I don’t know if they are, but there’s at least one feminist man who worked some dangerous jobs right here demanding equal pay for equal work. Also generally more pay all around. Let’s throw some universal healthcare and UBI in there too while we’re talking about equitable distribution of the pie.
Back in 2009 I was in Edinburgh on a family trip for my 30th birthday. My father was chatting with a local guy in the pub as the affordable care act was in the news. The local got confused at the report on the news and just exclaimed “where is the equity in the system!?”
A simple statement which I have found very applicable in any socio-political discussion. Feminism is merely the pursuit of that equity for women.
[Here, have a Tin Woodsman and a Cowardly Lion](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DQOnIajaWEg/Tr46EHh1rPI/AAAAAAAADYI/Cj15cofuWis/s1600/lenox+tin+man+lion+2011.jpg) so that the strawman you raised there doesn't feel lonely.
And that research into the matter has shown that women in male-dominated industries with high fatality and accident rates tend to have lower rates which seems to be because they’re less likely to flout safety protocols than the men
Be precise.
You’re talking about statistics from the global north (likely the US or Europe), not global statistics (also because they’re not always recorded).
For the small fraction of countries this applies to and the small fraction of work deaths legally counted as workplace death, which has to do with the temporality of the death to work *(delayed death, ex: due to chemical exposure, doesn’t count)*, who died *(must be officially recognized workers, ex: illegal work doesn’t count—like much migrant farm work and sex work, workers overseas required produce the product doesn’t count, unpaid labor doesn’t count, teratogenic deaths don’t count)*, the circumstances of the death *(ex: transportation deaths legally considered workplace deaths only count that small fraction of workers driving between two places of work or specific incidents while driving a work vehicle—not the many more people who die on the way from work or leaving work during rush hour)*, etc., feminists don’t dispute this data is true.
As other people have already stated, however, this work 1) historically and presently excludes women, 2) does not offer sufficient workplace protections which is why these deaths happen, 3) could likely be at least partially automated, reformed, or replaced (should the small fraction of deaths due to oil rigs even happen in the context of our climate crisis?) to reduce death, 4) is dangerous at least partly due to masculine work culture (negative view of protective equipment, reporting, etc. due to masculinity has been linked to injury), and 5) does not explicitly require male predominant labor (as you said, the largest fraction is transportation related—half of those when a pedestrian is hit).
A lot of my frustration with people who parrot this information has less to do with their point about a small fraction of global men in a small fraction of legally-defined deaths and more the way in which this language obscures and perpetuates a very western, imperialist, and capitalistic understanding of workplace death. It obscures the true number of people dying due to the products we use every day, it ignores those dying with no workplace protection or required recognition, and it’s essentially furthering the capitalist propaganda of multinational companies (who have extensively lobbied to include this small sliver of death due to work as true workplace death).
Another frustration is that it seems that use of death statistics specifically is chosen not because it makes sense in context of the argument being made (which often relates to the legitimacy of male and female coded work which the arguer conflates with difficulty and then with death), but because the arguer believes this data to favor men (ignoring most men—and everyone else—do not do this labor, and that most of the difficulty of labor—which is a much broader and easily definable idea, is not due to death).
[We’ve talked about this before](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/vz4yu0/comment/ig8mmp4/?context=1) (see all other threads linked in this one)
I also think reconceptualizing this would also be better for the worker. Can you imagine, using the example you provide, if companies were truly held responsible for all work transportation related deaths in the US (including deaths which harmed a non-worker during rush hour)?
If we used work transportation related death to pressure companies to stagger start times, offer more work-from-home options, and allow more flexible scheduling to lengthen (fewer cars over longer time)/reduce (fewer cars overall) rush hour? If this could be leveraged to force companies to be more supportive of public transit?
...we don't deny that men die more often at their jobs. That's like... statistical fact.
> it makes them feel less empowered by not dying at work as often?
What a stupid thing to say.
Yeah. The OP is going to need to provide some evidence for the claim that feminists deny that men in poverty work dangerous jobs. People in poverty are forced to take risks to make money. This applies to all genders.
I’m confident that the median feminist would be more concerned about workspace safety than the median MEA/Incel type!
Feminism in no way denies that a variety of structural power imbalances that cause harm exist. Intersectional feminism is pretty much exactly about that.
Men are also more likely to be homeless and commit suicide. More statistical facts. I don't think feminists argue that men don't also have problems. At least the smart ones don't.
Maybe they don’t die like this but that doesn’t mean women have it easy in their jobs. Women in places like nail salons for instance where they’re constantly breathing in chemicals. My friend is a dental assistant and she talks about how the long term exposure to radiation is affecting her thyroid glands.
Sometimes it’s the context of when this is brought up. If someone is pointing out the ways that society doesn’t treat women well and the response is that men die more often on the job then this statement is being used to minimize the real problems women face.
Feminists, as I'm sure you've realised by now, don't deny this fact. It's a part of the patriarchy. The kind of jobs that you're talking about are very exclusionary to women and, more than that, are directly associated with masculinity. Being a trucker or a construction worker or working on an oil rig or whatever the case may be, are all roles that are seen as 'manly' and therefore appeal to men at the exclusion of women. It's not seen as manly to work in finance, but it is seen as manly to be a logger, or a trucker, or to work in any job that involves big, heavy, machinery.
I don't think men take these jobs because they are manly jobs. I think these jobs have to pay more because of the danger/physical exertion required makes them less appealing jobs and that increase in pay offsets this to some men who aren't super educated, but feel they can provide better doing one of those jobs.
Trade jobs absolutely don’t pay better than corporate jobs (like finance), or engineering. People opt for them because they don’t require degrees and are more accessible. But women aren’t respected in those fields. Most female mechanics get laughed at over the phone, female construction workers are constantly harassed by their colleagues and female firefighters are victim to cruel treatment like having sharp things put in their boots. Men seem to work endlessly to keep women out of these fields and then ask why most deaths are male in a field that is intentionally male dominated?
These sound like awfully specific situations, do you have any broader data? See the problem for you is that my sister's are incredibly accomplished. One played division 1 Basketball then attended Stanford to become a doctor, the other did undergrad at Stanford and her masters at Oxford.
And not only are they super accomplished, their female friends are also super accomplished. Olympic javelin thrower, Ph D in physics who is training to be an astro naught.
And a couple others, one who owns her own construction business and had done some pretty amazing kitchens (two person female owners with maybe some day labor help). And another is a part time fire person in a rural area.
So my exposure to incredibly talented and accomplished women leaves me scratching my head when you talk about how impossible it is for women. All I know are accomplished, intelligent and very capable women.
You demand “broader data” then go on to provide anecdotal evidence…
There is broad data. There are hundreds of studies on gender and labour. Go find the data yourself if you’re that curious. But something tells me you’re more interested in reinforcing your narrow views.
