{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020480854853072127, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.947089947089947, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Gendered Pedagogy

We can’t continue to see the internal inequalities of the architecture profession as a third party problem. This applies just as much to pedagogy – our methods and practices of teaching – as it does to practice. Neoliberalism maintains that professional hierarchies are generated by different levels of ability and experience, and that these are essential to maintain competitive 
advancement. Those positioned lower down the food chain, or who don’t get 
promoted, are simply not good enough, and only a few of us have what it takes to get to the top. Within this system, success is contingent on us assuming gender androgyny rather than identity, separation rather than collaboration, and by competing with each other rather than against the problem. But if we assume that in shaping education we will change the profession in which these individuals go on to practice, what role does pedagogy and its proselytisers play in changing professional inequality? Moreover, are women academics – who are problematically positioned within the academy – best placed to tackle the problem, or even able to so?