This article was downloaded by: [TIB & Universitaetsbibliothek]On: 20 July 2011, At: 05:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning TheoryLeonie Sandercock & Ann Forsyth

Available online: 26 Nov 2007

To cite this article: Leonie Sandercock & Ann Forsyth (1992): A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory, Journal ofthe American Planning Association, 58:1, 49-59

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975534

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

A Gender Agenda New Directions for Planning Theory Leonie Sandercock and Ann Forsyth

Since the 1970s increased attention has been fo- cused on gender in relation to planning practice, but not to planning theory. Feminist theory has much to contribute to planning theory, particu- larly in five areas: spatial, economic, and social relationships; language and communication; epistemology and methodology; ethics; and the nature of the public domain. In turn, gender- sensitive theory could contribute to research in five areas of practice and education.

Sandercock, previously professor and chair of the grad- uate urban studies program a t Macquarie University in Sydney from 1981 to 1986, is now visiting professor and lecturer in the urban planning program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She has recently published Property, Politics and Urban Planning: A History of Austra- lian City Planning, 1890-1990. Forsyth is a doctoral stu- dent in planning at Cornell. She has degrees in archi- tecture from the University of Sydney and in planning from the University of California, Los Angeles, and has practiced social planning in Australia.

Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 1, Winter 1992. @American Planning Association, Chi- cago, IL.

“Women face problems of such significance in cities and society that gender can no longer be ignored in plan- ning practice,” says Leavitt (1986, 181). In “Toward a Woman-Centered University,” Adrienne Rich speaks of the need to change the center of gravity within academia to encompass women’s knowledge and experience (1979). Planners also must work to change the center of gravity within their field. Leavitt (1 986); Wekerle (1 980); Hayden (1 98 1, 1984); Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian (1986); and Stimpson et al. (1981) write of the importance of gender as a focus in planning practice. The crucial connections between theory and practice are, however, still rare and tentative.

With the new wave of feminist thinking in the 1970s came a spate of research on women and the urban en- vironment, but the integration of that rapidly growing body of work with theory and paradigms to explain women’s urban experience was “still far in the future” (Wekerle 1980). The 1980s witnessed some flourishing of attention to gender in policy questions in the “women and . . . ” literature (women and housing, women and transportation, women and economic development).’ But in the developed countries, of all of the subfields within planning, theory remains the most male dominated and the least influenced by any awareness of the importance of gender. (By contrast, for developing countries see Moser and Levi 1986 and Moser 1989.) The works of Hayden (1981, 1984); and Leavitt and Saegert (1989); as well as the literature on gender issues in international development, are path breaking and inspirational, but they are marginalized or ignored by most of the rest of planning theory.’ If gender can no longer be ignored in planning practice, how can the theoretical debates con- tinue to be silent on the subject?

Of course, much depends on how we define planning theory. There is as little agreement within planning as to what constitutes planning theory, as there is within fem- inism as to what constitutes feminist theory. Not simply a semantic difficulty, it is a question of contested terrain. It is a political question. Just as feminists use competing theories to understand or explain the oppression and subordination of women, planners use competing theories to explain the role, practice, and effects of planning. Even more fundamentally, disagreement abounds as to the proper theoretical object of planning theory.

Planning theory can be delineated into three different emphases: planning practice, political economy, and metatheory (Sandercock and Forsyth 1990). At one level are those authors who theorize about planning practice, both its processes and outcomes. In general, theories of planning practice involve analysis of the procedures, ac- tions, and behavior of planners. They may also include an analysis of the context or concrete situation in which planners are ~ o r k i n g . ~

The political economy approach examines the nature and meaning of urban planning in capitalist society. This approach might encompass speculations about the re- lationships among capitalism, democracy, and reform. Generally this approach is disinterested in planning

APA JOURNAL 49 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

LEONIE SANDERCOCK AND ANN FORSYTH

practice. Rather, this work begins with a general theory- most commonly some version of Marxism-and uses case studies from the planning arena to illustrate the prechosen theory.4

The metatheory approach involves work that asks fun- damental epistemological and methodological questions about planning. Its theoretical object is an abstract, gen- eral notion of planning as a rational human activity that involves the translation of knowledge into action. At this level, theorists are no longer necessarily talking specif- ically about urban or regional planning, but about plan- ning as a generic activity and as a historical legacy of the Enlightenment.’

Gender issues emerge in each of the three approaches and take the form of such themes as the economic status of women, the location and movement of women through the built environment, the connections between capitalist production and patriarchal relationships and between public and domestic life, how women know about the world and about what is good, and the forms of com- munication with which women are most comfortable or by which they are most threatened. An awareness of these issues is lacking in planning theory. The objective of this paper is not to present a singular feminist theory of planning practice. Rather it examines those aspects of feminist theory that seem to have the most to offer plan- ning theory.

Spatial, Economic, and Social Relationships

Contemporary Western feminism emerged from a par- ticular urban form-the mid-twentieth-century capitalist city, “which expressed and reinforced differentiated gender roles” (Mackenzie 1989, 1 10). As more women have become wage earners the physical constraints of this type of city have become apparent. Child care is rarely close to employment centers. When unavailable, women are severely constrained by the difficult decision between not having children and paying for child care in lost wages or lost time. Similarly, mass transit is scheduled for rational commutes to work rather than the erratic movements of women responsible for both do- mestic duties and paid work (Palm and Pred 1976; Pickup 1984). Theoretical accounts of these issues and the links among them emerge infrequently and only recently in the field of urban planning.

Feminist theory, however, has examined these issues. In a pioneering article, Ann Markusen (1980) argued that women’s household work had been ignored by both Marxist and neoclassical economists, even though this work has a large impact on the use of cities. She examines these issues in relation to capitalism and patriarchy. Other feminist scholars are working on the relationship among capitalist urbanization, the built environment, and gender (Huxley 1988; Mackenzie 1989), or among household, community, and city (Leavitt and Saegert 1989; Mack-

enzie 1988). Some of this work has grown from attempts to develop a feminist Marxism.