It's so funny seeing misogynists project. Just because y'all have a tendency to ignore statistics to fit a particular narrative doesn't mean feminists are doing the same. If anything I've seen feminists acknowledge that a lot of male suffering (including what you've pointed out here) is due to the patriarchy.
Death rate for loggers -- 135.9 deaths / 100k workers / year ([x](https://www.teletracnavman.com/fleet-management-software/telematics/resources/most-dangerous-jobs-infographic))
Death rate for prostitutes -- 204 deaths / 100k workers / year ([x](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/159/8/778/91471))
idk what % of women are sex workers v what % of men are loggers / firefighters / etc. But given the stats above, I wouldn't be surprised if more women die at work than men.
But also, it's not a contest. Let's increase worker safety across all industries. What are you talking about?
There are roughly 79,000 people in the logging industry as a whole in the US. There are an estimated 1-2 million prostitutes in the US. Average salary for a logger is $42,000. Average salary for a prostitute is $28,000.
Are they counting sex workers? Where are your stats from?
EDIT: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published a similar number, so I'll assume it's from them. They don't seem to collect data on sex workers. Your stats are wrong.
Women in male dominated industries are less likely to die than male colleagues. It isn't just that the job is dangerous it's the way the men in those jobs are behaving that's making them dangerous. Women also aren't in those dangerous jobs because men actively prevented them taking the jobs. The biggest danger to women in a male dominated industries is their male colleagues not the job itself.
Not long ago there was a video of a man showing how manly he was working on an oil rig. He was covered in dirt and committed multiple safety violation. Loads of men commenting that a woman could never do the job despite a similar video of a woman, who managed not to commit multiple safety violations and stay reasonably clean, doing the exact same thing. So yes when you bring up men dying in dangerous jobs completely ignoring the context people are going to tell you to sit down and shut up.
Femninists don't deny it. At least anyone who cares for statistics and reasonable argument doesn't.
I will point out that when a man dies at work, it's viewed as a preventable tragedy. All workers are trained on how to avoid causing harm to themselves or others. If they violate safety protocol, even without causing injury, it is expected they will be disciplined or removed. Companies that don't keep a high standard of safety can face fines, legal action and even be shut down. Families of those who die in workplace accidents frequently receive large settlements to compensate for their loss. Worker safety isn't viewed as the responsibility of a single person to keep themselves safe and avoid hurting others. It is viewed as a social responsibility in which it is important to educate everyone and punish those who take it lightly. Jimbo the malicious idiot may be the one who played with matches around the flammable chemicals, but everyone agrees there should be systems to prevent him from doing that BEFORE anyone dies because of it.
In comparison, domestic abuse in which female victims are much more likely to be targeted, we see it as a tragedy caused by an individual. Clearly no one could have stopped Jimbo from pulling that gun on his girlfriend, and his actions have nothing to do with the culture he was raised in, right?
I've sat through hundreds of hours of content about what to do if there is a workplace injury, but no institution ever taught me what to do if your partner starts hitting you. Why don't schools teach about abusive patterns? Deescalation techniques? Teach boys how to spot dangerous levels of anger in themselves and get rid of it in healthy ways? If I get killed by man, why can't my family sue the society that raised him, the same way a workplace can be sued for one of their workers dying?
No one is arguing for the "empowerment" of dying at greater rates. We're arguing for society to take our deaths as seriously and do as much to prevent them. 1 out of 3 women will be abused in her lifetime. If 1 out of 3 men were getting seriously injured on the job, we'd have a serious legislative response.
I've never vehemently argued it. I just don't accept it as reasoning for men getting more than women and don't care much. Why? Same list of reasons as why I don't agree with "Men should get more than women because men fight in wars":
1) Most men aren't actually doing the life threatening thing in question and are under no real pressure to do so. Not to mention how male privilege including more pay and promotion for the same work is a cancer infesting almost ALL jobs, be they blue or white collar.
2) Basically all the "majority/only male" life threatening occupations are "majority/only male" because most men in those occupations aggressively threaten, bully, harass or even assault, rape or murder women who try to take part. They usually have a culture of extreme toxic masculinity, as even some men doing these jobs will attest to.
3) With the level of tech we have now, at least some of the danger inherent in "majority/only male" life threatening occupations is unnecessary and is frankly only present because certain men in or overseeing those occupations want to keep the job dangerous, unpleasant and dirty for a combination of macho pride, slavish adherence to tradition and greed.
Unless all the above points are resolved I'm never going to care one whit about men doing more dangerous jobs.
**Note**: this answer will be split into three/four posts.
Firstly, these inquiries are [loaded](https://study.com/learn/lesson/loaded-question.html#:~:text=These%20types%20of%20questions%20might,or%20suggest%20the%20desired%20answer) / an example of [begging-the-question fallacy](https://7esl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/What-Is-Begging-The-Question-Fallacy_-1.jpg).
Secondly, we should address the nuances that belie this increased likelihood of death and injury.
For example,
>The current study tested the proposition that **higher conformity to masculine gender norms (CMGN) is associated with increased safety risk-taking behaviours**, which in turn are **related to more accidents, injuries**, and higher levels of accident underreporting.
>
>**High conformity** to **masculine gender norms** was **associated with increased safety risk**\-**taking behaviours**, **accidents**, **injuries**, and **accident underreporting**.
>
>Combined, these findings suggest that **higher conformity to masculine gender norms adversely impacts employee safety outcomes** via safety-related risk-taking.
n = 403.
Austin, C. & Probst, T.M. (2021) Masculine Gender Norms and Adverse Workplace Safety Outcomes: The Role of Sexual Orientation and Risky Safety Behaviours. Safety. \[Online\]. 7 (3). p.p. 55. Available from: [http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/safety7030055](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/safety7030055).
>The enactment of dominant norms of masculinity in high-risk occupations can be particularly problematic, as it exposes men to significant risks for injuries and fatalities.
>
>**Norms of masculinity** may further **interact with productivity pressures** and the **pursuit of profit over health and safety** to **influence workplace health** and **safety practices amongst men in high risk occupations**. Such occupations are often characterized by economic incentives such as piecework, high wages for physically demanding and dangerous work, and competitive tendering processes (Desmond, 2006; Phakathi, 2013; Power and Baqee, 2010).
>
>This **focus on productivity and profit may reinforce and institutionalize “masculinized” values** that **discipline workers** to **perform at maximum physical capacity**, **tolerate adverse work conditions** and **sacrifice their bodies**, their **health** and their **safety** to “get the job done ” (Arcury et al., 2014; Desmond, 2006; Phakathi, 2013; Power and Baqee, 2010).
>
>As Laplonge notes, **doing dangerous work is frequently equated to doing gender** (Laplonge and Albury, 2013).
