Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Aug 05 02:30:30 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / skyscrapers are misogynistic
sam adams
Member
Mon Jul 06 13:41:23
http://mob...us/1280175649626271744/photo/1


Lol, this is the mind of seb.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 06 13:47:56
Buildings. Civilization and success are all inherently racist.
Rugian
Member
Mon Jul 06 13:49:07
Not all skyscrapers are penises, some of them are dildos:

http://www...p-foster-partners-london-news/

On the one hand, this is typical Guardian leftist stupidity. On the other hand, some developers absolutely view their towers as dick measuring contests. So I'm conflicted on this one.

Skyscrapers in general are a complete blight on cities btw.

Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 06 13:51:24
Also letters are racist.
Dakyron
Member
Mon Jul 06 14:20:53
Taller, and more narrow structures allow for using less space to do more.

IE: The sexist skyscraper is going to be much more productive than a similarly sized building built horizontally.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 06 14:28:32
Well, build giant vagina shaped buildings.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 06 14:31:59
If you do it right you can fit the sky scrapers in the vagina buildings.... But that piss off the queers so your gonna have to male some asshole buildings to pair with the gay sky scrapers.
Dakyron
Member
Mon Jul 06 14:44:45
A penis is not square.
Rugian
Member
Mon Jul 06 14:47:50
Habebe

You're thinking of facadism.

http://alchetron.com/Facadism

Your choice as to whether the base is a vagina or an asshole.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 04:36:03
Headline looks a composite. What's the actual article say?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 06:37:13
It’s your usual feminist sophistry about (what they believe) fallic symbols. A classical ”I am a hammer in a world of nails” type analysis.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 06:45:30
Nim: Difficult to see how this would be "lethal", so given the cropping am minded to think the composite headline consists of a flowery quote put into a new context from original internet to juxtapose broader and more specific issues. But difficult to see without more detail

E.g. ..
"It easy to characterise cities as masculine, full as they are with upward thrusting skyscrapers ejaculating into the sky... but more practically, the increasing aesthetic for clean, minimalist roadscapes with have reduced street lighting has resulted in 20% more assaults while 60% of women said lack of Street lighting is a major issue in their choice to travel after dark".
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 06:46:08
Anyone got a link to the original?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 06:53:38
Lethal? It’s just stupid.

http://www...eminist-city-toxic-masculinity
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 06:54:54
Ah you mean the ingress.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 07:32:45
"Dolores Hayden wrote an article with the explosive headline “Skyscraper seduction, skyscraper rape”. Hayden tore into the male power fantasies embodied in this celebrated urban form. The office tower, she wrote, is one more addition “to the procession of phallic monuments in history – including poles, obelisks, spires, columns and watchtowers”, where architects un-ironically use the language of “base, shaft and tip” while drawing upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating light into the night sky.

If the sexism of the city began and ended with architectural symbolism, I would’ve happily written a grad school essay about this then turned my attention to more pressing matters. But society’s historical and ongoing ideas about the proper gender roles for men and women (organised along a narrow binary) are built right into our cities – and they still matter. They matter to me as a mother. They matter to me as a busy professor who often finds herself in strange cities, wondering if it’s OK to pop into the neighbourhood pub alone. Ask any woman who’s tried to bring a pram on to a bus, breastfeed in a park, or go for a jog at night. She intuitively understands the message the city sends her: this place is not for you."


Pretty much as I said - she talks briefly for colour about an old essay and then moves directly on to concrete examples of how designing for the default can marginalise those who don't conform to the default.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 07:34:32
Naturally the editor and picture editor have decided to go with phallic symbolism angle the author took the trouble to signpost was not the substance of the piece.

Nice.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 07:50:39
Actually no. This is a cluster fuck of an article all over the place using so many fallacies. (click)Bait and switch is one.

