I don't get it. Everything "designed for women" tends to be a lot more ergonomic, a lot more pleasant, and a lot more aesthetically pleasing than things not "designed for women." It's almost as if the design world goes "well, any lunkhead will buy this because it's black and silver but if we want women to buy it, it actually has to be comfortable to use." Everything in this article sounds exceedingly pleasant, penis or no penis. What's not to like?"Gender can be an emotional issue," Bauer adds. "When you tell people that up until now they haven’t taken the women’s perspective into account they feel attacked. We still have people asking, ‘Is this really necessary?'"
The way I understand it is that women need a higher standard of urban design to feel safe / comfortable enough to use a certain space. Urban space is often designed as a utility rather than something to be enjoyed, and I think that this is having a larger negative effect on women than on men. While the improvements are beneficial to all, they are more beneficial for women.
I think this whole article could have been phrased better if the premise was "How to Create a City for Everyone to Feel Safe Through Better Design Instead of the Installation of a Police State". I suppose that title doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
Man, I just saw this site for the first time today via Facebook: Why Banksy Is (Probably) a Woman Both have been surprisingly good reads.
Things for women include: being more safe, being designed around child care, being designed around shopping and going to many places in town, doing chores. The womans perspective. Obligatory ford commercial. Here I thought we were working towards a world where women were considered no different than men, and are just as capable of accomplishing tasks and dealing with inconveniences.Planners also run the run the risk of reinforcing stereotypes in attempting to characterize how men and women use city space. To distance themselves from this, city officials have begun to shy away from the term gender mainstreaming, opting instead for the label 'Fair Shared City.'
Until we are able to get down the the unique needs of the individual on a case by case basis, we cannot help but generalize, right? There's no doubt that what is ideal for some women or men, is less than ideal for others. However, there are things in the aggregate that stand out. Apparently, for women in general, easily accessible shopping etc is important. I have to say, I too find this to be important. At some level, how much of this is a communication gap? Men are pretty bad at communicating what is and is not important to them. Women tend to be more considerate for the most part. I know they've done studies that show that in a dining setting women spend considerable more time looking over a menu, while men are much more abrupt in their decision making. There's perhaps a parallel here. Men don't take the time to appreciate as much as women do. Therefore, it's almost like they don't know what they're missing until they've experienced it. Not sure if this rambling train of thought makes any sense. My apologies if it doesn't.
The strange thing is that people seem to be shifting now from the "women are just as capable as men" to a new "women are too scared to compete with men, and are not able to stand up for themselves" view. Look at the comments of the park. They essentially say "we have to put a bunch of divisions so that the men don't take over the park". The idea that women should be separated, protected, and shielded from the world may not be present in these things as they are now, but I would be willing to bet that if this stuff goes mainstream we aren't going to see it contributing to a more positive view of women. "Ladies first" died out for a reason. Now it's being brought back.
This isn't a question of diabetes. This isn't a question such as with women's sports. This is the case of a city "for women" being a nice, happy, comfortable, safe, city designed around roaming around (see, shopping), child-care, chore-doing, etc. It's a case of making a park to "protect" women from men by dividing areas into sections so that women don't have to compete for space. If it were something around the lines of "this city is ". No, honestly, I can't think of a single way you can design a city "for women" and not come off as a bit stupid while doing so. I feel like I am watching that stupid spirit science series "feminine energies are diverse, they seek multiple paths" and "male energies are like a tank, taking the direct route". And, yeah, that is true, to an extent. Women are better at multitasking and similar where-as men are much more "focused". However, you can't go off that and try to design an entire city around it. Imagine a city "for men" by the same ideals. Where human interaction is reduced to a minimum, home and work are placed near each other to reduce commute times and encourage productivity, and with football parks on every corner. It's bullshit.
