When I first saw this (PPE Women in Construction) you could blow me over with a feather. Safety just keeps getting worse and worse. See Figure 1.
Figure 1.
If ever there was need for a feminist ethic in Safety it would be now.
Here we have, masked as something to do with safety and PPE, all that a masculinist ethic desires for women.
Just because the dress is made of high viz material (note no hard hat, gloves, glasses etc) this somehow promotes a positive message for safety and women. Well, god bless the sunshine and hand out the ‘zero event’ pamphlets. BTW, most important to ensure the model is neither old, short, overweight or unattractive (to men).
The article states that ‘this dress is my armour’ no sorry, this dress is a masculinist semiotic.
Of course, if you deconstruct this parade or dress, you are obviously anti-safety and this is reflected in the comments attached to this article. Of course, in safety, no matter how the bad idea, how unethical the projection, it must be supported and congratulated because it comes from Safety.
Poor olde safety, where critical thinking is demonised and compliance is god.
Sorry, this promotion is just as problematic as the stiletto for ‘Women in Safety’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-wisdom-of-the-beguines-for-safety/). Sorry wo-men, but keeping your head in the sand about semiotics doesn’t help your cause. Safety is a profoundly misogynist activity (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-a-mysoginist-activity/ ).
Unfortunately, all this stuff promotes masculinist power and endorses safety as a masculinist activity. And this is what this article confirms: wo-men, know your place, be compliant, and be a sex object.
Zero is of course the greatest symbol of masculinist power (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) and sadly Wo-men in safety endorse this delusion. How strange that Wo-men would promote an ideology of brutalism.
If you want to understand a different view or risk, a feminine view of risk that is positive, constructive and meaningful, you can watch here: https://vimeo.com/237511120
How fascinating that in all the activity of Wo-men in safety there is no mention of the most critical factor in Care Ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/care-ethics-and-the-ethics-of-care-in-risk/; https://safetyrisk.net/culture-silences-in-safety-care-ethics/).
No, let’s just get excited about having our boobs and legs hanging out of a dress and somehow reconstruct sense to state it is some kind of safety statement??? Even the discourse about the dress is engineering focused and masculinist!
More mindless safety and then we wonder why gendered violence in the workplace is a safety issue?
Brent Charlton says
Didn’t realize that was you, Rob. Discovered the glitch as well when I posted that comment about using your name them felt bad for the criticism but couldn’t pull it back
Anonymous says
Oh, poor old Rob such a poor researcher. No idea of culture or that the medium is the message. No idea about semiotics or the objectifying of women. Poor old Rob, no idea about the culture of misogyny in the building industry. Silly old Rob to think that the safety industry’s obsession with PPE isn’t a problem. So arbitrary. Poor old Rob to think all of this has no connection to gendered violence in the workplace. I wonder how this pic would go on the walls of a few site sheds around town? We could excuse it to the women on site by telling them it was all about safety.
Robert Long says
Happy to always name myself. The website is on the blink.
As for poor olde Peter, such an expert researcher, such an expert in semiotics, such an expert in feminism, such an expert in everything. All off the back of a blog that promotes itself through the violent semiotic of a punching fist on a brick wall. Says it all.
Peter Jenkins says
I’ve tried to write out my response from LinkedIn, but it doesn’t seem to be working.
To reiterate:
This is a poorly researched and executed article. It is completely lacking in emotional intelligence at best, and sexist (at a minimum) at worst.
The article perpetuates the very message it’s attempting to call out, by Rob imposing a privileged white male narrative on the source material, with the most minimal of critical thoughts applied to it.
Rob makes no effort to explore the geographical, cultural, industry (construction), or social context to the dress. Nor does he address #ppethatfits per the post’s description, instead he just arbitrarily writes it off as “mindless safety”, without any form of critical review.
Even more than that, Rob makes no reference to the place that the dress was worn: The National Federation of Builders’ Top 100 Influential Women in Construction awards. An awards ceremony heavily supported by Danny Clarke CMIOSH.
Does Rob reduce all women to b**bs & legs? Does he ignore all celebrations of women & modern calls for equity & equality in workplaces? Does he think that the tangible power of influence that women can bring on social, print, and digital media is just toward “mindless safety”?
Peter Jenkins says
I completely disagree with this article, which strikes me as completely lacking in emotional intelligence at best, and sexist (at a minimum) at worst.
Not even including Kelly’s name or providing an opportunity to give her thoughts to the article prior to publishing it reinforces the narrative of inequality and inequity in progressing discussions on safety.
“The article states that ‘this dress is my armour’ no sorry, this dress is a masculinist semiotic.
Of course, if you deconstruct this parade or dress, you are obviously anti-safety and this is reflected in the comments attached to this article.”
What an absolutely narrow-minded, patriarchal-reinforcing, ‘dog-whistle issue’ provoking couple of paragraphs that reinforces & imposes a masculine ‘decision’ on the source narrative
The next line talks about the demise of critical thinking, yet this article does nothing to even contemplate the rationale or reason of the other side
By the end it completely missing the point of #ppethatfits and the importance of visible representation in the workplace
A poorly executed article.
Anonymous says
So what does it say that this was designed by a woman? In her Linked In post she vehemently defends her choice. I’m not sure what to do with that, but it sure doesn’t help the cause of supplying women with PPE that fits.
Anonymous says
“More mindless safety and then we wonder why gendered violence in the workplace is a safety issue?” AMEN TO THAT!!!
Anonymous says
Just imagine if Safety got out of its own belly button an discovered and consulted other disciplines that know how to be professional. Just imagine if the curriculum was reformed to include Transdisciplinary competence? Just imagine if women in safety had an interest in care ethics not zero? Just imagine if women decided to be non-compliant and focus on what doesn’t matter to men? Just imagine if Women in safety decided to listen and look at stuff outside of their bubble? All imaginations, and I can’t see any of them happening in the next 50 years.
Anonymous says
*groan* Please remind me what year it is? 2023, correct, not 1973? All too often I have to just shake my head about my “profession”.
Anonymous says
It’s why i never use the word ‘profession’ for this industry. It has light years to be before it discovers ethics and moral maturity.
rosa carrillo says
Please do not put all women in safety associations in the same group. WISE Women in Safety Excellence would never put on such a show!!!
Anonymous says
I didn’t put them all in the same box, Women in Safety is the stiletto group. Although, as a sub-set of ASSP probably WISE don’t have a feminist philosophy or ethic? I certainly couldn’t find much on what they do or methodology.
Anonymous says
Link Read more of this post”-doesnot seem to work-waitinga long time ?Yasmin