WoW Blog

During WW2, the Great Western Railway made great propaganda value when it published shots of women doing railway track maintenance. Armed with oil pots and brushes, the women were posed doing the fundamental task of lubricating points. The photos were clearly aimed at attracting women into the positions probably vacated by men who had left to contribute to the various offensive operations going on at that time. And who was the Lookout looking after them? A wisened and elderly man, who clearly had other things on his mind than the gender of those he was seeking to protect from approaching trains.

The Daily Telegraph had a similar story some years ago, with a photo of women walking railway track with their spanners casually slung over their shoulders and doing what has been considered until relatively recently, "men's work" (whatever that means).

Both the above pictures are copyright and the personal scrapbook copies to hand cannot be published here lawfully.

In the UK, employment opportunities are open equally to both genders under employment legislation apart from coal mining, not that there's much of that going on here these days. It's the prejudicial preferences of the individuals that stand in the way of the genders in the roles they carry out - in theory.

Women have been programmed from the early years by their parents and society as a whole that certain jobs were not suitable or proper. Jobs like construction were for men only because they had the strength and intellect to perform. It was the macho image that men had. If a woman tried to get into an all mens world, that would threaten the macho image. Slowly over the years, this has changed. Women still don't enter the construction trades because they were brought up to play with dolls, not erector sets. Women have discovered that some of these jobs are fulfilling, challenging and many times just plain fun. From my point of view, I would rather work in construction with dirty hands than to work in an office.

Sharkles

Women and Men are two gender factions of humanity. It is a fact that women by nature are responsible, do works sincerely, don't drink, smoke much and are very fond of doing works and are attached to disciplined values compared to men.. They are seasoned to work at domestic/academic/industrial areas with a sort of concern and accomplish things with commitment. Mainly they are least trouble makers. No doubt women hood is the very motivational factor for grooming, patience,care, responsibility and boldness in all social relations family. friendship and organizations. In Indian culture, women are equated with sakthi the goddess for energy/ power.

Coming to work force in the Indian/ many developing countries female workers are being preferred for the main reasons of regularity, reliability and mainly they make less troubles. Even in politics, employments and all priority activities women are encouraged. As home makers women-hood is given mostly day time works, the shift part being managed by men. In administrative aspects also women are more honest and strict leaders compared to men with weakness aspects.

Well, every thing works in support and favour of women. But it is felt that given denials of choice for men's community the deliberations can possibly de motivate men and create complexions for being born as a male. That feelings can be potential antagonizing factor for men's role. It calls for a broader considerations on equality of treatment. After all where else man can go. Encouragement of one gender is not at the cost of neglect ion of other and a society needs both in good spirits.

I don't understand, are there a lot of women in the UK dying to work construction? Is the brick-laying industry crying out for some diversity? If there is some kind of system-wide barrier to women entering this workplace, then OK, I can understand some sort of program to get them in the door. I worked in construction for a summer, it was a great motivator to finish college.

As long as they aren't expecting a white-collar working environment, these six gals will be fine without a "boot camp". They should probably be prepared for some inappropriate comments and be ready to fire back with some inappropriate comments of their own, as all people in this environment need to be ready to do.

<....are there a lot of women in the UK dying to work construction?....>

No.

<...Is the brick-laying industry crying out for some diversity? ....>

No.

<...If there is some kind of system-wide barrier to women entering this workplace...>

No.

Oh, they get along very well; one time I found a female tire repairman (very pro-active) that was blonde, blue eyed and gorgeous, a petit little princess; but then, one of her partners wanted to pick on her; WOW I saw how tough she was, and about dirty words, she seemed to be spitting fire!!

Of course it all was a joke (or maybe a test?), recently I've seen them involved in all roles in our society, from cops to criminals from doctors to slaughters, machinists, teachers, prostitution clients (oh yes, they pay), engineers, body shop workers, and an endless etc.

In my country, mainly as mean of getting votes it has become very common that politicians and public figures say (when on the air): "this and that, bla, bla, bla for Mexicanos and Mexicanas". But even females realize that those rights they offer as "unprecedented equality" are just the same good old rights stated in our constitution. Exept that they're trying to sell them twice to us. I've heard at least 3 ladies complainting about this.

Oh well, if they insist in that kind of publicity, it only means that some ladies get baited.