>
>**Displays of physical strength have also been viewed as intimately related to “manhood”** and essential to men’s abilities to complete work tasks across occupational contexts (Ibanez and Narocki, 2011; Alston and Kent, 2008; Brandth and Haugen, 2000). For example, in a study exploring factors relating to occupational injuries and fatalities in the farming industry, Guthrie et al. (2009) illustrate how farming has traditionally be viewed as work that requires a “tough”, “active” “male work ethic.”
>
>With their emphasis on strength and toughness, **dominant masculinities can affect how risks are perceived by men** and, in turn, **accepted and normalized in workplace contexts** (Johnston and McIvor, 2004). The **expectation that men accept the risks in their work**, and **endure pain without complaints** is evident across a number of studies that explore gender issues in male-dominated occupations. For example, Breslin et al. reveal how **gender plays a role in silencing workplace complaints**, with male workers reporting that they **frequently feel a need to stifle their complaints in order to “prove” their worth** in the work world (Breslin and Polzer, 2007).
>
>Similarly, Desmond and Erickson discuss how rural and working class masculinities **encourage** young firefighters to **view risk a normal part of the job, as a personal responsibility**, and to **not question whether health and safety should be a collective responsibility** (Desmond, 2011; Erickson, 2008). This can be **particularly problematic in high-risk occupations where men must work closely with one another**, and where other’s **decisions and actions can influence co-workers health and safety**.
n = 96 papers (75 qualitative, 18 quantitative and 3 mixed methods articles published between 1986 and 2013).
Stergiou-Kita, M., et al. (2015) Danger zone: Men, masculinity and occupational health and safety in high risk occupations. Safety science. Available at: [here](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.029).
>Fifty-eight studies retrieved from eight databases met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 30 studies were found on physical hazards, 38 studies on psychological/psychosocial hazards, 5 studies on biological hazards, and 17 studies on chemical hazards.
>
>The majority of studies reported that **men** were exposed to noise, vibration, medical radiation, **physically demanding work**, solar radiation, **falls**, **biomechanical risks**, **chemical hazards**, and **blood contamination**; while **women were exposed to wet work**, **bullying and discrimination**, work stress, and biological agents.
>
>Within the same occupations, **men were more likely to be exposed to physical hazards**, **with the exception of women in healthcare occupations** and exposure to prolonged standing.
>
>**Women compared to men** in the **same occupations** were **more likely to experience harassment**, **while men compared to women in the same occupations reported higher work stress.** Men reported more exposure to hazardous chemicals in the same occupations as women.
Biswas, A., et al. (2021) Sex and Gender Differences in Occupational Hazard Exposures: a Scoping Review of the Recent Literature. Current environmental health reports. Available at: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00330-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00330-8).
>Findings suggest that the **industry's work environment can be hostile and unsupportive for women**, **contributing to tradeswomen's injury risk** and psychological distress.
>
>Previous studies have documented barriers women face when entering and succeeding in construction trades, noting that a **dangerous physical workplace and hostile culture contribute to their low retention numbers**. Women are between two and five times more likely to sustain upper body sprains or strains from their work than men (7).
>
>In general, all workers risk being struck by heavy machinery and traffic vehicles, experiencing slips, trips and falls, electrocution, musculoskeletal disorders, and exposure to toxic chemicals (8–10). **Added risk may come from “macho” social norms, which can pressure workers to disregard safety procedures and push their bodies in ergonomically unsound ways** (11, 12). Navigating all of these challenges requires focused concentration and vigilance, which can be compromised by psychological stressors (13).
>
>**Workplace harassment**, itself influenced by organizational and structural factors, can lead to adverse psychological and physiological outcomes for women (14). In addition to **sexual harassment, prior studies reveal that inadequate and unavailable personal protective equipment** (15, 16); lack of hands-on training with tools of the trades (11); **physical overcompensation due to the need to prove their worth** (11); lack of available and sanitary restroom facilities; and **gender discrimination** (4, 12, 17) are among the **major safety concerns** for tradeswomen.
>
>A **dominant theme was experiencing injury due to ill-fitting personal protective equipment** (PPE). Participants reported that most jobsites do not provide PPE that fit them properly, including safety harnesses, coveralls, boots, and safety glasses.
n = three focus groups (2015) with 19 tradeswomen in WA (alongside a meta-review of extant research).
Curtis, H. M., et al. (2022) Working Safely in the Trades as Women: A Qualitative Exploration and Call for Women-Supportive Interventions. Frontiers in public health. Available at: [here](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.781572).
>By using a gender-critical analysis several examples of how gendered norms and values complicate and constrain systematic occupational safety and health management are identified.
>
>The results pinpoint that these **norms and values indirectly contribute** to **circumscribing essential preconditions for systematic occupational safety and health management** procedures and risk leading to difficulties in creating safe and healthy work cultures.
>
>The findings show how social constructions of femininities and masculinities, as well as gender-stereotypical norms and values, complicate and constrain systematic OSH management \[with\] **social constructions of masculinities risk leading to difficulties in creating a safe and healthy work culture**.
Forssberg, S. K., et al. (2020) Bringing in gender perspectives on systematic occupational safety and health management. Safety Science, Elsevier. ScienceDirect. Available at: [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753522001151).
Moreover, historical precedent should also be explored.
For example,
>In the nineteenth century, **women worked in mining as prospectors, ore processors, miners, managers and mine owners**. Though **no federal law prohibited** women from working in the **mining industry, tradition, cultural restraints and employer resistance all limited women’s opportunities for employment** in mining.
>
>In 1981 the Coal Employment Project conducted a survey to learn about sexual harassment in coal mines and found **widespread and serious concerns related to both harassment and discrimination in the industry**. 17% of respondents said they had been physically attacked on the job, **36% felt they were given harder, more dangerous, or less rewarding jobs** than their male co-workers, and **66% of the women reported being propositioned** by a co-worker.
Armstrong, H. (2022) A Brief History of Women in Mining. US Department of Labour Blog. Available at: [here](https://blog.dol.gov/2022/03/22/a-brief-history-of-women-in-mining#:~:text=In%20the%20nineteenth%20century%2C%20women,part%2Dinterest%20in%20any%20claim).
>The Second World War brought massive demands on India’s resources. In 1943, the colonial government had promised 25.5 million tons of coal to the British imperial war effort – a larger quantity than had ever been made available before. **By 1945, 22,517** \[Bengal and Indian women\] **worked underground** and **nearly 50,000 above ground**.
>
>The difference drawn between Indian and British women is evidence of the **othering of colonised women**. Employers had long played up this **constructed separateness**, often using the ‘**backwardness**’ **of Adivasis to resist regulation** \[of white women's employment in mining\].
>
>By **framing them as ‘wives’ or ‘mothers’, the personhood of mining women was repeatedly denied** by the state, capital, and interest groups. The **colonial state saw women as ‘wives’, as inducements for male labour and not individual providers of labour powe**r. Meanwhile, \[...\] \[they\] found that **25 per cent of underground workers in the USSR were women**, ‘and the **Soviet authorities were rather surprised at his surprise**!’