"The consequences have proved deadly as Covid-19 rampages through our cities. Take the crisis in long-term care homes. Care for elderly and disabled people has been largely privatised in many countries, leaving homes dependent on a low-wage labour force, who must cobble together a living by working at multiple facilities, most likely taking crowded public buses and trains between them. This factor rapidly spread Covid-19, exposing the most vulnerable members of society to a frequently fatal illness. Because cities have failed to prioritise care as a public good, while perpetuating the notion that it is women’s work, employees have risked their lives for pennies, and the elderly have died because staff don’t earn a living wage."

Population density in urban areas has nothing to do with fallic symbols. Skyscraper shape, has nothing to do with projections of the penis.

That they built all department stores in 1 street has nothing to do with controlling the movement of women (the article actually makes this point).

It is retarded feminist sophistry and when you put so much retardation into 1 article, whatever valid point there is emerges from a bait and switch. Oh we should be more holistic about city design. These are not unique problems to cities, but inherent to legacy systems, here represented by buildings, roads and cities. Often the result of layers upon layers of wisdom and knowledge (and cities). You have already heard me rail about this, even cities specifically.

Construction is a heavily traditional (and conservative) sector for many obvious reasons, from the materials used (because older gen. materials with known properties are better understood over a long period of time) to the provincial peculiarities built in from country to country. It makes harmonizing (as the EU has tried to do with the Construction product regulation) a fucking nightmare. You can have a pretty good med tech standard in a few years, but it will take 11 years to agree on a standard for doors. A better example is IT where the market agreed on the standards themselves, because there was no legacy.

No one would build cities the way London or NY or Paris looks like if they were to build them from scratch again. This has nothing to do with the penis or toxic masculinity.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 07:58:55
And these are btw questions and ideas that for many decades been the talking point and principles guiding structural engineers and architects, who are mostly penis people. Your own country has a national standard for safety that is guided by the principle "secured by design". You know who drafted it? Former male military and police.

Now if you as most of these feminist only know and read feminism and nothing about the actual things you try to critique, you are not aware of all these things and when an unsuspecting professional from said area reads it, it's like, jesus where do I even begin with this shit?
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jul 07 09:22:01
"They matter to me as a busy professor who often finds herself in strange cities, wondering if it’s OK to pop into the neighbourhood pub alone"

"go for a jog at night."

Women's suffrage was a mistake
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 11:54:22
Nim:

I don't think the author thinks phallic building shape is important at all. As she said, it would be a grad school essay.

The point about the functional design of buildings, cities and planning regulations seems pretty reasonable to me.

"That they built all department stores in 1 street has nothing to do with controlling the movement of women"
Um, how do you know that? It was a common assumption for a long time that women shouldn't be out on their own and that certainly affected city design.

" This has nothing to do with the penis or toxic masculinity."

I'm not really convinced you understood what is meant by toxic masculinity given the way you have spoken in the past.

But the broader point, it is entirely possible for something to be sexist even if the intent is not an intentional or malicious "lets screw over women".

The reason that despite it being quite common to need to push babies around in prams that this was not catered for in design decisions until essentially mandated by law is simply because prams and pushchairs are at best treated as an edge case, if given any thought at all. Because the default people design for is a fully able man. A classic example is indeed street lights, where the security aspect is often overlooked.

And this is true also for wheelchairs and all sorts of other things.

The outcome is still sexist.

Do remember that as with all print media, the headline is written by the editor - not the author of the article. Never use a headline as a yardstick to judge an article or a guide on how to interpret any ambiguity in an article. They are written by people who may not even have fully read the article itself.




Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 12:14:05
Anything is possible, but we are talking about what is plausibly true and the reasons for believing they are true. There is not a lot of valid criticism of city planning and infrastructure that involves "male power fantasies" or the technical jargon of architects “base, shaft and tip” to describe sections of vertical structures and how they "thrusting buildings ejaculating light into the night sky.".

Did you even read the entire thing? Because it isn't just in the title. If you read that it is strange that you chose "toxic masculinity" as the hill to die on. The term isn't relevant to my criticism, but it does capture the essence of the analysis.

