Lay off the builders. They’re not all wolf-whistlers

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/06/lay-off-builders-wolf-whistlers-sexism

Version 0 of 1.

Winston Churchill was a bricklayer. And the pope is driven in a white van. Yet, for many, the terms “builder” and “white van man” have become bywords for “misogynist”, “sexist” or, worse, “aggressor”.

Even my beloved Mary Beard could be heard on Radio 4 earlier this year casually describing “the average builder” as a wolf-whistling sexist, while Snickers in Australia recently ran a “you’re not yourself when you’re hungry” advert based entirely on the premise that all builders are mindless, cat-calling misogynists.

As the daughter of a feminist, leftwing, university-educated builder, I have always found the cliche of the sexually aggressive construction worker both reductive and uncomfortable. It speaks of snobbery, of the worst kind of us and them-ism. If you are able to talk about “typical sexist builders” then I’m going to hazard a guess you’ve never gone on holiday with a builder; never had dinner with a labourer or spent a day working on-site alongside bricklayers or plumbers; and never sat on a set of scaffolding and discussed religious faith with a roofer. The stereotype, like a poorly mixed sand and cement render, quickly crumbles once you look at the facts.

Organisations such as the Considerate Construction Scheme have, over the last 20 years, gone to great lengths to improve the reputation and practices of the construction industry. As the scheme’s chief executive, Edward Hardy, says on its website: “The scheme takes a very strong line on sexist and abusive behaviour, as it is the actions of the smallest minority of individuals that undermines the very real efforts of the majority to improve the industry’s reputation.” Or, as Mick Sheridan, a labourer I stopped to interview on my walk home last night put it, practices in the industry have changed “a lot in the last 20 years. The trades that had a particular reputation for it were scaffolders. They were known for the ‘oy oy’ but it’s disappeared among labourers – it’s seen as unacceptable. If a member of the public makes a complaint against someone, they get sacked straight away.”

This is partly because of the law. Under the Sexual Discrimination Act, an organisation is liable for the actions of anyone working under their control, even contractors. Which is why complaints made by members of the public are taken so seriously. More seriously, I would argue, than in many offices.

I have witnessed far greater sexism in a creative, office environment than I’ve ever known when working on a building site. As my friend Martin, a systems engineer, says: “If IT guys worked by the side of the road in gangs with their laptops, no one would ever complain about builders.” When a creative director at an ad agency told me that women only bought football shirts for their husbands, nobody raised an eyebrow. When friends of mine have been cornered by bosses at Christmas parties, their complaints haven’t even proceeded to the internal hearing stage.

And, in fact, I don’t get harassed in the street by builders. I never get wolf-whistled, taunted, cat-called. Yesterday, I climbed on to the white scaffolding truck of two self-employed brothers to ask them if scaffolders do still wolf-whistle passing women. “Yes, of course,” one told me, “but we also compliment the men.” The latter doesn’t forgive the former, but it’s at least a more equal opportunities approach to lechery than I was expecting.

Braham, a construction worker for Clip Fine in London Bridge told me that everyone working for his organisation has to do at least a two-hour induction on behaviour. They are told to be polite, respectful and professional. Nobody can take off their tops, and anyone seen shouting at a woman would be disciplined, if not fined or dismissed. “Even if someone is aggressive to me,” says Braham, “I have to treat them politely.”

And, of course, people are aggressive towards builders. Women, understandably, steel themselves against what they see as an inevitable threat, an unpleasant or intimidating hurdle as they try to navigate through public and private space. Frustrated cyclists let rip against people who are closing roads for resurfacing work or cordoning off access routes for lorries.

While street harassment and intimidation are absolutely unacceptable, labelling all builders sexist pigs is as unpleasant and inaccurate as labelling all PE teachers lesbians. It is reductive, dismissive, wilfully unrepresentative and speaks of your prejudices just as loudly as it does of their wolf-whistling.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some slates to lay.