Homesteading Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,509 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
We are also expandable. Just add a few biscuits, some gravy, a few beers.....
Yes, there are some here who harp on that quite a bit...But back to the original subject...

Do women not do those jobs because of a safety mechanism rigged in their brains (men don't get pregnant) or because they're too smart to do them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,193 Posts
Yes, there are some here who harp on that quite a bit...But back to the original subject...

Do women not do those jobs because of a safety mechanism rigged in their brains (men don't get pregnant) or because they're too smart to do them?
I think it has been because of the mother thingy. I can give you a pie chart for the last thirty years on construction anyway. The only women I ever saw (thirty years ago) on any job was the wall paper hangers. Pretty safe job and once they worked while one was 8 months pregnant. Life happened. They had to raise those kids. Maybe because the husband couldnt/wouldnt/shouldnt? Maybe because they wanted to do it themselves. There is an expectation from both men and women that their child should be raised in a safe and happy environment. Women get picked for this 90% of the time. 90% of men do construction. Coincidence?

Now I see all sorts of women in the trades. Over half have no kids that I have talked to. May even be more because I dont talk to all of them. Some are just as high level as men running crews of 20-40 people.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,569 Posts
Now I see all sorts of women in the trades. Over half have no kids that I have talked to. May even be more because I dont talk to all of them. Some are just as high level as men running crews of 20-40 people.
It used to be hard for a woman to get hired for those high-risk jobs mentioned. So now that women CAN get jobs in those fields it is a relatively recent thing, and the older workers will be almost all male.

Therefor the proportion of men to women will be high
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,193 Posts
It used to be hard for a woman to get hired for those high-risk jobs mentioned. So now that women CAN get jobs in those fields it is a relatively recent thing, and the older workers will be almost all male.

Therefor the proportion of men to women will be high
This is true also. Those paper hangers were a business of their own. Not many would have hired then back then. They clawed their way to prosperity by the excellent job they did. But why did they shut it down is what I am wondering? Was it because they wanted to raise a family or something else?

Today it is still hard in many circles for women to get hired. But the current job I am on there is a woman there that is running the paint crew on a 50 million dollar job. She answers only to me an a few others since she is our sub contractor. I had her on one job eight years ago when she was just a "hand". Now she is the boss.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,291 Posts
I think it has been because of the mother thingy. I can give you a pie chart for the last thirty years on construction anyway. The only women I ever saw (thirty years ago) on any job was the wall paper hangers. Pretty safe job and once they worked while one was 8 months pregnant. Life happened. They had to raise those kids. Maybe because the husband couldnt/wouldnt/shouldnt? Maybe because they wanted to do it themselves. There is an expectation from both men and women that their child should be raised in a safe and happy environment. Women get picked for this 90% of the time. 90% of men do construction. Coincidence?

Now I see all sorts of women in the trades. Over half have no kids that I have talked to. May even be more because I dont talk to all of them. Some are just as high level as men running crews of 20-40 people.
From my perspective 30 years ago, men simply didn't want women in their industries and made very sure that women in certain industries were made to feel very unwelcome and it wasn't a very nice environment.

It's been disucssed before and while I disagree, a member here told me that it was just a bunch of rough and tumble guys who lacked polish but the bitter reality is that men didn't want women in trades 30 years ago and it's only somewhat more accepted now.

A female framer was recently killed on site because of a poor decision from a supervisor and I was absolutely stunned when I read the comments on the article in the paper, which were extremely nasty. Suffice to say, the general male concensus was that she got what she deserves because women have no place in trades or on worksites.
 

·
If I need a Shelter
Joined
·
21,532 Posts
We are also expandable. Just add a few biscuits, some gravy, a few beers.....
Yes like I told this one woman she is killing me with Love.

big rockpile
 

·
If I need a Shelter
Joined
·
21,532 Posts
My wife was hired by DIRECT T.V. and went to Springfield for training, two days in the Training the instructor took her in back room, told her there was no way a woman would work under him told her to go back home.

She called me naturally crying but in Missouri there was nothing she could do.

big rockpile
 

·
If I need a Shelter
Joined
·
21,532 Posts
I think it has been because of the mother thingy. I can give you a pie chart for the last thirty years on construction anyway. The only women I ever saw (thirty years ago) on any job was the wall paper hangers. Pretty safe job and once they worked while one was 8 months pregnant. Life happened. They had to raise those kids. Maybe because the husband couldnt/wouldnt/shouldnt? Maybe because they wanted to do it themselves. There is an expectation from both men and women that their child should be raised in a safe and happy environment. Women get picked for this 90% of the time. 90% of men do construction. Coincidence?

Now I see all sorts of women in the trades. Over half have no kids that I have talked to. May even be more because I dont talk to all of them. Some are just as high level as men running crews of 20-40 people.
I know back when my wife was growing up women were not allowed in the mines now they are. She had her chance to go in a mine a few years ago and took it. She thought it was so neat.

big rockpile
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,509 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I go back about 40 years...Guys didn't mind women on the job, as long as they could do the job. If she's gonna be paid the same thing I am, she's gonna have to do the same job. I had problems with women who didn't want to do something, begging off because they physically couldn't do it...Well, sugar, we got hired for the same thing and if you can't dig that hole or lift that piece of pipe, the gate is over that way.

