CM off the mark on women

In the last edition of CM, there was another depressingly familiar hobbyhorse, this time espoused by Professor Michael Benfield regarding his wish to positively discriminate in favour of women in the industry (CM, July/Aug, letters).

I have worked with women throughout much of my career, I have nearly always enjoyed working with them, as I have anyone else, and have never had any hang-ups about gender, except that of gender bias whether reactive or proactive. Essentially I regard women in the workplace as I would anyone else, including myself. They, like me, have strengths and foibles.

Michael Benfield, in praising women's talents, follows the familiar path of discussing their virtues which apparently men don't have. A particularly common theme in this, as elsewhere, is a woman's ability to 'multi-task' as opposed to a man's apparent inability to do so. Even if this were to be so, does this mean that men by definition are therefore less able, innovative or adaptable?

As a man I am fed up with this oppressive and ongoing marginalisation of men. When will we drop this infantile nonsense, and simply accept anyone and everyone on their individual merits?

As to whether or not there are sufficient women being attracted to construction, surely the issue is that there are large skill shortages within the industry and it is imperative that all young people should be made aware of what our industry has to offer those who are prepared to enter it and get "stuck in". We need to be making our industry appeal to them regardless of their gender.

We also need to realise that the reason why many women are not attracted into our industry is because there are other careers that interest them more. This works for both genders; the reason why professions such as nursing attract greatly more women than men is not because men are discriminated against, it is just that it simply does not appeal to them in the way it does to women.

Peter Marks