Yahlasit

Unfair discrimination for any human condition where that person has no choice (race, gender, etc.) is always wrong. Hiring anyone but the best qualified for a job is foolish. Social engineered legislation to try to change hearts and minds usually has the reverse effect.

In my business (light electrical manufacturing) women by nature are usually better qualified and enjoy more of the tasks of precision assembly, but we do not discriminate. At about 25 % male employees, we have a higher rate than any other similar manufacturing company that I have known or worked for in the last 40 years. I would fear the reaction if we instituted a "male only" hiring program for any duration.

This kind of equal but separate policy practiced generally in places like the UK and US for women does seem to fly in the face of the policies against racial/ethnic discrimination that call for incorporation and mixing. While, I believe this is acceptable for a business to practice, probably illegal for a government subsidized program. I guess the litmus test is could you have a similar government subsidize program for white males only, if not it is discriminatory. They can try to promote female enrollment but not limit or impede male enrollment without discrimination, though I must admit most female oriented programs specifically try to limit male involvement and probably should be sued.

Creating a specific women's only program would usually not be a good idea but in this case I think that it is justified. The construction industry in the UK is especially unbalanced, with only 1.3% of the workforce in question being female. In cases where there is an underrepresented group, and especially in this case because they are so underrepresented, there are barriers to entry both internal and external.

One big barrier is people's perception of the construction industry. The BBC article brought it up, but I know many people, when asked to think of an image that defines construction, would conjure up an image of muscled men making cat-calls and objectifying women as they walk past. Who would want to work in that environment? The article also mentions how the company warned the men to "be kind" to the incoming women. If even the company feels that it has to specifically warn its workers not to objectify women, then again that is an environment that most people would not want to work in. This also comes into play with respect to the women's only recruitment and training program. If you are the only woman on the construction site maybe you would feel like you don't belong, maybe you would feel like you shouldn't even try to enter the construction industry because you wouldn't fit in. If you were to train on-site or at a mixed gender training program (ie 99% male) then you might feel like you can't mess up or ask questions or learn because then that would have confirmed the prejudiced thought that you can't do it because you're a woman. However, by having this all womens program, you instead have an environment that is more forgiving and open. You would probably be more likey to effectively learn the skills and when you do get on the job, you have the know-how to prove people's negative perceptions wrong. The article mentions how "The men were all protective and a bit patronizing, which was a bit annoying," which is an example of what I mentioned earlier where people would come in with preconceptions that women can't handle the job. Once the women show that they can in fact do the job, then their co-workers will respect that and in the future hopefully it will lessen their prejudices. And by having more women in the field, that also serves to lessen prejudice because then women have a presence and people are less likely to think that they can't do it because there are women actually doing it.

Relating to the fact that Sharkles brought up about not doing them any favors, this is exactly the reason we need program like this. The people that think the women only got in because they're women are mostly prejudiced anyway. They think that women can't handle it and the only possible explaination is that they unfairly got in, which is just not true. So by doing nothing, you are only perpetuating the prejudice. If male construction workers think females can't handle the work then if no or few females actually do get construction jobs that will either validate their preconception or they can rationalize it away by saying "oh, that particular woman was extraordinary, but normal women can't do that" or by saying that they only got in due to their gender. However, if many females enter the workforce because of programs like this then that reaches more people and provides them with more examples that goes against their preconception, making it harder to rationalize their prejudice. The point of programs like these is not to make those first 6 women accepted in the construction industry. It is to make it so that 10, 20 or more years into the future those women will be accepted. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1959 and 1994 the percentage of women in the workforce rose from 35% to 55%. Affirmative action for women did not start until the late 60's (it was still only at 40.7 by 1969) and was enacted the most during the 70s, where it rose from 40.8 in 1970 to 47.7 in 1980 which is 1.5 times the growth of the previous decade. Even though it was less enforced during the 80s, it still grew by a similar amount because momentum had been created. So when you say you're not doing them any favors remember that is not the point, the point is to slowly erase the ingrained prejudices of society by presenting something that is in opposition to that.