Other feminists, dissatisfied with mainstream theories that define human relations primarily in terms of capitalist production in the official economy, have responded with subjectivist, communitarian, or hermeneutical ap- proaches, and have emphasized the traditional, life- sustaining work of women. When the object of this work is to create new theories to better understand the context of planning, then it fits into the political economy ap- proach to planning theory. When the primary object is to generate strategies and programs for change, then the work belongs with theories of feminist planning practice.

Dolores Hayden’s article “What Would a Nonsexist City Be Like?” (1980) and her book, Redesigning the American Dream (1984), provide the best known and broadest theories and visions of feminist planning practice in developed nations. Theories that are broad in scope link different activities and scales of planning-home and transport, household sexual politics, work places, and the environment, for example-rather than just concen- trating on one activity.

Hayden describes a diversity of women-single par- ents, poor women, battered wives, and so forth-and their different needs. This sense of women being at the same time a whole and also a collection of smaller pop- ulations grew during the 1980s, particularly as minority women began to speak out on women’s issues (King 1988). Women are divided by geographical, political, re- ligious, class, and cultural boundaries. Yet the interna- tionalized economy exacerbates the vulnerability of women, who continue to undertake the bulk of unpaid domestic work and are engaged in low-wage work and unorganized informal markets. Women are linked to each other more than ever by an international network of de- cisions. Immigrant workers, or nonmigrants working for mobile firms, exemplify this connection (Sassen-Koob 1984).

Feminist theory is currently grappling with differences among women. The book title, ALL the Women Are White, ALL the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave (Hull et al. 1982), reflects the vigorous exchange about whether feminist theory is ethnocentric, grounded only in the ex- perience of white women, and whether adding in minority women is enough. Some feminists hold that theoretical categories need to be reformed in light of the distinct experiences of minority women (Barrett and McIntosh 1985; Bhavnani and Coulson 1986; Lugones and Spelman 1983; Hooks 1984). Planning theory must treat this di- versity seriously. Theorists must also be able to determine when it is appropriate to distinguish between specific categories and when the experiences among women of different classes, races, and other backgrounds are ac- tually congruent (Collins 1990, 2 1 7-9).

Theorizing within this multiplicity of voices is a com- plex task, but not doing so can make “woman” as op- pressive a category as “man” (Harding 198613). As yet, planning theory literature deals hardly at all with multiple

APA JOURNAL 50 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

A GENDER AGENDA

oppressions by race, sexual preference, culture, and gen- der. Leavitt and Saegert’s (1989) work on gender, race, and age among poor people is a notable exception. Out- side planning there are more attempts6

Language and Communication Planning theorists are currently involved in debates

over the types and uses of rational communication, the use of language as a means of empowerment, the con- struction of meaning (Marris 1987), and microanalyses of communication as action and of listening as a crucial tool of social policy (Forester 1989). Recent feminist scholarship has extended the scope of this important work.

Feminist theories of language often start by showing how language forms one’s sense of reality, order, and place in the community. As such, language can be limiting as well as empowering (Spender 1985; Collins 1987). Feminists have pointed to inequalities in the use of lan- guage, for example, to how men interrupt women more often than women interrupt men and to how men listen less intently to women than women listen to men (Spender 1985; 41-50, 121-9). Important empirical studies are being conducted on how through language women come to know their world differently from each other and from men (Belenky et al. 1986). Minority women have pointed to their distinct use and experience of language (Hooks 1984; Williams 1988; Collins 1990). Empowering language and dominant forms of commu- nications are frequently acquired through formal edu- cation. Where education is unequally distributed, in- equalities in communication will be accentuated. The upbringing and life experience of many women have ac- tively discouraged them from speaking out or speaking up for their own needs. And when women do speak, they are more ambivalent than men about speaking assertively and with authority and are less comfortable than men with the dominant rational, scientific modes of thought (Okin 1989, 72).

Evidence of communication inequalities emerges in such areas as citizen participation. Professional jargon and argumentative speaking styles can alienate, confuse, or render women speechless. Although in practice res- idents and planners are likely to be to somewhat “mul- tilingual” (many planners are women, after all, and many men are sensitive to these issues), theory should address this need for appropriate styles of communication.

Theory needs to consider the assumption, implicit in pluralist political theory, that, if given the chance, all interest groups will articulate their demands in a roughly equivalent manner. Given the current socialization of women, particularly women who suffer multiple disad- vantages because of class, race, education, health, and self-esteem, this simply may not be the case.

A feminist planner, experienced in neighborhood con- sultation and participatory planning, described her dif- ficulties in encouraging people at public meetings to

contribute equally, particularly when many women are socialized to believe they have nothing valuable to say. She responded to this problem in one large community meeting by asking people to sit in small groups and tell a story or anecdote about their neighborhood. People then had no trouble speaking out about their lives and their community. Previously silent or hesitant participants found that they too possessed knowledge. For example, women who were stuck in the suburbs all day talked about the problems of public transport for themselves and their family. The storytelling format gave a variety of people the courage to be more involved (Sarkissian 1990).

Theories of professional communication and citizen representation and participation need to be developed to understand these complex inequalities in planning and to develop strategies to bring women out of silence. Bal- ancing equality and special treatment is always a com- plicated task, but ignoring gender is a false equality.

Methodology and Epistemology The case for a feminist perspective on epistemology

and methodology in planning is grounded in feminist cri- tiques of content, theory, and method in the social sci- ences.7 The tendency in the social sciences has been to validate only scientific and technical knowledge and dis- miss all other kinds of knowledge. Feminists are increas- ingly critical of the traditional dualism that pits reason against passion and rationality against politics, as if reason excludes passion, as if politics, by definition, were irra- tional. Instead, feminists argue for what Belenky et al. (1 986) call “connected knowing,” which emphasizes re- lationship, rather than separation between the self and the object of research, and for discussion of the politics of theory and method and of the origins and implications of theoretical hierarchies.

