Jane Rendell’s introductory writing to part two of the book Gender Space Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction provides a feminist discourse on the intricate relations between gender and space. A series of multidisciplinary gender analyses are drawn upon to challenge the existing paradigm of classifying spaces according to the biological sex of its users (e.g. public bathrooms). Instead, the writing is structured around the novel perspective of associating space to gender based on the daily activities performed by the occupants (e.g.kitchen).

The first part of the writing builds upon works of geographers and anthropologists to argue that space is parameterized by society and culture. As opposed to innate and inert, space is in a constant state of reproduction, subjecting to the agency of its occupants. Reversely, as occupants form a dependent and intimate relationship with the space they inhabit, the space unconsciously becomes a major parameter governing their day-to-day, ultimately shaping the affiliated social and cultural productions.

Anthropology research first suggested a connection between the gendering of space and power relations, especially those relating to patriarchal and capitalist ideologies. Examples such as the exclusion of women from certain spaces reinforce the statement that space is often a manifestation of power. This relates to the work of female geographers who argue that “space is produced by and productive of gender relations”, in which the impact of gender to society is comparative to the intangible yet evident impact gender asserts on the built environment. Gender, then, influences the systematic structure to both space and society.

Rendell then moves on to investigate the ways in which gender and space are represented. The prevailing “separate spheres” paradigm is based on the binary hierarchy: the public realm of production is associated with male entities; the domestic scenes of reproduction are associated with femininity, treated as the negative complementary to the positive. This problematic perspective can be deconstructed by building alternative frameworks to describe the gendering of spaces, a process Rendell had broken down into 3 steps. Beginning with the reversal of binary terms, the positions of the positive and negative in the pair are interchanged to take on new meanings. The second step is the movement of displacement in which the negative term must be displaced from its dependency of the positive to become an individual entity. The third step can be theorized from studies done by Griselda Pollock on male impressionist paintings. The paintings offer a variety of visual representations pointing to the dominating effect of the male gaze on female relations to the urban domain, where women are often placed at the center of male desire and scrutinized as objects of pleasure. This idea draws attention to the relations between looking and moving, creating a new intervention that includes and exceeds the scope of the binary hierarchy.

The last part of Rendell’s writing focuses on investigating the role of space in the construction of female subjectivity, identity and experience through examining the use of feminine metaphoric devices. Cities and countries are often assigned the pronouns “she/her”, forming an analogy associating their nurturing characteristics with the uterine form of the female body and its associated shape, colour and texture. Additionally, several spatial metaphors can be drawn upon to make the distinction between the acts of “position” and “place”. Rendell analyzes bell hooks’ theory of the margin and center, in which the margin is seen as an expression of emancipation: “a site of resistance not domination, of both radical possibility and oppression”. Choosing to be positioned in the margin, instead of being placed, is a radical and fundamental step to the construction of feminist spatial theory and the feminine identity.

It remains a topic for debate whether a framework can be pin-pointed to unequivocally describe the relations between space and gender. I hereby argue this is hardly realistic since the concept of gender is a form of social, historical and cultural representation which is inherently objective. The relations women experience between gender and space vary as a result of many factors including knowledge, experience and environment. Existing relational frameworks are often biased due to the patriarchal and capitalist ideologies they’re constructed upon. They designate the exclusion of women from certain spaces, strategically marginalize women and contribute to the erasure of feminist identity and values. Rendell’s writing provides an array of the different attempts made by women at resisting these discriminatory gender-spatial boundaries in the material and metaphorical sense, working towards the ultimate goal of setting a true feminist narrative for themselves.