SafetyInsights.org

Abstract

The workplace is a key setting where gender issues and organizational structures may influence occupational health and safety practices. 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.

To encourage multi-disciplinary collaborations and advance knowledge in the intersecting areas of gender studies, men’s health, work and workplace health and safety, a national network of thirteen researchers and health and safety stakeholders completed a critical literature review examining the intersection between masculinities and men’s workplace health and safety in order to: (i) account for research previously undertaken in this area; (ii) identify themes that may inform our understanding of masculinity and workplace health and safety and; (iii) identify research and practice gaps in relation to men’s workplace health and safety.

In this paper we present key themes from this review. Recommendations are made regarding: (i) how to define gender; (ii) how to attend to and identify how masculinities may influence workers’ identities, perceptions of occupational risks and how institutionalized practices can reinforce norms of masculinity; (iii) the importance of considering how masculinities may intersect with other variables (e.g. historical context, age, class, race, geographical location) and; (iv) the added significance of present-day labour market forces on men’s occupational health and safety.

****

This is quite a dense paper so I will only provide some high-level points covered therein:

• A knowledge gap in this research area was concerns on how gender is defined and distinguished from sex. The terms were said to be frequently used inter-changeably without clear definitions. [I’m also unclear to what degree people who identify as non-binary are represented since it wasn’t mentioned in this paper]
• Heroic and hypermasculine behaviours have been identified in many high risk male occupations. An example is firefighting where images of heroism, fearlessness and bodily strength are celebrated. Physical strength may be viewed as related to manhood and seen as essential to men’s abilities in the workplace.
• Acceptance and normalization of risk, and work injuries and pain: The focus on strength and toughness has been identified as silencing workplace complaints from men to show their worth. Workplace risks can also be seen in a fatalistic way and accepted as part of the job. Risks can further be normalised through “institutionalized practices” that reinforce normative gender expectations. The following example is provided: “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” (pg. 216).
• Young and work inexperienced males may be particularly vulnerable to workplace injury due to the higher likelihood of being employed in smaller companies with lower safety standards. Younger workers may not be choosing to undertake risk work practices but may instead be trying to adapt to the organisation’s social definition of normal risk practices.
• Self-reliance, resistance to assistance, authority and OHS: Men have historically been expected to be self-reliant and “to establish themselves as their family’s ‘‘breadwinner,” and to resist authority—including established OH&S safety practices” (pg. 217). Being the breadwinner is seen as a critical way of displaying their masculinity. The authors note that because of this self-reliance and autonomy, men are more likely to resist medical attention and display less health seeking behaviours.
• Labour market forces and productivity pressures may influence men’s health and safety practices. High-risk occupations often use “eeconomic incentives such as piecework, high wages for physically demanding and dangerous work, and competitive tendering processes” (pg. 218). Such a focus can reinforce the values of masculinity and the discipline of workers to perform at maximum physical capacity or in adverse work conditions.
• Another point is that traits like competitiveness, toughness and aggressive, which are seen as masculine traits, may also be expressed by women who work in male-dominated occupations. These women may also accept similar risks to men.

Authors: Stergiou-Kita, M., Mansfield, E., Bezo, R., Colantonioa, A., Garritano, E., & Lafrance, M. et al. (2015). Safety Science, 80:213-220.

Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.029

Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/danger-zone-men-masculinity-occupational-health-high-risk-hutchinson