Women and Housing

An International Analysis

Patricia Kennett, Kam Wah Chan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781136739620
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

In the context of contemporary economic, political, social and cultural transformations, this book brings together contributions from developed and emerging societies in Europe, the USA and East Asia in order to highlight the nature, extent and impact of these changes on the housing opportunities of women.

The collection seeks to contribute to comparative housing debates by highlighting the gendered nature of housing processes, locating these processes within wider structured and institutionalized relations of power, and to show how these socially constructed relationships are culturally contingent, and manifest and transform over time and space.

The international contributors draw on a wide range of empirical evidence relating to labour market participation, wealth distribution, family formation and education to demonstrate the complexity and gendered nature of the interlocking arenas of production, reproduction and consumption and the implications for the housing opportunities of women in different social contexts. Worldwide examples are drawn from Australia, China, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan and the USA.

1
Introduction

Women and housing systems

Chan Kam Wah and Patricia Kennett

Introduction

This book aims to highlight the gendered nature of housing processes and systems in an international context. The intention is to explore the dynamics of contemporary economic and social change and consider the implications for the relationship between women and the housing system in developed and emerging societies in Europe, the USA and East Asia. Whilst there has been a growing interest in comparative and international housing studies, the inclusion of a gender dimension is relatively underdeveloped compared to other policy arenas such as employment and education. Housing is often portrayed as a neutral system, mere ‘bricks and mortar’, that does not preference any one gender. It is assumed that housing policy and urban planning serves the needs of the whole society or community equally, and that the distribution of housing resources serves the needs of the whole family equally. This collection is concerned with exploring and deconstructing these assumptions through an analysis of the housing circumstances of women in developed and emerging societies, at a time of substantial economic and social change. It seeks to promote an approach to housing analysis that reinstates gender sensitivity in international and comparative housing studies. The focus is on the interface between housing and gender and how this socially constructed relationship manifests and transforms over time and space. Housing systems and opportunities are embedded within structured and institutionalised relations of power which are gendered. For example, in many countries the wider context of housing provision has been heavily influenced by attitudes surrounding the male breadwinner model’ whereby the male wage-earner provides for a dependent wife and children, supported by the notion of a ‘family wage’ (Land 1980; Pascall 1997). These and other perceptions reflect the structured and institutionalised relations of power which permeate the policy process and the wider world (Harrison 2001), the nature and dynamics are culturally contingent as will be demonstrated by the contributions to this collection.

This chapter begins by exploring three discourses of feminist housing studies: environmental change discourse, housing welfare discourse, and social constructionist discourse. We argue that adopting a dynamic social constructionist approach enhances our understanding of how gender inequality in the housing system is constructed and perpetuated and how these processes manifest in different ways with varying outcomes in different societies. This is not to underestimate the significance of improving the living environment for men and women in terms of housing and urban planning, nor neglect the need for improving the housing welfare of women. The chapter then goes on to consider the ideology underpinning housing policy and housing services, focusing particularly on the domestic ideal and familial ideology. We conclude by pointing out that the social construction of gender equality in the housing system is not a simple and one-dimensional process, but a complex and dynamic process that varies substantially from one country to another, from one culture to another, and over time. It is these processes, their manifestations and impact that the contributors to this collection seek to highlight. The remainder of the chapter will introduce the country specific chapters in the book.

Discourses of gender and housing

In general we can identify three dominant discourses in the study of women and housing: environmental change discourse, housing welfare discourse, and social construction discourse. These discourses are not mutually exclusive or contradictory but rather reflect different emphasises emerging from different academic disciplines, or the development of feminist theory in different historical periods.

Discourse of environmental change

The earliest concern with the issue of gender and housing can be traced to the urban planning profession. Feminist urban planners have long been concerned about how housing design and the living environment create and perpetuate gender inequality (Matrix 1984; Hayden 1980; Coleman 1990). In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, long before the professionalisation of urban planning, some female planners had already attempted to develop non-sexist housing projects. For example, in the 1870s Melusina Peirce proposed a ‘neighbourhood strategy’ in developing kitchenless housing in which housekeeping cooperatives would take over most of the housework. (Hayden 2002: 93). Peirce believed that this improved housing design could reduce women’s burden of household chores and liberate women from confinement at home.

The strength of this ‘environmental change discourse’ is that it demystifies the conception of housing as a neutral entity or the ‘bricks and mortar discourse’; and demonstrates that housing and urban design could reinforce women’s subordination. Although this approach runs the risk of oversimplifying the complex social dynamic of how gender inequality in housing is produced and perpetuated, In recent decades studies on cities and space have developed a more dynamic analysis on how space is socially produced (Lefebvre 1991) and the relationship between social justice and space (Harvey 2000). The work of feminist geographers and urban planners (McDowell 1999; Massey 1994; Weisman 1992; Darke et al. 2000; Fainstein and Servon 2005; Fincher 2007) has also shed light on the complex relations between gender, housing and space, and contributed to the development of ‘social constructionist discourse’ discussed later in this chapter.

