Feminist Analysis of Architectural Design
Buckley, C. (1986). Made in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Women and Design. Design
Issues, 3(2), 3-14.
In this paper, Buckley discusses the role of women in design history and argues that their contributions
have been ignored in academic discourse therefore causing them to interact with design in a patriarchal
context. Some of the areas the author highlights include the types of design, categories of design, and
modes of production where women’s contributions have not been considered (Buckley, 3). To support
this argument, the author discusses women designers and the role that female stereotypes concerning
women and their occupations as one of the limitations that women designers face. Buckely illustrates how
women designers are not recognized for skills that are not decorative in nature whereas men have
appropriated the fashion industry (1986, p.5). The article advises historians on their selection of discourse
concerning women designers in terms of the actual descriptions and apply a feminist critique to
understand the extent of contribution of women designers. This is followed by the analysis of women as
consumers and objects through which Buckely claims that the consumer is often considered to be female
which then informs perceptions of gender roles where women are in domestic service to men and
domestic appliances are to make women’s lives easier (1986, p.8). Buckely offers an effective critique of
how women are underrepresented and when they are discussed, it is within the male lens and male codes.
A specific area of interest is her discussion of women design in modernist discussion (see figure 1) where
there are historical examples of women being just as successful as their male counterparts.
Buckley, C. (1986). Made in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Women and Design. Design
Issues, 3(2), 3-14.
In this paper, Buckley discusses the role of women in design history and argues that their contributions
have been ignored in academic discourse therefore causing them to interact with design in a patriarchal
context. Some of the areas the author highlights include the types of design, categories of design, and
modes of production where women’s contributions have not been considered (Buckley, 3). To support
this argument, the author discusses women designers and the role that female stereotypes concerning
women and their occupations as one of the limitations that women designers face. Buckely illustrates how
women designers are not recognized for skills that are not decorative in nature whereas men have
appropriated the fashion industry (1986, p.5). The article advises historians on their selection of discourse
concerning women designers in terms of the actual descriptions and apply a feminist critique to
understand the extent of contribution of women designers. This is followed by the analysis of women as
consumers and objects through which Buckely claims that the consumer is often considered to be female
which then informs perceptions of gender roles where women are in domestic service to men and
domestic appliances are to make women’s lives easier (1986, p.8). Buckely offers an effective critique of
how women are underrepresented and when they are discussed, it is within the male lens and male codes.
A specific area of interest is her discussion of women design in modernist discussion (see figure 1) where
there are historical examples of women being just as successful as their male counterparts.