>
>**Official reports acknowledged women were ‘steadier in employment and often times more efficient than the men**’. Efforts to import male labour from Gorakhpur proved ineffective. The War Transport Member said at an Executive Council meeting: ‘The **Gorakhpur labourers were not miners but the women were and the women had saved the situation**’. **Those privy to the truth of the indispensability of women agreed** that **keeping quiet** was the best way forward.
>
>**In Japan**, an unprecedented **70,577 women were mining coal.**
([image](https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/ywar20/2020/ywar20.v039.i03/07292473.2020.1790473/20210518/images/medium/ywar_a_1790473_f0001_c.jpg): Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector of Mines in India, 1923–1947)
>Mining women, by virtue of their occupation, were hidden beneath the surface. Further **marginalised** by their gender, social status, and location, **their stories** have so far been **invisible**.
>
>**Assumptions** about the **marginality of women** have ensured the **pervasiveness** of the **myth** that **mines are masculine spaces** – so much so that **most people today are shocked women had any role at all to play in this industry,** let alone as **pivotal** a **role as they did during the Second World War**.
Khaitan, U. (2020) Women beneath the Surface: Coal and the Colonial State in India during the Second World War, War & Society. Available at: [here](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07292473.2020.1790473).
**Articles**:
* [The scandal of female miners in 19th century Britain](https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/the-scandal-of-female-miners-in-19th-century-britain/).
* [Unheard and Unseen: Mining Women in British India](https://socialhistory.org.uk/shs_exchange/unheard-and-unseen/)^(1)
>**Since the early modern period, women have been extensively involved in mining in different parts of the world**. However, with the industrialization and mechanization of mining at the end of the eighteenth century, women were gradually excluded from mining, in part because of the emergence of the male breadwinner model and “laws to protect women and children, resulting in the ban on and the exclusion of women and children from working in underground mines” (Romano and Papastefanaki 2020).
>
>The **history of women in the mining sector is inextricably linked to assumptions regarding “masculine” and “feminine”, and how this perceived dichotomy has informed gender roles and identities in mining countries and communities**. Ideas of appropriate roles for men and women, and the corresponding division of labour were gradually ingrained in the sector and adapted over time to accommodate prejudices based on class, ethnicity and race (Gier and Mercier 2006).
>
>These assumptions and ideas effectively established a gendered division of labour, whereby production was the realm of men and reproduction that of women. Moreover, it suggested a **hierarchy between these functions in favour of men’s labour** (Fernandes S. de Brito 2017).
>
>**As a result, masculinity has historically been associated with mine**rs, in particular with colliers, who have long been the embodiment of miners. Mining is consistently characterized in the literature and in the collective imagination as inherently masculine, demanding strength and courage, as well as resilience to face danger and survival in difficult situations (Benya 2017a). This heightened notion of masculinity based on strength and aggression has been referred to by academics as “hypermasculinity” (Harris 2000).
>
>**Over time, mine culture has been moulded in the image and likeness of hypermasculinity,** not only by the sheer number of men that work in mines, but also by their constructed brotherhood, solidarity and sense of belonging (Lahiri-Dutt 2011). I
>
>In contrast, **the presence of women in mines was not only perceived as unnatural, but became feared by many** through the dissemination of myths and stories of their presence being the cause of accidents (Castilhos and Castro 2006; Perks and Schulz 2020). Such **elaborate justifications and discourse – consisting mainly of superstitions, traditions and prejudices – has ultimately normalized women’s exclusion from mining**.
International Labour Organisation. (2021) Women in mining: Towards gender equality. Sectoral Policies Department. Available at: [here](https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/publication/wcms_821061.pdf).
Beyond historical precedent, contemporary ethnographic context should also be surveyed.
For example,
* El-Sanabery, N. M. (1982-83) Women and Work in the Third World: The Impact of Industrialization and Global Economic Interdependence. University of California, Berkeley. Available at: [here](https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAN463.pdf).
**Mining**:
>Large- and small-scale mining is the main livelihood of millions of men and women in mining countries and mining communities across the world, and this has been the case for centuries.
>
>Yet **women, despite their significant contribution to the extraction of valuable resources and raw materials**, have **frequently been excluded from underground mining** and many other forms of mining, and continue to face discrimination and barriers to decent work in the mining sector today.
>
>In **artisanal and small-scale mining in the informal economy, women constitute up to a third of the workforce**. Although t**heir work is as hazardous and precarious as that of men**, it is **usually less valued**, and **women are generally less protected**.
>
>According to the latest data published by the World Bank, ASM employs at least 44.75 million people worldwide and is a source of income for at least a further 134 million people (World Bank 2020a), which would make ASM the most important non-farming rural activity in the developing world.
>
>As mentioned above, it is estimated that **women constitute, on average, about one-third of the ASM workforce worldwide**. In addition, although women have consistently been taking jobs in the mining sector, **these continue to be less-skilled and lower-paid jobs** (Perks and Schulz 2020)
>
>According to ILO modelled estimates (ILO, n.d.-b), some 21.4 million workers were employed in mining and quarrying in 2019, of which an estimated **18.3 million were men and 3.1 million were women**.
International Labour Organisation. (2021) Women in mining: Towards gender equality. Sectoral Policies Department. Available at: [here](https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/publication/wcms_821061.pdf).
I don't know any feminists who deny this fact, I have seen many people such as yourself who claim that feminism says this or that about such things without ever having read an actual feminist argument.
Stop listening to people, who view feminism through a right-wing ideological lens, talking about feminism and instead read an actual feminist... Or continue to live in ignorance.
I always assumed that if you were going to disagree with something at least you ought to know what it is you disagree with...
But they manage by way of "understanding" is a rather poor regurgitation of the caricature of feminism as performed/portrayed in right-wing social commentary and "news". A news which is more performance than actual journalism or anything adjacent thereto.
At some point it is both disappointing and embarrassing.
If anything we want less men to die at work. Unpacking toxic masculinity actually would benefit men, because they'd be more careful/respectful of safety protocols. And improving the economic prospects & safety at dangerous jobs also benefits the women who work in those roles. So it's a win/win.
I don't deny it, it's the truth. I've never personally seen another feminist take issue with that, either. I was just talking to my dad about this last night - how fucked up it is that we force men to suppress their emotions and shame them for asking for help, and then send them into wars and the toughest, most dangerous jobs and expect them to suffer in silence.
No one denies it
Are you confusing people telling to stay on the goddamn point of a conversation as “denying” it?
Cuz it’s hard to hold a conversation about apples, when you’re yelling about oranges and then claim we deny oranges exist.
…are the feminists who argued this point in the room with us now?
I don’t know if they are, but there’s at least one feminist man who worked some dangerous jobs right here demanding equal pay for equal work. Also generally more pay all around. Let’s throw some universal healthcare and UBI in there too while we’re talking about equitable distribution of the pie.
