• Welcome to The Anti-Misandry Blog within SethBlogs! Confused? Click here for The Anti-Misandry Blog Introduction. Intrigued/enraged? Click on the “Anti-Misandry” link in the CATEGORY section to the right of this post for further episodes.

    THE ANTI-MISANDRY BLOG: EPISODE VI

    INTRODUCTION:

    In the last few weeks, CBC’s BC-based public affairs radio broadcast, On the Coast, has interviewed two UBC graduate students who respectively argued that (1) male-“dominated” workplaces may be more likely to nourish higher levels of counterproductive risk than gender-balanced work sites, and (2) international students suffer significant racism at UBC. To my ear, the latter study was untroubled by the nuisance of scientific rigor or neutrality, while the former could benefit from some serious ethical meta questions about the consequences of research that intends to differentiate the sexes with the hopes of influencing hiring policies. Just as troubling, however, was the inability or unwillingness of the interviewer, CBC’s Matthew Lazin-Ryder, to ask the intrepid sociologists difficult questions.

    Case 1 is featured below as part of my misandry collective, while Case 2 (which is parallel to, but not an example of, misandry), stars in a subsequent post, THE UNEXAMINED STRIFE: PART 2.

    THE UNEXAMINED STRIFE – PART 1:

    Men-in-groups-take-extra-risks-so-perhaps-we-should-have-more-women-in-such-occupations PhD student, Hazel Hollingdale, seemed, in my hearing during her interview with CBC’s Matthew Lazin-Ryder, to be a legitimate investigator as she sounded interested in daunting things like evidence.

    She explained that in professions in which there are normally more men than women, there seem to be more instances of bodily injury (in the case of blue-collar occupations) and strategic failures (in the case of white-collar workplaces), both of which she attributes to detrimentally high-risk behaviour:

    “I started getting interested in male-dominated work organizations during my Masters when I actually looked at blue-collar sectors, so construction, and iron workers, that sort of thing, and I looked at safety violations, and occupational health and safety outcomes, and realizing that that sort of male-dominated culture often resulted in a normalization of risk there, which resulted in occupational health and safety incidents. And then I started thinking, well, what does risk-taking look like in other male-dominated occupations, stock brokers, for instance [where] an estimated 90% of their workforce is men, and irresponsible risks there [don’t] come from bodily harm, but what happens is that there are undesirable outcomes potentially, like losing a lot of money, or even a financial crash if enough people are engaging in those irresponsible risks…”

    Hollingdale goes on to discuss the potentially positive effects of larger numbers of women being in traditionally male white-collar roles:

    “There’s research actually from UBC, the Sauder School of business, that’s recently shown that more women on board of directors actually increases the investment potential and that sort of thing, but the Lehman Sisters hypothesis, which is what I’m testing, this idea of more women in financial firms leading to greater, more stable economic markets, hasn’t been formally tested in a large scale, so there are no numbers yet, which is why I hope to find support for it in my own research.”

    Although she didn’t mention it in the piece (possibly because she wasn’t asked), let’s assume that her study fairly took into account factors outside of gender (including occupational personality traits) that could be causing the apparent gender discrepancies that she’s finding. These considerations, however, should not eliminate the controversy. On a meta level, a study that differentiates between the sexes and their ability to create cohesive and effective workplaces ought to be scrutinized not just for scientific validity, but also for its assumed ethical implications. It does seem like the province of sociologists to investigate the sub-cultural forces within societies and their effects on the workplace, even if that research includes a controversial gender aptitude comparison; however, when one attempts to prove that a particular race or sex is better or worse than another, one should recognize that one is playing with ethically delicate issues. If we prove that male people tend not to do well in groups, then, rather inconveniently to activist sociologists, the question remains as to whether there is something we should do about it? Should we discriminate against individual men because groups of men sometimes don’t work well together?

    As I’ve argued in my anti-misandry post THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF DOUBLE STANDARDS, if it is the case that, on average, women have a higher aptitude than men in a particular area that is considered valuable in certain environments, then the only legitimate way to handle such a discrepancy would be to seek out candidates (of either gender, indiscriminately) who possess the traits that are provoking those improved results. Thus, if the research is right, we’ll naturally end up with a more effective workplace (which might turn out to include more women than men), while not excluding the occasional men who also possess the useful skill in question, or over-including the women who do not.

    The matter may not be as simple, though, in the case posited by the researcher here, because her results may not demonstrate that women are superior to men in the traits she argues are good, but instead that, when men make up a vast majority in a profession, there is a tendency to behave ineffectively or unsafely. Therefore, it may be the case that, even if all the men in the male-dominated profession have a high level of aptitude for the work, the sum of the skills of such a homogenous (male) group may be inherently inferior to a mixed-gender environment.

    Nevertheless, questions ought still to be asked: if a certain percentage of gender or racial balance is shown to be less optimal than another, do we gender or racially profile to acquire the best result? That is, do those efficiency ends justify discriminatory means? (These are the sort of questions that a CBC interviewer ought to, but never would, ask of a sociologist.)

