UKC

Statistically, only a small percentage of those working in rope access identify as women. This fact may come as no surprise, as similar statistics can be seen throughout the entire industrial sector: construction, fire fighting, mechanics, plumbing, carpentry, the list of professions dominated by men goes on and on.

But why the lack of female rope access technicians? We have certainly seen a noticeable increase in the number of female climbers - isn't it about time that we see the same upward trend in the rope access industry?

Read more

In reply to UKC Articles:

I've worked with a few women now over the years, never had a problem in fact it's great having women on a site as it tends make the tw*ts wind their necks in a bit!
If you're interested I'd def recommend the wind industry as the work doesn't require as much brawn as some, nice views, good for the environment and decent money!
Good luck and check out https://m.facebook.com/womeninropeaccess/ and https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=8374602526&ref=content_filter
for advice from those already doing it

In reply to UKC Articles:
There was a recent article in www.womeninropeaccess.com about the numbers of women in rope access. I was surprised by the numbers as I have worked with a number of other women so I didn't think it was going to be that low.

For women climbing hard grades is mainly about technique and in rope assess you just have to think a bit more but there's always some way of making things easier to do.

In reply to UKC Articles:

The gender imbalance is even more pronounced in Scotland and particularly the North Sea, though the women I've worked with on the ropes offshore have been quite comfortable in that particular social and work environment.

The reasons for so few females? As you say there are real reasons and percieved reasons and perhaps quite a few subtlties that are not quite so obvious, particularly to men. I knew a girl who was lined up for a job on a North Sea platform, only to be stood down at short notice because the rig had no female facilities, quite astonishing only 10 years ago.

The situation in professional mountaineering is similar: there are quite a few female MIAs but at MIC that number drops off a lot, although there have been a few more qualifying in the last couple of years. At Guide level it's even fewer, off the top of my head only nine women BMG members.

I've asked around a bit and the reasons appeared to be varied, but I was surprised by female friends commonly talking about the physical discomfort of working in cold mountain environments being a deterring factor. That said Rope Access is almost way easier on the body than winter climbing, except perhaps some geo jobs.

In reply to UKC Articles:

An estimate I got from someone in the industry was 1%; I wonder how accurate this is. I imagine route setting work has a much more favourable percentage, which, in basically being a form of rope access, might help encourage uptake elsewhere in the industry?

In reply to Rich W Parker:



Any idea of percentage re the above?



Similar to the attraction of winter climbing as a leisure pursuit I guess; perhaps the numbers will be similar in a relative sense.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
I'm not sure Michael, Mountain Training will have that knowledge somewhere, additionally Sam Leary and also Libby have been doing some informal development work for women in mountain training.

If were to guess, I would say less than 10% at MIC and beyond.

In reply to UKC Articles:

The reason why only a small percentage of those working in rope access identify as women is the same why there is only a small percentage of women in trucks, mines, politics and prisons. It´ s because of difference in genes, different levels of hormones in the blood and the resulting different relationship to risk.
There might be some prejudices as well but it is the biology that matters most

In reply to pavelk:



I think your talking rubbish!
Its society and how we are all brought up that's the problem. At school when they advise about careers nobody encourages girls to do technology or trades.
I know when I was at school I was told to go into nursing.
When I didn't do all that well in my gcse's my parents in their panic wanted me to go in to hairdressing!
In the end I went into a construction. Still I see it all the time not many parents or schools encourage girls to try manual work and from my experience trades are made out to be hard work all the time and most folks think women just aren't up for it which just isn't true, it only hard if you make it hard work.

In reply to pavelk:


There are certainly multiple causal factors, one of which is obviously going to be the physical differences between men and women - particularly with regards to jobs involving manual labour. However, if that were the dominant factor, then isn't it reasonable to expect the participation rates to roughly follow those statistical patterns? Eg, you might see differences of 20, maybe 30%?

If the participation rate, however, is much less than that, eg 1-10%, then it surely makes sense to look for other causes - particularly if you're running a business and you want to employ the best possible people - it makes good sense to ensure that no one who might otherwise make a good employee is not being actively discouraged, no?

In reply to pavelk:

That is complete bollocks!

