Trading Choices - The nature of trades work and training: implications for young people's career decision making

GO TO: TOC / Previous / Next - Young people's suggestions for change

Does male or female participation in the trades ‘make sense’ in relation to the way gender is constructed in the trades?
Strength versus weakness
Dirt versus cleanliness (activity versus appearance)
Practical versus theoretical
Worksite culture versus office culture discourse
How do women and men maintain or resist the conflation of trades training and trades work with men and masculinity?
Resistance against women in the trades
Resisting resistance: strategies of/for women in the trades
Summary

The nature of trades work and training: implications for young people's career decision making

Experiences of – and information about – the trades functions as a critical context of career decision making. In this chapter we focus on how gender and gendered identities play out in what the young people we interviewed had to say about trades training and work. For them, the trades are described in a gendered way, and we found that common gender discourses (explicit and implicit) position young women in a way that makes it appear less appropriate or realistic for them to enter male-dominated trades-related pathways. Messages about individual choice prevail, but they conflict with other – powerful – messages about gender roles and identities. Interview narratives suggest that gender differences in expectations for women and men still have a profound influence on young people’s decision making in the 21st century.   

From our interviews with young people at various ages and stages of career decision making (junior high school students through to fully qualified and practising tradespeople) it seems that messages about the trades are as strongly gendered as experiences of the trades. Our analysis shows that there is a powerful maintenance of gender norms in the trades, and that gender is constructed in a way that may act against better balance of the sexes. Women who choose to enter become responsible for working with – or against – those norms. Our interviews show that both women and men construct and resist the conflation of trades training and trades work with men and masculinity in their everyday talk and actions.

In the chapter we draw on our research evidence to respond to the following questions:

1. Does male or female participation in the trades make more sense in relation to the way gender is constructed in the trades?
2. How do women and men maintain or resist the conflation of trades training and trades work with men and/or masculinity?

Does male or female participation in the trades ‘make sense’ in relation to the way gender is constructed in the trades?

This section argues that the trades are not only male-dominated, but, and probably more importantly for the present purposes, they are also dominated by the expression of particular forms of masculinity. We found the characteristics that interviewees associated with the trades, like hard physical labour that requires strength and involves getting dirty, were also what they associated with men more broadly. Men are assumed to ‘fit’ in trades training and work, while women and particular forms of femininity are set up in opposition to the trades.

Although women can and do access trades pathways, narratives suggest that these women generally want to – or are ‘forced’ to – be part of this pervasive dominant masculine culture. Below we draw on excerpts from the interviews to highlight four common binaries; each of which fits with the constructed masculine/feminine divide that impacts on young people’s decision making and distances women from the trades. It is easy to see how these gendered constructions may make it less likely for women to see trades work as an attractive pathway.

Strength versus weakness
Most interviewees suggested (or thought others believed) that men’s bodies were generally better suited to the trades. Their narratives suggest that men tend to be stronger than women, and that strength is a known benefit to – if not a requirement of – trades-related work. Both men’s and women’s narratives contribute to this picture: 

Most females are not strong enough so there are physical barriers. Also, not many females are interested in it. (Senior secondary student, male, traditional)

I know that the spotlight is more on a woman, and at the same time I can understand that when you’re a six foot tall quite muscly man and you’re looking at a five foot tall, small built, Asian woman that I don’t think that’s a completely sexist or racist path that would take you to that conclusion. (Ex-trainee, female)

I had one friend who was vaguely considering doing building but she thought she would be too weak to do it. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

There is that physical side of building that girls can’t always do. Girls can’t always lift a beam. (Senior secondary student, female, nontraditional)

Some pointed out that the ‘strength work’ required can be beyond what is necessary or safe for women or men, but many trades’ environments still require it, giving men an unfair advantage:

Knocking around for two weeks I realised that probably a good 70–90 percent of work would have been within my capabilities, but when in the part where someone goes ‘Can you grab that 50 or 100 litre hot water cylinder off the back of the truck and lift it up six flights of steps and install it?’ there could have been lags of difficulty in that. Policy-wise none of that stuff matters – OSH thingimywotsits – they say things like if you lift more than 20 or 30 kilos you must have two people, but I know that those rules apply in kitchens and no one really abides by them. So the reality is you have to lift pretty heavy things sometimes and bigger, stronger people lift bigger, heavy things a whole lot more easily. (Ex-trainee, female)

Very few interviewees noted that strength is neither a fixed state nor a male-specific quality. A few wanted to discuss ways in which women could work around their strength barrier by approaching tasks in a different way or sharing out tasks differently within a team. In this way they disrupted the ‘trades = strength’ notion:

Instead of using a ratchet I’ve got a big bar that fits on the end of the socket and it gives you heaps more leverage…[it] makes it so much easier. I shimmy wheels on while the car’s lower rather than trying to lift them up when the cars on the hoist/jack. [I’m] trying to work smarter, not harder. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

There are some safety issues if you aren’t strong enough...so the physical side of things can be an issue [for women]. But there are tools that can help out. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

The [bosses] look at the job and if it’s heavy lifting they’ll get one of the boys to do it. We pick which jobs we want. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

At the end of the day I know I’m not as strong as them, but I make it up in other ways. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Even fewer challenged the ‘male = strength’ connection. One female trainee mentioned women could increase their strength at the gym, and, according to one male trainee:

I know girls who are stronger than me. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

This idea was taken further at the feedback workshops:

Interviewee one: Guys who are really strong will get the job done faster.

Interviewee two: Faster than a guy who is not as strong. (Female, feedback comments)

As one woman rightly pointed out, these ideas are underpinned by a great many assumptions:

I wonder how class and race influence masculinity and femininity as well. Physical labour is set up very differently in other countries. For example, there was a study in a country where women carry heavy buckets on their heads, and the men couldn’t carry very heavy things. (Female, feedback comment)

Despite such challenges, in general our interviewees associated both men and the trades with strength and physicality, and this contrasted with their own (or others’) stereotypes, expectations, or experiences of women.