In her paper criticizing theory and method in geog- raphy, “On Being Outside The Project,” Christopherson (1 989) notes recent work by feminists and other critical theorists in jurisprudence, history, philosophy, and aes- thetics, which discuss the relationship between theory construction and power. These feminists insist that the- orists must identify their personal position relative to the theoretical object. By way of example, Collins (1990) elaborates four elements that shape her articulation of an Afrocentric feminist epistemology: concrete experi- ence as a criterion of meaning, the use of dialogue in assessing knowledge claims, an ethic of caring that stresses a capacity for empathy and the appropriateness of emotions in dialogue, and an ethic of personal ac- countability. Feminists are certainly not alone in their critiques of positivist epistemology (Kuhn 1962; Polanyi 1958, Feyerabend 1975), but their work originates in re- sponse to an alienation from the methods of research and definitions of knowledge that denigrate or ignore women’s experiences and that refuse to consider the po- litical content of knowledge creation.

APA JOURNAL 51 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

LEONIE SANDERCOCK AND ANN FORSYTH

John Friedmann’s recent synthesis of planning theory, Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Ac- tion, is an example of planning theory’s uncertainty about its knowledge base. Initially he defines his theoretical object-planning-as the linking of scientific and tech- nical knowledge to action in the public domain. But in conclusion he turns away from purely technocratic plan- ning and embraces subjective knowledge as the foun- dation of a radical planning approach-a stance more sympathetic to feminist critiques (Friedmann 1987,

A distinctively feminist epistemology would be con- troversial (Sandercock and Forsyth 1992). Feminist in- sights, however, would expand the planner’s perspective beyond scientific and technical knowledge to other ways of knowing. First, planners would accept that knowledge is gained through talking, especially through oral tradi- tions and gossip, which Belenky et al. define as conver- sations among intimates, talk about feelings, about the personal, the particular, the petty, but not necessarily the trivial. “Gossip, like poetry and fiction, penetrates to the truth of things,” says Belenky et al. It is a “special mode of knowing,” which moves back and forth between large and small, between particular and general (Belenky et al. 1986, 1 16). Second, knowledge is gained through listen- ing, which Forester (1 989) insightfully describes as “the social policy of everyday life,” and indispensable to those working in planning. Third, knowing is also tacit or in- tuitive (Polanyi 1958). As microbiologist Barbara MC- Lintock has argued, “Reason is not by itself adequate to describe and understand the vast complexity, indeed mystery, of living forms” (Keller 1983, 199). Fourth, cre- ating symbolic forms through painting, music, or poetry is a more important way of knowing and communicating than planners have yet been prepared to contemplate. (For example, graffiti, murals, and folk and rap songs are ways in which minorities express themselves.) And, act- ing and reflecting on the meaning of action yields infor- mation about the world in a way that is unavailable through technical books and reports. This is the heart of the philosophy of learning by doing, practiced by Jane Addams in her community work in turn-of-the-century Chicago at Hull House (Addams 191 0); taken up by phi- losopher John Dewey who was a frequent visitor to Hull House (Dewey 1929); and developed later in planning in the work of Donald Schon in his discussion of reflective practice (Schon 1983).

All of these ways of knowing are inseparable from the subject who is doing the talking, listening, or acting. Knowledge, thus is partially autobiographical, and, therefore, is gender based. Moreover, knowledge is a social construction. Different kinds of knowledge, in- cluding scientific and technical forms, must be shared through communication to construct meaning. The con- struction of meaning involves communication, politics, and passion. Knowledge is, therefore, an ongoing and unfinished business.

Expanding the ways of knowing leads to a rethinking of other methodological issues, such as how to go about

4 13-5).

research in planning. Again, the feminist social scientists can assist planners with these issues. Sociologists Judith Cook and Mary Fonow (1986) have outlined five basic principles of a feminist methodology: (1) to continuously and reflexively attend to the significance of gender and gender asymmetry as a basic feature of all social life, including the conduct of research; (2) to accept the cen- trality of consciousness raising as a specific methodolog- ical tool and as a general orientation, or way of seeing; (3) to challenge the norm of objectivity that assumes that the subject and object of research can be separated and that personal experiences are unscientific; (4) to be con- cerned with the ethical implications of feminist research, and recognition of the exploitation of women as objects of knowledge; and (5) to focus on the empowerment of women and transformation of patriarchal social institu- tions through research.

While a distinctive feminist method of research or a distinctive feminist epistemology would be unbalanced, it must be recognized with Westkott (1 979) that knowl- edge is inherently dialectical and that feminist inquiry has emancipatory as well as critical power.

Ethics in Planning Recently feminist attention has focused on ethics in

response to the influential and controversial work of Carol Gilligan (1982), who with a group of colleagues published a series of studies critical of the work of Law- rence Kohlberg, a psychologist who advanced the theory that humans develop in a morally autonomous fashion, skilled in reasoning about rights and justice. Gilligan no- ticed that women rarely did as well as men in Kohlberg’s studies, and proposed that this was not because of inferior moral development but rather because of their different development. She suggested that women tend to develop a morality of responsibility and care, based on relation- ships with loved ones in stark contrast to Kohlberg’s pro- totypical liberal individuals with their focus on abstract reasoning about rights and justice (Gilligan 1982; Gilligan et al. 1988; also Chodorow 1978).

Although Gilligan originally suggested that these two moral orientations were mutually exclusive, her later work indicates that many people use both when finding the best solution to a problem (Johnston 1988). Other studies have revealed that moralities of responsibility and care can be ascribed not only to women but to other disadvantaged and oppressed groups (Tronto 1987; Col- lins 1990). Other feminist philosophers have posed the possibility of an ethic based on “maternal thinking” (Ruddick 1983) and have supported findings of altruistic tendencies in the general population (Mansbridge 1988). Gilligan’s work has come under attack for valorizing the consequences of women’s oppression, pointing out that caring can lead to prejudice as well as altruism. Her in- sights remain an important empirical finding, while leav- ing unanswered the question of the origin of gender dif- ferences in the approach to ethical debates.