Housing welfare discourse

The ‘housing welfare discourse’ evolved from ‘welfare feminism’ in the 1970s and 1980s. Welfare feminists emphasise the importance of improving social policy and social welfare services for women in order to achieve gender equality (Lewis 1983; Dale and Foster 1986; Hallett 1996). Access to housing resources has become one of the major focuses of social policy studies (Ungerson and Kember 1997; Pascall 1997; Woods 1996). At the same time, in housing studies there has been an increasing number of studies devoted to women’s housing issues (Brion and Tinker 1980; Gilroy and Woods 1994), and many housing textbooks now include a chapter on gender and housing (e.g. Balchin and Rhoden 2002; Morris and Winn 1990; Davis 2001).

The strength of the ‘housing welfare discourse’ is that it calls attention to the neglected housing needs of women. It draws attention to the fact that housing policy and housing services are largely gender blind, and that many women in marginal groups are deprived of adequate housing services. However, the limitation of this approach is that it sometimes tends to over-emphasise the vulnerability of women in the housing system (Ungerson and Kember 1997; Pascall 1997; Balchin and Rhoden 2002). As Clapham and Smith (1990) have pointed out, the over-emphasis on vulnerability seems to imply that the housing problems of women arise out of their lack of ability in solving their problems. Over-emphasis on ‘special housing needs’ diverts attention from the structural problem inherent in the housing system (Marcuse 1989). As Watson (1986a) has pointed out, this ‘add-on approach’ to including women on the agenda without challenging the gender blind assumption underpinning the housing system is unlikely to be effective in solving women’s housing problems.

Social construction discourse

The rise of the ‘social construction discourse’ can be attributed to the development of neo-Marxism, critical theory, post-structuralism and postmodernism in social sciences, especially after the 1990s. This development had a significant impact on gender and housing studies (Harrison 2001; Gilroy and Woods 1994; Watson 1988, 1999a; Smith 2005; Chan 1997). Watson (1988:141; 1999a) advocated a ‘deconstruction approach’ to reveal how gender inequality is constructed in the housing system. For example, Watson and Austerberry (1986) adopted this approach to study the issue of women and homelessness and showed how this issue is marginalised through the gender blind conception of homelessness. Chan (1997) argued that the disadvantaged position of lone mothers in the housing system is not due to their lack of problem-solving ability, but their systematic exclusion in housing policy and practice. The focus of study shifted from what type of housing design is unfavourable to women and what type of housing resource is missing for women, to the question of why is it that gender-blind housing design and housing policy seems acceptable and how is this dominant conception maintained and perpetuated? Poststructuralist analysis pointed out that existing housing design and housing policy is underpinned by hegemonic social practice and discourse which obscures or justifies gender inequalities in the housing system. Power relations between men and women, especially in the housing system, are very subtle. As Foucault has pointed out (Foucault 1980; Smart 1985: 76–80; McNay 1992: 38–40), power is not a static entity or simply an instrument possessed by those in power to oppress the powerless. Power is a social relation developed in everyday social interaction, in which the powerless as well as those in power abide by taken-for-granted social regulations.

Towards a gender sensitive housing analysis

The strength of the social constructionist approach is that it is more sensitive to power inequalities embedded in taken-for-granted social practices, which is effective for unveiling deep-rooted gender inequalities in the housing system. Moreover, in emphasising diversity and difference, it calls attention to addressing the needs of women from different social backgrounds, facing different housing problems in a range of societal and cultural settings. However, in recent decades there has been increasing conflict between postmodernist and social policy analysis (Ferguson and Johnston 2001; Taylor-Gooby 1994). The most important critique has been that by focusing on interpretation and cultural meaning, postmodernism runs the risk of diverting attention from material deprivation. However, both structural and cultural levels are equally important, with no one level more important than the other. In fact, it is problematic to dichotomise material and cultural analysis. McNay (2004), adopting Bourdieu’s conception of the phenomenology of social space, tries to integrate objectivist and subjectivist analysis, material and cultural analysis, structure and agency; and argues that gender should be understood as a lived relation.

In this collection the social construction of gender inequality in the housing system is interpreted as a consequence of taken-for-granted cultural and social practices, as well as the material deprivation of housing resources and structural inequalities in society at large. Harrison (2001: 53), adopting a social regulatory framework, pointed out that social structure, institutions, discourse, and ideology are important in constructing the housing experience of different social groups. Thus, in this sense housing design, access to housing resources, and housing ideology are all part and parcel of the social construction process.