As well as strength, young people see that trades can involve dirty work. Throughout their lives women and men are exposed to signals about gender appropriateness. Secondary students, males especially, cited their own – or other people’s – stereotyped assumptions that women generally do not like to get dirty. Several used this as an explanation for why they thought fewer women than men choose trades-related training:

Guys like to get dirty, girls like to be clean. (Senior secondary student, male, traditional)

[What might help females get into, or stay in, this training or job?] Don’t worry about getting dirty or your appearance. (Senior secondary student, male, traditional)

Most women I know wouldn’t want to get dirty. (Senior secondary student, male, traditional)

The major difference I can see between those groups of jobs [male-dominated versus women-dominated vocations] is that the male ones are dirtier… Female ones seem to be more about people interacting. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Many of the female apprentices also talked about their initial expectations that trades work would involve ‘getting their hands dirty’ either metaphorically or literally. In some cases this appealed to them, and sometimes not:

I thought it would be a lot more dirty – it’s pretty clean actually. The cars themselves are quite clean… I don’t think this garage is quite like your usual one where there is only one or two mechanics and it’s dirty and grungy. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

I asked him [future potential employer] about poo – and he said these days you call the specialists in. (Ex-trainee, female)

You’ve got to get in there and get dirty and you don’t whinge about it ’cause you decided to be there… Going into tiny little gaps under houses freaked me out (spiders etc.) but I did it although I didn’t like it. (Ex-trainee, female)

Some mentioned that their work prevented them from some of the ‘appearance work’ that young women are encouraged to do. They work against a subtext that suggests women (should) care too much about their hair, nails, and overall appearance to enjoy the trades:

There are some people I know who couldn’t handle it – girls and guys. You get horribly dirty, and go eat your sandwiches – can’t clean your hands. See spiders, dead animals. You can’t paint your nails. People who are high maintenance couldn’t handle it. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

I’ve got a friend who is a beautician and hates the fact that I don’t have long nails and that my hands are always dirty and stuff. But she likes the idea that I could fix her car if she needs it. I think she cares about my nails etc. but doesn’t care about the job – she doesn’t seem to really know about cars etc., she’s more focused on the fact it’s dirty. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Female apprentices and employees often mentioned others’ (and their own) concerns about jeopardising their appearance and harming their bodies. Females in nontraditional pathways were the only group to mention that they might leave the trades due to physical harm:

I thought I might hurt myself but I gave it a go. They [family and friends] would say I’d end up in hospital the first day I’d go into the class. (Senior secondary student, female, nontraditional)

[Any bad surprises?] A couple of cuts and bruises but that’s about it. (Senior secondary student, female, nontraditional)

My hands are getting rooted – with cuts and stuff... (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Similar to the strength versus weakness binary, the dirt versus cleanliness binary (which can also be extended to an activity versus appearance binary), has gender-specific implications for young people’s decision making – it constructs men as a better fit with what are perceived as the dirty, messy trades than women. Overall, young women and men pick up – and perpetuate – the message that a woman’s body is valuable and vulnerable, whereas a man’s body is his toolkit.

It is important to note that while none of the interviewees believed that women couldn’t do dirty jobs, some thought that it would take a ‘special’ kind of woman:

Some girls look like they want to drive trucks versus the ‘pretty girls’. Those girls who fit in well look the part…some girls don’t dress for the job they are doing and others do – the ones that do probably fit in better. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

It would be ok for those girls who are naturally butch and have the strength compared to those who are a bit more ladylike. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

As described in Chapter 4, trades-related pathways are seen as a lesser-value alternative to ‘academic’ learning pathways. A couple of interviewees were all too aware of a general public perception that trades training was for ‘dropouts’:

It’s the same now as always – people view it as people who had nowhere else to go – drop kicks. It’s a class thing. They assume you’re not that bright. It hasn’t changed now even though they are in demand. It’s not really pushed at school. People assume you are dumb, especially plumbers – but you should see what they have to calculate. When I’m out chatting to people and I say I’m an electrician the only thing they can say is ‘You’re going to make a lot of money’. It’s incredibly rude – they wouldn’t say that to a doctor – but otherwise they have to say how dumb they think you must be. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

In current times, where girls’ academic achievement, on average, outstrips that of boys’, practical pathways are considered more appropriate for boys. Reading between the lines, it seems that several interviewees associated men with practical skills success and women with academic learning success. The quotes below imply that even within trades pathways women demonstrate more aptitude for, and commitment to, the more theoretical aspects, whereas men are more drawn to the physical and practical aspects:

The guys [in our pre-trades course] didn’t care as much about the study etc. – the girls seemed to go harder on the study though. The girls studied and paid attention in class, took the books home etc. and did the homework. The guys did what they had to do and that was it. Two out of three of the girls passed and only a few of the guys passed. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

He might be strong enough but he might not have the brains. (Junior secondary student, male, traditional)

Interviewee one: Girls don’t come into this course thinking ‘I want to hot up my car’. They come in thinking ‘I want to know everything there is to know about cars’….The boys come in just wanting to do that and half of them leave because…that’s not what the course is for…

Interviewee two: I’m glad we’re learning everything step by step like you get to know everything about cars and motorcycle engines. (Trainees, female, nontraditional)

Some of the young people’s narratives appeared to locate men (and masculinity) in opposition to academic study and theory. This contrasts with conventional feminist theory, which critiques the assumption that masculinity is equated with rationality and the mind, whereas femininity is equated with intuition and the body. This is worth considering in the light of Gilbert’s (2005) examination of the current debate about boys’ lowered achievement and schools’ failures to engage boys. Gilbert argues that boys have implicitly picked up on a shift in new ways that knowledge is organised in our society – a shift away from traditional tightly-bounded disciplinary knowledge (as with medicine or law) to forms of knowledge that are more fluid (interdisciplinary) and networked. Therefore girls’ achievement in school is more about what they are ‘allowed’ to achieve through their diligence and working of the ‘rules of the game’, resonating with Walkerdine’s (1989) earlier work on girls’ school successes being construed as not ‘the real thing’. Building on this, Gilbert’s analysis means that boys still get to be innovative, and earn a lot of money and status, as they move into occupations in information technology, finance, and the entrepreneurial sectors and leave the traditional professional areas, now less significant in the 21^st century, to the girls. Although the trades could well be considered a ‘traditional’ pathway, Gilbert’s (2005) argument highlights the possibility that the association of stereotyped masculinity with academia and mind work may no longer apply, while the association of men with economic capability remains.

