This idea is not new: I take it for myself.
Let us remind ourselves of the main stakes of a Smart City: from one city to another, they are never the same because the “Smart City” is only an additional evolution of a city, allowed by the emergence of new technologies developed around data.
Among the most frequent objectives of Smart Cities are the improvement of the living environment, the attractiveness of the economy, the development of local dynamism, the “humanization” of space and services, the improvement of the impact on the environment, the development of services to citizens and businesses.
These objectives, which are common to almost all Smart Cities projects, are either openness or integration objectives.
The corpus of attributes usually given to women, but not reserved for them (is it necessary to refer to Jung in a blog on energy and Smart Cities?), echoes the notions of openness and integration.
Openness is often a prerequisite for integration. It presupposes a form of tolerance, acceptance, and even willingness to forge new ties. It also implies a desire for expansion and growth.
Integration can be the development of attachment or belonging to a community or ecosystem or the receptivity of such environments.
In Smart Cities, the need for integration is omnipresent: that of citizens and companies in the city, of men in the company and, consequently, of technologies between them, of services towards others.
I am sure that an over-feminization of teams leading cities and Smart Cities projects would lead us to more human and more open cities. Technology would certainly have a fairer, less demonstrative place.
When will this movement, already visible in the Scandinavian countries, gain countries more in the south?