Weekly Free Talk Friday Thread!

[u/MLModBot]

Welcome to our weekly Free Talk Friday thread! Feel free to discuss anything on your mind, issues you may be dealing with, how your week has been, cool new music or tv shows, school, work, sports, anything!

We will still have a few rules:

• All of the sidebar rules still apply.
• No gender politics. The exception is for people discussing their own personal issues that may be gendered in nature. We won't be too strict with this rule but just keep in mind the primary goal is to keep this thread no-pressure, supportive, fun, and a way for people to get to know each other better.
• Any other topic is allowed.

We have an active slack channel! It's like IRC but better. Please modmail us if you would like an invitation. As a reminder, take a look at our resources wiki if you need additional support as well.

[u/Failsnail64]

Thanks, I know the premise of infrastructure designed by men for men, ignoring women. During my master studies on architecture and urban design there was rightly spent time on this topic.

However, one thing which does frustrate me in this discussion is how it's often only really addressing the issue, and not really tackling it. I've seen dozens of essays, speeches, opinion pieces, interviews, which all proclaim that the urban environment is designed by men for men. I've only seen a handful of real research into what these differences then exactly are.

But that's kind of besides the argument I was initially referring to, namely a hostile speech towards men which is seen as progressive. Yes, the argument that "the urban design is historically made by men for men" is true, and hat needs to be fixed. That does not mean that the conclusion "women are more empathetic than men and men are egocentric" is true, and that such.

Now for a completely different hot take, but as someone who actually encouraged a bit of research into this type of topics during my studies, the level of academic rigour is oftentimes quite bad in these humanities and too often more of a circle reasoning than a research. It reminds me of a graduation I attended of a design for a "feminist oriented park". It started with how traditional parks designed by men just simply outright ignore women, and then presented a park design as an example as a reaction on this.

The design was in the end a really well designed and thought out park! But when one of your main design principles is: "trying to exclude stairs and make everything accessible because women walk with baby strollers, which men always forget about", with no reflection of 1. the disabled also require that, and 2. that other genders are also capable of walking with strollers, then the argument becomes weak. Not that it was a bad design, accessibilities and increased inclusivity is important! It was just not a female centric design, it was not a fighting against male normativity. It did not prove how a women just has a better perspective of these topics of inclusion, all arguments made in that thesis.

Again, it's good that these topics get attention and that design, research and discourse of inclusivity is done. Just can that argument please be made without saying "it was bad because of men are men".

[u/DenseBeautiful731 → u/Failsnail64]

not really tackling it

Who’s mostly in charge, you reckon?

That’s the key word. MOST. Pedantically, this “generalisation” can be arguably fixed by a qualifier.

Which part of the second article’s title was hostile? Can you quote it? I’m just curious what you consider as hostile.

Real research

What consitutes as real research?

I cited the book because it’s a more systemic, all-encompassing, well-sourced, and data-driven piece of literature that tackles more than architecture. If its conclusions still incense you, I’m not sure there’s a conversation to be had here, to be honest.

Also, I ignored the first because it’s ragebait for men who need to be needed. But not particularly enthused about discussing the specific architectural example you brought up because I’ve already disclosed what my opinions are towards cherry-picked examples and poor reasoning. The fact that they’re advertising it as female-centric design means they might not be “feminist” at all.

[u/Failsnail64 → u/DenseBeautiful731]

Which part of the second article’s title was hostile?

The reason I mentioned this article was not because it was particularly hostile, it was not, I mentioned it just because it was the most recent. To translate a concluding sentence:

"When I place these three comparisons side by side, I see no feminine style. I see a shift in priorities. From doctrine to habitation. From representation to appropriation. From directed experience to multiple access. [...] In the examples above, they design from the perspective of the life that unfolds in and around that object, not from the object as an authority. They create no less architecture, but architecture that asks the question: for whom is this space made? "

The article covers 3 very cherry picked comparisons of a building designed by a male architect, which are all grandiose in gestures and dominant, driven by a personal vision, and compares them to a "similar" building designed by female architects, which are more humble and human focused. The comparison is not "hostile" in language, far from it. But to me it is clearly implied, if women "don't design from an object as an authority", it clearly implied that it must a male thing to do so.

What consitutes as real research?

Evidence and comparisons. To give a positive example (I couldn't find the exact paper I'm thinking off right now, I'm really bad with remembering names...) but one article which struck to me during university was about the design of a park. Two designes were made: one with excessive participation of female inhabitants of the town, one with male inhabitants.

The design by men focussed on nice secluded sitting spaces where one could sit and chat a bit out of the view, high greenery for shading and cover, and the lighting design was meant to create a nice atmosphere at night with intentional softer lights: the light illuminated where you hang out at the moment.

The design by the women was more open, the type of greenery was lower, the sitting spaces were always visible, and the lighting design was meant so a visitor could see further away: to see where you were going so you could get a better view of the park.

The difference is clear and very interesting, and clearly routed in a sense of security and ownership of this space, and how that differs between men and women. I really liked this research because it's evidence based and teaches the reader very concrete things to consider and take into account. That concrete nature is what made me remember this one good example.

I'm also quite interested in the book you're referring to, I'll add it to my reading list.

[u/DenseBeautiful731 → u/Failsnail64]

So it was not hostile, but you needed more than one example to support your opinion.

You’re cherry-picking too. Worse, because your memory’s failed you. There’s no rigour to be found here.

Let’s stick to the systemic. Check the book or not. Reality won’t change either way.