The next quote, from a woman aware of a masculine culture in the trades, backs up suggestions that discipline-bound academic pathways may be becoming less lucrative. As did other interviewees, she saw money making (traditionally associated with men) to be within easier reach of the trades pathway:

My brother went to uni and became an accountant and when he got a job he was earning $25,000 and when I got my first job I was earning $42,000. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

She quite rightly acknowledges that many boys go to university, and indeed many interviewees commented on women and men’s supposed equal access to both trades and university pathways. Our point is that by ‘reading between the lines’ across many narratives we see binaries which position women and men differently in relation to these possibilities. It is interesting to note comments which suggested that a woman could become a tradesperson if she put her ‘mind to it’ or was ‘mechanically minded’.

Interviewees frequently contrasted their experiences or expectations of a trades ‘worksite’ against that of a professional office. To us, their narratives draw attention to the unique physical environment and social culture of each, and generally imply (or directly state) that women and men navigate a masculine culture on worksites and a relatively feminine culture in professional offices:

I don’t want to do an office life. I’ve seen the culture and humour and I don’t like it – too PC [politically correct]. The office environment shapes your actions etc. – I saw a guy lose his job for a small transgression (he brought in a blow-up doll – not of a sexual kind) and a female workmate complained and he was dismissed. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

There is a general perception that girls should be behind a desk. (Ex-trainee, female)

Women are perceived to fit less comfortably with a trades work microcosm. The following quotes provide insight into the culture that pervades worksites:

I’d never been in an environment like that, being on construction sites – it’s not just the fact they are all guys but it’s a culture, they own it and it’s established. You have to fit in with them. Not so much the company but the sites… I struggle sites-wise – with toilets and sanitary things. I know it’s illegal not to give girls a toilet but it’s not worth the hassle and I don’t want to be ‘that chick’. [Gives gross examples of male toilets – such as spreading excrement on wall then getting everyone to look and laugh.] (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Touchy feely corporate stuff about work relationships hasn’t really come into trades. In my last job there was a lot of blame, lots of yelling, and figuring out whose fault it is rather than fixing it. It’s unnecessary stress. The place I’m at now has a good culture. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Sites with the naked chick calendars – they don’t offend me enough to make a fuss – but when there’s one woman and 40 guys – it’s a bit of a pointer about how they view girls. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Some women trainees mentioned that while they struggled with certain aspects of worksites, they were more attracted to it than to their perceptions of a stereotypically feminine workplace culture:

[To do joinery] a girl has to be pretty down to earth and relaxed – ’cos girls and guys think in such different ways – girls like to be bossy, guys don’t like girls to tell them what to do. Not to be too hormonal. Jokey – ’cos guys joke a lot. A good sense of humour is a biggie. That’s why I like working with guys ’cos they’re lots of fun, they don’t talk about other people, they just cruise. (Ex-trainee, female)

Being in a male-dominated area – issues are over, done with in a few minutes rather than dragging on for months (like when I was working in retail with females). (Ex-trainee, female)

Interviewee one: Some guys have no idea how to talk to a client… I’ve always been a people person – and you don’t really do that much except for with your team. If there was a bit of both [people work and physical work] I’d be more likely to stay [in the trade].

Interviewee two: That’s why I’m happy – I don’t like working with people. (Apprentices, female, nontraditional)

When interviewees explicitly compared the culture of worksites to the culture of other potential kinds of work environments that academic study often leads towards, it suggested that stereotypically masculine characteristics are associated with the former, and more stereotypically feminine characteristics with the latter. Interviewees’ comments signal that women and men may both equally prefer one or the other, but a range of other comments imply that the default position for women is office culture not trades culture. Even when women feel comfortable in the trades, they still tend to recognise it as a male-dominated and masculine-friendly environment.

That said, some trades are more closely aligned with the masculine whereas others move slightly more towards the feminine. Some interviewees explicitly suggested that women might better suit, or prefer, the trades at the ‘most professional/least strength required/cleanest’ end of the continuum. This also influences some young people’s rationalisation of the percentages of women they guessed to be in each of the main male-dominated trades. For example, some thought that plumbing would have fewer women in it than building, because ‘it’s dirtier and more hands-on’:

I knew building was out due to strength so that left plumbing (cold, wet, and lots of shit!) and electrical. I chose electrical as I thought it wouldn’t be too hard (physically) and that it tied in well with my other interests, like setting up my own recording studio. (Senior secondary student, male, traditional)

[I was initially interested in] joinery or furniture making ’cos I would have loved to do carpentry but had to think what are my limits. [What do you mean by limits?] With carpentry there’s a lot of strength involved, thinking about it now and knowing what’s involved. Also thinking about being out in the weather. (Employee, female, nontraditional)

I wanted to go for joinery initially as I didn’t think I’d make it on a building site… but as I’ve got older I think I could handle a site – not a big one though (or one with heights). I’d like to do residential building. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

These five oppositional discourses (strength/weakness; dirt/cleanliness; activity/appearance; practical/academic; worksite/office) conflate a version of dominant masculinity with the trades, and position women and femininity in opposition to this. The message is that women who want to enter and succeed in the trades are considered the exception, not the norm. These messages (be they spoken or tacit) influence young people’s career decision making.