For planners, this expanded feminist ethic is a com-

M A JOURNAL 52 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

A GENDER AGENDA

panion, although sometimes an uneasy one, to ideas of community. The new communitarian theorists offer so- phisticated critiques of liberalism and offer alternatives with obvious links to feminist theories of care. They tend, however, to be complacent about traditional structures, such as the family or nation, which are hierarchically organized and oppressive to women (Sandel 1982; MacIntyre 1981). Feminists have proposed instead al- ternative models based on such communities as trade unions and political and self-help groups (Friedman 1989).

Planning theory’s sensitive analyses of community have often included critiques of romanticism (Jane Jacobs 1961; Bell andNewby 1976; Heskin 1991; Marris 1987). Leavitt and Saegert’s (1989) study of the residents of landlord abandoned buildings in Harlem, a population predomi- nantly black and female, is a pioneering empirical feminist work. They discovered that many of the residents had formed “community households,” which shared eco- nomic and administrative burdens and drew on reciprocal social relations and attachment to place and the historical community of Harlem. Saegert and Leavitt describe the sensitivity required of planners to respect this sense of connection and care, rather than rely solely on economic criteria and formal democratic processes. Black feminist theorist Collins also discusses the centrality of an ethic of caring in African-American women’s culture, but notes that institutional supports validating this ethic are vir- tually nonexistent (Collins 1990: 21 5-7).

The Public Domain The place of women in the public domain is a complex

issue in planning. Beginning in the Victorian era and culminating in the progressive era, “the city of separate spheres,” emerged in which a woman’s proper place was perceived to be in the home (Wright 1980; Brown 1990). For domestics, however, who were usually immigrants and black women, that home was someone else’s (Collins 1990, 55). Twentieth-century metropolitan spatial form, with its “masculine cities and feminine suburbs” (Saegert 1980) has reinforced the notion of separate spheres.

While sociologist Richard Sennett has discussed “the fall of public man” (1977), feminists in the past few de- cades have campaigned for the rise of public woman. The feminist political struggle in recent decades has had three components: (1) claiming women’s right to be actors in the public domain and to work and participate fully in the life of the city; (2) carving out and protecting public space for women; and (3) redefining the nature and extent of the public domain. Some feminists argue that dramatic changes in metropolitan spatial structures and improve- ments in social and transportation policy are required to improve the opportunities for women who are also pri- mary care-givers to participate in the political and eco- nomic life of the city. Second, feminist planners are still struggling to incorporate the issue of women’s safety into land-use planning. Third, in challenging the definition of the public domain in liberal theory, feminists have shown

APA JOURNAL 53 WINTER 1992

that liberal theory has ignored the political nature of per- sonal life, the interconnections between gender relations in the family and the paid workplace, and the fact that socialization for citizenship occurs in the domestic realm (Pateman 1983; Okin 1989, Hirschmann 1989).

The feminist struggle has led to a variety of activist responses. One feminist stance is to say that the personal realm is political and that issues like domestic violence, which are traditionally seen as private issues, are actually public. A second strategy is to make a private issue, like sexuality or abortion, public until oppressive policies, programs, and plans are eliminated. A third strategy, often conducted by these same feminists, is to make private some actions and behaviors that have traditionally been seen as part of the public domain of planning. These in- clude lobbying for the removal from public scrutiny of the family structure of households in residential areas or the sexual relationships of public housing tenants (infor- mation required for housing allocation and rental pay- ments). The thrust of all these strategies is to redefine the meaning of public and private. While abolishing all divisions between the private realm and the larger world would be undesirable, feminists indicate that in the arena of urban planning the line between public and private or domestic life has been drawn to men’s advantage. Thus the public domain is a physical construct that by definition represents a whole set of contested political and economic issues within planning.

Feminist analysis of the state can productively interact with planning theory. Feminist theory often characterizes the state as a kind of public patriarchy. Unquestionably its employees are divided by gender, with women con- centrated in secretarial and clerical work and, at the se- nior level, primarily in human services. State policies about marriage, the family, legitimate violence, industrial subsidies, and schools tend to reproduce and form gender roles and relationships (Connell 1990). Planners assist in this process when they create zoning policies that restrict cohabitation to only related individuals, forcing out or apart gay couples and communal households (Ritzdorf 1989), or policies that attract industries with gender- segmented work forces to enterprise zones, thereby rein- forcing different job options for men and women.

The involvement of planners in current moves to pri- vatize public services also has a direct though complex effect on women. Women are more likely than men to receive public assistance, as single parents, as the dom- inant elderly population group, as residents in public housing, or as the majority users of public transport. This assistance has given women more choices, relieving them from some of the responsibilities formerly considered private or domestic, such as caring for children or older relatives, and giving them enough material resources to achieve some measure of independence.

The form privatization takes-corporate or commu- nity-based nonprofit group ownership, continued or cut resources-affects this trend toward greater indepen- dence. A limited equity housing cooperative (like the ones studied by Leavitt and Saegert) is a far different

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

LEONIE SANDERCOCK AND ANN FORSYTH

form of privatization than ownership by an absentee cor- porate or unrestricted individual landlord. Feminists and planners need to consider this issue in all its complexity, which will mean dealing realistically and at many levels with issues of power and control in women’s lives.

A Gender Research Agenda A gender research agenda for planning theory con-

centrates on areas where feminist theory has had little to say: case studies of planning practice, practical and strategic gender interests, gender in the internal culture of planners, a gender-conscious reform of planning ed- ucation, and the balance between multiple differences and equality.

