As the transition continued from public to more private spaces, one would circulate into the dining or library spaces. These rooms were associated with the masculinity of the home, with the use of wood, leather, and dark shades. These spaces would be used for their intended functions such as eating and studying respectively, but secondarily for men to discuss “complex” topics, where women would then withdraw to the “drawing” room to engage in “smaller affairs” (Kinchen, 18). Ironically, if design errors were found within these masculine spaces, such as the lack of symmetry in the dining room, this would reflect negatively on the decorator of the home and her “intellectual capacity” (Kinchen, 20). Nowhere in the home would men be subjected to this objectification or level of scrutiny of their capabilities. In this way, Kinchen argues that women were woven into the interiors of these spaces as objects themselves, metaphorically and literally as the decor would often be expected to compliment their physical complexions. In the later 1880s and onward, more progressive movements were seen in interiors by toning down the decorative iconography and blending the boundaries of gender through reductive aesthetics, as seen in examples by Margaret Macdonald and Charles Mackintosh (Kinchen, 25). Interiors since then have gone through many transformations, yet the gendered origins of this spatial programming can still be seen in today’s contemporary floorplans. This reading allows the audience to recognize the connection between the floorplan hierarchy and the benefits of the patriarchy. If we are to design feminist interiors in the future, will this eliminate the hierarchical floorplan and association with gendered iconography altogether?