You... Do you really believe this? No part of cities were designed in the way "would this work best for men and what men typically want?". Cities are designed considering a number of things that depends on the city. Some are pre-made, and are more works of art than anything else. Some are built through people's decisions over a lot time, based on people moving in around a factory, then stores pop in around the people, etc. Parks, apartment complexes, etc, are designed to appeal to people. Male or female. The only thing you could say about cities that may not be "Designed around women" are cases such as parks or public transport. I can't comment on parks. I have zero idea how parks come about or are made or designed. I always thought it was just a big grassy thing with signs in front of it and decorations. Cheap, easy, fast. Public transport isn't something missing in cities, at least in most of the first world. It is only in the US where public transport is ignored and not really very good, and that is more because of the fact that cars are a huge thing here and distances are much longer. You can find cities with more public transport in some areas.By default, all cities are designed for men.
Yup, I do. Let's hear your counter-argument, this ain't gonna be pretty. "He" is the default universal/unisex pronoun because for so long, the male perspective has been considered - well, the default. 'He' as such is not end-all-and-be-all proof, 'he' is an example. If, in general, the people who design cities tend to be men, it is safe to assume that in general their perspectives, which have driven the design, shape the design; therefore it is safe to assume that unless they have opted out of their perspectives by bringing in females or soliciting female POVs, the male perspective and experience have been predominantly what have shaped city design. Besides that, one may argue that inherent, underlying city design (i.e., the original grid structure of Philadelphia, or what-have-you) has been shaped by the populace's use of that land - for instance, roads and walks that are paved after being down into existence by common use. However, considering that concept, one must understand that historical use by the majority would then create such groundwork, and historically, women have not been travelers (in American cities, I'll caveat) and if they have been, typically it has been as travelers with male companions. Moreover, even giving female travelers, it is very easy to posit that they were not the majority, considering that it was not typical for females to travel unaccompanied or undirected by males until well into the 20th century. Unless you consciously consider the perspective of others in a given situation you are bound to follow your own perspective. I'm not saying anyone sat down and said "We're going to design this city for men." I'm saying that when men are the group in charge, it is not likely they will also consider the perspective of women, particularly when for so long women have been considered a less class. Why bother consider the women's perspective? As a result, in general, I think it is extremely safe to say that cities have been designed with the male, and not female, populace in mind.
He being the "universal pronoun" has fuck all to do with city design, and is not relevant for anything but trying to connect the idea that men were considered the default by society to how cities are designed/remain in the modern day. It isn't an end-all and be-all proof, it isn't even a very good example of anything. Cities are not designed considering one person's perspective or issues. The "people who design cities" is based on thousands of different people in thousands of different situations and locations. You could just as well say "Cities are designed for government workers" or "cities are designed for elected officials" or "cities are designed for architects" based on such a thing. You will almost never find any decisions made for a city that are made for one reason or
through one issue. Every decision has a thousand reasons behind it, from voters wanting a new road in town, to workers being lazy and not putting in a brick or two. The following is, of course, as as I understand the general "City design scenario" tends to go. Honestly, it's probably a hell of a lot more complex than anything below. It is also based on "fairly modern" practices. It is also based on the US. Things like the grid structure of Philadelphia are basic and simple structures to build roads around. Had the city been built or designed by the roamings of women rather than men, it would have still been a grid. The only example you really could use is the idea that some cities/older cities were forged from men being the ones who primarily used roads and traveled. However, I am not quite sure it was men primarily using the roads and traveling. Assuming the article's "men use transport twice a day, women use it many times" it would be women doing the most traveling and defining of roads. I do not think american society has ever been based around women not being able to travel alone. Isn't one of the old steriotypes that women are the ones going around, shopping, doing errands, etc, while the husband is at work? Secondly, before the 20th century most cities and city-structures didn't exist. This isn't a question of how things were before, it is a question of how they are today. Outside of those areas that did exist in the pre-modern era, your argument does not apply. Picking lights or making parks divided or having different options for sports is nearly entirely a matter of "does the city have the money?" A mayor or planner is going to do things like add footpaths and things for play if the money exists, because people like those things. I see absolutely zero things about city design that rely on "the male perspective". Perhaps it is different in a city where all transport tends to be public transportation, but even then I do not see how "lets make the paths wider and better lit" is an improvement that caters to women or is not an issue from the male perspective. Everyone likes decent, well lit, sidewalks. I honestly don't see a single area in which it seems that women are somehow singled out or not represented in any modern city-structure. The only concrete example the article has is "we made roads wider and brighter" in terms of actual city design. That is nothing. That is beneficial to everyone involved, and doesn't help men or women more (outside of if women use public transportation more often, making any changes more beneficial). And, of course, this city is not in the US, so perhaps it's an isolated issue. going from the article
The only example of this is the parks. And even that is less a "cities aren't designed around women" and more a "women use upper class parks more often than men do"."It’s about bringing people into spaces where they didn’t exist before or felt they had no right to exist."