When we presented a brief summary of the ideas in this section – and the next – to participants in the female feedback workshop, three challenges were put forward. Firstly, the participants suggested that our findings did not sufficiently emphasise the fact that there is a range of masculinities and femininities, and wanted us (and others) not to maintain the ‘girl versus boy; boy versus girl mentality’. As one put it:

It seems that there is a lack of clarity about what masculinity and femininity are. In this setting femininity seems to be framed as weak and flowery, and masculinity is framed in negative ways as well. We haven’t talked about the positive aspects of femininity and masculinity. They’re not clashing and negative.

Secondly, they asserted (strongly, in the case of one or two) that their work environments were male-dominated, but not necessarily masculinity-dominated. Thirdly, they noted that some worksite cultures are much more ‘inclusive’ than others.

Thus these participants were strongly resistant to the idea that maleness is necessarily equated with masculinity (and the same for femaleness and femininity). They wanted to argue that males as a group differ internally in major ways (as do females as a group), and that these differences could be produced by class, ethnicity, and/or sexuality, but also just by individual differences – and that this should be expected. We have attempted to reflect these views in the report: however, at the same time, we have also tried to show how our interviewees’ narratives ‘produce what counts as girls’ (Jones, 1997), how they contribute to the construction of particular forms of masculinity as normal, partly by contrasting it against a stereotyped version of femininity, and to the continued construction of the trades as gendered. Overall, it has to be said, the messages we heard about the trades do not create much space for the presence of women and/or femininity, and so it is not particularly surprising that trades training is not especially attractive to a great many young women.
 

How do women and men maintain or resist the conflation of trades training and trades work with men and masculinity?

This section has two purposes. One is to show how the conflation of trades training and trades work with men and a certain form of masculinity is continuously (re)constructed by the actions and conversations of actual men and women. The second purpose is to show that while there are alternative discourses that unsettle this conflation, with the potential for allowing women a legitimate place in the trades, this can be risky territory because it poses a threat to dominant trades culture, dominant gender norms, and/or individual women’s sense of self.

First we look at day-to-day resistance against women in the trades, and then we consider counter-resistance from women and men asserting women’s right to be there. We show that it is to some extent risky for women to even enter the trades, and even riskier for them or their male counterparts to explicitly challenge the culture.

Previous research on industrial apprenticeships has suggested that, in comparison to other educational settings, apprenticeships are:

an altogether more holistic entity which not only facilitates the passing on of specific work-based skills and ideas but which also engenders the development of individual identities [via practice with others] in accordance with the occupational norms and values of workplace settings. (Parker, 2006, p. 689)

The point is that the social interaction/enculturation that is part of apprenticeship training is a key part of the learning experience. Neophytes slowly become full participants by accumulating skills and adopting the dominant norms and values through almost ritualised performances in the process of becoming a particular kind of person. It has been suggested that while some people may choose to stay on the periphery of ‘a community of practice’, the community ultimately determines legitimate access and certain newcomers are likely to be marginalised and ‘push[ed] back into identities of non-participation’ because they do not have (or are not perceived/allowed to have) access to the right ‘resources of practice’ (Wenger, 1998 in Kahveci, Southerland, & Gilmer, 2007). While we do not develop these theories specifically in this report, we are mindful of the extent to which interviewees’ narratives demonstrated their experiences of resistance to women in the trades, both explicit and implicit forms. We found that resistance against women in the trades is both active and passive, with the latter being more common, and so more difficult to identify and address. This can impact on women’s decisions to enter the trades, and the likelihood that they will remain over time. It is for this reason that we have purposefully used the term ‘discrimination’ in this section.

Active discrimination

Explicit sexism and sexual harassment are two of the most direct ways that women are made to feel uncomfortable in trades training and work environments. Consider the following expectations of a male trainee:

I think female apprentices and male apprentices would be treated differently for sure. Guys would always be hitting on them, verbal and sexual language etc…probably that sort of inappropriate stuff. They might get ordered around more ‘Go do x, y, and z’. They wouldn’t get the good jobs – even more so than your usual apprentice [who gets the worst jobs]. I think it’s a crock of shit how they are likely to be treated – they’ve all got hands, eyes, and a brain. (Trainee, male, traditional)

For some women the reality was not terribly different. The examples below were of varying degrees of concern to the women themselves:

Interviewee one: Some students treat you like a piece of meat as the only female in the class, but they soon find out I don’t like it and then they just ignore me which is just fine by me. Expected it might happen but didn’t put me off…

Interviewee two: Some of the guys don’t have a hell of a lot of respect, I can just tell. So if they don’t have it I don’t give it. I expected it but it hasn’t put me off.

Interviewee three: My class is pretty good – they treat me like one of the guys. I was expecting to get a lot of shit for being a girl. (Trainees, female, nontraditional)

The older guys didn’t think that girls were up to that kind of work at all. They thought we were good for staying at home in the kitchen kind of thing. It wasn’t so much about me as females altogether… It was just the fact that I was female ‘in a man’s job’. I mean I was passing and doing well. I could have done it. It was a definite possibility if I had wanted to do it. But in the end I didn’t want to. (Ex-trainee, female)

I get on with people just as well as usual. There are people who will make an occasional comment or even try and hit on you but most are fine. I’ve learnt to ignore it and most of the time the guys treat me like anyone else. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

One commented that women sometimes navigate comments related to their perceived biological status as child bearers. Time off to have children disrupts the notion that a trade should be a full-time and continuous career for life:

Once I’d done some work experience it [thinking of it as a career] started to wear off. We started off doing once a week for a couple of places. I did some work with a local company over a two-week holiday and I didn’t really like it. I didn’t like working with just guys and a lot of the older guys had a lot of attitude about it. They would ask ‘Why aren’t you home making babies?’. And things like that. They’d say ‘This isn’t just an office job – you can’t go off and have a baby and then come back.’ (Ex-trainee, female)

Interviewee one: The guy I work with now does trust me a lot, but for the first time in two and a half years he’s said three times this week ‘Oh you’ll just leave to have babies.’