Studies of Planning Practice Feminist theory, unlike more academic theories, is re-

lated to and grows out of feminist practice. Studies of both feminist planning practice and the relationship of feminist activism to planning are needed. The case studies of traditional planning, however, seldom consider gender issues. Feminist planning needs what Krumholz and For- ester (1 990) have done for equity-based planning: an ac- count of attempts to politicize gender issues in planning, followed by a theorizing of the successes and failures. Some international examples serve to inspire us: the Women’s Committee of the Greater London Council (Brown 1990); women’s planning initiatives in Canada (Modlich 1986); and the Dutch women movement’s campaign against clustered deconcentration and their in- corporation of social safety into city planning in Am- sterdam and Eindhoven (Brown 1990, 206-60). Surely there must be some homegrown equivalents.

Arguably the history of city planning should be re- written, incorporating gender as a category of analysis. Feminist historiography has challenged the notion that the history of women is always the same as the history of men or that significant turning points in history have the same impact on both sexes (Lerner 1979; Kelly 1984; Scott 1986). A gender-conscious approach to the writing of history produces a new set of questions about the his- tory of city planning ideas and practice (Sandercock 1990: 2 1-33) and develops a different sense of historical change. In the history of planning women have often suffered and been discriminated against because men or patriarchal capitalism have controlled their lives, but this is by no means the full story. Women have not simply been victims, they too have been actors, and recent work has begun to uncover their contributions (Hayden 1981; Birch 1983; Davis 1983; Wirka 1989).

Practical and Strategic Gender Interests Feminist planners in developing countries have drawn

a distinction between practical and strategic gender in- terests (Molyneux 1985; Moser 1989). Practical interests

are derived directly from women’s experiences in their gender relations and their interest in survival, given that context. The practical approach does not challenge cur- rent gender relations. Strategic gender interests are de- rived from a more theoretical or feminist analysis of women’s subordination to men, and aim to alter those relationships. This theoretical construction seems worth exploring for its usefulness in planning in developed countries. It promises to provide a framework for linking the descriptive “women and . . . ” literature with expla- nations of why gender oppression occurs and with pro- grams for fundamental change.

Gender and the Culture of Planners With more women entering the planning profession

gender inequality is not merely an issue of the numerical dominance of men. Rather it is male dominance in the theories, standards, and ideologies used to guide planners’ work-that is, in the internal culture of planners. By the late 1980s most planning schools were admitting roughly equal proportions of male and female students, but there nevertheless remain considerable structural inequalities between men and women in the planning profession. There are very few women running or even in the senior ranks of planning agencies. Women are concentrated in human services and social planning, professional areas with small and vulnerable budgets and relatively little prestige and power compared with development control, metropolitan strategy, or transportation planning. In es- sence, despite their growing numbers, women are still on the periphery rather than at the center of planning practice. Perhaps this will change over time, as women move up through the ranks in the next decade. Or are there structural impediments embedded in the culture of planners that need to be addressed (as there are for women in other professions)? Are women treated differ- ently (from and by men) in the planning workplace? Do they experience difficulties in being heard, in being taken seriously, in being drawn into the confidences or infor- mation sharing that constitute the informal web of daily life in a planning office? Are women planners punished by their male peers if they speak out on women’s issues? Do women planners simply not speak out on such issues from fear or from a perception that they would be mar- ginalized in some way for doing so? In other words, is there a dominant male definition of the key issues and roles in the planning workplace that could be at once progressive in class terms and yet gender blind?

Two anecdotes suffice. A group of women planners in an Australian capital city, when asked whether they thought that the notion that planning policies are not gender neutral had percolated through the male ranks of the profession and become built-in to their daily practice and discussion, simply laughed at the apparent naiveth of the question, at the hopelessness of the situation, and perhaps, too, at their own tendency to avoid the issue because of the discomfort it inevitably causes.

A feminist planner became the manager of community

APA JOURNAL 54 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

A GENDER AGENDA

services for a large suburban municipality in Australia. The managers of all the other planning departments within that council were male. She knew that they all met together at the local pub at the end of the week. She suspected that important informal information exchange and power plays took place at these gatherings. She was not invited. Women traditionally have not been part of pub culture in Australian life. This planner was not a drinker and didn’t like the pub atmosphere. Yet she felt excluded and debated raising’the matter with the boys. The issue likely has no solution; if she raised it and was invited to join the men, their conversation would no doubt be constrained by her presence. This problem is an example of how the internal culture of planners reflects the biases of the wider masculine culture, and poses di- lemmas for professional women about whether to adjust their behavior accordingly, or whether to try to introduce more female ways of socializing into the workplace.

Research based on in-depth interviews could be done about the experience of women in the planning work- place to assess whether and to what extent the gender inequalities and biases of the wider society are being reinforced or challenged. (This is an omission in Fores- ter’s otherwise very perceptive 1989 work on the internal culture of planners.)

Reform of Planning Education During a 1990 Australian government review of met-

ropolitan strategy, a group of women planners were asked about gender issues in the local planning scene. The re- sponse was that consciousness of these issues was very low. The respondents added that recent women graduates of the local planning program were actively antifeminist. These new graduates, it seems, are afraid of being ste- reotyped and dismissed by male colleagues as “noisy feminists.” Further questioning revealed that the planning school has no women on its faculty and that gender issues are not in the syllabus.

A recent introductory undergraduate planning course at the University of California at Berkeley had eighty- five students, male and female almost equally repre- sented. Three of thirty lectures dealt specifically with the question of gender in planning history, theory, and prac- tice, while the importance of gender was integrated into the rest of the subject matter. In student evaluations at the end of the course, 10 percent of the students, when asked “What was the worst thing about this class?” re- plied, “The emphasis on gender.” One student com- plained that the course should have been titled “Feminist City Planning.” This group ranked the instructor and the course at the lowest possible grade. On the other hand, some 30 percent noted the exploration of gender issues as one of the best things about the class, and ranked both course and instructor at the highest possible grade. This dramatic polarization reveals both the need for and the resistance to a gender-conscious approach to the teaching of planning. Some feminist planners indicate that attempts

to introduce a more gender-sensitive curriculum in plan- ning programs continue to be met with resistance and incomprehension by male-dominated faculties.

