The full quote from Sir Roger's piece, for those who actually care about accuracy:
“Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire. People in these networks include many who are rightly suspicious of nationalism, regard nationalism as the major cause of the tragedy of Central Europe in the 20th century, and do not distinguish nationalism from the kind of national loyalty that I have defended in this talk. Moreover, as the world knows, indigenous anti-Semitism still plays a part in Hungarian society and politics, and presents an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty among ethnic Hungarians and Jews.”
This is a fantastic article.
I moved to 4 days a week around 6 months ago and have never looked back. I did it to have additional time for academic study rather than for parenting reasons, but the effect is similar; it makes you work more efficiently when you are in the office and incentivises you to manage your time better. Nobody in the profession should ever be penalised for wanting to work flexibly, whether at interview or any other time.
More of these well balanced, non-identity politics tinged articles please AJ.
I agree with Duncan.
John Kellett hits the nail on the head. Rather than driving down salaries by importing cheap labour, perhaps British practices could actually invest in training people more and pay them a better wage.
Also AJ, you can't just ring up a few of your mates and present that as if it is representative of 'architects think X' or 'architects think Y'. It's deliberately misleading and bad journalism. If you want to know what architects think, do survey with a decent sample size, control for bias in the variables and present the results properly.
Spot on Phil Parker.
EVERY person in that photograph is a HOMO SAPIENS
Where are the HEDGEHOGS!?
Fosters need to invest in species diversity training because how can you possibly design an environmentally friendly building without having first hand experience of the HISTORICAL OPPRESSION and INSTITUTIONAL SPECIESISM against hedgehogs*
*Sorry, organisms who identify as hedgehogs, please don't kill me.
Don't be so HEDGEHOGIST!
Paul Finch is absolutely right. The arguments behind 'cultural appropriation' are so intellectually weak that they fall apart in seconds if properly challenged. Architecture as a profession, and I'm sorry to say architectural journalism in particular, are both in danger of falling into the same traps of the mainstream media in pandering to such idolatry. Paul Finch is - so far as I can see - the sole representative of the silent majority within the profession who do not fall for this rubbish. If the AJ knows what is good for it it will invite many more writers and contributors from all parts of the spectrum of opinion, not just the little bubble it lives within.
Good god that's ugly!
Blunt tectonic bio/geo-mimicry is the shallowest and laziest form of conceptual thinking.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment.
Firstly may I say that I am a big fan of your practice’s work, especially your St. Hilda’s proposal; it is quite beautiful. I hope though that you will be able to see the understandable errors in your assessment, as it is only once we properly analyse the facts that we can address the actual causal factors behind the gender imbalance in the profession.
You quite rightly say that the mean average hourly pay is a straightforward calculation, but unfortunately it is precisely because of its simplicity that it does not sufficiently accurately represent the complexities of the topic. The mean (as opposed to the median or mode) is the least reliable measure of average, as it is affected so much by outliers. The pay-gap legislation addresses this to some extent by requiring a quartile split across the range of salary values, but this does not eliminate the problem, not least because the overall figures tend to be the only ones that get reported.
You also quite rightly precede your other assertions with a caveat of ‘for whatever reasons’. You are right to acknowledge that there are a many unknown variables affecting relative pay levels. You then make a very big leap though by your assertions that women are both ‘stuck at the bottom of the profession and/or not valued as much as men by their employers’. This is a non-sequitur. As far as I am aware there is no reliable evidence to suggest either of these is true to any degree. If you know of any that suggests otherwise, please do link to it.
We will only get the bottom of this problem once we do a detailed multivariate analysis incorporating all of the relevant causal factors.
You go on to say ‘I see no good reason at all why high-quality firms would not be able to attract and keep high-ranking women architects.’ I completely agree. The issue is about the relative numbers; i.e the relative probability that any given woman and any given man will continue to choose to favour their career over other areas of interest, such as family or other projects/activities. Now of course these things should not be incompatible with a successful career, but the person who works 80 hours a week is far more likely to do better in their career than the person who works 40 hours a week, and there are more men who are willing to do that than there are women, hence those individuals are disproportionately likely to have very high career success (I can recommend Warren Farrell’s section of ‘The Boy Crisis’ for a more in-dept analysis of these issues and their origins). How hard people work does affect how likely they are to succeed (and I’m someone who has always disagreed with the culture of overtime in architecture, and who doesn’t do it myself, but that's another topic).
There is also a very strong body of scientific literature on the psychological differences between men and women, some of which manifests itself in factors that are predictors of success in the workplace, such as differences in conscientiousness (women are higher on average), and disagreeableness (women are lower on average). But it is important to note that there is far greater difference within the groups than between them (i.e the normal distribution curves overlap a lot but are offset).
There are a great many variables that could be further considered, but I’ll stop taking up your time now.
Thanks again for commenting; it’s a conversation that needs to be had in a lot more depth I think. I hope the AJ will engage with this topic with an open mind so everyone can be involved in the discussion. :)