The Times article leads off with: "The hard hat was designed 100 years ago as protective gear for miners and other laborers, but it has grown to become a symbol of status and masculinity."
We know better, though, and present to you many photos through the years of strong union women wearing this iconic headgear.
10 comments:
I find it very inane that people think that a hat represents masculinity and status. It is just a hat that is meant to protect one's head from damage. My question is why is the hard hat the only protective gear that stands for status and masculinity? How does a hard hat refer to status, what kind of status does it refer to? There are many industries that use hard hats and other protective gear. I believe the article in the New York Times could have talked about the benefits of the hard hat, how it has evolved over time and how it has become a staple in protective gear across many industries. The response this article makes to the New York Times article is very valid and makes a statement about the way women are often forgotten about in the labor industry. This is very interesting that something that is supposed to help protect lives being used a symbol for what it should not be.
Normally the first thing that comes to mind when a person thinks of a hard hat, is a man working a stereotypical construction job, probably swinging a hammer or chiseling the sidewalk. However, this particular article brings up the very obvious point that women also work in contraction and other fields in which this type of personal protection equipment is necessary. This got me to think , that maybe because this is an item that men are typically seen with, maybe there is a possibility that the hard had should face a new design to accommodate women needs as well as mens, whether that be evaluating the shape of the hat or the way it sits on a persons head based off of their gender. Regardless, it is very empowering to see that women are taking back a “masculine item such as the hard hat through these really incredible photos!
Everyone part of crew is screaming. Thank you for calling the New York Times out. Hard hats should not be a symbol of masculinity. In fact, they shouldn’t be associated with gender at all. Hard hats are just PPE, personal protective equipment, to protect your head when working. This article reminds me of another article that I read a few years ago about women in the construction industry. The community of women is very small, given that the construction industry is traditionally dominated by men. Those women wear hard hats too. Yet, agreeing with what Stephanie said above, women are often forgotten or left out of the conversation in industries that require labor. I think the article by the New York Times is reflective of what society thinks about certain industries, particularly labor, and how we generalize who works within those industries. It would be great if we started being more inclusive and steer away from stereotypes.
I absolutely love that this article called out the New York Times for saying that hardhats are a symbol of masculinity. I also love the fact that the article featured amazing pictures of women wearing hard hats in their work. I don't think hart hats should be associated with only men. In fact, I don't think hard hats should be associated with any gender at all. Hard hats are protective equipment. Yes, the color of a hard hat can represent authority in a certain workplace as it says in the New York Times article, but that has nothing do to with gender at all. Hard hats are meant to protect their wearers from injury. I simply don't understand why someone would see a hardhat and automatically connect that image with masculinity. Yes, the construction industry is male-dominated, but assuming that there are no women in the construction industry is simply wrong.
There is nothing gendered about a piece of personal protective equipment, and should not be gendered because of the overwhelming representation of one gender and no representation for another. Industries that use hard hats are not exclusive to male workers, so I appreciate the celebration of female workers by AFL-CIO. The first photo, in particular, really makes me chuckle. The look of knowing and exasperation on the woman's face juxtaposed with the "MEN WORKING" sign is comedy gold but is also so telling. She knows she is in on this profession, she knows she is good, she is tired of men getting all the credit, and by god, she is going to show it. The casualness and ease with which all these women in the photos wear their hard hats and wield their tools is my favorite thing. There is no emphasis on femininity, no disparagement of masculinity, just women working. That is real power.
The fact that a piece of polyethylene shaped to sit on the head is a symbol of masculinity baffles me. And that a group such as the New York Times would be as low as to associate it with masculinity when referring to this day and age? Ridiculous. Shouldn’t everyone, no matter what they identify as, strive to protect their body? Safety is not gender specific. This article reminds me of the countless experiences I’ve had in Home Depot. Like the hard hat, Home Depot is a place that traditionally has been stereotypically associated with men. Whenever I go into the store, as a small woman, I’m always approached by employees who assume I’m lost or confused or need help (the answer is always no, thank you). I can almost guarantee you that they approach me because I’m a woman, though I always know what I’m there for and where it is. Anyways, this is a wonderful article that celebrates the women in hard hats throughout history—power to those ladies.
Although I love the intent of this article I wish there had been more substance for the article portion. It's all great to talk about the incredible pictures of women in hard hats over the years that underscore the blatantly incorrect view that hard hats scream masculinity but I wanted to hear what the author had to say about it. I wanted to hear him pick apart the Times article and interject his own opinions on their claim. I will admit that the photos provide a great sense of "argue with this" as you peruse the faces of strong women doing things which many would still consider men's work. But this article consisted of maybe three or four sentences that basically said: "Incorrect New York Times here's proof." You could argue, I suppose, that a picture is worth a thousand words and thus this article has the equivalent of 14,000 words and while I would agree that some of them speak volumes even in their simplicity it's would have been interesting to see this issue from a male's (the author's) perspective.
I am really glad this article was written in response to the NYT piece. Those in positions of power with captive audiences need to be doing a better job of acknowledging and breaking down these stereotypes, and the NYT fell short. When we allow articles and people to just throw out these statements about gender, no matter how mundane, it still continues to perpetuate the idea that women can’t do certain things. What about the young girl who grew up watching Bob the builder, tinkered and constructed with anything she could get her hands on, and now hears her favorite hard hat doesn’t represent her passion but rather dismisses her ability to reach her goals. This article gives numerous pictures of role modes for her. With so much kickback to the Good Morning America incident about boys dancing, we need to continue checking news and media in all instances of sexism and gender stereotyping.
Snaps for more people calling out New York Times and their shitty institutionalized sexism. I don’t believe that this article needed anything other than pictures, in fact, I think more pictures would’ve been amazing. A picture is worth a thousand words isn’t just a pretty saying. Sometimes when someone says “oh clearly this is this” the adage of “pics or it didn’t happen” is the best way to deal with it if they are very blatantly wrong. A wide array of pictures proving they’re wrong is even better because then you don’t need to waste your time with words you can just lay the pictures down and go “oh, yes, masculinity, and these pictures, can you explain them?” It’s like when Uncle Bob tells a racist joke at Thanksgiving and you go “I don’t get it. Why is it funny?” and force them to explain the punchline. Showing pictures of women in hardhats as long as men have been in hardhats is that same flavor. Also, I don’t see men when I think of hardhats. I see safety hazards that the hardhat is good for. More hardhats!
It is weird that we ever had to land in a place in which this statement had to be made. Like really? A symbol of masculinity. This article about the history of a hard hat is literally equally as fascinating, relevant, and accurate if you exclude that phrase, without a shadow of a doubt. Hard hats protect the person doing work, just like safety goggles, gloves, hearing protection, etc. What really bothers me, somehow even more than the comment made in the first place, is how deep does institutionalized sexism have to run at the New York Times, one of the most widely read news sources out there, for literally no one to read that and think “absolutely not”. Literally any non-male identifying person would have read that and immediately brought up that concern, so my question is were their questions ignored or were they not allowed in the room making the edits? But also, this article had to be proofread by many people before it was published, and, even if there were only men working on this beforehand, did absolutely none of them register how incorrect that statement is? We should be encouraging everyone to pursue the PPE required to do their jobs, and there should be no exclusion, argument, or negativity surrounding that.
Post a Comment