Balancing Differences and Equality Feminism starts from an experience of difference-the

differences between men and women, differences that in some way cause women to be disadvantaged. Recently, however, the focus in some feminist work has shifted to considerations of differences among women, which raises new and important questions. How do different groups of women use and experience cities? Do public spaces hold the same intimidation for middle-class and poor women, for African-Americans, mothers, Chicanas, Jew- ish women, or lesbians? How are experiences of lone parenting different for women from different communi- ties? Taking account of the systematic differences among women, as well as the systematic differences among women and the men in their various communities, is an important task for gender-conscious planning.

The Ongoing Debate In “The ‘Thereness’ of Women: A Selective Review

of Urban Sociology,” Lyn Lofland asserts that in empirical and theoretical urban sociology, women are perceived as

In

being part of the scene but not part of the action.

women] are part of the locale or neighborhood or area described like other important aspects of the setting such as income, ecology or demography- but largely irrelevant to the analytic action. They reflect a group’s social organization and culture, but they never seem to be in the process of creating it (1975, 145).

mainstream planning theory women have scarcely even been seen as subjects of theory. The problem, how- ever, is far more subtle and complex than a simple tra- dition of exclusion. The paradigms on which planning and theorizing about it have been based are informed by characteristics traditionally associated with the masculine in our society. There is a need to rethink the foundations of the discipline, its epistemology, and its various meth- odologies. Feminist critiques and feminist literature need to be incorporated into the debates within planning theory.

AUTHORS’ NOTE ~

This paper is part of a much longer monograph, “Gender: A New Agenda for Planning Theory,” which was pub- lished as a working paper by the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California in Berkeley and reprinted in the Planning Theory Newslet- ter, no. 4.

APA JOURNAL 55 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

LEONIE SANDERCOCK AND ANN FORSYTH

NOTES

1. See, for example, Wekerle et al. (1 980); Keller (1 981); Stimpson et al. (1981); Hayden (1981, 1984); Matrix (1984); Andrew and Milroy (1988).

2. See also Mackenzie (1988); Watson (1986, 1988); Moser (1 989).

3. Recent examples include Clavel(1986), Marris (1987), Forester (1 989), Krumholz and Forester (1 990), San- dercock (1990), Heskin (1991).

4. See Castells (1977); Tabb and Sawers (1978); Harvey (1978a, 197813); Fainstein and Fainstein (1982); Paris (1983); Fogelsong (1986); and Soja (1989).

5. See Majone and Quade (1980), Faludi (1986), Fried- mann (1 987), Lindblom (1 990), and Krieger (1 989).

6. Examples include Phillips (1987) on the divided loy- alties of women in Britain; a growing literature, mostly written by minority women, on the multiple oppres- sions of race, class, and gender (see King 1988); and a group of oppositional legal scholars working par- ticularly on issues of race but also on gender (Bell 1987; Matsuda 1989; Williams 1988, 1989; Delgado 1989).

7. See Millman and Kanter (1975); Westkott (1979); Harding and Hintikka (1 983); Keller (1 983); Jaggar and Rothenberg (1984); Cook and Fonow (1986); Be- lenky et al. (1986); Pateman and Gross (1 986); Harding (1986a); Caine, Grosz, and de Lepervanche (1988); Jaggar and Bordo (1989); Nicholson (1990).

REFERENCES

Addams, Jane. 19 10. Twenty Years at Hull House: With Autobiographical Notes. New York Macmillan.

Andrew, Caroline, and Beth Moore Milroy, eds. 1988. Life Spaces: Gender, Household. Employment. Van- couver: University of British Columbia Press.

Barrett, Michele, and Mary McIntosh. 1985. Ethnocen- trism and Socialist Feminist Theory. Feminist Review

Belenky, Mary, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule. 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of SelJ Voice, and Mind. New York Basic Books.

Bell, Colin, and Howard Newby. 1976. Community, Communion, Class and Community Action: The Social Sources of the New Urban Politics. In Spatial Per- spectives on Problems and Policies, Vol. 2 of Social Areas in Cities, edited by D. T. Herbert and R. J. John- son. London: John Wiley.

Bell, Derrick. 1985. And W e Are Not Saved: The Elusive Request for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books.

Bhavnani, Kum-Kum, and Margaret Coulson. 1986. Transforming Socialist Feminism: The Challenge of Racism. Feminist Review 23: 81 -92.

Birch, Eugenie. 1983. From Civic Worker to City Planner: Women and Planning, 1890-1 980. In The American

20: 23-48.

Planner: Biographies and Reflections, edited by Donald Krueckeberg. New York: Methuen.

Brown, Karen Rebecca. 1990. Rethinking the Man-Made Metropolis: The Relationship Between Constructs of Gender and Planned Urban Form. B.A. honors thesis, Women’s Studies, Brown University.

Caine, Barbara, E. A. Grosz, and Marie de Lepervanche. 1988. Crossing Boundaries: Feminisms and the Cri- tique of Knowledges. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Castells, Manuel. 1977. The Urban Question. London: Edward Arnold.

Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mother- ing. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Christopherson, Susan. 1989. On Being Outside “The Project.” Antipode 21, 2: 83-9.

Clavel, Pierre. 1986. The Progressive City: Planning and Participation, 1969-1 984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rut- gers University Press.

Collins, Patricia. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowl- edge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford: Stanford Uni- versity Press.

~. 1990. The State, Gender and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal. Theory and Society 19: 507- 44.

Cook, Judith, and Mary Fonow. 1986. Knowledge and Women’s Interests: Issues of Epistemology and Meth- odology in Feminist Sociological Research. Sociolog- ical Inquiry 56, 1: 2-29.

