Feminist urbanism
[1] Feminist urbanism also refers to the ways, both positive and negative, in which the built environment influences women's relations, freedoms, opportunities, mobility, and daily activities.
Care-Work in the context of domestic environments, as defined by Silvia Federici, is a “form of gendered economic oppression and an exploitation upon which all of capitalism rests”.
[2][4] With the Industrial Revolution, a rapid growth of settlements made the binary gender imbalance more dramatic, forcing women to limit their contribution to society to the boundaries of domestic environments.
[6] The economic growth and social stability of our societies is reliant on women as they give birth and raise the labor force, as well as take care of domestic environments.
[5] Jane Dark, a feminist geographer, defended that “any settlement is an inscription in space of the social relations in the society that built it, our cities are patriarchy written in stone, brick, glass and concrete”.
[2] The built environment has a level of permanence and durability that if done conservatively can represent ideas that are no longer in line with the values and needs of the current communities.
[11] Social geographer, Liz Bondi, argues that “simply adding women to the profession” will not necessarily mean that patriarchal systems are being challenged.
[12] Biases in the research done by the field are also generated by “citational reliability”, where articles are for the most part written and influenced by a strict typology of middle-aged white men.
Major assumptions on behavioral patterns and a focus on planning taking as a typical urban citizen a white, heterosexual, abled-bodied, middle-income man has produced spaces that ignore the needs of other groups.
The Commons is a theory and socio-economic movement that opposes capitalist and patriarchal ideals of property and labor, in favor of a socialist collaboration among communities to meet the responsibilities of housework and care-work.
[14] Urban farming, community gardens, childcare facilities and shared kitchens are some examples of these types of spaces that allow for different forms of cooperation and collaboration in basic daily activities.
The theory proposes embracing the local culture and resources, rejecting a universalization of space or policy, by rather adapting these to the needs of different communities.
After World War II, suburban life boomed, especially among white middle-income families, with the aid of Federal Housing Administration loans and VA mortgages that made single-family homes in these periphery areas much more affordable.
[16] These housing developments were predominantly car dependent, alienated from commercial spaces, economic centers, and other services, which increased the difficulty of managing housework and professional demands.
Most cities provide more opportunities for women to meet the multiplicity of demands put on them in terms of accessing services in shorter distances than suburbs or rural areas do.
[2] For example, housing in cities can be much more expensive, especially in walkable areas and public transportation without proper amenities can prevent families from moving comfortably.
A lot of the solutions to respond to urban problems have been market-based, requiring extra pay to access convenient services such as childcare, safe housing or neighborhood amenities.
[5] Housing both in urban and suburban environments can be more equalitarian by responding to the needs of families for affordable, accessible, sustainable, and well-networked services, that allow both men and women to participate equally in the sharing of domestic and professional labor.
[2] Dolores Hayden argued that a new, more inclusive way of designing and thinking of homes, neighborhoods and cities is necessary to support the activities of employed women.
