No other profession can make the proverbial male measuring contest more visual and dramatic than architec-ture. Whether it is about being the tallest, most lavish, most modemist, most minimal- ist, most post-modernist, or most deconstructed, too many, but not all, of history’s celebrated ar- chitects come across like a bunch of juve-nile boys standing on a stream bank trying to project their urine further than the next. Even with noble ambi-tions, their narcissistic “fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love,” have often put them out of touch with the plight of their fellow human beings. I will offer a simple and very unoriginal solution to this problem; hire more female architects. As of 2005, nearly 80% of US architects were male. That dominance seems to be waning, as 90% of architects over 55 were male, while fewer than 70% under 35 were male.*2+ How-ever, the economic downturn might have slightly reversed that trend. At least that is the case in Britain where the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) found a 7% decrease of female representation in architecture firms between January 2009 and December 2011 (28% to 21%). This imbalance can be worrisome for many reasons, but I will focus on the possibility that it hinders the profession’s ability to be relevant to the general public’s needs. Studies from psycholo- gy and neuroscience find that women, on average, tend to be more empathetic, sympathetic and less prone to narcissistic traits than their male counter parts. They are less likely to get caught up in struggles over dominance and ego that lead to visions of grandiosity. For these reasons, Ste- ven Pinker in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature argues that the world would be a much more peaceful place if more women were in charge. 

Piggy backing on this idea, I argue that ar- chitecture would be far a more relevant and justifiable enterprise if there were more female archi- tects. Beyond making the profession more compassionate, a greater number of female architects would be a stalwart force against pernicious ideologies that dismiss com-mon concerns for the idealized tomorrow. Before you paint me as some self-hating male and fill my in-box with endless examples of celebrated compassionate and humble male architects, let me reassure you that! do not see gender differences as some kind of men are from Mars and women are from Venus cliché. No individual should be judged by her/his gender when being considered for a position. What matters is the skill set that a particular individual brings to the table, including empathetic and sympathetic skills. Traits possessed by the two sexes overlap considerably, so that many men are much more empathetic and sympathetic than many women. Hiring based on gender alone, with the desired goal of making your firm more in touch with humanity, is asinine. You might pass up a far more qualified individual just because he is male. In reality, I am not arguing directly for more female architects, but for the profession to place a higher value on empathetic and sympa- thetic skills. 

The resulting effect would naturally be a more gender-balanced profession. That is why the current lack of gender diversity in the architecture profession concerns me. Like other male dominated professions, architecture leaves itself susceptible to undesirable narcissistic traits that can creep in and take over the profession’s culture. Even if the base rates for empathy and sympathy were equal among women and men, it is hard to believe that firms are hiring the best of the best with the current gender ratio. The base rates aren’t the same so this gender biased profession is most likely ill equipped to understand and address people’s needs. Thankfully, many