Men’s rights activists often point to the fact that most occupational deaths and injuries are among men as an important example of how men in general are discriminated against in society. However, men’s rights activists a) misdiagnose the problem, b) don’t offer any solutions, c) suggest the problem is inevitable, and d) actually oppose the efforts that would address the problem.
Misdiagnose the problem
Yes, most occupational deaths and injuries at work are among men. At the same time, men’s rights advocates misdiagnose the problem. Patterns of workplace injury and death reflect broader social inequalities in the distribution of risk, to do not only with gender but with ethnicity, class, and other factors.
Workers in general in lower-paid, less secure, and more physically demanding occupations face greater exposure to dangerous conditions, while more privileged groups are more likely to occupy safer forms of employment. In our current economci systems, labour markets, employer priorities, and social inequality often place some workers in harm’s way while others are protected.
The fact that most workplace injuries and fatalities are suffered by men reflects men’s disproportionate involvement in high-risk industries such as construction, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, and fishing. These occupational patterns are shaped by gender norms, labour market segregation, and cultural expectations regarding masculinity, breadwinning, and risk-taking. Not all men are equally affected: working-class men, migrant workers, Indigenous workers, and racial or ethnic minority workers are often overrepresented in the most dangerous jobs.
Fail to provide solutions
Despite naming men’s deaths and injuries at work as a key instance of male oppression or victimisation, men’s rights activists do very little to prevent or reduce these. There has been little if any men’s rights advocacy in this area.
There is little evidence of men’s rights organisations leading major occupational health and safety campaigns, lobbying for stronger workplace safety legislation, organising around workplace fatalities, or collaborating with labour unions and occupational safety movements.
This is typical, mind you, of men’s rights efforts in general. It is possible that men’s rights advocates simply are tiny in number, disorganised, or incompetent. Or it may be that their apparent concern for male victims of workplace injury and death in fact is hollow.
Men’s rights advocates have done little that would make a practical difference to gender segregation in dangerous professions or to rates of injury and death in these, such as:
- Supporting trade union and other efforts to improve workplace safety
- Tackling the stereotypical masculine norms of risk-taking and bravodo which increase workplace injuries & deaths
- Supporting feminist efforts at DEI and workplace inclusion (see below).
Men’s rights advocates also complain about women’s absence from professions such as mining, logging, construction, sanitation, and so on. Again however, men’s rights advocates have done little that would make a practical difference to gender segregation in these professions, and indeed, men’s rights advocates typically opposeDEI and workplace inclusion efforts (see below).
MRAs’ attention to men’s overrepresentation in such professions typically is driven by a criticism of feminist claims about gender inequality. Statistics on rates of male injury and death are used rhetorically to argue that society overlooks male disadvantage, but not to inform any actual effort to change these. In short, MRA references to women’s absence from dangerous work are usually rhetorical critiques of feminism rather than calls for gender integration efforts in those occupations.
Say the problem is inevitable
In fact, some men’s rights activists treat women’s lower participation in dangerous work as a consequence of occupational preferences or biological differences rather than as an inequality requiring intervention. Some argue that differences in men’s and women’s typical occupations reflect hardwired biological differences. In other words, they argue that men’s dominance of jobs in manufacturing and mining and women’s absence from these professions is the result of biology – these are ‘natural’ and thus inevitable.
If that is the case, men’s dominance of risky professions is not an injustice, just a simple and inescapable reflection of biology, and should be removed from the list of MRA grievances. That is, men’s rights arguments at times are internally contradictory or incoherent.
Oppose efforts that would address the problem
The most striking aspect of men’s rights advocates’ apparent concern about male deaths and injuries at work is that they oppose the efforts that would address this problem. MRAs routinely complain about the absence of women from industries such as mining and manufacturing, but then also oppose efforts to lessen gender segregation in such areas.
Organised advocacy for women’s entry into trades, construction, mining, and other traditionally male occupations has largely come from feminist, labour, and gender-equity organisations.Feminist and women’s organisations have been advocating and organising for women’s involvement in mining, manufacturing, operations, and so on. In Australia for example, such efforts are represented by organisations such as the National Association of Women in Operations (NAWO), Australian Women in Mining and Resources (AWIMAR), and others. Women’s entry into and retention in these occupations is hindered by informal discrimination against women and pervasive sexual harassment and sexist mistreatment, as a systematic review of women’s experiences in trades documents.
MRAs are oblivious to feminist efforts to get women into male-dominated professions, and when they do notice them, they attack them. They simultaneously criticise the absence of women from a series of occupations and criticise DEI initiatives to improve women’s opportunities to enter those occupations.
Men’s rights advocates’ opposition to feminist efforts at gender segregation in these professions may reflect that: a) MRAs are not actually concerned about harm to men in dangerous jobs; b) MRAs are concerned, but this is trumped by their hostility to women and feminism; or c) MRAs are entirely concerned with opposing and attacking feminism.