Abstract

Geographers have never had much to say about women. A glance along the shelves of any library or bookshop, at lists of courses on offer in schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities, or at the contents lists of new books immediately reveals that only half the human race seems to be important: man and environment, man’s role in the developing world, the city as the home of man … A more charitable interpretation of this emphasis is that the term ‘man’ is used to include women. This may be so, but in itself it implies that gender differences are not significant, that it is unimportant for geography teachers and students to distinguish and differentiate between women’s and men’s beliefs, behaviour and activities in space. It is remarkable how ‘sexless’ geographical analysis is. In studies of retailing, migration, residential choice and journey-to-work patterns, for example, there has seldom been an explicit recognition of the gender of the individuals concerned, or any acknowledgement that women and men may have different interests and behaviour patterns. Differences are concealed beneath the general concern for establishing a spatial geometry and search for spatial patterns and regularities.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.