Image 01 Image 03

‘Feminist Geography’ Prof Thinks Tall Buildings are Sexist

‘Feminist Geography’ Prof Thinks Tall Buildings are Sexist

“From the physical to the metaphorical, the city is filled with reminders of masculine power”

Did you even know ‘feminist geography’ was a thing? How does one use such knowledge in the real world?

The College Fix reports:

‘Feminist geography’ professor argues tall buildings are sexist

Ever see a guy say goodbye to a shoe? Now a question more suited to 2020: Ever see a professor accuse a building of “toxic masculinity”?

That is precisely Leslie Kern’s specialty, and you can get a good sense of the Mount Allison University professor’s reasoning in a recent Guardian essay on the sexism in … city architecture.

It’s not the first article from a “feminist geography” perspective – indeed, there’s an entire academic journal, Gender, Place & Culture, devoted to the subject. (It’s somewhat credulous.)

But Kern (above) has written a full book on feminist geography, “Feminist City,” which claims that toxic masculinity “is built into the fabric of our urban spaces.” According to the geography and environment faculty page, the associate professor is also program director of Women’s and Gender Studies, and she’s interested in “embodied geographies.”

“From the physical to the metaphorical, the city is filled with reminders of masculine power,” Kern writes in The Guardian. “And yet we rarely talk of the urban landscape as an active participant in gender inequality”:

A building, no matter how phallic, isn’t actually misogynist, is it? Surely a skyscraper isn’t responsible for sexual harassment, the wage gap, or even the glass ceiling, whether it has a literal one up top or not?

And yet even the height and shape of a building reflects “patterns of gender-based discrimination,” she says, citing a female architecture professor who described skyscrapers as “rape” in 1977:

The office tower, [Dolores Hayden] wrote, is one more addition “to the procession of phallic monuments in history – including poles, obelisks, spires, columns and watchtowers”, where architects un-ironically use the language of “base, shaft and tip” while drawing upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating light into the night sky.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Feminist Geography exists, is real, and is taken seriously by far too many people.

This is where they want to take the whole culture. Objective reality is irrelevant. Everything must be forced to serve the Leftist revolution. Nothing and no one is safe.

And if you point out that geography can’t really be feminist, then obviously you’re just trying to support the patriarchy and must be destroyed!

    UJ in reply to irv. | July 9, 2020 at 9:00 am

    How about if you just point out that they’re an idiot?

    jb4 in reply to irv. | July 10, 2020 at 9:07 pm

    Given the current angst about our past, including about slave owner George Washington, if we tear down the Washington Monument we could get rid of a now doubly offensive edifice.

Moon Battery | July 9, 2020 at 9:16 am

what the Hell is ‘Feminist Geography’ and how to you get a degree in such BS?

Bad case of penis envy.

And if these buildings had 30+ stories underground instead, would that symbolize a rape of Mother Earth? /smh

texansamurai | July 9, 2020 at 10:07 am

what an ignorant twit–she definitely has a johnson complex–she knows nothing of architecture/engineering/geology or history

mankind has been reaching for the heavens for thousands of years–though many strategic towers were built with the dual purpose of defense, most of their design and construction was based in the reach for the heavens/see if we can actually build it philosophy

there are temples/monuments/buildings in the world that have been(and will continue to be)standing for thousands of years

perhaps man’s quest for immortality is another impetus for large/tall structures, don’t you know?

suppose the himalayas/andes/rockies are somehow ” phallic symbols ” to her–lord, could not listen to her for more than a couple of minutes, let alone PAY her for the experience

she really needs to be laid properly by some fellow courageous enough to undertake the effort

am not available myself

The clown car keeps getting fuller and fuller. Does The Guardian read any of this tripe before it prints it, or does it just print any stupid thing penned by a leftist?

Proof that all “studies” programs should be shutdown.

harleycowboy | July 9, 2020 at 12:50 pm

Mountains are sexist. They remind me of boobs. BULLDOZE THEM LEVEL!!!!!!!

Maybe we should build tall buildings with two porch-like structure side by side about two-thirds of the way up.

And hang all the building’s wiring from the top.

I’d “Support” building different size “domes”, always in pairs with the obligatory red air traffic warning lights on top as an ode to women to counter all the phalic symbols we patriarchs have “Erected”…

Is it really necessary to point out that “feminist geography” is a branch of (academic) feminism, and not a branch of geography?

Or that “feminist science” in general may be feminist, but no one would reasonably expect it to be any sort of science?

The obvious difference between feminism and science is that science starts with measurable evidence and then looks for theories that can not only explain this evidence but which offer substantial predictive capability. Whereas feminism start with political goals and then looks for effective methods to achieve these goals.

Which is to say, one starts with answers, the other starts with questions.

Although I suppose the nonsense here isn’t as trivially stupid (word games and unsupported assertions) as it appears, as much of the academic feminist apparat presumably would replace real science with “feminist science,” if/when it’s able to do so.

And there’s surely scant evidence that universities have the will or interest in restoring honest scholarship to the center of the university’s mission, let alone limiting the reach of those who would judge all academic disciplines and academicians solely on the basis of whether this-or-that furthers some political cause.

Was even Soviet science this bad? In the USSR there were political officers everywhere, and all too many institutions were captured by apparatchiks, yet even so some produced world-class science.

Do the pyramids in Egypt count?