Interviewee two: Yeah, like they see you as a one-minute wonder. (Apprentices, female, nontraditional)

I think the maternal instincts of females have an impact – suits other sorts of jobs. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

Some women suggested that they faced the most explicit discrimination from older tradesmen who had more traditional gender ideas:

The older guys didn’t think girls were up for that kind of work – I was a female in a man’s job… Seemed that they couldn’t get their heads around why a female would want to do it. That was mostly the older guys – the younger ones thought it was funny and seemed to like working with females – a bit different for them. They thought it was quite cool that I was giving it a go. [They said] ‘good on ya’… (Ex-trainee, female)

[It would be good to] help people realise that it’s different from the cliché they might always hear – the older guys are on their way out. Tradesmen are different now. Not so old school. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

But when we looked closely across interviewees’ descriptions of differences between ‘old school’ and ‘new school’ trades culture, we found that while some women saw the older tradesmen and old school trades culture to be less welcoming towards women, others saw the opposite:

They [older men] can be a little bit hesitant; it’s about seeing that you’re OK as a woman. Older guys respect women a bit differently – morals and values – they have a wife at home etc. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

I assume that girls in a guys’ job [20 years ago] was not acceptable, but now it’s totally acceptable. But there’s just some small things like toilet facilities – if a business has been going for 20 years you need some new things to accommodate a female. There’s still some people who don’t believe in it, but it’s more common. (Employee, female, nontraditional)

Just as gender identities can’t be separated from other intertwined identities, gender discrimination cannot be separated out from other forms of discrimination, such as racism, ageism, and homophobia:

There are older Pākehā plumbers saying ‘Plumbing will be last man’s trade that Asians will get into’… So these Pākehā men were saying that Asians had got into the other trades, most visibly painting and construction, and that’s ’cos painting is easy, and plumbing is filthy and hard work so it would be the last bastion against ‘Asian invasion’. (Ex-trainee, female)

I guess they saw us as snowy white girls who didn’t even know what we were doing. At all stages of training [and work experience] there were people who just doubted the fact that we were there in the first place at all. (Ex-trainee, female)

With most of the groups there were the apprentices who were young and the older qualified guys… There was a bit of a difference in how they [older guys] treated me but it was no different from how you’d act differently around a younger person to an older person (in general). (Ex-trainee, female)

I can’t remember if I came out. If I can’t remember I probably didn’t, which probably means it wasn’t safe. But it was also [a short time] so there wasn’t a lot of deep and meaningful. (Ex-trainee, female)

From interviewees’ comments, it is difficult for us to conclude that the younger generation trades culture is less discriminatory of women in the trades than in the past. That said, modern training providers are seen by some to provide a buffer between the ‘old school’ trades and women:

I think everything has pros and cons. My understanding of what happens in the trades is that sometimes you get in with your mates – and maybe that’s what cooking [training] does to get around it: rather than getting someone to take you on where there are gender, and race, and age barriers. So one answer training in an institution where there is a more equal playing field – but then we find out that they [trainees] come out and aren’t good. So you create access but you change the nature of it [the profession]. I think with sparkies, it might work better, where they train you and find you a placement for apprenticeship – and they use their [institution’s] name to place you. So it works well theoretically, but I don’t know the reality. (Ex-trainee, female)

Sometimes my classmates, a couple in particular, would make you feel like why do you try you’re a girl sort of thing. Most of the time it was fine. I got a lot of support. The tutor was really encouraging definitely. They were good. (Ex-trainee, female)

Passive discrimination

A greater portion of discrimination appears to be passive, and difficult to name as such. Women themselves possibly wouldn’t identify much of what we discuss in this section as personal (or gender) discrimination:

I didn’t see a whole lot of sexism directed at me, like no one said ‘What are you doing here, women can’t be plumbers’, but there was the general sexist comments about hot ladies in magazines and the male culture banter. They found me quirky… (Ex-trainee, female)

Most women we interviewed in trades training and work noted that they are considered to be somewhat of an anomaly. Even if women don’t regard themselves as different from a male tradesperson, they are often well aware of the surprised reactions that result from their presence in a traditionally male-dominated area. For example, one interviewee mentioned a frustrating experience she had on a recent visit to Australia, when the customs officer did not believe she was a plumber. While some women defend against even more negative responses, others face seemingly positive responses to their ‘novelty factor’:

Meeting that female builder happened on my first working experience out of school. I didn’t expect to see a lady working in a place like that. It was quite an eye opener but cool to see. (Trainee, male, traditional)

Interviewee one:    I hardly ever think about being a woman in the trades.. it can’t be at the forefront of your mind [to be] all self-concerned about being female. But I don’t think about it until I go to a new site and wonder why everyone stares. I always wonder why everyone keeps saying ‘Wow not many women do that’.

Interviewee two:     It’s the look on people’s faces when you tell them. But everyone’s accepting – no one’s told me to my face you shouldn’t be there – they’re just interested in why. Sometimes [it is] a bit of a joke at first. (Apprentices, female, nontraditional)

It is clear that women face gendered double standards in the trades. In an environment where women are considered unusual, they must prove their right to be there in a way that men do not have to. The next few quotes are from men in trades training and traditionally male-dominated school subjects:

Interviewee one: The more you treat them differently [which isn’t good] the more people will think they are actually different.

