ancient cities

injustice varies across time and cultures. Even if an
injustice seems relatively unequivocal, its perceived
severity or intensity may change, thus affecting the
priority it receives by planners and policymakers.
Gender equity planning has arisen because of a
perceived bias on the part of planning and planners
to adhere to a gender-neutral approach. This
bias is a consequence of a society in which males
have the most power and public presence as well
as, more specifically, dominating the planning profession
in both numbers and prestige. Developed
as a response to this bias, gender equity planning
turns the attention of planners and publics to
issues such as personal safety, child care, diverse
and affordable housing, transportation, and public
space to address many of the issues that women
and girls, especially, face in their environments. In
developing countries, gender equity planning is
often particularly concerned with economic development
and the provision of services that make life
easier and more equitable for women.
For example, a gender equity approach to planning
in a developing country might highlight the
provision of small loans to women to support their
business endeavors. Such loans might traditionally
be given to men; these sorts of programs capitalize
on the fact that women have been found to have a
relatively high rate of loan repayment and accompanying
economic success. Moreover, this success
can also permeate an entire family or household,
thus multiplying the benefits potentially derived
from the program.
Analogous examples in Europe, Australia, and
North America include safe-city projects in numerous
communities, women’s housing cooperative
developments, gender mainstreaming projects in
organizations such as the Royal Town Planning
Institute, and purposeful input on planning decisions
from the point of view of women’s groups,
such as Women Plan Toronto in Ontario, Canada.
Beyond instances of policies, plans, and programs
are the impacts of a gender equity perspective
on more fundamental aspects of planning.
Leonie Sandercock and Ann Forsyth, for example,
discuss a new gender agenda for planning and planning
theory; this agenda includes different ways of
knowing in planning (i.e., how we understand what
planning is and how we go about doing planning).
Thus, a new focus on treating men and women, as
well as masculine and feminine attributes, fairly in
Gender Equity Planning
303
planning means that new planning methods, epistemologies,
and modes of communication must be
incorporated into planning theory and practice.
Emphasizing participatory approaches, the involvement
of marginalized individuals and groups, and
more discursive ways of conducting planning exercises
is consistent with these methods and epistemologies.
Even new ethical guidelines are
appropriate, given that women often think differently
about ethical issues than men. This might
mean that ethical codes could include norms other
than those they do now: principles of doing no
harm, a focus on interdependencies and relationships,
and positive visions of a well-planned community,
for example.
Equity here does not refer necessarily to equality.
When one starts with an uneven playing field,
as it were, equality is insufficient for making the
situation fairer. For example, if a city caters to
transportation patterns that are connected more to
men’s needs than those of women, fairness requires
more than equal use of that system. It might mean
that public transportation should actually favor
routes and stops that address the particular, multifaceted
needs of women. Similarly, professional
planning practice that was focused almost exclusively
on particular sorts of technical information
might have to undergo a considerable shift to
encompass other ways of knowing.
Furthermore, and as suggested earlier, as societies
change, the gender roles of men and women
change. Child care, for example, once almost
always the purview of women, is slowly becoming
also a male responsibility. Nevertheless, women
continue to do the majority of child care and
household chores, despite also working outside
their homes. Thus, even in changing times, some
gender stereotypes remain relevant, and these are
at the heart of planning that has gender equity as
a guiding principle. If these stereotypes and accompanying
societal practices became obsolete, so too
would gender equity planning.
However, some would argue that planning itself
is a masculinist endeavor that emphasizes built form
instead of people, for example. Histories of planning
suggest that the social strands of the field split
from a more physical orientation relatively early in
the development of the profession. While those who
were more interested in social relationships, including
many women, went on to work in fields such as