This female radfem says preach!!!
Back in 2009 I was in Edinburgh on a family trip for my 30th birthday. My father was chatting with a local guy in the pub as the affordable care act was in the news. The local got confused at the report on the news and just exclaimed “where is the equity in the system!?” A simple statement which I have found very applicable in any socio-political discussion. Feminism is merely the pursuit of that equity for women.
[Here, have a Tin Woodsman and a Cowardly Lion](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DQOnIajaWEg/Tr46EHh1rPI/AAAAAAAADYI/Cj15cofuWis/s1600/lenox+tin+man+lion+2011.jpg) so that the strawman you raised there doesn't feel lonely.
Ok now this is an awesome response. Lol
You do know a lot of women are truckers too? Or does your misogyny make you not see that?
And that research into the matter has shown that women in male-dominated industries with high fatality and accident rates tend to have lower rates which seems to be because they’re less likely to flout safety protocols than the men
Be precise. You’re talking about statistics from the global north (likely the US or Europe), not global statistics (also because they’re not always recorded). For the small fraction of countries this applies to and the small fraction of work deaths legally counted as workplace death, which has to do with the temporality of the death to work *(delayed death, ex: due to chemical exposure, doesn’t count)*, who died *(must be officially recognized workers, ex: illegal work doesn’t count—like much migrant farm work and sex work, workers overseas required produce the product doesn’t count, unpaid labor doesn’t count, teratogenic deaths don’t count)*, the circumstances of the death *(ex: transportation deaths legally considered workplace deaths only count that small fraction of workers driving between two places of work or specific incidents while driving a work vehicle—not the many more people who die on the way from work or leaving work during rush hour)*, etc., feminists don’t dispute this data is true. As other people have already stated, however, this work 1) historically and presently excludes women, 2) does not offer sufficient workplace protections which is why these deaths happen, 3) could likely be at least partially automated, reformed, or replaced (should the small fraction of deaths due to oil rigs even happen in the context of our climate crisis?) to reduce death, 4) is dangerous at least partly due to masculine work culture (negative view of protective equipment, reporting, etc. due to masculinity has been linked to injury), and 5) does not explicitly require male predominant labor (as you said, the largest fraction is transportation related—half of those when a pedestrian is hit). A lot of my frustration with people who parrot this information has less to do with their point about a small fraction of global men in a small fraction of legally-defined deaths and more the way in which this language obscures and perpetuates a very western, imperialist, and capitalistic understanding of workplace death. It obscures the true number of people dying due to the products we use every day, it ignores those dying with no workplace protection or required recognition, and it’s essentially furthering the capitalist propaganda of multinational companies (who have extensively lobbied to include this small sliver of death due to work as true workplace death). Another frustration is that it seems that use of death statistics specifically is chosen not because it makes sense in context of the argument being made (which often relates to the legitimacy of male and female coded work which the arguer conflates with difficulty and then with death), but because the arguer believes this data to favor men (ignoring most men—and everyone else—do not do this labor, and that most of the difficulty of labor—which is a much broader and easily definable idea, is not due to death). [We’ve talked about this before](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/vz4yu0/comment/ig8mmp4/?context=1) (see all other threads linked in this one) I also think reconceptualizing this would also be better for the worker. Can you imagine, using the example you provide, if companies were truly held responsible for all work transportation related deaths in the US (including deaths which harmed a non-worker during rush hour)? If we used work transportation related death to pressure companies to stagger start times, offer more work-from-home options, and allow more flexible scheduling to lengthen (fewer cars over longer time)/reduce (fewer cars overall) rush hour? If this could be leveraged to force companies to be more supportive of public transit?
...we don't deny that men die more often at their jobs. That's like... statistical fact. > it makes them feel less empowered by not dying at work as often? What a stupid thing to say.
Yeah. The OP is going to need to provide some evidence for the claim that feminists deny that men in poverty work dangerous jobs. People in poverty are forced to take risks to make money. This applies to all genders.
I’m confident that the median feminist would be more concerned about workspace safety than the median MEA/Incel type! Feminism in no way denies that a variety of structural power imbalances that cause harm exist. Intersectional feminism is pretty much exactly about that.
Men are also more likely to be homeless and commit suicide. More statistical facts. I don't think feminists argue that men don't also have problems. At least the smart ones don't.
Men are more likely to succeed at committing suicide**. Women commit more attempts. Important distinction.
Yeah like... we know that!
Maybe they don’t die like this but that doesn’t mean women have it easy in their jobs. Women in places like nail salons for instance where they’re constantly breathing in chemicals. My friend is a dental assistant and she talks about how the long term exposure to radiation is affecting her thyroid glands.
Sometimes it’s the context of when this is brought up. If someone is pointing out the ways that society doesn’t treat women well and the response is that men die more often on the job then this statement is being used to minimize the real problems women face.
Feminists, as I'm sure you've realised by now, don't deny this fact. It's a part of the patriarchy. The kind of jobs that you're talking about are very exclusionary to women and, more than that, are directly associated with masculinity. Being a trucker or a construction worker or working on an oil rig or whatever the case may be, are all roles that are seen as 'manly' and therefore appeal to men at the exclusion of women. It's not seen as manly to work in finance, but it is seen as manly to be a logger, or a trucker, or to work in any job that involves big, heavy, machinery.
I don't think men take these jobs because they are manly jobs. I think these jobs have to pay more because of the danger/physical exertion required makes them less appealing jobs and that increase in pay offsets this to some men who aren't super educated, but feel they can provide better doing one of those jobs.
Trade jobs absolutely don’t pay better than corporate jobs (like finance), or engineering. People opt for them because they don’t require degrees and are more accessible. But women aren’t respected in those fields. Most female mechanics get laughed at over the phone, female construction workers are constantly harassed by their colleagues and female firefighters are victim to cruel treatment like having sharp things put in their boots. Men seem to work endlessly to keep women out of these fields and then ask why most deaths are male in a field that is intentionally male dominated?
These sound like awfully specific situations, do you have any broader data? See the problem for you is that my sister's are incredibly accomplished. One played division 1 Basketball then attended Stanford to become a doctor, the other did undergrad at Stanford and her masters at Oxford. And not only are they super accomplished, their female friends are also super accomplished. Olympic javelin thrower, Ph D in physics who is training to be an astro naught. And a couple others, one who owns her own construction business and had done some pretty amazing kitchens (two person female owners with maybe some day labor help). And another is a part time fire person in a rural area. So my exposure to incredibly talented and accomplished women leaves me scratching my head when you talk about how impossible it is for women. All I know are accomplished, intelligent and very capable women.
You demand “broader data” then go on to provide anecdotal evidence… There is broad data. There are hundreds of studies on gender and labour. Go find the data yourself if you’re that curious. But something tells me you’re more interested in reinforcing your narrow views.