    Moreover, have we considered other options? Maybe we can find new measures of reducing the sort of negative risk (possibly provoked by mostly-male environments) that the researcher says are bad for business; for instance, perhaps employers could require personality tests that assess the applicant’s susceptibility to male peer pressure. If not, does the argued-for discrimination based on homogenous flaws apply to groups that society currently wants to protect? Presumably, that is, if it’s the case that male-dominated professions have weaknesses that a more mixed group would not, then surely it’s possible that female-dominated professions might do better with a greater mix as well? (But I suspect that studies of this nature are less likely to receive funding in UBC’s sociology department, and certainly wouldn’t be cheered on by CBC).

    Ultimately, sociologists may be willing to accept (even if they won’t study) the possibility that nursing and elementary school teaching could use a greater percentage of men, but what would happen if they were to find results that are even more counter to current politically correct thinking? What if these studies were to find evidence that promotes patriarchal ideas? What if it turned out that a particular male-dominated profession would do better with fewer women? I’m not suggesting that it’s likely, but it’s possible, so before approving the implications of these anti-male studies for influence on society, shouldn’t we ask ourselves whether optimal racial and gender divides are more important than freedom from gender and racial profiling in the workplace?

    I’m not opposed to sociologists looking into these matters (as long as they do it scientifically) so that we can try to figure out what, in a perfect world, would be the most cohesive and efficient workplace environment, but before we force that result, independent of human rights, I submit that we ought to look for an equity-based means of striving for said efficiency.

    This is daunting ethical terrain that demands serious consideration, but the CBC’s ordinarily intelligent interviewer Matthew Lazin-Ryder – apparently terrified of asking politically inappropriate questions – could only muster the following impersonation of a critical question about Hollingdale’s hopes for her work to provoke pro-female hiring policies:

    “Gender issues can often get political, and stir up angry debate, and I could see, imagine this: if you prove your hypothesis that, it’ll be kind of big headlines all over the place. ‘More women on boards and in executive roles decreases the risk or irresponsible risk taking’ and then we’ll have all kinds of reaction of a political kind, saying that, well, this is politically correct: you’re just trying to get more equality, and all of that issue. Are you prepared for that kind of reaction?”

    The question was so soft that it almost fell to the ground before it reached Hollingdale, who predictably went with an “If equality is wrong, I don’t want to be right” type response.

    “Well,” she said, “honestly, I’m hoping to get more support for this hypothesis because when 3-5% of top positions are held by women, there is clearly a problem. And I don’t think equality within these organizations is a bad goal to work towards. So, yeah, I think definitely people get upset by these sorts of things, but it’s just a reality that there’s so much inequality and it needs to find support in order to garner motivations for firms to actually hire women into these positions.”

    I don’t necessarily blame the interviewee for her simple reply since the question was so empty of content. However, her answer does demonstrate that she may not merely be playing the role of sociologist here, but also ethicist and social engineer, as she appears to be suggesting that her results should have an effect on hiring policies. Or maybe she is simply being candid about her bias, and will leave the ethical contemplations to others; in any case, her hopes for particular results do suggest that she may be analyzing the data with preferential expectations. I don’t think that that’s an unforgivable quality in a social scientist (so long as she is vigilant about keeping her hopes out of her data analysis), but it should be a concern to a CBC interviewer, who ought to have asked, “Given that you are hoping for results that will provoke these changes in the world, what do you do to ensure that you don’t let those preferences impact how you interpret your work?”

    Alas, no, the interviewer had clearly left his brain in the cloak roam and continued to cheerlead his subject. The result was a discussion of research, which, while possibly legitimate, has serious potential consequences. And yet it was treated as though it were unassailable. I doubt that a study that found problems with a predominantly female workforce would have been treated so gently.

    (For PART 2, click here.)

    P.S. In case you would like to examine my examination of Lazin-Ryder’s interview with Hollingdale, I have included the transcript of their conversation as the first comment on this post.

    Posted by SethBlog @ 9:05 AM

  • 3 Responses

    WP_Modern_Notepad
    • SethBlog Says:

      The following is a transcript of the April 2/14 interview between CBC’s Matthew Lazin-Ryder and UBC grad student Hazel Hollingdale.

      ML: A lot of questions emerged from the global financial crisis of 2008. And a PhD student at UBC is looking into one of the more interesting ones. Could it have been avoided if more women were in senior roles in financial institutions? Hazel Hollingdale is interested in the culture of risk that prevails in many male-dominated industries. She joins me on the line now to discuss her research. Good afternoon, Hazel.

      HH: Good afternoon, Matthew.

      ML: How did you come to this area of research? Who says that male-dominated industries engage in more risk?

      HH: Well, I started getting interested in male-dominated work organizations during my Masters when I actually looked at blue-collar sectors, so construction, and iron workers, that sort of thing, and I looked at safety violations, and occupational health and safety outcomes, and realizing that that sort of male-dominated culture often resulted in a normalization of risk there, which resulted in occupational health and safety incidents. And then I started thinking, well, what does risk-taking look like in other male-dominated occupations, stock brokers, for instance [where] an estimated 90% of their workforce is men, and irresponsible risks there [don’t] come from bodily harm, but what happens is that there are undesirable outcomes potentially, like losing a lot of money, or even a financial crash if enough people are engaging in those irresponsible risks.