Cooper Marcus, Clare, and Wendy Sarkissian. 1986. Housing As If People Mattered: Site Design Guidelines for MediumDensity Family Housing. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press.

Davis, Allan. 1983. Playgrounds, Housing and City Plan- ning. In Zntroduction to Planning History in the United States, edited by Donald Krueckeberg. New Bruns- wick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.

Delgado, Richard. 1989. Story Telling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative. Michigan Law Re- view 87: 2410-41.

Dewey, John. [1929] 1980. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge to Action. New York Perigree Books.

Fainstein, S., and N. Fainstein. 1982. Urban Policy Under Capitalism. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Faludi, Andreas. 1986. Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology. London: Pion.

Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.

Fogelsong, Richard. 1986. Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

APA JOURNAL 56 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

A GENDER AGENDA

Friedman, Marilyn. 1989. Feminism and Modern Friend- ship: Dislocating the Community. Ethics 99, 1: 275- 90.

Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press.

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, Carol, Janie Ward, and Jill Taylor, eds. 1988. Mapping the Moral Domain: A Contribution of Women’s Thinking to Psychological Theory and Ed- ucation. Cambridge, M A Center for the Study of Gen- der, Education and Human Development, Harvard University.

Harding, Sandra. 1986a. The Science Question in Fem- inism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

~. 1986b. The Instability of the Analytical Cate- gories of Feminist Theory. Signs 11, 4: 645-64.

Harding, Sandra, and Merrill Hintikka, eds. 1983. Dis- covering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Episte- mology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Dortrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Harvey, David. 1978a. The Urban Process Under Capi- talism: A Framework for Analysis. Znternational lour- nal for Urban and Regional Research 2, 1 : 101 -3 1.

~. 1978b. Labour, Capital and Class Struggle Around the Built Environment in Advanced Capitalist Societies. In Urbanization and Conflict in Market So- cieties, edited by Kevin Cox. London: Methuen.

Hayden, Dolores. 1980. What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work. Signs 5, 3 (Supplement): S170-87.

~ . 198 1. The Grand Domestic Revolution: A His- tory of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neigh- borhoods and Cities. Cambridge, M A MIT Press.

~. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream: The Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York W. W. Norton.

Heskin, Allan. 1991. The Struggle for Community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hirschmann, Nancy. 1989. Freedom, Recognition, and Obligation: A Feminist Approach to Political Theory. American Political Science Review 83, 4: 1227-44.

Hooks, Bell. 1984. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press.

Hull, Gloria, Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith, eds. 1982. All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women’s Stud- ies. New York: Feminist Press.

Huxley, Margo. 1988. Feminist Urban Theory: Gender, Class and the Built Environment. Transition (Winter): 39-43.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great Amer- ican Cities. New York Random House.

Jaggar, Alison, and Paula Rothenberg, eds. 1984. Fem- inist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts

of the Relations Between Women and Men. 2d ed. New York McGraw-Hill.

Jaggar, Alison, and Susan Bardo, eds. 1989. Gender/ BodylKnowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. San Fran- cisco: W. H. Freeman.

Keller, Suzanne, ed. 1981. Building for Women. Lexing- ton, M A Lexington Books.

Kelly, Joan Gadol. 1984. Woman, History and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

King, Deborah. 1988. Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Con- sciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology. Signs 14, 1: 42-72.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1981. The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Krieger, Martin. 1989. Marginalization and Disconti- nuity: Tools for the Crafts of Knowledge and Decision. New York Russell Sage Foundation.

Krumholz, Norman, and John Forester. 1990. Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public Sec- tor. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revo- lutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leavitt, Jacqueline. 1986. Feminist Advocacy Planning in the 1980s. In Strategic Perspectives in Planning Practice, edited by Barry Checkoway. Lexington, MA. Lexington Books.

Leavitt, Jacquelinei and Susan Saegert. 1989. From Abandonment to Hope: Community-Households in Harlem. New York Columbia University Press.

Lerner, Gerda. 1979. The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History. New York Oxford University Press.

Lindblom, Charles. 1990. Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lofland, Lyn. 1975. The “Thereness” of Women: A Se- lective Review of Urban Sociology. In Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Sci- ence, edited by Marcia Millman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. New York Anchor Books.

Lugones, Maria, and Elizabeth Spelman. 1983. Have We Got Theory For You: Feminist Theory, Cultural Im- perialism and the Demand for “The Woman’s Voice.” Women’s Studies Znternational Forum 6, 6: 573-81.

Mackenzie, Suzanne. 1988. Building Women, Building Cities: Toward Gender Sensitive Theory in Environ- mental Disciplines. In Life Spaces: Gender, Household, Employment, edited by Carolyn Andrew and Beth Moore Milroy. Vancouver: University of British Co- lumbia Press.

~. 1989. Women in the City. In New Models in Geography, edited by Richard Peet and Nigel Thrift. Vol. 2. London: Unwin Hyman.

APA IOURNAL 57 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

LEONIE SANDERCOCK AND ANN FORSYTH ~

MacIntyre, Alasdair. 198 1. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth.

Majone, Giandomenico, and Edward Quade. 1980. Pit- falls of Analysis. New York John Wiley and Sons.

Mansbridge, Jane, ed. 1988. Beyond Self-Interest. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.

Markusen, Ann. 1980. City Spatial Structure, Women’s Household Work, and National Urban Policy. Signs 5, 3 (Supplement): S23-44.

Marris, Peter. [1982] 1987. Meaning and Action: Com- munity Planning and Conceptions of Change. 2d ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Matrix. 1984. Making Space: Women in the Man-Made Environment. London: Pluto Press.

Matsuda, Mari. 1989. Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story. Michigan Law Review

Millman, Marcia, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter, eds. 1975. Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Science. New York Anchor Books.

Modlich, Regula. 1986. Women Plan Toronto. Women and Environments 8, 1.

