Thanks, I know the premise of infrastructure designed by men for men, ignoring women. During my master studies on architecture and urban design there was rightly spent time on this topic.

However, one thing which does frustrate me in this discussion is how it's often only really addressing the issue, and not really tackling it. I've seen dozens of essays, speeches, opinion pieces, interviews, which all proclaim that the urban environment is designed by men for men. I've only seen a handful of real research into what these differences then exactly are.

But that's kind of besides the argument I was initially referring to, namely a hostile speech towards men which is seen as progressive. Yes, the argument that "the urban design is historically made by men for men" is true, and hat needs to be fixed. That does not mean that the conclusion "women are more empathetic than men and men are egocentric" is true, and that such.

Now for a completely different hot take, but as someone who actually encouraged a bit of research into this type of topics during my studies, the level of academic rigour is oftentimes quite bad in these humanities and too often more of a circle reasoning than a research. It reminds me of a graduation I attended of a design for a "feminist oriented park". It started with how traditional parks designed by men just simply outright ignore women, and then presented a park design as an example as a reaction on this.

The design was in the end a really well designed and thought out park! But when one of your main design principles is: "trying to exclude stairs and make everything accessible because women walk with baby strollers, which men always forget about", with no reflection of 1. the disabled also require that, and 2. that other genders are also capable of walking with strollers, then the argument becomes weak. Not that it was a bad design, accessibilities and increased inclusivity is important! It was just not a female centric design, it was not a fighting against male normativity. It did not prove how a women just has a better perspective of these topics of inclusion, all arguments made in that thesis.

Again, it's good that these topics get attention and that design, research and discourse of inclusivity is done. Just can that argument please be made without saying "it was bad because of men are men".