      ML: And do you have any idea why men seem to engage in more risks?

      HH: Yeah, I mean there’s a lot of research on masculinities, and this idea of sort of, I think the best way of capturing for the public’s attention is the idea of quote-unquote “macho behaviours,” which I think [tend] to be, in male-dominated organizations, that [tend] to be sort of the norm within the organizations often, and not necessarily anything other than a culture of an organization, which means that [they] can be changed, but definitely [they’re] there.

      ML: When you’re looking at risk, though, in big financial institutions, risk is a big part of it – and we ended up on the wrong side of risk in 2008 – but it’s different than more blue- collar, as you called it, industries where we want to eliminate risk entirely. Don’t financial institutions have to take some sort of level of risk, and therefore you need people who are comfortable with risk?

      HH: Yeah, you’re absolutely right, so increased risk in financial investments obviously leads to increased returns often. That’s what I would call responsible risk-taking within financial sectors, but what I’m actually interested in is irresponsible or reckless risk- taking that tends to be normalized in organizations that are male dominated, and so an objective measurement, which I’m using for these irresponsible risks are criminal financial violations, so people who break the law of banking regulations. I’m looking at those specifically.

      ML: And do you have any numbers as of yet – I know you’re just starting your research, but are they any numbers that exist that show that corporations or entities with more women on their board for directors or in executive positions actually do take less irresponsible risk?

      HH: So there’s research actually from UBC, the Sauder School of Business, that’s recently shown that more women on board of directors actually increases the investment potential and that sort of thing, but the Lehman Sisters hypothesis, which is what I’m testing, this idea of more women in financial firms leading to greater, more stable economic markets, hasn’t been formally tested in a large scale, so there are no numbers yet, which is why I hope to find support for it in my own research.

      ML: So how are you actually going to specifically look at that?

      HH: Yeah, so I’m using numbers from the United States, because in Canada, we have very segregated securities exchange regulations, so in the United States, they have a federal regulatory agency, and they actually: any criminal financial violation is recorded by the security exchange commission in the United States, so I’m looking at whether the sex composition of a financial firm, if there are more women within that, whether they have fewer of these criminal financial violations.

      ML: Ah, gender issues can often get political, and stir up angry debate, and I could see, imagine this: if you prove your hypothesis that, it’ll be kind of big headlines all over the place. “More women on boards and in executive roles decreases the risk or irresponsible risk-taking” and then we’ll have all kinds of reaction of a political kind, saying that, well this politically correct: you’re just trying to get more equality, and all of that issue. Are you prepared for that kind of reaction?

      HH: Well, you know, honestly, I’m hoping to get more support for this hypothesis because when 3-5% of top positions are held by women, there is clearly a problem. And I don’t think equality within these organizations is a bad goal to work towards. So, yeah, I think definitely people get upset by these sorts of things, but it’s just a reality that there’s so much inequality, and it needs to find support in order to garner motivations for firms to actually hire women into these positions.

      ML: Hazel, thank you very much for your time today.

      HH: Thanks so much, Matthew.

      ML: Good bye.

      HH: Good bye.

      ML: Hazel Hollingdale is a PhD student at UBC’s Department of Sociology.

    • vmac Says:

      There are so many problems with this research I don’t even know where to begin.
      It seems to me she is excluding male dominated professions that are not associated with risk taking. What about the clergy, for example? Excluding these types of professions will surely skew the results in the direction she intends. Also if a profession has inherint risk built in (like construction or policing) then isn’t it expected to have a higher injury rate than something less dangerous? In addition, what if the profession acually REQUIRES risk taking behavious as I imagine construction & stock brokering do? Then isn’t this a desired behaviour rather than a problematic one? After all, nothing ventured nothing gained, right?

    • SethBlog Says:

      Thanks VMac! Yeah, that seems like a valid criticism re the lack of comparison with male-dominated professions of low risk (or at least it’s something that the CBC interviewer should have asked about). Maybe stockbrokers take extra risks not so much because they’re male-dominated, but instead (at least in part) because they’re risk-dominated. (I’m currently reading a memoir called Confessions of a Sociopath by M.E. Thomas (pseudonym) in which she argues that sociopaths tend to have high-risk personalities, and so they go into high-risk jobs and do some of the dirty work that “empaths” are less willing or less skilled at doing.) In terms of the benefits of such risk taking, the interviewer did ask Hollingdale about that, and she argued that she is attempting to differentiate positive risk taking from negative, damaging risk-taking, and her argument is that with more women in stock market work, better risk choices may be made. Maybe, but I hope she investigates the distinction exhaustively; it may be the case that, in some professions, it’s difficult to separate the one from the other.

    Leave a Comment

    Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Subscribe to Sethblogs

Enter your favourite email address here and sethblogs will alert you whenever Seth blogs.