Deconstructing housing ideology

Two dominant, taken-for-granted and influential ideologies in the housing system include the domestic ideal and familial ideology. To a certain extent, these ideologies are interrelated, and, as the chapters in this collection demonstrate, are likely to be interpreted in different ways across societies and cultures.

Domestic ideal

Traditional housing design and urban planning is dominated by an ideology of ‘domestic ideal’, which is build on the patriarchal ‘public-men private-women model’ (Davidoff et al. 1976, Davidoff 2003). Modern housing design emphasises privacy and detachment, which is partly a consequence of industrialisation and urbanisation. Home–work separation becomes the way of life in industrial society, and home becomes the haven to escape from the hostile work environment. This can be coupled with the traditional gender division of labour, whereby men become the breadwinners working outside the home and women become the homemakers responsible for providing a comfortable living environment. However, the quiet and comfortable home, a haven for men, is the workplace for women. Privacy and detachment of home implies isolation and less accessibility to social support, which is especially difficult for women in nuclear families. The problem is further exacerbated by sub-urbanisation, in which housing estates are developed in remote new towns or rural areas.

Another problem with home–work separation or the private-public divide is that housing design and community planning tends to skew toward catering for the needs of work and the public sphere, while neglecting homemaking activities. Housing design is dominated by male professionals that do not fully understand women’s work at home (Weisman 1992). This male-oriented housing design can increase women’s burden in homemaking, or even cause hazards and threaten the safety of women and children at home. Some geographers and urban planners argue that most transportation services in the community, especially those in remote new towns, are geared towards the needs of commuting to work, while neglecting the needs of women in homemaking such as taking children to school, going to the market, bank, and shopping (Pickup 1988; Coleman 2000; Wekerle 2005). The dominant ideology in housing design and urban planning seems to assume that paid work in the labour market or productive activity is more important than unpaid housework or consumption activity at home.

Watson (1991) questioned the separation of work and home, and pointed out that this does not reflect the reality, but serves to rationalise male domination. Pugh (1997) points out that housing and household economics are playing an increasingly important role in human capital and social capital formation such as performance of paid work at home, self-education activities at home, and new ideas in housing welfare. There is increasing concern that housing design and urban planning should play a more active role in producing a work–family balance environment (Silbaugh 2007). Gibson-Graham (1996, 2003) goes further to deconstruct the capitalist economy from a poststructuralist feminist perspective, arguing that the capitalist logic marginalises women’s contribution and other forms of economic activities. In other words, the domestic ideal, home–work separation, the division between production and reproduction underpinning the housing system, are myths reflecting hegemonic patriarchal values and at the same time reinforcing male domination.

Familial ideology

‘Familial ideology’ is another common belief underpinning the housing system. Very often, housing policy and planning, and the distribution of housing resources are based on the assumption of the ‘family as a unit’ and traditional gender role differentiation within the family. Here, ‘family’ is often assumed to be the conventional heterosexual married nuclear family, preferably with children. In this sense, housing policy may marginalise ‘unconventional family’ types (Watson 1986b). In many societies, if a woman is outside the conventional marriage relationship, living alone, a lone mother, older woman, or a lesbian, she may not enjoy as full housing rights as other citizens, especially in some traditional societies in Asia, the Middle East, or Africa where divorce is still regarded as a disgrace for women. Woman living alone is a group that is easily neglected (Watson 1988). They are not attached to a conventional family or dependent on a man. In many countries social housing policy gives higher priority to family than to people living alone. On average, women have lower incomes than men, limiting opportunities for them to find housing solutions in the private market. Housing wealth is another major problem unfavourable to women. Usually housing property is regarded as ‘family wealth’. However, in many traditional societies the man is regarded as the household head, and ‘family wealth’ virtually becomes men’s wealth. Studies on gender and housing wealth have shown that men benefit more than women from homeownership (Smith 1990) and this...

Table of contents

• Housing and society series
• Contents
• Tables
• Figures
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Women’s housing rights
• 3 Women and housing
• 4 Women and housing affordability in the United States
• 5 Social change and housing systems
• 6 Women’s housing in Sweden
• 7 Women, housing and citizenship in Great Britain
• 8 Moving beyond the standard family model
• 9 Neo-liberalization and the invisibility of women’s housing problems in Taiwan
• 10 A gender study on housing rights of women in urban China
• 11 Women and housing inequalities in Hong Kong
• 12 Conclusion
• Notes
• References
• Index