I sat down with the lovely Mrudhula Koshy over a cup of chai, discussing about feminist urbanism (yes, you heard it) and how gender can and should influence urban planning. Mrudhula is an urbanist and Assistant Professor based at NTNU, Norway since 2018 and co-wrote the paper, ‘Feminist Planning and Urbanism: Understanding the Past for an Inclusive Future’.
Over ZOOM, joining from her current residence in Trondheim, Norway we discussed what it means to be 21st CE feminists and shared some anecdotes along the way of our individual journeys and shared experiences. It was an intellectually stimulating conversation about feminism and its broader meaning in urbanism. We also discussed Mrudhula’s experiences from practice and academia that shaped her views. Here is a detailed excerpt from the interview.
Q: Let us start with the mighty ‘F’ word – ‘’Feminism’’. What does feminism mean to you and feminist urbanism mean to you? That’s a very interesting question. I identify myself as a feminist. It is one of the core ways of how I see myself as a woman, as an Indian woman in Europe, as a non-white academic in Norway. Somebody who is really passionate about making sure that women have the space and means to grow – it’s a sisterhood thing I guess. But sometimes, it tends to be a polarizing question ‘Do you identify as a feminist?’
For me, if you don’t give women equal opportunities and value their contributions, you are constraining not just their aspirations but also the society. And this is reflected in feminist urbanism too. When we were writing the article, we toyed with various ways of writing it. My co-authors and I came together in an ad-hoc manner. It was one of the first COVID-19 lockdown projects. We were all urban planning professionals and we realized we share similar perspectives on the role of feminism and gender with respect to planning. We didn’t look at it as academics but rather out of personal curiosity.
We have feminism and we have urbanism – but were do these two meet? We also looked into other theoretical traditions. And because of the current political climate, gender is also a loaded word. Gender is not binary but it is a spectrum. That is where intersectional feminism also becomes quite important. But how do we feed this into the field of planning? We decided to narrow it down to urbanism, from the lens of feminism. At a policy level, the terms inclusivity and diversity are used but you rarely see it translating to the physical domain. In some countries, it has come a long way but for others, there remains much to be done.
What is feminist urbanism? Feminist urbanism is a theory and social movement that proposes to put people’s lives at the center of urban decisions. (Global Platform for the right to the city)
Q: You said earlier that it came from a personal curiosity, as women we can identity that the way we walk the city is differently than a man. Women doesn’t necessarily always take the shortest or the straightest route, but you want to stay visible, you want to feel safe, avoid dark alleys. How do you think that women perceive the built environment differently?
From an Indian perspective, many places are often not designed and not conducive to women or disabled persons. I believe that there is a class divide. If you belong to an upper class family, you have more means to get somewhere. Then your perception of space is also different. But for women who use public transport or live in places without last mile connectivity, they are going to be more conscious and fearful.
In patriarchal contexts, when you use the word feminism, it also becomes a bit controversial. Sometimes the vocabulary you use could constrain progress. What I feel is that if you make the environment really inclusive for the person who is the least able to use it, then you make it better for everyone. Take for example an impoverished older woman - we rarely tend to view them as a core stakeholder for urban space. We need to take up issues and be willing to think from different perspective.
"What I feel is that if you make the environment really inclusive for the person who is the least able to use it, then you make it better for everyone" - Mrudhula Koshy
Q: That’s an interesting point. Which also leads my next question. How can we have more gender diversity in planning? Is it about having more representatives in the profession? And how do we make sure that they stay in the workforce?
Definitely, we need to see more women in the profession. And those who are in there, we need to be open minded about holding hands and pushing for more change. To have more gender inclusivity, it is crucial to have representatives from all genders as well. More should be done to make progress smoother for women. It is the responsibility of the workplace to ensure that and think of it from a strategic point of view. It is never one person who can enable change.
Q: As you said, the higher up you go, the lesser women you see, especially in planning and it’s similar in other professions as well. What can planning as a profession do to change this and what can planning professionals such as ourselves contribute to make it better?
Not just in planning, but for all professions, workplaces have to be safer and healthier. No one should be scrutinized for example, for wanting to start a family or having to take maternity leave. It should be done with ethics of care. In Norway for example, I can see the long-term benefits of having paid maternity leave. You see more women staying in the workplaces and in higher positions. In comparison, if you look at the Netherlands or the US, you see a lot of talent but fewer women in higher positions. There is still that choice women have to make between having a kid and having a career. For example needs such as day care, and education has to be subsidized. And flexible working hours! It is always the case in planning and architecture, the working hours are long while the pay is lower. So it is systemic and the system needs to change.
Q: Talking about the systemic changes, you often hear the need to involve more women. Then you also get tagged as a ‘diversity hire’. The one women who somehow has to represent all women. How do we go beyond this diversity hire mindset to a much more holistic approach?
Generally, in life, I am an optimist. We make incremental steps, so I hope these are smaller steps that will improve the whole system. But the realist in me tells me that that is not the case at all. Because we are in our bubble. Beyond that, the reality is different. We have a long way to go before we break those barriers. So that is why intersectionality, of ethnicities, classes, and races are so important. It is very difficult and frustrating that there is little common ground while discussing intersectionality at workplaces. Inherent biases, and social conditioning also comes into play. In the case of India, you often see women who are from a higher educated class and caste getting a bigger platform to voice their opinions compared to women from marginalized communities. The economic power is also a factor. So this is where I get a bit despondent – are we really going to see and understand each other’s core issues and vulnerabilities?
