogation of EOM, by Dean Sylvia Lavin. Clearly, you have not read that.
i have yet to meet someone with less correspondence between self perception/ moniker and actual nature than 'obervant'. sillier yet is that he thinks that he's saying it like it is' (that idiotic americana..'.it is what it is, at the end of the day'. the guy knows everything there is to know; he tries to show us the kernel of truth that stares us in the face but alas we are to PC to handle the real harsh truth. the gall he has to call himself 'observant' must be applauded; he's been everywhere and entertained every thought well before you. and he knows all. he really should have just called himself omniscient.
Tammuz x has put a nice exclamation point on this thread.
Woohoo - a simple thread turned into a bashing contest.
Those who did NOT bash:
Darkman - I don't have a problem with the A.R.E. It's there to ensure a baseline of competence, curl up with the study materials for 6 months, take a few study seminars, take it, and then forget about it. I'm not so keen on the A.I.A., which I only do if paid for. After they dropped the ability to purchase medical insurance as a group, it told me how much clout they lack. The only thing is that it is the only suffix that readily identifies one as an architect. The acronym R.A. doesn't work. People don't know that, though they more readily recognize A.I.A.
Thayer-D - I agree that the assertion that "women are just as creative as men" cannot be made. It depends on the person. However, when they test children as youngsters, boys tend to do better in spatial ability and girls tend to do better in verbal ability. The way you describe machismo in architecture is spot on. It's kind of a Thurston Howell III from "Gilligan's Island" type of elitism boy's club more so than a "beer, babes, and baseball" type of machismo which may be more readily found in the construction sector. In fact, that's one of the reasons architects and builders might scrape - they're so different from each other. And then if you tossed a couple of thin architect guys dressed in black with the big round glasses their way ...
Those who DID bash:
Sutures (truncated from your cumbersome handle) - you and I have had "issues" since my debut high school only thread, recalling a post "are. we. done. yet?" Don't pick my reading for me, ok? I read what Jane Duncan wrote. That sufficed. As for the sample, not only was that the case in MY class, it was the case in the 3 year M.Arch. classes ahead and behind me, while not about going into the profession, but even of general design ability. I will admit that there was more talent and commitment among the women in the 4+2 crowd, either continuing on from the same school or coming from elsewhere. The balance of who picked up design recognition definitely tilted more toward men than women. I doubt it was in the slightest bit political. When the stuff got showcased to the general public, the stuff that was prized got some subtle "oohs" from people. As for 3 year types, we know that group has more defection than do 4+2s or 5s who have been tea bags that have been steeping longer. Back to these people making the switch, for the women it seemed more exploratory while among the men it was mostly guys who had majored in engineering, CM, and business who had wanted to be architects beforehand, rolled up their sleeves, and got right to it. And the ability demonstrated and career choices reflected that. Another irritant is your playing the "male feminist" card, crying over what men have done to women in the profession. That's crap. For one thing, both men and women who are "too nice" for architecture, and other professions, bail out. I've known numerous, across various fields, who have left for a simpler life doing other work. One was a valedictorian and graduated summa from undergrad. For women who want to make it in architecture, the formula is: a) have the talent and the hoyty-toyty school, b) have the tenacity to network assiduously, c) pick career moves carefully and, hopefully, know some monied people, and even d) crank up the "bitch on wheels" or "steel magnolia" factor, but not the point of annoying your male counterparts. I say this because I recently watched an interview with Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor. She recounts her struggles with juvenile diabetes, her narrow admit into Princeton, and her career trajectory which included working in various firms. She mentioned that one male attorney commented that she was a 'tough bitch' or something to that effect. The interviewer asked her if that was the case. She pensively added 'Yes, I think so.' That's what makes "Sonia from The Bronx" somewhat endearing, is that she knows what she came from. Not only that, she's in a career that is almost entirely about critical thinking and not flamboyance and subjectivity. My mother had a physician who was Ivy League trained and I've sometimes gone with her because of cultural issues. Since my parents are cool and we could talk candidly, I told my mom "I can't stand your doctor. She's a cold bitch. Why don't you change doctors?" She replied that she had been her patient for a long time. Well, this doctor fortunately went to work elsewhere and my mother now has a foreign doctor who is competent, yet clearly feminine enough. So, it seems that even in a profession where one expects someone to listen and be empathetic, you have the "bitch on wheels" types. I've started out with a couple of those, being impressed by their resumes, and then gladly traded them in for male doctors who don't have an "edge."
Tammuz - thanks for your slam on "idiotic americana." Americana is capitalized. I see you are on the "look down your nose at others" soapbox typical of those who in the privileged few in the upper parts of the Middle Eastern or South Asian caste system who jet set to London. Or I may be wrong, and you struggle but still aspire to that. The U.S. has the highest GDP in the world and even Germany, France, and Italy (yes, Italy) are ahead of the U.K. in that regard, or have been within the last 10 years. Actually, you know more than me, my friend. You write in such flowery terms that I learned the word "solipsistic" from you! That one's too rich for my blood. I have repeatedly said that I don't know everything. I don't come from money, I am not affluent, I didn't go to a top 10 or 15 grad a-school, and I didn't get any design prizes. However, I hunkered down and did my work, and sort of did everything on schedule. As for my "moniker," as you call it, I'm "observant" about the human condition. To anyone who wants to live in the conformist cocoon of political correctness, have at it. One of the best things I heard from a fellow alum and good friend from my undergraduate university was "Assume most people are fucked until proven otherwise." Bronze plate that one. It's a good way to proceed and test the waters. Most people are looking out for themselves, since resources are limited. And since you appear to have some ties to Lebanon, you can always get on my good side by baking some "sambusek" for me.
General note to "male feminists:" What's the deal, huh? Women, whether wrong or right, reflexively stick up for their own gender. Men should behave in reciprocal fashion when right, but not when wrong. If you have this white knight reflexivity to stick up for the gender you don't belong to, find out, on a deeper level, what that's all about.
Blah-dee, blah, blah.
“We are here to awaken from our illusion of separateness.” - Thich Nhat Hanh
i hope you do lose those ridiculous formuaic assumptions. i think you might be quite a likeable personality then (online at least). but the generosity you show in the quantity of words are betrayed by the stinginess of your observations and the predisposing trifling analyses of yours. offlie, who knows, you might be one of the very few likeable 'red necky' kind of people around. a pet red neck to have (you know, like "oh, i have a gay friend" sort of thing).
"I see you are on the "look down your nose at others" soapbox typical of those who in the privileged few in the upper parts of the Middle Eastern or South Asian caste system who jet set to London."
you have no clue about my background and what you say is factually extremely off target. i'm no circuit queen , how nice and simple it would be if i were. here again your inane assumptions. do yourself a favour and actually stop 'observing' in the way you've been doing so far.
^
The "red neck" thing is too funny for words. Red necks usually hate me. Could it be reverse snobbery or is it that familiarity breeds contempt? I have been called traditional, and even conservative. Either way, this is a first.
About you and the London thing, in no way did I mean "circuit anything." That was your extrapolation. I was simply referring to people who have this connectivity to London for commercial purposes and mention that they have to go there like they are having their teeth pulled while at the same time it sounds like they're showing off. They also manage to sneak in a subtle Robin Leach inflection when they say the word. You seem to be "in the know" as to London that I assumed you went to school or had worked there.
Back to this article and thread for those interested in its contents and want to concur with or refute what is said ...
Not where I work - in the office where I am at, most of the designers and project architects are women - from India
[...] parity in numbers as well as pay and status.[...]
Yes to parity in pay and status if equally qualified. I don't see the necessity to establish parity in numbers just per se though.
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.