She later in the article explains in which ways it is deadly (covid). So, click bait or not (which is unproductive on its' own), she later goes on to make the case for "lethality".

For someone who is professionally familiar with construction and infrastructure (especially safety and security), it is painfully obvious that this is the analysis of someone who has not spent a day studying the domain she is criticizing.

If you don't believe me, go and read her studies and tell me how many architect and construction engineering books she cites.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 12:33:26
It is, as with any critical theory analysis founded on narrative. Narratives can be powerful, especially for people uneducated about the subject of narration, but they do not, by their very nature, convey a truthful and nuanced picture of our shared reality.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 12:49:06
Nim:

"The term isn't relevant to my criticism, but it does capture the essence of the analysis."

Toxic masculinity is a term refering to concepts of masculinity that harm men, women and society (I.e. it is specific ideas of what it means to be manly that are toxic, not men or the idea of masculinity in general) . I.e. "it's not manly for me to wear a face mask" or "doing well in school is gay". Note these ideas can be held by women and men.

Nothing in this article refers to anything that could be said to be toxic masculinity.

"There is not a lot of valid criticism of city planning and infrastructure that involves "male power fantasies" or the technical jargon of architects “base, shaft and tip” to describe sections of vertical structures and how they "thrusting buildings ejaculating light into the night sky."."

Yes, and as I've pointed out, that's not the substance of the article. Those are words of previous commentators from long ago. She explicitly says such comments are worthy of maybe a grad student essay. That's rather damning isn't it?

You seem to be giving it way way more weight than the broader points, which are about how urban design has often been around ideas of ways of life, gender roles and priorities. E.g. don't traffic and road plan for the school run to be conducted by the people who are also commuting because it's assumed these will be women who won't be working.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 07 13:49:17
Seb
>>Nothing in this article refers to anything that could be said to be toxic masculinity.<<

lol?

"She intuitively understands the message the city sends her: this place is not for you."

"new spaces and entire urban districts were built with the intention of controlling high-status white women’s exposure to the messy public realm."

"If the disorder of cities was a threat to certain women, and the disorder of certain women a threat to cities, the suburbs could provide a solution."

"The consequences have proved deadly as Covid-19 rampages through our cities."

"Another deadly consequence is the global rise in domestic violence. If violence against women is ever given any attention in our cities, it is generally along the lines of women facing “stranger danger” in public: having to limit our movements, adjust our clothing, and travel in packs, avoiding dark alleys."

Are we reading the same article? Because if these things their truthfulness aside are describing harmful things.

>>that's not the substance of the article<<

We are not reading the same article. The substance of the article is toxic masculinity has made cities lethal and harmful, it goes on for an entire paragraph about penis shaped architecture and says:

"If the sexism of the city began and ended with architectural symbolism, I would’ve happily written a grad school essay about this then turned my attention to more pressing matters. But society’s historical and ongoing ideas about the proper gender roles for men and women (organised along a narrow binary) are built right into our cities – and they still matter."

>>You seem to be giving it way way more weight<<

That is an odd thing to say, I think this is about as void of substance as they come. That does not mean I don't take seriously the existence of pervasive ideas.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 17:28:47
Nim:

"Are we reading the same article? Because if these things their truthfulness aside are describing harmful things."

Er, like I said, I really don't think you understand the basic concept of what is meant by toxic masculinity. None of the things you raise are an example of toxic masculinity.

"toxic masculinity"

No. Designing to a default of a man without regard to the particular needs of women, or childcare, is not an example of toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity might be, for example, a deliberate choice to not have speed limits in residential areas because it would be unmanly to have speed limits.

The concept doesn't work so well applied to urban planning, and isn't part of the argument at all.

You are using the term very differently to its meaning.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 17:31:12
You are using toxic masculinity the way fox news uses the term "communism". E.g. "Islam is communism!!!"
hood
Member
Tue Jul 07 23:33:23
"She explicitly says such comments are worthy of maybe a grad student essay."