In reply to pavelk:


Some of what you say is arguable, but with this I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have absolutely no idea how gender specific differences in the human endocrine system result in measurably different attitudes to risk.

Or, as lesleyann put it, you're talking rubbish.

In reply to pavelk:

At the other end of the scale in computer science related business the number of women is very low . So how does that relate to your view?surely it should be the other way round by your argument.

In reply to pavelk:

>

Trucks and mines, agreed, though I wouldn't class driving a truck as risky? Most prisoners are male, so it's probably one of the few sectors where a gender imbalance is justified. I don't know what the percentages is in politics but I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it was quite reasonable?

In reply to lesleyann:

I spent my childhood and adolescence in totalitarian communist state and our factories were full of women. 27 years later, after Communism fell and we got the freedom to choose the job the percentage of women fell to similar level as in Germany or Austria. Do you think it´ s because there some obstacles for women emerged suddenly? Some male conspiracy?
I am glad you got job you like though you have not been encouraged

In reply to UKC Articles:

Women in the Rope Access Industry

Or Extreme Ironing as it's otherwise known...

In reply to pavelk
Well yes there is the freedom but in the end it comes down to society and how a country works both religiously and politically.
Not a male conspiracy just attitudes and what people perceive as male job and a female job.

Parents encourage boys to be adventurous but with girls parents are more likely to be cautious and say things like oh don't do that incase you hurt yourself.

I've read lots of things about women in manual jobs and it seems the place to be is Australia as they seem to be leading the was with women doing trades as well as working in mines.
I'd try and find links to articles I've read but I've got restricted internet access so lots of sites are blocked.

Anyway back to rope access, more women should give it a go nothing is out of reach. It does help with a trade for sure but everything can be learned

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Truck driving was more risky job than being a soldier or a fireman here in Czech few years ago. There were many injuries out of the car during the loading and maintaince. But it could have changed recently. (Night parkings are not very safe and the amount of plundered trucks has risen constantly in recent years - mainly in routes to Britain. To cross Calais Jungle is like the scene from the Mad Max)

There are attemts to set quotas for women in politisc so I suppose some people think there are not enough of them there

In reply to UKC Articles:

Maybe because getting covered in paint or washing windows all day doesn't appeal. Unless you have trade or NDE qualification there really isn't a lot of work out there.
Trades like engineering and NDE are typically low in females to start with, and there will be an even smaller percentage of those that want to get into rope access as well.

In reply to UKC Articles:

A useful link if anyone fancies a read

https://www.womeninropeaccess.com/single-post/2017/09/30/The-numbers-are-in...

In reply to UKC Articles:

I'm all for getting more women into some of the more dirty, physically demanding and generally more dangerous jobs which are available. Unfortunately you'll rarely find feminist groups protesting about the gender imbalance in many of those roles, they want it 50/50 in the board rooms or other high status professional jobs but I don't hear many cries about far larger imbalances in say sewerage workers or deep miners etc. Equally I don't hear much about getting more men into largely female dominated progressions.

So yes it would be good to see more women getting into rope access as well as all sorts of other trades and it would be good to open up things like nursing to more men too.

In reply to lesleyann:

Thanks. Seems like 1% was a fair estimate for the UK

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

There’s a fair old gender imbalance in the people who die at work too, which rarely gets a mention.

In reply to planetmarshall:

'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have absolutely no idea how gender specific differences in the human endocrine system result in measurably different attitudes to risk

Not necessary. Women are generally risk adverse. A quick perusal of trauma databases will tell you that. I'm all for widening access (no pun intended) but you will be pissing in the wind for a long time if you expect 50% targets for these sort of occupations to be met any time in this millennia.

Sorry, wrong answer, it's the Patriarchy conspiring to prevent women from self actualisation /getting life changing workplace injuries or early death, whichever comes first.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


Well, everyone is generally risk averse. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten this far. Women more than men? Possibly, if so I'm sure there's research to support it. However I'd expect the gender balance of trauma databases to be highly correlated with the aforementioned dangerous jobs - which brings us back to widening access for women for such jobs in the first place - if they want them.