In comment to Jaxy's statement that they are getting "special privileges." Remember that they are not getting any special privileges, these programs are designed to even the playing field so that they get equal privileges to a male looking to get a construction job. Even if it is not as overt as it used to be, people are still quite sexist (and racist for that matter) and a woman looking to enter the construction industry faces more hurdles than a male due solely to her gender and not because of any factor that would actually affect her performance. And as I mentioned before, relying on only those women who can handle constant sexism will only perpetuate the current state of affairs. The only way to remove people's prejudices is to expose them to things that are in direct opposition to it, especially personal ones (ie seeing a woman working a construction job effectively). And you can't just do this on a small scale by relying on women to enter this hostile industry, because that doesn't reach enough people to have an effect and because the less examples you are exposed to, the easier it is to rationalize prejudice.

In response to U NO WHO's statements, remember that "hiring the best qualified" when talking about something where there is an underrepresented population ofen means "hiring the best qualified from the majority population". If a manager sees two applications of equal merit (ie they are both "the best qualified") they are more likely to hire the one from the majority population and there have been studies done about this. For example, applications with black sounding names are far less likely to get a callback than applications with white sounding names even when they are equally qualified [1]. Racism and sexism are very similar concepts and you have to remember that not everyone is on a level playing field when trying to get jobs. Minorities and women often have to jump many hurdles to get to the same place a white male would, for example.

I'm not saying we should have equal representation in all industries because naturally things are not always going to have equal representation but in this case there is about 2% representation of women in construction. That kind of distribution is not natural and makes it harder for women to get jobs in the construction industry. And I am not arguing for a separate but equal policy, in fact in almost all instances such an all womens program would probably be less productive than say a mixed gender training program. However, as I stated, because there is such a discrepancy between the amount of males to the amount of females and due to the nature of the work (ie perception that it is a male industry, feelings that women might feel objectified) I feel (and this is certainly open to debate) that would discourage women to apply (which seems to be the case as that is pretty much how it is now and there is such a low incidence of women). Even with this program 6.5 percent of the applicants (39 out of 600) were women which is already a better ratio. And I'm certainly against unqualified token hires, I would hope that this program does not allow unqualified individuals to get a job merely because they are women because that is counter-productive to everyone. And again I am not saying that the racial or gender makeup must match the demographics of the area, but that for groups that have been historically discriminated against, they face extra hurdles to entry in some areas and that is something I feel should be corrected.

And you are correct in that women are a majority which makes the fact that they are an extreme minority in construction even more of an issue. However women have been historically and still are discriminated against which is an issue that also faces minorities so due to that and the fact that in this specific industry they are a minority I feel the comparison is apt.

A final point, there are several differences between this case and the low precence of white males in basketball and football. First of all the percentages are much different, with black males making up about 80% and 70% of the NBA and NFL, respectively (as far as I could tell although these numbers may not be up to date). That is much different than the more than 98% of males in the construction industry. Another difference is that white males have not been historically discriminated against, in fact both basketball and football used to discriminate against black players and it is only in recent times that these sports became black dominated. If you could find evidence that white players have a much harder time than black players entering those professions today then please link me to it because I would find that quite interesting and if that is the case then something should be done to fix it. By the same token, I would be suprised to learn that white males have a hard time entering any type of African-American studies program because they are white. And with respect to the fashion industry, that in fact is a problem because male models are often paid less than female models. I'm not sure what you mean by office work though.

80% of the industry is represented by 10% of the population that is a probably an even greater misrepresentation of society when compared to 98% of an industry represented by 49.9% of the population. I work in the industry and have met a number of women who work in construction, additionally i know women in other industries and why women prefer other industries. It is the physical labor portion of the work that tends to drive them away, even the ones working in the industry tend to quit relatively soon because the physical labor is extremely hard, it is continuous day in and day out, and they have schedules and deadlines for production that must be met to make money (so they can not work slower or it shows on the bottom line). I am dating a woman who is an electrician, and she is a good example of how much harder it is to be a woman sometimes and do all that heavy lifting or wire and such. She has already had to be hospitalized for tearing a tendon loose. Electricians work is relatively light work when compared to other construction fields. Also, there are just some things the vast majority of women would rather avoid doing, such as digging holes all day long for a living, when they could just get married and work part time in an office. while many feminist don't like to discuss this dirty little secret, some of the discrepancies come from the preference of many women to let their husbands earrn most of the income laboring, while they complement the household income with earning from answering a telephone part time. It is extremely rare for men to have this equal opportunity to get married and drop out of the competitive labor forces. Thus many men without particular specialized skills are more competitive and willing to do the dirty hard work to earn a living. Programs that favor one minority to the exclusion of all others is illegal in the US. You can favor a minority group, but you can not exclude opportunities to others in employment or education on the basis or race, ethnicity or sex. Also, under the current competitive market the DBE advantages are getting challenged to the point that many agencies' counsel are advising to exclude minority advantage points in selection for jobs, even while retaining small business advantages.

