WOMEN IN DESIGN: Women in Architecture
In life, some things will inevitably pop into your mind for absolutely no reason (or perhaps a very good reason that you simply haven’t realized yet). Maybe it’s the desire to watch a movie you loved as a kid, or eat a snack you haven’t had in a long time. And oftentimes, this thing brings much more realization now than it did when you originally experienced it. After all, the movie and the snack are so much better because you associate them with many wonderful parts of your childhood. Thanks to this realization, you now know why you missed that snack, or should have watched that movie more often.
Sometimes this realization comes from things that are more recent than your distant childhood. Maybe you hear an old joke, or read an essay that you write in high school – you know, the one you stayed up most of the night writing even though you told your parents you wrote it weeks ago. Or maybe, if you’re anything like me, it’s an article you read almost a year ago and somehow stumbled upon (again) four days ago. For some reason, I did not get as much out of Maria Smith’s article, “Why do Women Really Leave Architecture?” one year ago than I did the other day. And I’m pretty sure I didn’t even realize Vanessa Quirk wrote a response to the article (and a fantastic one, if I do say so myself). It wouldn’t do the articles justice to summarize them here, but the authors make a few points especially worthy of discussion.
Maria Smith spends only a paragraph making in interesting point about how the views of women in architecture have changed over the years. In the 1970s, Smith claims women sought equality, regardless of one’s gender. However, this resulted in a polarized version of equality – women were either traditionally feminine, or they ignored gender entirely and came across as less feminine and more masculine. As time passed, this polarization slowly dissipated. Now, according to Smith, being a woman in the workplace is completely accepted, but showing feminine ways is somewhat frowned upon. As with everything, this general statement does not apply to every situation; however, general statements exist because, to at least some extent, they are often true. The statement likely does not apply to firms comprised primarily of young architects. Because the changing view of women in architecture has transformed over a matter of decades, younger architects have grown up in an environment where being masculine or feminine does not matter in the workplace nearly as much as being productive and a great employee. It likely does not apply as much as it used to even in firms comprised of older architects, simply because times have changed so much. However, sentiments like the ones Smith brings up still exist, and thus deserve attention.
On a tangent that originated with Smith’s arguments, Vanessa Quirk points out that architecture encompasses many things (and there are many fields related to design), and is not limited exclusively to licensed architects drawing floor plans. For a group of people who see so much potential in the world, architects often forget how much potential lies in a variety of design fields. As history has shown, many women move from architecture into a related design field. As a result, while these women are not associated with architecture in its strict definition, they are most certainly involved in architectural and design pursuits.
I encourage you to go read the articles and see what you think. Perhaps, like me, you’ve glanced at them before and simply not realized how interesting they are. Or, if you’ve gained nothing else from these writings, maybe you’ve at least been inspired to re-watch a favorite movie from your childhood.
You can find Maria Smith’s article here: http://www.architectural-review.com/8659000.article
Vanessa Quirk’s response is here: http://www.archdaily.com/478910/why-do-women-really-leave-architecture-is-the-wrong-question/
For the photo, look here: http://www.archilovers.com/newsletter/87