There will never be 50% representation in any job, but if a person wants to a job, and they are physically and intellectually capable of it, then I think they should be afforded the opportunity to do it and not be discouraged at the outset. Is that not reasonable?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


It doesn't necessarily have to involve "feminist groups". It could be just about a woman wanting to do a job that she is capable of doing; dangerous, desk bound or otherwise. Ditto for men.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


There was a great article on the BBC recently about a male midwife and his experiences.

The making of a male midwife - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-41426691

In reply to planetmarshall:


'Well, everyone is generally risk averse. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten this far.'

See above reference to trauma statistics.

If we didn't take so many risks, humans would of never gotten this far.

D

In reply to UKC Articles:

Hmm... what does this have to do with climbing?

In reply to Kristof252:

Hmm... what does this have to do with climbing?

A lot of climbers have traditionally worked in Rope Access. So, yes, it does have climbing relevance.

In reply to planetmarshall:
"if a person wants to a job, and they are physically and intellectually capable of it, then I think they should be afforded the opportunity to do it and not be discouraged at the outset. Is that not reasonable?"

Yeah of course, the problem is when industries are being told "you must hire more women, we need more women". What if women just don't want those jobs? If there are numbers of suitably qualified and experienced women applying for jobs in mostly male industries, and still not getting hired, then there's grounds to say that there's a potential problem. However, if women aren't applying in the first place or aren't even doing the necessary types of degree/courses needed for a specific industry, then I think employers are being given an unfair amount of responsibility.

If the reasoning for this is because of how society raises women and social attitudes, then this is hardly the responsibility of a rope access or engineering firm. That would be an incredibly complex issue that would need addressing from childhood through schools and parenting and would be far outside of the scope of companies simply being more inviting to women.

I think the example of the number of women applying for MIC dropping off significantly, expresses this perfectly. As far as I can tell there are absolutely no barriers to continuing on to gain this qualification, so do women just simply not want to do it? If so is that a problem?

Anecdotally, I'm a tower climber, and very few women seem envious of my job compared to men who mostly comment that they would like to do what I do. The reasons cited are normally the cold/rain, the physical nature of the work, long periods away from home, and fear of heights. The prospect of not being treated fairly, not feeling like that kind of role would be accepting to women, or lack of opportunities never gets raised as an issue.

I'm not saying these issues don't exist (for any gender) in many industries, and yes there are examples like the North Sea rig mentioned above that prove the point, but in my experience these are minimal. In fact a woman I used to work with always got her own hotel room while all the blokes had to share, so it's not all bad! (Intentionally glib before anyone takes that too seriously!).

As I said, until we see women actually applying and being rejected from roles, it's very hard to tell if there are obstacles in their way. It seems unfair for the responsibility to always be placed on employers and industries to somehow solve a problem that may not even exist, and if it does could be largely down to social attitudes and upbringing.

In reply to Dave 88:


As you say, it's not straightforward. There may be numerous reasons why women and men do not apply for certain jobs. Maybe they just don't want them. But I think that if participation rates are far below what you might expect from the general population, then it seems reasonable to investigate, rather than simply dismiss it with some pseudoscientific waffle about "hormones in the blood". We do know, for example, that female participation in the military and law enforcement has increased, not jobs that one would consider a 'soft touch'. For example, the percentage of female police officers in the UK is something like 30%, so I don't think we can just dismiss low participation rates as a general aversion to risky jobs.


No, but employers can be part of the solution. Programs such as encouraging more girls into STEM subjects at school age is also part of it, as are more general societal attitudes that some jobs are better suited to men or women, regardless of the capabilities and desires of the individual.

In reply to UKC Articles:

No profession is ever going to be 50/50. Men and women are different, it's a fact. Genetically and chemically, we all vary. Workplaces should just ensure there is equal opportunity, but that's not the same as equal take up of places in any given field.

It's a question of removing stigmas, the teenage boy who wants go into hair and beauty, the girl who loves construction etc... shouldn't feel like they are the black sheep for stepping away from the trend. In our local school there is currently only one male fully qualified teacher working with the kids under 10years old. He is also arguably one of their best, but it's quite a good example for the kids to see you don't have fit into a certain role gender for a given job.