Interviewee two: But for all of that you’d always be proving yourself as a female in a male trade. (Apprentices, male, traditional)

I think it would be harder for her [the female builder] to prove herself to everyone than it is for me. (Senior secondary student, male, traditional)

Like if a male worker and a woman worker both came on a job at the same time, like they were new, the male probably initially gets more respect, but if the woman worked hard she would probably get more. (Junior secondary student, male, traditional)

Regarding physical stuff there are differences [between men and women] but if the girl tried hard you’d be ok with it. It’s only if they don’t try or give up that you’d be pissed off with them. You can’t avoid heavy work, so you either put the effort in and get smelly; or you don’t try and moan about getting smelly etc. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

Even this young man’s open-minded comment about equality, also potentially contains a glimpse of different expectations:

I like to believe it’s more the skills, not the sex. It’s just retarded that people think… ‘Wow she’s a woman so she can’t be a builder.’ If she has the right skills… why not. (Junior secondary student, male, traditional)

Nontraditional female interviewees consistently mentioned that they had to prove themselves as a credible tradesperson before the men would take them seriously. They not only had to revisit this process whenever their work brought them into contact with new tradesmen, but also many were aware that any mistake they might make at any stage could be attributed to them being female:

It’s not that new for me. I’ve played drums for six years now and being a girl who plays drums meant that I’ve had some similar kinds of comments. I’ve kind of seen all the different reactions you get from people (male and female). But when you show your skills it’s not such a big deal (or they think it’s really cool). (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Interviewee one:    If you stuff up they say it’s because she’s a woman, not because she’s an apprentice…

Interviewee two:     Chicks have to work twice as hard to be [seen as] half as good. (Apprentices, female, nontraditional)

Interestingly, when we shared these findings with the male feedback participants, they suggested two important ideas: firstly that females in the trades face the same experiences as males, but probably interpret it differently, and secondly that that women might actually ‘stuff up less than males’:

Participant one: Because they’re facing the adversity of being in a different environment, you kind of think they would pay more attention to what they do. Guys will probably be on auto pilot and sort of wing it to some extent. But girls would be more concerned about making sure they don’t make mistakes.

Participant two: I agree with him. Girls are more careful. They wouldn’t stuff up as much as guys. Guys are more likely to switch off and not use the correct procedures. Girls are more perfectionist.

Their argument illustrates the next feedback from a young woman, which reiterates (rather than challenges) our point about double standards:

People expect you to be either completely dedicated and really good at your job or complete shit. They don’t expect you to just treat it as a job you do to earn a living like everyone else. (Female, feedback comment)

Another difficult to ‘prove’ form of passive discrimination that emerges from our reading across the narratives is about resistance located at the level of trades training and employment systems.^[26] Some of the women – but none of the men – we interviewed discussed difficulties they faced in trying to secure an apprenticeship or employment. Perhaps this is because, as suggested in Chapter 3, men tend to be better placed to make use of contacts to enter the trades:

Hardest would be trying to find a job – I need to find an apprenticeship. I’ve been through most of the people in the phonebook. People’s reactions change according to the builder or company. Some are positive and some are negative. The interested ones will always ask questions and keep me in mind – the others just say they are busy. I’ll continue to keep calling people and I’m going back to my course tutors to see if they can help. (Trainee, female, nontraditional)

I tried finding a job but there weren’t any advertised and I had no contacts in the business. I did read a couple of pamphlets and the odd newspaper article. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

You can go straight into a mechanics and get an apprenticeship that way. But I thought it would be worth getting some basic knowledge first and it’s really hard to get an apprenticeship – especially when you have no experience at all. I had searched for six months before I got this job after my course… I worked here every Friday for six months for free just waiting to get my foot in the door and a position to open. I looked all around [the region] but I wanted to stay [in this area]. In [another area] this franchise has a few apprenticeships going but [there are] less out here. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

I had a talk with him [work experience ‘employer’] after two weeks and asked whether he was prepared to offer me an apprenticeship – he said he wouldn’t have one till the end of the year but he also said ‘but I’m very concerned that you are very small’… I would have taken it if he had given me an apprenticeship – most likely I would have said yes. I would have stayed, nothing would have made me leave that I can speculate. (Ex-trainee, female)

This picture fits with recent Northland research with 24 vocational trades employers that claims:

Overall the employers’ responses to the survey clearly indicate that the most significant barrier to women successfully entering and prospering in vocational trades is the attitude of the males who run the businesses. (Scripps, 2006, p. 24)

However, it contrasts with the Human Rights Commission’s case studies of women tradespeople, which reported that:

The employers who were interviewed also dispel the myth that male employers are reluctant to ‘give girls a go’. It is hoped that their voices and the benefits they have identified from employing women will be heard by other employers wanting to recruit apprentices. (Human Rights Commission, 2006, p. 1)

However, the Human Rights Commission report only interviewed employers who had already employed a woman.

Our female feedback workshop participants provided additional examples of ‘closed doors’. They also outlined their concern that the sector, especially certain trades, appears to be approaching saturation which they suspect will exacerbate the situation. Again, regardless of whether their concerns are ‘representative’ or reflect ‘reality’, such messages have implications for decision making.

The quandary of being treated the same or different

Obviously, gender discrimination (whether active or passive) means that women are being treated differently in trades training and employment. In keeping with the pervasive individual choice narrative, when we directly asked interviewees whether they thought women and men are treated differently in male-dominated trades, many said no:

I don’t think the guys really cared that much [about there being girls on the automotive course]. They got over it in the first week and then you were one of them. They didn’t change the way they acted or anything. I never really thought much about training with guys and girls. I knew one of the guys on the course but I didn’t care if there weren’t any other girls on the course. There weren’t any comments about being a girl – no one really cared – it was pretty good. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

In the situation I saw [on a worksite] the girl was treated like they were one of the guys – they didn’t make it easy for her and she had to pull her weight. She did though and it was sweet. (Apprentice, male, traditional)

On the other hand, some women stated that they were treated differently:

Course you get treated differently – you’re the girl! (Ex-trainee, female)

Males are going to react to a younger female differently than a younger male. For instance, with my work at the moment I’m the head apprentice – there are three other boys who are lower than me – and I’ve noticed I’ve never been given those really bad jobs like emptying the dustbins, and the other boys do. (Employee, female, nontraditional)

No, not treated the same as a male apprentice – you get flak as any apprentice. Whether you are female or male, and females would probably get worse because they are trying to test you to see if you are good enough to do it. (Senior secondary student, female, nontraditional)

Some women in the same focus group disagreed with each other’s response:

Interviewee one: You get treated a bit better – wouldn’t get many pranks on you as an apprentice – they couldn’t get away with it.