This alone is alarming in itself. Penis buildings is not worthy of any sort of essay.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 00:08:44
I think you may be overestimating what a grad school essay is worth.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 01:51:53
”If the sexism of the city began and ended with architectural symbolism, I would’ve happily written a grad school essay about this then turned my attention to more pressing matters. But society’s historical and ongoing ideas about the proper gender roles for men and women (organised along a narrow binary) are built right into our cities – and they still matter."

I get it seb, you can’t defend this but your have made a thing about defending every retarded feminist article. We all respect your dedication to the cause, as retarded as it may be.

Either you didn’t read the article or you read and now you are acting stupid or you simple can not read a text and comprehend the context, i.e you are actually stupid.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 02:12:46
She lists the major components of "toxic masculinity", sexual assault and domestic violence and how these are exacerbated by city planning.

This is the hill you want to die on? Because you are giving the definition we both agree on and which the author gives numerous examples of in the article. The hill is, "these are not the examples of toxic masculinity you are looking for", the Jedi mind trick?
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 03:55:25
Nim:

You seem preternaturally triggered to engage in contrsrianism by anything involving feminism or racism.

I read the article and frankly, I cannot fathom how you have come to the conclusion it's about (directly or indirectly) toxic masculinity unless you don't understand what it means; not do I understand why you are focusing on symbolism when the author is explicitly saying symbolism isn't the important issue but design choices.

The new towns built in the UK after the war did indeed have specific design choices reflecting ideas about the role of women, men and class in society.

This is well known and well evidenced as designers and planners were specific about it.

"She lists the major components of "toxic masculinity", sexual assault and domestic violence and how these are exacerbated by city planning."

We clearly don't agree what "toxic masculinity" means at all. The things you say are "components of" might be better described as "expressions of", but even that isn't necessarily the case.

Again, toxic masculinity refers to those specific concepts of manliness that require men to behave in ways that are harmful to themselves or to others. Sexual assault isn't a component of a concept of manliness. A component might be that "a real man should be sexually desirable by all women" or "a real man should be able to impose himself on a woman" etc. and a man holding this concept might then express these beliefs as a behaviour by sexual assaulting a woman that declined to voluntarily go to bed with him in public, shaming him and thus compelling him (either in his own view or in his perception of how others view him) to assault the woman to prove his manliness.

Not all aggression towards women is motivated by men having a particular idea it is *necessary for them to control women in order to be a proper man*.

For example, a rapist might be fully aware that it's shameful to rape someone generally, but do it anyway because it gratifies them to do so, not because they think its required by their identity as a man.

The issue with town planning raised doesn't speak to the motivations of the attacker, but the opportunities that are afforded and the outcomes of design experienced by women. Toxic masculinity doesn't feature.

And yes, poor design choices in urban planning *can* increase the risk to women of sexual assault and domestic abuse by, e.g. insufficient street lighting in appropriate places (e.g. alleyway between station and residential areas because the idea of a woman returning home late from work hasn't been considered); and public transport and zoning making it hard for women to escape the house (nowhere to go).

This is an explicit consideration now on refugee camp design. There's actual evidence based showing how and where Street lighting can reduce sexual assault.

What's controversial about that?








Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 04:02:35
>>You seem preternaturally triggered to engage in contrsrianism by anything involving feminism or racism.<<

When someone is familiar with a topic, this will be the perception of people who are not.

>>symbolism isn't the important issue but design choices.<<

Ok, you are an idiot who does not understand that symbolism can have physical and practical representations. Which the article and the section I have quote several times explicitly mentions with an IF statement and BUT clause.

Thank you.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 04:57:04
Nim:

"Ok, you are an idiot who does not understand that symbolism can have physical and practical representations. Which the article and the section I have quote several times explicitly mentions with an IF statement and BUT clause."

No. That's not what that paragraph says.


