Constructing Masculinity in the Building Trades: ‘Most Jobs in the Construction Industry Can Be Done by Women’

Abstract

Construction is one of the most gender‐segregated sectors of the UK economy; men constitute over 99 per cent of the employees in the building trades. This article focuses on the role of discourse in reflecting and reproducing the absence of women in the construction trades. A small excerpt from an industry report is described, interpreted and explained using critical discourse analysis. The analysis takes as its starting point one phrase, ‘most jobs in the construction industry can be done by women’ and places it in its structural, institutional and historic context, showing its dependence on presuppositions about women's abilities, and the ideological basis of those assumptions. Male construction workers' masculine identity is defined in relation to their ‘tough’ job. The culture of taking safety risks, and working long hours in primitive working conditions suits some employers very well. The report's assertion that women can do ‘most jobs’ in construction appears to challenge the dominant ideology but it actually reproduces it, helping to maintain gender segregation. Thus it contributes in a small way to sustaining existing power relations by containing potentially transformative movements.

Horseplay, care and hands on hard work: gendered strategies of a project manager on a construction site

“…This only serves to reinforce the types of attitudes Laura highlights in her interview (women=less able) and thus maintains the gender binary. The efforts may be well intended but reproduce the dominant ideology that construction work is men's work (Ness, 2012).…”

“…Despite decades long legislative measures, equal opportunities policy and initiatives, and attempts to change the culture of the industry, little improvement in women's participation in construction work has been achieved (Paap, 2006;Ness, 2012;Chan 2013). Certainly, many special campaigns and efforts to recruit more women into construction endorse the gender binary and hence hinder the achievement of a balanced view of management (and work more generally) in construction.…”

Danger zone: Men, masculinity and occupational health and safety in high risk occupations

“…Second, there is evidence to suggest that gender (defined as the social and cultural processes by which men and women learn, adapt, negotiate and express attitudes and behaviours assigned to them based on their sex) (Johnson et al, 2007) and gender identities (defined in relation to how individuals perceive themselves on a spectrum of masculinity and femininity) (Johnson et al, 2007) can influence health and help-seeking behaviours (Ness, 2012;Verdonk et al, 2010). In general, men have demonstrated that they are more likely than women to engage in risky activities, such as smoking, alcohol overuse and unsafe sexual practices (Dolan, 2011;Creighton and Oliffe, 2010).…”

Gender in the UK architectural profession: (re)producing and challenging hegemonic masculinity

“…This article examines gendered working practices within the UK architectural profession where women remain significantly under-represented, a situation which has worsened in recent years (Fulcher, 2010). Architects work in the construction industry, a sector which exhibits a highly masculine working environment where women (Ness, 2012, Watts, 2007 and marginalised men (Denisson, 2010) experience difficulties participating fully in the labour market. Despite a body of literature identifying the difficulties faced by women architects (Caven, 2005;Fowler andWilson, 2004, deGraft Johnson et al, 2005), male architects remain unexamined.…”