Male‐dominated workplaces and the power of masculine privilege: A comparison of the Australian political and construction sectors

Abstract

reproduce particular patterns of status and domination. Its second intervention is to reveal the gender effects of rules, including the formal and informal rules around the access to political power and to resources, on political and policy outcomes, and on organisational stasis and change (Chappell & Waylen, 2013;Lowndes, 2019). This article draws greater attention to how privilege operates through formal and informal 'rules in use', and the effects these rules have for the political appointment and the employment lifecycle of men and women across the stages of recruitment, retention and promotion.Our article is organised into five sections. Drawing on feminist institutionalism and gender theory, the article begins by outlining how gender and the rules intersect to produce and maintain masculine privilege. The second section details the problem of male dominance in two work spheres: the Australian construction sector and Australian parliament. Section three provides an overview of the methodology applied in each comparative case. The fourth section is the discussion that compares the operation of masculine privilege across the work spheres before the article's conclusion, the fifth section that draws out key lessons from the study. Gender, privilege and the rulesIn recent years, the FI literature has been concerned to differentiate between types of gendered rules and their effects. Institutions are often described as 'the rules of the game' that operate within workplaces and are known, followed and enforced (North, 1990, p. 3).They are made up of formal and informal institutions that together form the 'rules in use' (Ostrom, 1986): the 'distinct ensemble' of rules that one learns on the ground (Lowndes et al., 2006, p. 545). Formal institutions are rules and practices that are consciously designed

Measurement invariance and psychometric properties of a German-language Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory among cisgender sexual minority and heterosexually identified women and men.

“…Women might also adhere to norms and standards described by masculinity ideologies (García-Sánchez et al, 2018; Zamarripa et al, 2003). For instance, women might display behaviors that are defined in part by masculinity ideologies (e.g., being results-oriented, speaking assertively, expressing confidence in oneself, showing determination), especially in male-dominated workplaces (Galea & Chappell, 2022) and when taking leadership positions (Mohan et al, 2022; Zinn & Hofmeister, 2022). Women who display certain behaviors associated with masculinity ideologies, even in workplaces where such behaviors are often expected and favored, face devaluation (Mohan et al, 2022; Zinn & Hofmeister, 2022), and are in conflict with femininity ideologies, that is, culturally defined standards and norms of how women are expected to be or behave (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Hamilton et al, 2019; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Vink et al, 2022).…”

Changing informal institutions via mimesis: Gender equality in marriage proposals

“…Hence, Feminist Institutionalism unveils how formal and informal rules are gendered while they also produce gendered effects (Galea & Chappell, 2021). For example, Feminist Institutionalism has been applied to understand how masculine privilege works through institutions to maintain gender inequality (Galea & Chappell, 2021). Mackay et al (2010) contend that changes in gender norms are potential changes in institutions.…”

“…New institutional theory is an umbrella term that bridges different disciplines and streams (Galea et al., 2015; Mackay et al., 2010), sharing two commonalities: the interest in informal institutions and the resilience of institutions (Mackay et al., 2010). Unlike formal institutions, which are definite and designed, informal institutions take the form of practices and narratives (Galea & Chappell, 2021).…”

“…The second communality is the understanding that “institutions are defined by the fact that they are resilient over time and produce stable and recurring patterns of behavior, which are then reinforced and amended by people as they go about their lives and work” (Galea et al., 2015, p. 376). Because of their embeddedness in patterns of behavior, informal institutions are particularly tenacious and resilient, as observed in relation to gender inequality (Galea & Chappell, 2021). Chappell and Waylen (2013) further stress that the gendered nature of institutions can be so engrained that it even escapes the attention of actors within them.…”

“…Born out of this critique, Feminist Institutionalism aims to overcome gender blindness in the study of institutions: “Gender, […] is also a feature of institutions and social structures, and a part of the symbolic realm of meaning‐making, within which individual actors are nested” (Mackay et al., 2010, p. 581). Hence, Feminist Institutionalism unveils how formal and informal rules are gendered while they also produce gendered effects (Galea & Chappell, 2021). For example, Feminist Institutionalism has been applied to understand how masculine privilege works through institutions to maintain gender inequality (Galea & Chappell, 2021).…”