Q: How do you think we can have these different voices, voices of women of colour, women from marginalized societies represented and be taken equally seriously? What are the first steps we need to take?
It is a very important question but there is no easy answer to it. Some countries address it at a policy level. We also have global frameworks, but nobody really checks if this is translated into other aspects. So we keep churning reports after reports, but not much is translated into actions. There is also a lack of capacity. Currently we are all at different levels. So it has to be contextualized. There are also inherent cultural, social and political aspects that will influence the decisions. It is quite an intricate web of challenges. On the other hand, there are also actions happening on the lower levels, such as bringing communities involved in planning in a participatory way. Active collaborations are facilitated rather than just pilot projects.
Q: It is good point that you mention. The more participatory we make processes, the more voices we can include.
Ideally, yes!
Q: Indeed, “ideally” But we also have to translate these frameworks into space. So what does a feminist city look like? What kind of interventions will be there?
Street lighting is a crucial. We are also talking more and more about soft transport. So when you talk about bike paths or pedestrian paths, you also need to consider more space – such as a woman carrying kids, or someone pushing a wheelchair etc. There is also not just able bodied women but also disabled and older women. These kind of networks have to be connected. For example, when we think of public space, we talk about adequate seating, benches and shade but it is necessary to combine these with childcare facilities. By adding smaller elements spaces can be made more inviting and diverse. It is not just about gender-friendly city but also a kid-friendly and age-friendly city.
Q: I have a follow up question to that. When you think of certain solutions, it is also a double-edged sword. Because how do we make sure these solutions don’t reinforce existing gender roles and stereotypes especially when it comes to childcare. So how do we navigate this issue?
That is a very interesting question. I read in some places that they introduced diaper changing rooms in men’s rooms. This is what we talked about earlier regarding intersectionality, especially now that we are also moving away from ‘male’/’female’ toilets to gender neutral toilets etc. We also need more inclusivity in the workspaces that cater to different genders and needs. These dialogues are happening on a larger scale now but it needs to happen more.
Q: These are still solutions at an architectural scale. How do we extend it to a city scale?
Recently, we collaborated on another book chapter; regarding age-friendly cities in an intersectional way. For example, access should extend, not just public spaces but also to housing. In Copenhagen they customized the entrance of an old age home specific to each occupant with dementia so they only need to remember that one, making it easier to access. Additionally, advertisements and awareness need to be more inclusive it improves with generations as well. We are reaping the benefits of the struggles of women from the past. But it also brings to the point, how long we have to wait to see actual changes. It was only a 100 years ago that women could vote in most countries, so I am also not sure where to start. Q: Another thing I am curious from your paper was about eco-feminism. Whenever there is a crisis, like the climate crisis, it is always more impactful on women, especially from marginalized societies. Can you give some examples from your research on how women experience it differently?
With eco-feminism, we still only looked at it from a theoretical perspective. But to say from my personal experience through my research in Wayanad, Kerala, how the people dealt with the floods etc. Generally Kerala has good local governance systems in place. If you think from a women-centric perceptive, Kudumbasree played a crucial role and that was very promising. During my interviews, I however noticed that most top-level decision makers were men. So there is a gap. They did say priorities while rescues and so on where given to women and there was a lot of care. In Wayanad, you also have tribal communities and there again you see some discrepancies. So that is actually a societal and systemic problem. Q: When you said women were being taken care of, I couldn’t help but think inherently as society women is perceived as a weaker group to be protected. Even when it is done with the right intentions, it is still a tricky subject. I totally agree. Personally women who are independent, you don’t want to be taken care of but patriarchal societies are structured to think that women as physically less able to do things on their own. So that is a tricky thing so I am not sure then are we reinforcing the patriarchy in such situations.
Q: To end with a personal note, can you share some of your personal experiences with other women planners and friends who are women of color, when it comes feminist urbanism? The women I am interacting with frequently are usually women who identify with the cause of feminism and then you mutually reinforce your beliefs. So I feel like I am always in a safe and protected environment. Here again, I believe that I am speaking from the privilege of my bubble.
I am a woman of colour from the global south but I have been living in various countries in Europe for the past 9 years and I also see things changing. To share a personal story, earlier I used to simplify my name from Mrudhula to ‘’Mo’’ so that people could pronounce it easily. But now I feel that when you simplify your name you are also simplifying your identity in a way. There are biases which you experience every day and it is permeated in professional and personal environments. So I am also navigating this on a daily basis. Now I pick your tribe and my battles as I interact with more people. Sometimes people have to do their own homework. It is however not easy to articulate this without some people taking offense and being defensive. So writing and articulating your thoughts help. Writing is a powerful medium and it is quite credible that you are doing this.
If you have any further questions or would you like to discuss about the article and feminist urbanism further, please feel free to reach out to me via email or send a dm on Instagram @theundesignedblog. The interview was done over ZOOM by Malavika Krishnan.
Comments