With Stefanie Gerke, Nele Heinevetter, Katharina Beckmann, Valerie Chartrain, Christina Landbrecht, Miriam Stoney, Svenja Binz, Donatella Fioretti, Liss C. Werner, Marta Fernandez, Bettina Kraus, Franziska Ritter, Sophie van Mansberg, Daria Grohui, Johanna Meyer Grohbrügge, Deborah Diesch,
For the third dinner of 2017, the discussion focused on the teaching of spatial practices. Is there a specific way to teach and thus enable women in these fields, and if not, should there be one?
It was fascinating to see how the question, volontarily provocative, divided the audience.
On one side many women argued that science could not have any gender: "I hope not! I hope that in our institute teaching is based on the general interest in developing knowledge on the discipline – just like scientific research. And not based on gendered approaches."
On the other side many underlined how we are "trained and somehow forced to develop in a different way", while other mentioned how there can't be any neutrality, even in science, and per extension, neither in teaching.
It was fascinating to see how the question, volontarily provocative, divided the audience.
On one side many women argued that science could not have any gender: "I hope not! I hope that in our institute teaching is based on the general interest in developing knowledge on the discipline – just like scientific research. And not based on gendered approaches."
On the other side many underlined how we are "trained and somehow forced to develop in a different way", while other mentioned how there can't be any neutrality, even in science, and per extension, neither in teaching.
The conversation quickly grew into another direction after the question of the career had been brought up. "Was there a point in your career when you thought you were favored or neglected because you are female?" It was interesting to see that some participants openly explained how they played with their gender along the way. One women announced that "without wishing to be arrogant I was often aware of my sexual appeal to my teachers and professors and how that culd work in my favor, i.e. getting more attention, more contact time." At the same time she had to confess that "on the other hand it meant that I felt I wasn't being taken very seriously. I had much healthier relationships with women tutors". This had been the experience of the majority of women in the room. Most of them, albeit not all, reluctantly admitted that beeing a woman was more often than not a handicap in their profession. Some added that it might be more a way of behaving, being softer and more quiet, than the gender. But again the question was: Which traits are you born with, and which ones arise from conditioning ("you have to be quiet")?
The discussion then evolved into wondering about teaching strategies. Knowing that there is a difference in how women use and create space, would it be useful or relevant to offer more gender-specific seminars? Interestingly, only one woman was for a segregation, as a necessary evil to raise women's consciousness about certain matters. Most of the participants voiced concerns against it for different reasons. Some argued that being in the classroom together forces the students to get to know each other, other women thought that it would be extremely useful in general to disucss gender issues accross the curiculum – with students of all genders.
The dinner concluded with the gathering of references, eye-opening books, inspirations. and role models. The names quoted are in the reference section of this website. Go and check them out!
The dinner concluded with the gathering of references, eye-opening books, inspirations. and role models. The names quoted are in the reference section of this website. Go and check them out!