Interviewee two: I had a prank…the fake sledging of my microwave. You should have seen my face. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

We saw some examples of what might be considered ‘positive discrimination’ towards women – where they were treated differently in an attempt to treat them as fairly as men, but, as other research has found, this was not always appreciated by women themselves (Howard & Tibballs, 2003):

At the start they put the three girls together – they were trying to be PC but I think they were going overboard. I ended up hanging out with the younger guys anyway so it didn’t bother me. They [the tutors] were never mean or derogatory but their teaching approach was based on talking to young boys. So some of their examples or humour didn’t really work when they tried to change it for females. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Being treated the same or different can appear to be a no-win situation:

Part of being there is you want them to forget you’re female, but then they forget you’re female and it’s a bit much. But I have good convos with guys as well but sometimes it’s a bit rough. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

I didn’t want to be treated like a guy, but I didn’t want to get special treatment either. (Ex-trainee, female)

This section has signalled some of the complexities that policy makers need to take account of when it comes to decisions about whether – or how – to treat women in ways that recognise the barriers women face in trades-related careers, and careers decision making. It seems to us that there is a need for deeper theoretical discussion about the assumptions that underpin current debates about equality, equal opportunities, equity, and equitable outcomes. It also seems to us that there are interesting differences between the ways interviewees, researchers, and policy makers think and talk about sameness, difference, and ‘other’. For example, Laxton and Knight (1992) suggested that Queensland educational gender equality policies (at the time of their research) ‘essentialised’ women and perpetuated stereotypical femininity.

Women and men both engage (often subconsciously) in strategies that resist discrimination against women in the trades. We noticed that our female interviewees’ narratives of their trades-related experiences shifted between asserting their fit with the masculine; asserting their fit with the feminine; and asserting that there is no real feminine/masculine divide. Each of these possibilities (as well as the shifting between them) can be a risky business for individual women (not to mention for trades culture as a whole). While women often successfully maintain these fluid multiple identities, doing this can also compromise their sense of self and/or their physical safety.

Women in the trades clearly need to do different ‘work’ from men to assert their right to be there. The gender work that they do often helps to maintain the masculine culture that puts off other women from entering the trades. This in turn can contribute to the perpetuation of the gender normativity they want to resist. Our point here is not to blame women for current gender imbalances, nor is it to suggest that all women want to work in stereotypically feminine ways. Indeed, when we look at the men’s narratives, it is difficult to imagine any other way for women to ‘survive’ these industries. Rather, it is to point to the complexities of the situation.

Policy makers may need to decide whether they want to try to intervene in the trades training environment and work culture in ways that lessen the requirement on women to do this extra ‘gender work’, and/or whether it would be more productive to better support women to deal with the culture as it is.

Asserting women’s fit with dominant masculinity

In an environment that explicitly or implicitly favours men over women, one way for a woman to assert her right to be there is to establish her ‘fit with’ dominant masculine culture. Young women’s interview narratives demonstrate this can help them to succeed (or cope):

My workmates could see that I was trying and I was keen to give it a go. I wasn’t acting all girly and saying I can’t do that. I did everything they asked me to do and I didn’t expect them to treat me differently because I was a girl. I mean going into a male sort of type job I didn’t expect them to make it easier. (Ex-trainee, female)

The next quote is a more ‘critical’ version of this idea, from a young woman attuned to feminist theory:

I don’t ‘do girl’, I ‘do boy’. We have gendered relations. We have gendered scripts of how to relate to the same gender or different genders. So a woman might use patriarchal feminine script – asking questions, tone voice, sentence structure, etc. So you engage in protocol to do it. [In male-dominated trades] I ‘do boy’ – so I will change my language and tone and sentence structures and body language. I think because of the way I look most people don’t know how to relate to me so I get to make the first move. So whatever I give them they will work with. (Ex-trainee, female)

Women appeared to use strategies from traditional masculine culture to challenge any resistance towards them, but in doing so they perpetuated the culture that they were reacting against. The difficulty we see here is that this type of masculinity is partly dependent on the notion that women and men are inherently different, and that ‘men’s men’ treat women in particular ways:

Boys will be boys – like winding you up – or [they] say or do something that is wrong. You have to stand up for yourself and tell them to shove off. You need to be hard… I don’t give a shit to be honest. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

You just have to give it back otherwise they think they can do it all the time. Right back at the start they would tell women jokes…like they’d hassle other guys and say ‘If you act like a girl we’ll put you in a skirt’ and I’m there wearing a little skirt and I said ‘You can’t say that any more because I’m in the class.’ You learn to stick up for yourself. (Senior secondary student, female, nontraditional)

You establish credibility by not taking any shit. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

On the other hand, some women’s narratives suggest a reluctance to challenge at all. Their strategy was to make themselves less visible, not more visible:

There’s a line between being self-assured and too staunch ’cos you are fitting into a culture that frankly isn’t going to change – so you can’t go in all guns blazing. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Although many of the participants in our feedback workshops did not agree with our suggestion that their work environments are ‘masculinity-dominated’,^[27] they identified with the general thesis. Here are three of their responses, the third from a young man who draws attention to the idea that both women’s and men’s identities are fluid and situational (to maintain/produce the trades culture):

But I’m still a lady though. I plan on getting married and having kids in the future and being a traditional lady. I’m a tradesman at work but a chick out of work. At work you can’t be a full-on girl, so you fit in with the guys, and then outside of work you can be a chick. (female, feedback comment)

I don’t see myself as a girly girl. But onsite it’s very black and white to any guy. I’m a girl. It’s a big deal. It doesn’t matter to what degree I see myself as being feminine… I used to put on a persona at work because it was foreign. I used to be staunch and emulate tradesmen. I tried to talk like them. But I don’t put on a persona anymore. But it’s kind of opened up my mind a little bit. I don’t have to defend myself against them. (Female, feedback comment)

Even for me [as a man] – when I go onto a site – like I’ve got a different front. I don’t talk and behave the same at work and at home. It’s easier to become like one of them and easier for them to deal with someone who has the same mentality as them. So you cater to that…it’s the easiest way. Easier to leave that ‘I am who I am’ at home. I can see why they [women] become like one of the guys. (Male, feedback comment)

Indeed, interviews suggest that some women flourish either because they feel very comfortable in a masculine culture and/or because they have found a way to complement it with some traditionally feminine qualities that give them an ‘extra something’ in their trade – an idea that we explore in the next section The young tradeswomen’s narratives appeared to disrupt – even transcend – gender-normative trades discourses to varying degrees.

