There are two kinds of space: I will call them 'female' space and 'male' space. 'Female' space tends to focus on the private, domestic, familiar realm. It is the communal, collaborative, and often modest space that surrounds us but does not demand attention. We have all experienced 'female' space, but it remains trapped in our childhood memories or the domestic coordinates of everyday life. 'Male' space, on the other hand, tends to define the public arena and its institutions of power, as expressed through architecture. The connection between power and building has been brought to the fore by Michel Foucault, who analyzed the unique uses of built space in establishing and maintaining the 'technologies of power.' Identified with the governing individuals and institutions, this, of course, is 'male' space (although he did not call it that) While 'female' space remains trapped in memory, 'male' space resides in the public domain. It is this public domain that we study and analyze most in architecture. It is the design of hierarchy, discipline, and domination that we transmit to our students in architecture schools. Can we go beyond this hierarchical understanding of space? Can we challenge the authority of power? Can we create space where domination does not exist? Our conception of space is conditioned by our upbringing and education. Although men and women are taught to perceive space differently, what is unique about early perception is the complementarity of vision: men and women learn from early on that there is always another side to their vision. According to Ivan Illich, our gendered conception of the world is expressed in vernacular speech, the language we pick up at home. Vernacular speech, however, is lost when we begin formal education, to be replaced by a taught mother tongue. Shifting the focus to architecture, I would argue that architectural education similarly suppresses our gendered visions of space and their dynamic coexistence, replacing them with a taught visual language. In this process, I contend, the conception of 'male' space takes over, replacing both 'male' and 'female' spatial languages. Any semblance of balance and complementarity is lost. Both men and women in architecture schools are taught to use the same spatial language of domination, hierarchy and power. This is a critical loss for everybody. Once the dialogue is suppressed, both men and women are robbed of the other point of view, having lost half of their spatial vocabulary. Although I have used the terms 'male' and 'female' to describe qualities of space, I do not mean to imply that only men create 'male' spaces and only women create 'female' spaces. Especially as architects, we all need to recall and create both private and public spaces. Reclaiming our ability to remember, describe, and define 'female' space will eventually lead us to the creation of space where domination does not exist. Michel Foucault considered space 'fundamental in any form of communal life' but also 'fundamental in any exercise of power.' He focused most of his work on the latter aspect of space. This paper attempts to establish a vocabulary for studying communal space that goes beyond the exercise of power.