Good point on the 80/10 vs 98/50 I forgot to take that into account. From your post about your personal experiences it seems I was mistaken in the main reasons why women are underrepresented in construction. Even though most of your info is coming from personal experience, do you happen to have any statistics pertaining to this (ie number of women who quit construction in their first year etc.)? I would be interested to see just how much of an effect certain things are having.

Relating to your second point, "the preference of women to let their husbands earn most of the income." First of all is the simple fact that men make more money than women do. As of 2007 women still only made 77.8% of what men do (so men make about 128% of what women do). Now there are fields where women make more than men, but since we're talking about jobs that could mostly support a family of at least 2 that limits the number of jobs. There is also the fact that this really doesn't happen very often (a woman merely supplementing their husbands income) an AFL-CIO study in 1997 showed that 64% of women earned half or more of their families income. That number has probably gotten higher over the last 10 years as pay differences have gotten smaller. Also, there is the fact that just because a woman is not earning at least half of the income does not mean she is merely supplementing his income. Since more than half of women earn at least half of the family income I'm not seeing how women have a preference towards that whereas men don't and don't even have the opportunity.

About the US law, what specific law are you referring to? It seems to me based on what you wrote that it is saying you can't deny someone a job or a place in an educational institution because of race, ethnicity, gender, etc. If that is the case then I am aware of that law.

As for the point about the DBE, could you please expand on that? Who is challenging the advantages? And are these challenges only related to the current global recession or are they rooted somewhere else?

However, in the work field for the same level or work given the same degree of experience, particularly in engineeing, you tend to see a similarity in earnings. Disparity occurs when the women change their career pursuits, limiting schedule and travel to stay at home, taking down time in their careers for family, etc..

All the engineering and construction industry tend to pay the same at certain levels for a full time employee, i.e. a EIT entry or PE associate I. Men seem more willing to do the dirty work for longer hours on more flexible schedule with travel to less then amenable environments. In one corporation I previously worked at they were haveing a hard time getting female admin assts (they did not have enough males to pull them all over there) to travel to work in Uzbekistan or Iraq even with 100% pay bonus offers and non-exempt overtime. However, they had no problem getting nearly 100% male engineers to travel at their existing exempt professional pay and only straight time over 40 hours just because they could work continuously 60 hour weeks. I remember working with one female geologist who would not work outside when it got over 100 degrees, she flat refused, and another who would go do the work slowly but constantly complained about all the H&SP violations to doing such work. These kind of things do not bode well. I think it would be good to see the union statistics for females that start in the industry and how they decline over the years of employment. You would likely be surprised how many women quit very rapidly even after starting a career in the construction industry, or move to less demanding careers around the fringe of the industry like Health and Safety or Marketing.

Hello RCE:

Any time quotas are set there are inevitable negative consequences. I firmly believe that anyone who is qualified to do a job should have an equal opportunity to obtain that position.

There lies the rub, and I have seen this first hand on several occasions. In the early 70s when affirmative action began being enforced, it became almost impossible for the white male to obtain a job as a police officer.

The long-held physical standards of size and strength were held as discriminatory against minorities and women. While there is no doubt that a smaller man or a woman may be quite capable of defending themselves, one reason for soliciting six-foot 2 inch knuckle draggers for police officers was to present an authority of presence and prevent a situation from escalating to where lethal force might be necessary.

So in this case the standard was lowered, and the chances of having to employ lethal force were raised in the name of equality.

In another instance I was a general foreman on a large commercial project, and needed some cheap tote and fetch labor. At the time of year I called the hall for an apprentice at the minimum I should've received an apprentice with at least one year's experience.

Instead the apprenticeship program had been forced to take in about 25 female apprentices at the end of the year.

The end result was I got a 90 pound female apprentice with no knowledge of the nomenclature and the materials that we were working with. Much of the material that I was hiring this apprentice to move around weighed approximately half of her body weight. Needless to say she was physically unqualified for the position I had intended to fill.

Fortunately the job was large enough that I had other simple tasks for her to do. She worked out quite well as she had a knack for handling those pesky public-relations meetings, freeing me up to utilize my time more efficiently.