Asserting women’s fit with femininity

An alternative (sometimes simultaneous) strategy women appear to use is to assert their stereotypical femininity, either in their trades work or in the interview itself:

If you were to see me – if you think of stereotypes you’d expect people to think I’m quite butch but I’m not. (Employee, female, nontraditional)

Interviewee one: It [building course] has made me think twice about doing something with building but I can’t see myself as one of those really man-looking women who drive diggers and stuff… [We’re] doing things differently [from the male students]. I was going to put pink staining on my ladder.

Interviewee two: Yeah I wanted to stain my table pink! (Senior secondary students, female, nontraditional)

I’ve seen heaps of feminine mechanics – real girlie girls. (Trainee, female, nontraditional)

Occasionally we saw stereotypes about femininity and the trades – and we wonder to what extent this is masked by narratives of dominant masculinity. For example, one woman talked about the caring family-like culture alongside the ‘man alone’ nature of it:

The camaraderie that you get – there’s good rapport between the trades. It ends up like a second family on site – everyone is interdependent, when they trust you and help you, when you do your job well, and they respect you. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Some saw classic markers of femininity as a factor for success:

There’s such a room for female electricians…when you go to domestic jobs you can talk to the woman with her kid – they come to you even though there is a man in charge of the job on site. There’s a trust factor. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

There is a place for slightly niche stuff – a lot of tradespeople don’t have a lot of communication skills. My friend who is a sparkie says we could have a women’s trade thing – then you push the communication skills. She was saying that she has communication skills that a lot of men she is apprenticed to don’t – so she talks to the clients. (Ex-trainee, female)

We find it interesting to note that many of the young women’s accounts of how they got to be in the trades emphasise serendipity, luck, and random decision making. This contrasts with many men’s accounts of stepping towards the trades in a long-term, planned, and logical manner. On the one hand, this might reflect our earlier suggestion that current systems make it more likely for men to be guided towards the trades with more encouragement and options. On the other hand, the way in which women tell their story ‘acts’ to show that they did not purposefully seek to enter this male domain. Hence, their narratives minimise their role as challengers of gendered pathways.

Overall, women in the trades are a threat to dominant conceptions of femininity (because they do not fit female stereotypes) and those of masculinity (because they ‘act like men’). Constant work is needed to keep things ‘safe’. Within this environment there can be physical and psychological risks for women. At the same time, there are also possibilities for women to professionally and personally flourish, as well as to transcend traditional masculine/feminine dualisms:

If you really wanted to do it you can adapt to the environment. It’s just about being self-assured. [I would be] loathe to recommend it to a woman just out of school – not having a sense of yourself. I’m not sure if [the identity dangers are] particular to being a woman, it could be all apprentices. You take a few knocks at the beginning so you need a sense of who you are and why you’re there, even if you might not love it the first year. (Apprentice, female, nontraditional)

Summary

Women themselves, not just the men they train and work with, maintain a gendered environment that privileges dominant conceptions of masculinity. A core part of the (re)production of dominant masculinity is that it privileges certain expressions/enactments of ‘maleness’ while women are constituted as ‘other’. So can women really ever fit? Some of our interviewees suggested that differences between women and men are/should be invisible in the trades, while others were dismissive of all that is female and feminine. Women need to do more work than men to ‘prove’ that they are acceptable and capable trade trainees and employees. While some women flourish in these environments, others do not, and many are put off by descriptions (and perceptions) of the trades at a much earlier stage. Some of our feedback workshop participants thought that the culture would change (to become more inclusive of women and a wider array of masculinities and femininities) if a greater number of women entered the trades, stayed in the trades (‘on the tools’), and filled management/ownership positions. However, we do not see the proportion of women increasing towards this ‘tipping point’, partly because we suggest that what is going on here is more than just a ‘numbers game’.

Although most of our interviewees (male and female) agreed that women should be allowed to enter the trades, very few wanted to completely transform the trades. Our interview data suggest that there is some superficial encouragement for women to join the trades, but there is much less emphasis on encouraging elements of femininity in the trades (be it produced by women or men). There are fears about changing the nature of the trades towards greater ‘feminisation’ – either in terms of a more equal balance of the sexes, or in terms of reaching more of a ‘middle ground’ in a theoretical masculine/ feminine continuum. This reluctance to change the nature of the trades is particularly interesting, considering that many interviewees talked about the difference between an ‘old-school’ and a ‘new-school’ trades culture: our analysis showed both to be equally masculine – just in different ways.

The question is, does the real ‘problem’ lie in current gender constructions, in current trades constructions, or in current careers pathways constructions? Either way, we do not see how a gender balance is possible without transforming the trades and/or transforming dominant conceptions of gender. Some parts of the interviews and workshop discussion with some female trades trainees provide us with ideas about some quite different re/deconstructions of gender and potential for a very different trades future. (These are explored in the next section.) However, rather than targeting gender and trades specifically, the solution might emerge if policy-makers, advisers, and young people could conceptualise and structure pathways and careers decision making quite differently, to create more space for women (and men) to continuously explore, create, and ‘hybridise’ careers over time.

GO TO: TOC / Previous / Next - Young people's suggestions for change