Gender policies can lead to other social injustices

© Yoshi

Social and gender inequalities in public areas are structured by the conception of space. Major models of architecture promoted a standard to build the city: from the Vitruvian Man of Leonardo Da Vinci to the Modulor of le Corbusier, tall and athletic men’s proportion have always been favored in urban and architectural design (Charlesweel, 2015). Therefore, vulnerable bodies have difficulties moving through inappropriate public spaces. Urban policies must take their needs in consideration and provide, for example, more urban furniture to rest. Nowadays, women are being assigned of the majority of care activities. Are public policies trying to make public spaces more accessible? They do not question traditional gender roles (Hancock, 2015, Coutras, 2018). These gender policies often focus on safety aspects only by adding street lamps, by reinforcing police presence or even by setting up women only public transportation. We need broader gender policies. 

These urban spaces designed for gender equalities may lead to an increase in social inequalities. Such spaces might consider some vulnerable users undesirable (like sex workers, immigrants, homeless people, or people of color). Researchers working on geography and sexism showed that sexism is perceived as depending on its social context and that most of the time the emphasis will be put on low-income districts (Dolors Garcia Ramon and Monk, 2007). Politicians usually think that gender inequality is clustered in the poorest districts. By targeting only these districts they increase social inequalities. Studies also reveal that gender policies can lead to gentrification (Bahar, 2018). This phenomenon is called genderfication. Toronto is a good example: in the mid 1990’s, an urban revitalisation policy was planned. Condominiums marketed toward women were developed. The purpose was to empower women by facilitating their access to property. The project took place in low income districts with poor reputation. As ownership is linked with social class and education, the revitalisation process benefited wealthy, urban, and professional women. The whole policy lead to the gentrification of targeted districts, negatively impacting the lives of locals (Kern,2010). 

Debates on the above-mentioned topics are currently occurring in the scientific and urban planning world. Regarding women-only public transportation, such policies are not targeting the problem’s cause but only attempt to act on the consequences. It is dangerous because it creates segregation and opens the door to racism or socially unfair policies. Ill-intentioned political leaders could use the argument “I will protect you from society” to separate the most vulnerable population (like the LGBT world) from the rest of the population (Charlesweel, 2015). Such policies could even shed light on women feeling unsafe in the public space and weaken them. We need to focus on the cause of the problem, which is a societal one.

Social policies must be considered all together. Having one policy dealing with one problem is the wrong way to proceed. Gender and social policies, thought together, would maximise their potential and avoid negative crosscutting effects. In the same way, issues of biodiversity also has a place in those policies with, for example, street light being good for gender discrimination and security while entailing light pollution is dangerous for biodiversity (Hölker and al. 2010).

This article was written by Raoul Daubresse, Alexane Duveau, Marguerite Ollivon, all Master’s students in the Museum’s “Society and Biodiversity” specialization.

 Bibliography:

COUTRAS, Jacqueline, 2018, « Les pratiques spatiales des sexes : quelles problématiques ? », Espace, populations, sociétés, 1989-1. Sexe et espace – Sex and space, pp. 111-115

CHARLESWEEL, Cherise, 2015, « Gentrification Is a Feminist Issue: The Intersection of Class, Race, Gender and Housing », Women’s Issues, Analysis

HANCOCK Claire, LIEBER Marylène, 2017, Refuser le faux dilemme entre antisexisme et antiracisme. Penser la ville inclusive. Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, N°112, Le genre urbain. pp. 16-25

HANDCOCK Claire, 2019, « Pour des espaces publics inclusifs, la prise en compte du genre », colloque Femmes et espaces publics en Seine St Denis

HÖLKER, F, WOLTER C, PERKIN EK, TOCHNER K, 2010, « Light pollution as a biodiversity threat », Berlin, URL: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20103347944

KERN L., 2010, « Selling the “scary city”: gendering freedom, fear and condominium development in the neoliberal city », Social and cultural geography, vol. 11, n° 3, pp. 209-230

DOLORS GARCIA RAMON Maria and MONK Janice, 2007, « Gender and geography: World views and practices », Belgeo,  URL : http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/11162

BAHAR Sakizlioglu, 2018, « Rethinking Gender-Gentrification Nexus », in Handbook on Gentrification Studies Publisher, Editors: Loretta Lees, Martin Phillips URL : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318207367_Rethinking_Gender-Gentrification_Nexus