She's being really explicit: whether symbolism can have practical effects or not is irrelevant to the thrust of the argument she's making. The but doesn't mean "symbolism has consequences", it means "the city is sexist even though the symbolism is largely inconsequential"

The passage you quoted clearly states (highlighting the key words):

"*IF THE SEXISM* of the city began and *ENDED WITH ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLISM, I *WOULD'VE* happily written a grad school essay about this then *TURNED MY ATTENTION TO MORE PRESSING MATTERS*. *BUT society’s historical and ongoing *IDEAS ABOUT* the proper *GENDER* roles for men and women (organised along a narrow binary) *ARE BUILT RIGHT INTO OUR CITIES*– and they still matter."

To paraphrase, "If the sexism in urban design was restricted to symbolism it would not be pressing, but the sexism of urban design also includes structure and layout of cities that reflect current and historic ideas of male and female roles, and this matters."


She's very clearly stating that "giant symbolic penises ejaculating into the sky" aren't the pressing issue. Nor is she arguing that the sexism in urban design arises from symbolic architecture. She's saying there is an entirely different issue: functional design (not symbolic architecture) being influenced by ideas of gender roles.

And then goes on to give some high level examples.




hood
Member
Wed Jul 08 08:05:45
"I think you may be overestimating what a grad school essay is worth."

I'm well aware of the several hours of ones life that an essay costs and how quickly they are abandoned after a grade. And I am saying it's alarming that this lady thinks penis buildings is worth even that.

I think you may be overestimating your comprehension abilities. Again.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 09:25:19
Hood:

You are a humourless fellow.

It's clear the author was disparaging the idea. Must we really be alarmed by shade being thrown through subtle damning with faint praise? Do we need to have show trials and performative furious denunciation to establish credibility?

It brings to mind a sort of academic Macarthyist or Cultural Revolution.

Freud of course made an entire career and field of psychology on just this, kind of thing. Surely a hypothetical grad school essay juxtaposed against "more pressing matters" can be greeted with a smile and raised eyebrow to the knowing wink be with which this was surely delivered?

Can we not take "yes" for an answer and accept that we all the author actually agree there's nothing much in such criticisms? Must we instead find a way to criticise the author by finding some trivial point to draw clear difference?

Isn't that just... exhausting?

Wrath of Orion
Member
Wed Jul 08 09:29:07
Does this person suggest alternate high density designs for cities?
Pillz
Member
Wed Jul 08 09:55:57
Saving this with carbon fiber patriarchy and white supremacist pumpkin spice lattes
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:04:52
Wrath of Orion:

She's not actually complaining about skyscrapers. More about Street lighting, public transport, and poorly thought out zoning.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:14:42
Looks like she is definitely talking about it as at least part of the problem. SO ONCE AGAIN... Is this person suggesting alternatives?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 10:22:24
WoO

Absolutely she does,

She suggest we name streets after women, segregate them from the rest of society and create breast feeding zones. :D no but really, she does.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 10:23:43
This is from her twitter:

Leslie Kern(a Feminist City is a police-free city)

Just to provide a bit of nuance and not make her out to be some kind of lunatic.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 11:48:04
Wrath of Orion:

Really? I don't think she says sky scrapers are the problem if you read the article.

Nim linked to it.

Nim:

"In the Aspern district of Vienna, all of the streets and public spaces are named after women. In Tokyo, trains have carriages set aside at particular times for women, disabled people, children and carers. In Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, female street vendors have seen their safety and economic prospects improve with the building of secure, permanent mini-markets that include space for breastfeeding. In Stockholm, snowploughing schedules prioritise residential streets, school zones, public transport and bike lanes."

Wild, radical nonsense!

Women only carriages on trains to allow women to avoid sexual harassment? Crazy nonsense! Priority for child carers so they aren't left permanently on the platform unable to board for to their pram? Ridiculous!

Breastfeeding rooms so stall operators can nurse their children at work? Radical feminist nonsense!


hood
Member
Wed Jul 08 12:09:07
I thought we threw out separate but equal as clearly not equal?
sam adams
Member
Wed Jul 08 14:10:45
http://mob...us/1280918668554059778/photo/1

Sebs are at it again.

This time traffic signals are racist.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share