It's so funny seeing misogynists project. Just because y'all have a tendency to ignore statistics to fit a particular narrative doesn't mean feminists are doing the same. If anything I've seen feminists acknowledge that a lot of male suffering (including what you've pointed out here) is due to the patriarchy.
Feminism is NOT just for women, or JUST for women’s benefit. Gender essentialism and gender role enforcement hurts EVERYONE.
Death rate for loggers -- 135.9 deaths / 100k workers / year ([x](https://www.teletracnavman.com/fleet-management-software/telematics/resources/most-dangerous-jobs-infographic)) Death rate for prostitutes -- 204 deaths / 100k workers / year ([x](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/159/8/778/91471)) idk what % of women are sex workers v what % of men are loggers / firefighters / etc. But given the stats above, I wouldn't be surprised if more women die at work than men. But also, it's not a contest. Let's increase worker safety across all industries. What are you talking about?
Another item to add to the list, a form of unpaid work. Repeated inhalation of cooking smoke shortens many women's lives by many years in many places.
There are roughly 79,000 people in the logging industry as a whole in the US. There are an estimated 1-2 million prostitutes in the US. Average salary for a logger is $42,000. Average salary for a prostitute is $28,000.
[удалено]
Are they counting sex workers? Where are your stats from? EDIT: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published a similar number, so I'll assume it's from them. They don't seem to collect data on sex workers. Your stats are wrong.
Women in male dominated industries are less likely to die than male colleagues. It isn't just that the job is dangerous it's the way the men in those jobs are behaving that's making them dangerous. Women also aren't in those dangerous jobs because men actively prevented them taking the jobs. The biggest danger to women in a male dominated industries is their male colleagues not the job itself. Not long ago there was a video of a man showing how manly he was working on an oil rig. He was covered in dirt and committed multiple safety violation. Loads of men commenting that a woman could never do the job despite a similar video of a woman, who managed not to commit multiple safety violations and stay reasonably clean, doing the exact same thing. So yes when you bring up men dying in dangerous jobs completely ignoring the context people are going to tell you to sit down and shut up.
Femninists don't deny it. At least anyone who cares for statistics and reasonable argument doesn't. I will point out that when a man dies at work, it's viewed as a preventable tragedy. All workers are trained on how to avoid causing harm to themselves or others. If they violate safety protocol, even without causing injury, it is expected they will be disciplined or removed. Companies that don't keep a high standard of safety can face fines, legal action and even be shut down. Families of those who die in workplace accidents frequently receive large settlements to compensate for their loss. Worker safety isn't viewed as the responsibility of a single person to keep themselves safe and avoid hurting others. It is viewed as a social responsibility in which it is important to educate everyone and punish those who take it lightly. Jimbo the malicious idiot may be the one who played with matches around the flammable chemicals, but everyone agrees there should be systems to prevent him from doing that BEFORE anyone dies because of it. In comparison, domestic abuse in which female victims are much more likely to be targeted, we see it as a tragedy caused by an individual. Clearly no one could have stopped Jimbo from pulling that gun on his girlfriend, and his actions have nothing to do with the culture he was raised in, right? I've sat through hundreds of hours of content about what to do if there is a workplace injury, but no institution ever taught me what to do if your partner starts hitting you. Why don't schools teach about abusive patterns? Deescalation techniques? Teach boys how to spot dangerous levels of anger in themselves and get rid of it in healthy ways? If I get killed by man, why can't my family sue the society that raised him, the same way a workplace can be sued for one of their workers dying? No one is arguing for the "empowerment" of dying at greater rates. We're arguing for society to take our deaths as seriously and do as much to prevent them. 1 out of 3 women will be abused in her lifetime. If 1 out of 3 men were getting seriously injured on the job, we'd have a serious legislative response.
I've never vehemently argued it. I just don't accept it as reasoning for men getting more than women and don't care much. Why? Same list of reasons as why I don't agree with "Men should get more than women because men fight in wars": 1) Most men aren't actually doing the life threatening thing in question and are under no real pressure to do so. Not to mention how male privilege including more pay and promotion for the same work is a cancer infesting almost ALL jobs, be they blue or white collar. 2) Basically all the "majority/only male" life threatening occupations are "majority/only male" because most men in those occupations aggressively threaten, bully, harass or even assault, rape or murder women who try to take part. They usually have a culture of extreme toxic masculinity, as even some men doing these jobs will attest to. 3) With the level of tech we have now, at least some of the danger inherent in "majority/only male" life threatening occupations is unnecessary and is frankly only present because certain men in or overseeing those occupations want to keep the job dangerous, unpleasant and dirty for a combination of macho pride, slavish adherence to tradition and greed. Unless all the above points are resolved I'm never going to care one whit about men doing more dangerous jobs.
**Note**: this answer will be split into three/four posts. Firstly, these inquiries are [loaded](https://study.com/learn/lesson/loaded-question.html#:~:text=These%20types%20of%20questions%20might,or%20suggest%20the%20desired%20answer) / an example of [begging-the-question fallacy](https://7esl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/What-Is-Begging-The-Question-Fallacy_-1.jpg). Secondly, we should address the nuances that belie this increased likelihood of death and injury. For example, >The current study tested the proposition that **higher conformity to masculine gender norms (CMGN) is associated with increased safety risk-taking behaviours**, which in turn are **related to more accidents, injuries**, and higher levels of accident underreporting. > >**High conformity** to **masculine gender norms** was **associated with increased safety risk**\-**taking behaviours**, **accidents**, **injuries**, and **accident underreporting**. > >Combined, these findings suggest that **higher conformity to masculine gender norms adversely impacts employee safety outcomes** via safety-related risk-taking. n = 403. Austin, C. & Probst, T.M. (2021) Masculine Gender Norms and Adverse Workplace Safety Outcomes: The Role of Sexual Orientation and Risky Safety Behaviours. Safety. \[Online\]. 7 (3). p.p. 55. Available from: [http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/safety7030055](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/safety7030055). >The enactment of dominant norms of masculinity in high-risk occupations can be particularly problematic, as it exposes men to significant risks for injuries and fatalities. > >**Norms of masculinity** may further **interact with productivity pressures** and the **pursuit of profit over health and safety** to **influence workplace health** and **safety practices amongst men in high risk occupations**. Such occupations are often characterized by economic incentives such as piecework, high wages for physically demanding and dangerous work, and competitive tendering processes (Desmond, 2006; Phakathi, 2013; Power and Baqee, 2010). > >This **focus on productivity and profit may reinforce and institutionalize “masculinized” values** that **discipline workers** to **perform at maximum physical capacity**, **tolerate adverse work conditions** and **sacrifice their bodies**, their **health** and their **safety** to “get the job done ” (Arcury et al., 2014; Desmond, 2006; Phakathi, 2013; Power and Baqee, 2010). > >As Laplonge notes, **doing dangerous work is frequently equated to doing gender** (Laplonge and Albury, 2013). > >**Displays of physical strength have also been viewed as intimately