Women are still disadvantaged in urban planning today – this statement is supported not only by urbanist Leslie Kern (“Feminist City”), but also by the latest reports from the United Nations. We want to know: Is this really the case? What distinguishes the feminist from the masculist city? And how should we planners respond to this social debate, which is becoming increasingly emotional? We will find answers in July.
Women are still disadvantaged in urban planning today – this statement is supported not only by urbanist Leslie Kern (“Feminist City”), but also by the latest reports from the United Nations. We want to know: Is this really the case? What distinguishes the feminist from the masculist city? And how should we planners respond to this social debate, which is becoming increasingly emotional? We will find answers in July.
I would never describe myself as a feminist. However, I support gender equality with every fiber of my being – in personal, political, social and economic matters. I also think that women often continue to have disadvantages, especially in a professional context, and that a lack of aggressiveness should not be a reason for a lower salary. And I am clearly against any form of male (but also female) abuse of power at any level. Does all this make me a feminist? No. For me, calling myself a feminist would be tantamount to devaluing myself. The word has negative connotations. It is associated with an aggressive, unobjective form of female pseudo-assertion. Completely stupid. Of course feminism can be objective, calm and focused.
But: I can understand why people who don’t know much about feminist urban planning might roll their eyes at the term alone. They certainly wouldn’t if the term made it immediately clear that this can be about much more than just taking female needs into account in urban development; it’s actually about a city for everyone, a city of short distances, a fundamentally safe and inclusive city. At least this is how we in the editorial team understand feminist urban planning after intensive research and discussions with experts. And I can understand that the term feminist urban planning has taken on a life of its own and is now often used for media and political purposes (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
This makes it all the more important for us to bring the topic to the table in this issue and to allow a sample of landscape architects and urban planners (specifically 564 planners) to have their say alongside selected experts. To this end, we conducted an online survey on the question “Do we need feminist urban planning?”. The result: not all respondents were able to say exactly what feminist urban planning is – and opinions were very divided. We in the editorial team doubt that a survey on the question “Do we need a city for everyone?” would reveal a similarly divided opinion. So we have to ask ourselves the question: How conducive is the notion of feminist urban planning to its actual goals? Let me know what you take away from this issue. I look forward to reading it.
The July issue “Feminist Urban Planning” is available here in the store.
In June, we looked at heat in the city as part of our city special series. Read more here.
