ABSTRACT
In this chapter I describe the problem: is the gendered nature of the built environment (cf. RTPI, 1989b: GLC, 1986a). In discussing the city of man, as against the demands of the women and planning movement, one can present a simplistic model of a dualistic situation in which all men are to blame, and all women suffer equally. Therefore within this introductory section I seek to qualify terms such as men, public, and majority which traditionally have excluded women; and to consider differences among women. The situation is complex, as neither men nor women are unitary groups. Each is composed of a range of ages, classes, income groups, and ethnic types, with differing degrees of power. Individuals are affected by the deficiencies in the built environment to varying degrees. There are some major differences of opinion among women as to what ideal town planning policy should be like, for example, on issues such as whether childcare provision should be located in residential or employment areas; on the role of the private motorcar as against public transport; and on emotive everyday life issues like whether dogs should be banned from parks and beaches where children play. Differences of opinion exist among urban feminists as to priorities. Whilst some see children, alongside women, as the last great minority group found to be discriminated against, others believe a pre-occupation with children, and ‘homely’ issues perpetuates gendered roles. Nevertheless, it is argued, relatively speaking, women qua women do share many common problems in the built environment because of their structural position in a patriarchal society, this viewpoint being articulated by urban feminism. The problem is that planners have produced policy on the basis of a gender-blind perspective, to meet the presumed needs of the public (Keeble, 1969). Women often appear to have been excluded from this public, being seen as a separate minority category, existing in the private realm.