OTOH, if it was something they could do, more power to them. Nothing wrong with a female catskinner or a forklift driver. Didn't see any difference in skill levels, didn't pay it much mind.

But here's where this gets interesting:



If for some reason you can't see it, it's the image of the graph of fatalities.

As time goes on, more equipment and mechanization has overtaken muscle power in many of those jobs. I've used a set of eight foot post-hole diggers, but you rarely see anybody do that anymore. They just unload a machine and dig the hole, instead of having a guy grunt it out.

I think that's why you see more women in the trades -they are now physically capable of doing jobs they previously couldn't. If our Texas friend is right about the number of gals working now (and I'm sure he is) why aren't more of them getting killed on the job? It's anecdotal, but I don't hear of many women getting killed in the occupations listed above.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,291 Posts
I go back about 40 years...Guys didn't mind women on the job, as long as they could do the job. If she's gonna be paid the same thing I am, she's gonna have to do the same job. I had problems with women who didn't want to do something, begging off because they physically couldn't do it...Well, sugar, we got hired for the same thing and if you can't dig that hole or lift that piece of pipe, the gate is over that way.

OTOH, if it was something they could do, more power to them. Nothing wrong with a female catskinner or a forklift driver. Didn't see any difference in skill levels, didn't pay it much mind.

But here's where this gets interesting:



If for some reason you can't see it, it's the image of the graph of fatalities.

As time goes on, more equipment and mechanization has overtaken muscle power in many of those jobs. I've used a set of eight foot post-hole diggers, but you rarely see anybody do that anymore. They just unload a machine and dig the hole, instead of having a guy grunt it out.

I think that's why you see more women in the trades -they are now physically capable of doing jobs they previously couldn't. If our Texas friend is right about the number of gals working now (and I'm sure he is) why aren't more of them getting killed on the job? It's anecdotal, but I don't hear of many women getting killed in the occupations listed above.
I'd disagree to a certain extent because not every trade involves 'grunting it out' so I'm not convinced that heavy lifting has much to do with it as much as women being coached toward careers such as teachers and nurses, just as there was a time when they were discouraged to enter into maths and science related fields.

As for fatalities, there is still a disproportionate number of women in most trades which results in a disproportionat number of workplace fatalities but I would hope that high risk industries are working hard to reduce the entire number of work related deaths in general.

Workplace deaths in my province are intended to give families of those killed privacy and respect the deceased so the few news reports we hear are quite vague and general, 'Worker killed at site near XXX location.' If families don't want the names disclosed, the media is legally required to respect their privacy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,509 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
That's why I gave the example of the post-hole diggers...40 years ago, a lineman (or a laborer helping him), if he had to set a single pole in a tight place, would dig the hole by hand. Now, man or woman, they unload a piece of equipment to do that. And they usually don't put on their spurs and belt to climb the pole, they use a bucket truck.

As for the second observation, the press in the U.S is under no obligation to keep names confidential. Sad, but true.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,291 Posts
That's why I gave the example of the post-hole diggers...40 years ago, a lineman (or a laborer helping him), if he had to set a single pole in a tight place, would dig the hole by hand. Now, man or woman, they unload a piece of equipment to do that. And they usually don't put on their spurs and belt to climb the pole, they use a bucket truck.

As for the second observation, the press in the U.S is under no obligation to keep names confidential. Sad, but true.
Even 40 years ago, not all trades involved muscle and women were still unwelcome but I can also understand where some trades have evolved to a point where they are much less physically demanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,193 Posts
From my perspective 30 years ago, men simply didn't want women in their industries and made very sure that women in certain industries were made to feel very unwelcome and it wasn't a very nice environment.

It's been disucssed before and while I disagree, a member here told me that it was just a bunch of rough and tumble guys who lacked polish but the bitter reality is that men didn't want women in trades 30 years ago and it's only somewhat more accepted now.

A female framer was recently killed on site because of a poor decision from a supervisor and I was absolutely stunned when I read the comments on the article in the paper, which were extremely nasty. Suffice to say, the general male concensus was that she got what she deserves because women have no place in trades or on worksites.
Not disagreeing with any of that. My sister and my wife have both been there and done that. I hear the stories. I do understand how it was 20 and 30 years ago. His chart was from the last few years though. There are more women in the trades now. They are usually more careful than men overall.
 

·
Non-Known Member
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
I go back about 40 years...Guys didn't mind women on the job, as long as they could do the job. If she's gonna be paid the same thing I am, she's gonna have to do the same job. I had problems with women who didn't want to do something, begging off because they physically couldn't do it...Well, sugar, we got hired for the same thing and if you can't dig that hole or lift that piece of pipe, the gate is over that way.
Would you be comfortable having this guy calling you "sugar" ?


 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,291 Posts
Not disagreeing with any of that. My sister and my wife have both been there and done that. I hear the stories. I do understand how it was 20 and 30 years ago. His chart was from the last few years though. There are more women in the trades now. They are usually more careful than men overall.
I'd like to think we are and most that I've worked with seem to be more cautious. I believe that part of it stems from many of us not being involved at a young age, like some of our male counterparts and another stems from the fact that we generally can't rely on brawn so we tend to be a bit more strategic and mindful of our surroundings.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top