You spend three paragraphs failing at rebutting a discussion of historical influences only to conclude by stating that before the 1900s or so, most cities and city-structures didn't exist and so don't matter. First, every city of size on the East Coast begs to disagree. Every city of size in Europe (you know - subject of the article) just laughed at you. Second, you rebut my demonstration of a potential historical impact using modern data - that stuff about traveling for chores, etc? That's from the 90s. Applying it retroactively is, well, I don't know - anachronism. Third, I spent a precious load of time looking for sources about women in travel in historical eras (Colonialism, Victorianism, what-have-you) and while I was busy looking for my third I realized shit ain't worth my time. Moving on, in your response: Now we have agreed that general city improvements, by illustration of parks, are made not only when money exists for them to occur but also as a result of them being things people in general like. I do not disagree. If a city had the money to build a guillotine attraction in its park, it might opt not to, seeing as the citizens might not enjoy it - or worse, might get full use out of it. Cities don't build any old thing that people want - cities build things that their governance is comfortable with their people having. Now you are telling me you don't see gender or gender accommodations and don't even really think the ones mentioned in the article are gender accommodations. Then what are we arguing about? You like 'em, I like 'em, we're all happy. The changes were based on polling/survey data. Not arbitrary, lots of facts, just perhaps a more specific look at a target sample that tends to use those areas perhaps more heavily than the population as a whole. In other words, a sub-population that in general is both more interested in the design of these places, and better placed to offer an opinion on their current state (and therefore, potential improvements). There is a difference between "singled-out" and "forgotten," "not considered," and even "shunned." Example, I watch this great TV show, Better Off Ted. Long story short two guys work for MegaCorp in TV show. One's white one's black. Company, as a cost-savings measure, sets up motion-detecting lights. But wait! They don't detect black people! Not deliberate, black people not deliberately singled out, black people still adversely impacted. NO ONE MEANT IT! Still happened, still now a problem. Back to you pronouncing that the only stated improvements made to the city that you read in the article benefit everyone. So I repeat, why are we arguing? If the changes made are good, and came about at the suggestion of a body of people which generally uses those areas of the city more, then how are they bad? Because they might change things to work slightly less well for the people who use those areas of the city less? I feel like half your problems are with the article and half your problems are with this discussion.
The point is that the design of modern cities is not set up in such a way that ignores or adversely impacts women. There is nothing about a city that is set up in a way that puts down or puts women/people going out doing chores at a disadvantage. Nothing about public transport is negative for any reason other than costs and usages. These "cities designed for women" seem to be less designed for women and more designed for having better funded and designed things in general.
Sure, I'll grant that no one has consciously designed cities to ignore or adversely impact women. However conscious choice isn't a requirement in order for potential discrimination to occur. Since these women were able to suggest improvements to the transportation system it is easy to extrapolate that the transportation system was sub-optimal for their use beforehand. Therefore, one could factually state that, since the system was not optimal, the women were indeed "at a disadvantage" of some sort, although the magnitude of this disadvantage is not determined. Like I said, I'm sure no one designed a city or any other public space with the intent of leaving out women, repressing women, causing women more discomfort, etc. Lack of conscious causal behavior does not guarantee a fair impact. If I gotta break the link down for you: if something you do impacts a group of people in an adverse manner, even if it's not intentional, it's still happening and it's still bad and, depending on the class of persons, can constitute racism, sexism, etc. This is not just my opinion. THIS IS YOUR COURT'S OPINION.