While I have absolutely no objection then or now to women working in construction, I do not believe that it is an unreasonable expectation that the person be able to do the job that you are hiring them for.

Had I been interviewing for this position instead of doing a call out, I would not have hired her. On the other hand had I needed cheap labor to pull control wire through a T-bar ceiling all else being equal I would have thought her size and build to be a valuable asset, gender would not be and should not be part of the equation, only the capability of doing the job at hand. 250 pound knuckle draggers such as myself tend to damage T-bar occasionally.

As you pointed out there are statistical differences to physical capabilities, as well as other attributes between races and genders. Statistical difference does not imply that you will not find very good white basketball players, or women that are quite capable engineers or physically capable of doing heavier labor.

In recent years some of the absurdity of setting quotas and equal opportunity has surfaced in legal cases. In a recent case that attracted considerable publicity a man filed a discrimination suit because he was not considered for a server position at Hooters.

The moral of the story is that even well-meaning legislation can be abused. In the case of my apprentice the shop I was working for was large enough that we could assign her to work that she was suited for. We ended up with a good conscientious employee that was both reliable and motivated.

This would not be the case had the company been smaller and needed a more physically capable worker.

So my personal opinion, quotas and incentives are as ill-conceived as a business owner turning down a qualified employee because of race or gender. The only difference is in the latter the employer is hurting their own business, in the former they are being damaged by ill-conceived legislation.

However, you give a good example of where someone who may not have been highly qualified under you basic hiring standards turned out to be a quality worked when you discovered a role for her. So in a few cases there are examples of positive consequences that would not normally be considered at the on set of the hiring process.

I noticed you mentioned in one of your other posts the turnover rate for women in construction. The events I was mentioning were from almost 20 years ago, at that time I believe there were only two female journeymen in the sheet-metal union in the Southern California area, that is until the federal government stepped and mandated that they bring in a percentage of female apprentices.

Several times before female apprentices had entered the program, only to drop out in the first year. I haven't been involved with the union since that job, so im not sure what the current numbers are as to the dropout rate for women in the sheet-metal industry, but I'm sure it remains a problem.

As you said in this particular instance I ended up with a more mature 30 year old apprentice that I could turn responsibilities over to that you would never turnover to a 19-year-old kid, however I still must question the wisdom of mandating ratios as to gender of employees in the construction field.

Yeah, I think it probably would be a bit tougher to recruit women to the sheet metal industry. It isn't particularly clean, you end up with cuts and bruises even with protective equipment, spend years to advance slowly through the industry, and there are no particular social gains (such as sponsorships and advertising when you retire at 25). That kind of working condition severely limits the work force of women that you can draw from that would be willing to work for that wage for any long period of their career.

I disagree. The construction industry is just like that, at least in the US. It is full of muscled men making cat-calls and objectifying women. They also objectify everyone else, there is little to no chance that would be changed by giving women an economic incentive to join the construction industry, when the majority of women (and men) have no interest in working construction. I imagine if women wanted to work in construction, they would. Same with engineering, women that want to be engineers can be engineers.

Maybe the problem lies entirely within the work environment then. The recruiter has to consider three things when hiring someone:

1. Can the person do the job?
2. Will the person do the job?
3. Will the person fit the organisation?

If the gender problem grates the third criterion then maybe the work environment itself needs addressing so as to make the fit more attractive?

you deserve a medal for writing that...i wish more people shared the same opinion. Im a female electrician and have just come off the tools to do a secondment as a technical officer to manage electrical contractors. the move 'up' was not welcomed by many of my male collegues( apparently i had gone to the dark side) they went from sayin 'you've got your work cut out for you' to 'if your having problems then your not effectively doing the job properly'. this was 7 weeks into the secondment and baring in mind there were no precedures in place when i started so i had a lot of 'mess' to sort out. I love the job i hope to get it when i apply, i have a fire in my stomach and i want to prove to everybody and myself that i can make a difference but it is totally soul destroying when you are undermind, your decisions constantly checked for validity and people (generally men) being obstructive by not sharing infomation. This makes it very difficult to work as a team, and therefore being accepted.

Gender bias is gender bias, whether positive or negative, and the solution to negative bias of any source, gender, race, religion, or sexual preference is to end the bias, not replace it with another type of bias.