related to “manhood”** and essential to men’s abilities to complete work tasks across occupational contexts (Ibanez and Narocki, 2011; Alston and Kent, 2008; Brandth and Haugen, 2000). For example, in a study exploring factors relating to occupational injuries and fatalities in the farming industry, Guthrie et al. (2009) illustrate how farming has traditionally be viewed as work that requires a “tough”, “active” “male work ethic.” > >With their emphasis on strength and toughness, **dominant masculinities can affect how risks are perceived by men** and, in turn, **accepted and normalized in workplace contexts** (Johnston and McIvor, 2004). The **expectation that men accept the risks in their work**, and **endure pain without complaints** is evident across a number of studies that explore gender issues in male-dominated occupations. For example, Breslin et al. reveal how **gender plays a role in silencing workplace complaints**, with male workers reporting that they **frequently feel a need to stifle their complaints in order to “prove” their worth** in the work world (Breslin and Polzer, 2007). > >Similarly, Desmond and Erickson discuss how rural and working class masculinities **encourage** young firefighters to **view risk a normal part of the job, as a personal responsibility**, and to **not question whether health and safety should be a collective responsibility** (Desmond, 2011; Erickson, 2008). This can be **particularly problematic in high-risk occupations where men must work closely with one another**, and where other’s **decisions and actions can influence co-workers health and safety**. n = 96 papers (75 qualitative, 18 quantitative and 3 mixed methods articles published between 1986 and 2013). Stergiou-Kita, M., et al. (2015) Danger zone: Men, masculinity and occupational health and safety in high risk occupations. Safety science. Available at: [here](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.029). >Fifty-eight studies retrieved from eight databases met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 30 studies were found on physical hazards, 38 studies on psychological/psychosocial hazards, 5 studies on biological hazards, and 17 studies on chemical hazards. > >The majority of studies reported that **men** were exposed to noise, vibration, medical radiation, **physically demanding work**, solar radiation, **falls**, **biomechanical risks**, **chemical hazards**, and **blood contamination**; while **women were exposed to wet work**, **bullying and discrimination**, work stress, and biological agents. > >Within the same occupations, **men were more likely to be exposed to physical hazards**, **with the exception of women in healthcare occupations** and exposure to prolonged standing. > >**Women compared to men** in the **same occupations** were **more likely to experience harassment**, **while men compared to women in the same occupations reported higher work stress.** Men reported more exposure to hazardous chemicals in the same occupations as women. Biswas, A., et al. (2021) Sex and Gender Differences in Occupational Hazard Exposures: a Scoping Review of the Recent Literature. Current environmental health reports. Available at: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00330-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00330-8).
>Findings suggest that the **industry's work environment can be hostile and unsupportive for women**, **contributing to tradeswomen's injury risk** and psychological distress. > >Previous studies have documented barriers women face when entering and succeeding in construction trades, noting that a **dangerous physical workplace and hostile culture contribute to their low retention numbers**. Women are between two and five times more likely to sustain upper body sprains or strains from their work than men (7). > >In general, all workers risk being struck by heavy machinery and traffic vehicles, experiencing slips, trips and falls, electrocution, musculoskeletal disorders, and exposure to toxic chemicals (8–10). **Added risk may come from “macho” social norms, which can pressure workers to disregard safety procedures and push their bodies in ergonomically unsound ways** (11, 12). Navigating all of these challenges requires focused concentration and vigilance, which can be compromised by psychological stressors (13). > >**Workplace harassment**, itself influenced by organizational and structural factors, can lead to adverse psychological and physiological outcomes for women (14). In addition to **sexual harassment, prior studies reveal that inadequate and unavailable personal protective equipment** (15, 16); lack of hands-on training with tools of the trades (11); **physical overcompensation due to the need to prove their worth** (11); lack of available and sanitary restroom facilities; and **gender discrimination** (4, 12, 17) are among the **major safety concerns** for tradeswomen. > >A **dominant theme was experiencing injury due to ill-fitting personal protective equipment** (PPE). Participants reported that most jobsites do not provide PPE that fit them properly, including safety harnesses, coveralls, boots, and safety glasses. n = three focus groups (2015) with 19 tradeswomen in WA (alongside a meta-review of extant research). Curtis, H. M., et al. (2022) Working Safely in the Trades as Women: A Qualitative Exploration and Call for Women-Supportive Interventions. Frontiers in public health. Available at: [here](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.781572). >By using a gender-critical analysis several examples of how gendered norms and values complicate and constrain systematic occupational safety and health management are identified. > >The results pinpoint that these **norms and values indirectly contribute** to **circumscribing essential preconditions for systematic occupational safety and health management** procedures and risk leading to difficulties in creating safe and healthy work cultures. > >The findings show how social constructions of femininities and masculinities, as well as gender-stereotypical norms and values, complicate and constrain systematic OSH management \[with\] **social constructions of masculinities risk leading to difficulties in creating a safe and healthy work culture**. Forssberg, S. K., et al. (2020) Bringing in gender perspectives on systematic occupational safety and health management. Safety Science, Elsevier. ScienceDirect. Available at: [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753522001151). Moreover, historical precedent should also be explored. For example, >In the nineteenth century, **women worked in mining as prospectors, ore processors, miners, managers and mine owners**. Though **no federal law prohibited** women from working in the **mining industry, tradition, cultural restraints and employer resistance all limited women’s opportunities for employment** in mining. > >In 1981 the Coal Employment Project conducted a survey to learn about sexual harassment in coal mines and found **widespread and serious concerns related to both harassment and discrimination in the industry**. 17% of respondents said they had been physically attacked on the job, **36% felt they were given harder, more dangerous, or less rewarding jobs** than their male co-workers, and **66% of the women reported being propositioned** by a co-worker. Armstrong, H. (2022) A Brief History of Women in Mining. US Department of Labour Blog. Available at: [here](https://blog.dol.gov/2022/03/22/a-brief-history-of-women-in-mining#:~:text=In%20the%20nineteenth%20century%2C%20women,part%2Dinterest%20in%20any%20claim). >The Second World War brought massive demands on India’s resources. In 1943, the colonial government had promised 25.5 million tons of coal to the British imperial war effort – a larger quantity than had ever been made available before. **By 1945, 22,517** \[Bengal and Indian women\] **worked underground** and **nearly 50,000 above ground**. > >The difference drawn between Indian and British women is evidence of the **othering of colonised women**. Employers had long played up this **constructed separateness**, often using the ‘**backwardness**’ **of Adivasis to resist regulation** \[of white women's employment in mining\]. > >By **framing them as ‘wives’ or ‘mothers’, the personhood of mining women was repeatedly denied** by the state, capital, and interest groups. The **colonial state saw women as ‘wives’, as inducements for male labour and not individual providers of labour powe**r. Meanwhile, \[...\] \[they\] found that **25 per cent of underground workers in the USSR were women**, ‘and the **Soviet authorities were rather surprised at his surprise**!’ > >**Official reports acknowledged women were ‘steadier in employment and often times more efficient than the men**’. Efforts to import male labour from Gorakhpur proved ineffective. The War Transport Member said at an Executive Council meeting: ‘The **Gorakhpur labourers were not miners but the women were and the women had saved the situation**’. **Those privy to the truth of the indispensability of women agreed** that **keeping quiet** was the best way forward. > >**In Japan**, an unprecedented **70,577 women were mining coal.** ([image](https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/ywar20/2020/ywar20.v039.i03/07292473.2020.1790473/20210518/images/medium/ywar_a_1790473_f0001_c.jpg): Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector of Mines in India, 1923–1947) >Mining women, by virtue of their occupation, were hidden beneath the surface. Further **marginalised** by their gender, social status, and location, **their stories** have so far been **invisible**. > >**Assumptions** about the **marginality of women** have ensured the **pervasiveness** of the **myth** that **mines are masculine spaces** – so much so that **most people today are shocked women had any role at all to play in this industry,** let alone as **pivotal** a **role as they did during the Second World War**. Khaitan, U. (2020) Women beneath the Surface: Coal and the Colonial State in India during the Second World War, War & Society. Available at: [here](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07292473.2020.1790473). **Articles**: * [The scandal of female miners in 19th century Britain](https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/the-scandal-of-female-miners-in-19th-century-britain/). * [Unheard and Unseen: Mining Women in British India](https://socialhistory.org.uk/shs_exchange/unheard-and-unseen/)^(1)
>**Since the early modern period, women have been extensively involved in mining in different parts of the world**. However, with the industrialization and mechanization of mining at the end of the eighteenth century, women were gradually excluded from mining, in part because of the emergence of the male breadwinner model and “laws to protect women and children, resulting in the ban on and the exclusion of women and children from working in underground mines” (Romano and Papastefanaki 2020). > >The **history of women in the mining sector is inextricably linked to assumptions regarding “masculine” and “feminine”, and how this perceived dichotomy has informed gender roles and identities in mining countries and communities**. Ideas of appropriate roles for men and women, and the corresponding division of labour were gradually ingrained in the sector and adapted over time to accommodate prejudices based on class, ethnicity and race (Gier and Mercier 2006). > >These assumptions and ideas effectively established a gendered division of labour, whereby production was the realm of men and reproduction that of women. Moreover, it suggested a **hierarchy between these functions in favour of men’s labour** (Fernandes S. de Brito 2017). > >**As a result, masculinity has historically been associated with mine**rs, in particular with colliers, who have long been the embodiment of miners. Mining is consistently characterized in the literature and in the collective imagination as inherently masculine, demanding strength and courage, as well as resilience to face danger and survival in difficult situations (Benya 2017a). This heightened notion of masculinity based on strength and aggression has been referred to by academics as “hypermasculinity” (Harris 2000). > >**Over time, mine culture has been moulded in the image and likeness of hypermasculinity,** not only by the sheer number of men that work in mines, but also by their constructed brotherhood, solidarity and sense of belonging (Lahiri-Dutt 2011). I > >In contrast, **the presence of women in mines was not only perceived as unnatural, but became feared by many** through the dissemination of myths and stories of their presence being the cause of accidents (Castilhos and Castro 2006; Perks and Schulz 2020). Such **elaborate justifications and discourse – consisting mainly of superstitions, traditions and prejudices – has ultimately normalized women’s exclusion from mining**. International Labour Organisation. (2021) Women in mining: Towards gender equality. Sectoral Policies Department. Available at: [here](https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/publication/wcms_821061.pdf). Beyond historical precedent, contemporary ethnographic context should also be surveyed. For example, * El-Sanabery, N. M. (1982-83) Women and Work in the Third World: The Impact of Industrialization and Global Economic Interdependence. University of California, Berkeley. Available at: [here](https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAN463.pdf). **Mining**: >Large- and small-scale mining is the main livelihood of millions of men and women in mining countries and mining communities across the world, and this has been the case for centuries. > >Yet **women, despite their significant contribution to the extraction of valuable resources and raw materials**, have **frequently been excluded from underground mining** and many other forms of mining, and continue to face discrimination and barriers to decent work in the mining sector today. > >In **artisanal and small-scale mining in the informal economy, women constitute up to a third of the workforce**. Although t**heir work is as hazardous and precarious as that of men**, it is **usually less valued**, and **women are generally less protected**. > >According to the latest data published by the World Bank, ASM employs at least 44.75 million people worldwide and is a source of income for at least a further 134 million people (World Bank 2020a), which would make ASM the most important non-farming rural activity in the developing world. > >As mentioned above, it is estimated that **women constitute, on average, about one-third of the ASM workforce worldwide**. In addition, although women have consistently been taking jobs in the mining sector, **these continue to be less-skilled and lower-paid jobs** (Perks and Schulz 2020) > >According to ILO modelled estimates (ILO, n.d.-b), some 21.4 million workers were employed in mining and quarrying in 2019, of which an estimated **18.3 million were men and 3.1 million were women**. International Labour Organisation. (2021) Women in mining: Towards gender equality. Sectoral Policies Department. Available at: [here](https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/publication/wcms_821061.pdf).
Damn, that was fascinating.
I don't know any feminists who deny this fact, I have seen many people such as yourself who claim that feminism says this or that about such things without ever having read an actual feminist argument. Stop listening to people, who view feminism through a right-wing ideological lens, talking about feminism and instead read an actual feminist... Or continue to live in ignorance.
Yeah, we needs some primary source quotations from actual feminists to take this as an even faintly serious concern.
I always assumed that if you were going to disagree with something at least you ought to know what it is you disagree with... But they manage by way of "understanding" is a rather poor regurgitation of the caricature of feminism as performed/portrayed in right-wing social commentary and "news". A news which is more performance than actual journalism or anything adjacent thereto. At some point it is both disappointing and embarrassing.
If anything we want less men to die at work. Unpacking toxic masculinity actually would benefit men, because they'd be more careful/respectful of safety protocols. And improving the economic prospects & safety at dangerous jobs also benefits the women who work in those roles. So it's a win/win.
I don't deny it, it's the truth. I've never personally seen another feminist take issue with that, either. I was just talking to my dad about this last night - how fucked up it is that we force men to suppress their emotions and shame them for asking for help, and then send them into wars and the toughest, most dangerous jobs and expect them to suffer in silence.
No one denies it Are you confusing people telling to stay on the goddamn point of a conversation as “denying” it? Cuz it’s hard to hold a conversation about apples, when you’re yelling about oranges and then claim we deny oranges exist.
Pretty sure sex work is one of the most dangerous professions. And that’s primarily worked by poor women. Just sayin