I am not stating conscious design. I am stating overall design. All systems can be improved. All regions can use work. The fact that a thing could be improved does not imply that that thing was ignored in the past. You could use the same logic to say that men are disadvantaged by the fact that traffic exists on the five 0 clock commute. The city just doesn't care enough to put money into fixing the problems! There is no part of modern city design that is disadvantaging women. You have given no serious examples of such a thing. The story in the OP hardly gives any examples of such a thing. The only concrete example there is of the park. And even then, the contrast between the two parks sound like an issue of the park previously not being developed or added to, rather than the park being designed initially in a way that benefits men.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if a greater merging of gender roles comes about as an unexpected consequence of the changes in urban landscape and transportation.The decision to look at how men and women used public transit wasn't a shot in the dark. It was part of a project aimed at taking gender into account in public policy. In Vienna, this is called gender mainstreaming.
This article has some interesting implications. It's easier to change the urban landscape and transportation networks NOW, rather than wait for men to share equally in child and elder care (NOTE: I'm just reflecting the stats and studies used in the article).
I find it weird that we can talk about a city for women when pens for women ended poorly. Feminism has allowed me to see that I don't understand subtly. Would this city for women use male or female construction workers?
- Is there anything significantly different about how men and women use pens? - Is there anything significantly different about how men and women use cities? Although I have not studied the question in great detail I'm willing to suspect the answer is generally no to the first one, and generally, perhaps even emphatically, yes, to the second. As a result it is easy to feel as if the first strategy was merely an attempt to gain profit while emptily mouthing to a given cause, and the second is not. Maybe it is easy to see the need for the latter and not so easy for the former - whether or not it exists.
My initial comment had a snarky bit about women's razors that I removed - because for me, "women's razors" were those stupid round-flat Tylenol-shaped things that were about as anti-ergonomic as humanly possible. Every girl I've dated since the mid '90s has used a men's handle in the shower and when we've discussed why, they've (to a woman) said "yeah, women's razors are shit." But in looking at womens' razors these days, they mostly seem to be men's razors with slightly blobbier handles and/or slightly pinker colors. I can see why "pens for women" ended poorly - there's nothing inherently masculine about the coloration of a pen. Health and beauty products? Oh, fuck yeah. I've watched half of the skin care aisle at BBB turn black over the past 10 years as companies discover they can sell moisturizer, buff puffs, lotion and hairspray to men if they put it in a nice butch container. I've used Oxy pads since I was 14 (bad news, kidz - you still get zits at 40). They used to be in a white and pastel container. Then about '04 they started looking like something Rambo would keep hand grenades in.
This is all funny because I landed on a "pad brand" (feminine products brand) when one went rogue and made all their boxes black with bright accent colors. Maybe I'm wrong but in terms of anatomy we all have hands and they all work about the same. That's why I see pens for women failing: it's clear & deliberate pandering when no pandering need occur. I wanted to compare it to left-handed scissors except apparently some lefties do use 'em. Cities with re-vamped designs that consider the female perspective, backed up by surveys about how individuals use various parts of the city (i.e., transpo)? I'm all for that. Sure, sometimes the survey results might seem sexist and yes, we don't want to reinforce sexism so we should be careful with that, but I see dealing with the gender differences that come out at the end of socialization (like how we use cities) not to complicate or cause those differences, but to accommodate them while they exist. Like I said, like treating black males for diabetes differently than white males: sure, the diabetes rate is probably caused in part by a number of facts that, at their root, are class issues. Should those class issues be solved? Yes. Would the diabetes rate in black men hopefully then conform more with white rates? Yes. But in the meantime, the doctor should treat these results of classism/racism by varying their patients' treatment and screenings accordingly. Breast cancer rates are way higher in women than men. Women get screened more. Based on surveys, stats - not sexism but demonstrated need. Will I be happy when I start having to get mammos? No. Do I recognize based on my gender it's a little more necessary? Yes. Bright side: no dr needs to stick his latex-y fingers up my butt and check out my prostate.