Molyneux, Maxine. 1985. Mobilization Without Eman- cipation? Women’s Interests, State, and Revolution in Nicaragua. Feminist Studies 1 1, 2: 227-54.

Moser, Carolyn. 1989. Gender Planning in the ..Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs. World Development 17, 11: 1799-1825.

Moser, Carolyn, and C. Levi. 1986. A Theory and Meth- odology of Gender Planning: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs. Gender and Planning Work- ing Paper 1 1. London: Development Planning Unit, University College, London.

Nicholson, Linda, ed. 1990. FeminismlPostmodernism. New York Routledge.

Okin, Susan Moiler. 1989. lustice, Gender and the Fam- ily. New York Basic Books.

Palm, Risa, and Alan Pred. 1976. A Time-Geographic Perspective on the Problems of Inequality for Women. Working Paper 236. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.

Paris, Chris, ed. 1983. Critical Readings in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon.

Pateman, Carole. 1983. Feminist Critiques of the Public/ Private Dichotomy. In Public and Private in Social Life, edited by S. I. Benn and G. F. Gauss. London: Croom Helm.

Pateman, Carole, and Elizabeth Gross. 1986. Feminist Challenges: Social and Political Theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Phillips, Anne. 1987. Divided Loyalties: Dilemmas of Sex and Class. London: Virago.

Pickup, Laurie. 1984. Women’s Gender-Role and Its In- fluence on Travel Behavior. Built Environment 10, 1 :

Polanyi, Michael. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York Harper and Row.

87: 2320-81.

61-8.

Rich, Adrienne. 1979. Toward a Woman-Centered Uni- versity. In On Lies, Secrets and Silence. New York W. W. Norton.

Ritzdorf, Marsha. 1989. Regulating Separate Spheres: Municipal Land-Use Planning and the Changing Lives of Women. Paper presented at the Conference of the Society for American City and Regional Planning His- tory, 29 November.

Ruddick, Sara. 1983. Maternal Thinking. In Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory, edited by Joyce Treblicot. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Saegert, Susan. 1980. Masculine Cities and Feminine Suburbs: Polarized Ideas, Contradictory Realities. Signs 5, 3 (Supplement): S93-108.

Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of \us- tice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sandercock, Leonie. 1990. Property, Politics and Urban Planning: A Political History of Australian City Plan- ning 1890-1990. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Sandercock, Leonie, and Ann Forsyth. 1990. Gender: A New Agenda for Planning Theory. Working Paper 52 1. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Develop- ment, University of California. - . 1992. Feminist Theory and Planning Theory:

The Epistemological Links. Planning Theory News- letter (Winter). Turin, Italy: Dipartimento Interateneo Territorio.

Sarkissian, Wendy. 1990. Personal Communication. Sassen-Koob, Saskia. 1984. From Household to Work-

place: Theories and Survey Research on Migrant Women in the Labor Market. International Migration Review 18, 4: 1 114-67.

Schon, Donald. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York Basic Books.

Scott, Joan. 1986. Gender: A Useful Category in Histor- ical Analysis. American Historical Review (December):

Sennett, Richard. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. New York Knopf.

Soja, Edward. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. New York Verso.

Spender, Dale. 1985. Man Made Language. 2d ed. Lon- don: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Stimpson, Catherine, Elsa Dixler, Martha Nelson, and Kathryn Yatrakis, eds. 1981. Women and the Ameri- can City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Orig- inally published in 1980 as a supplement to Signs 5, 3 .)

Tabb, W. K., and L. Sawers. 1978. Marxism and the Metropolis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tronto, Joan. 1987. Beyond Gender Difference to a The- ory of Care. Signs 12, 4: 644-63.

Watson, Sophie. 1986. Women and Housing or Feminist Housing Analysis? Housing Studies 1, 1 : 1-1 0.

~ . 1988. Accommodating Inequality: Gender and Housing. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

1053-7 5.

APA JOURNAL 58 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011

A GENDER AGENDA

Wekerle, Gerda. 1980. Women in the Urban Environ- ment. Signs 5, 3 (Supplement): S188-214.

Wekerle, Gerda, Rebecca Peterson, and David Morley, eds. 1980. New Space For Women. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Westkott, Nancy. 1979. Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences. Harvard Educational Review 49,4: 422-30.

Williams, Patricia. 1988. On Being the Object of Property. Signs 14, 1: 5-24.

~. 1989. The Obliging Shell: An Informal Essay

on Formal Equal Opportunity. Michigan Law Review

Wirka, Susan. 1989. Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch and Neighborhood Planning in New York City, 1897- 1909. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

Wright, Gwendolyn. 1980. Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873- 19 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

87: 2128-59.

-1 Forthcoming in the Journal: Spring 1992 I ARTICLES

Public Housing Homeownership: Will It Work and for Whom?

Commercial Strip Development: Attitudes of Planners and Consumers

Cityshape: Communicating and Evaluating Community Design

A Transaction Cost Theory of Planning

A Desire Called Streetcar: Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning

Skyscraper Zoning: New York‘s Pioneering Role

William Rohe and Michael Stegman

Deborah A. Howe and William A. Rabiega

Sherwin Greene

Ernest R. Alexander

Don H. Pickrell

Marc A. Weiss

DEPARTMENTS

THE LONGER VIEW Do We Really Need a National Infrastructure Policy?

Dick Netzer COUNTERPOINT The Continuing Debate: Rent Control and Homelessness

Ira Lowry John Gilderbloom, Richard Appelbaum, Michael Dolny, and Peter Dreier

COMMENTARY Planners and Professors: Closing the Gap

Thomas D. Galloway PLANNER’S NOTEBOOK Roundtable on HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategies

Ruth Price Frank Braconi

COMPUTER REPORT PC Software for Urban Transportation Planning

Erik Ferguson, Catherine Ross, and Michael Meyer

AF’A JOURNAL 59 WINTER 1992

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TIB

& U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

] at

05:

19 2

0 Ju

ly 2

011