In reply to Dave 88:

My wife has similar experience. She is a restorer and a goldsmith and does rope jobs occasionally and she never felt like not being treated fairly or any scorn.

In reply to planetmarshall:

"rather than simply dismiss it with some pseudoscientific waffle about "hormones in the blood""

Oh god, absolutely, I feel the need to point out that I never said that though! Although I think you're referring to another poster. It would be interesting to know whether there are in-built things in our DNA/genes that contribute to these things, and indeed many aspects of our life and behaviour, but that's all well over my head!

"No, but employers can be part of the solution"

I agree, my issue is that so much responsibility seems to be put at the feet of employers and industry to "be more appealing, and hire more women" (for example) if women aren't interested in the first place, the issue becomes so much bigger than individual companies or even whole industries. You can't hire more women if they don't want to work in your industry in the first place. This is especially problematic for STEM, where many of the companies involved are small and niche, they just don't have the resources or influence to affect that kind of change.

"societal attitudes that some jobs are better suited to men or women, regardless of the capabilities and desires of the individual"

You're right that attitudes to what men and women "should" or "can" be doing, in general are changing a lot, which is of course as it should be. People should be able to live as they choose, and do what they want (within reason). As I said above, it would be interesting to know that if there were no social stigmas or conventions, and no prejudice or barriers, what jobs would men and women gravitate towards. Would all roles be roughly evenly split? Or would certain jobs still attract mainly men or mainly women? Unfortunately I doubt we'll know within my lifetime!

In reply to JayPee630:


Said bollocks being the source of the gender-difference inducing hormones in question......

In reply to Dave 88:



Yes indeed, I should have made that clear. Obviously there are major differences between how men and women behave, but I think taking large scale population differences and using it to explain gender differences in jobs takes care, and there are an enormous number of factors involved. Pretending that men and women are the same is naïve, but it's equally naïve to pretend that the expectations of society on men and women have magically disappeared. These things take time.


That may never happen, but as Summo said, I think role models are a large factor, and it may be decades before that starts to make a significant impact. There's an understandable desire to try to effect change in the immediate term, and that may just not be possible.

In reply to planetmarshall:

"There's an understandable desire to try to effect change in the immediate term, and that may just not be possible"

This is really the cause of so many problems! In general we like to see results, especially if money has been spent. Unfortunately a lot of life's biggest issues will take generations to change, and people simply don't like that.

Well, we're well and truly off topic now!

I'll try and bring things back around: if you want to work in rope access (irrespective of gender!) get a trade, simply being able to work on the ropes will only take you so far.

In reply to lesleyann:






While I agree that this was a problem in previous years huge strides have been made to encourage more women to study STEM subjects and enter tech careers.

I'm an engineer and have worked in the oil and gas industry for twenty years and while things are slowly improving in terms of women entering the industry we are a long way from parity. Most of the companies I have worked for over the years have worked closely with local schools in terms of arranging work experience, attending career fairs or giving presentations to pupils in a bid to promote engineering as a career and to put it bluntly the phrase 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink' comes to mind when dealing with female pupils. The teachers I have dealt with are trying hard to promote engineering as a career to these girls but at the end of the day there is a general disinterest no matter how bright they may be. The boys are the only interested ones when discussing big engineering projects, who ask plenty of questions, who get excited at the prospect of working overseas or domestically in challenging environments or dealing with cutting edge technology and its the girls who are generally glazing over with boredom while staring into their phones. The teaching staff I have dealt with over the years have seen repeatedly girls achieving top grades in physics and maths A levels only for them to go off and study languages or some other humanities degree at uni.

There were just four women on my course at uni out of an intake of about 60 undergraduates. Engineering departments are not exactly known for their bawdy macho sexist 'jock' culture and the stereotype of nerdy types still kind of holds true today, it is basically still seen by many as being a deeply uncool subject up there with computing. I also know from first hand experience such is the demand by companies to recruit more women engineers that if there two candidates of equal merit with one being female the latter would get the nod every time.

So long as there are no gender barriers to women pursuing a career in whatever discipline they desire maybe we should just leave them to it rather then trying to achieve 50/50 parity in every industry?

That said, rather cynically I have noticed it is only when engineers started to command decent salaries that suddenly 'something must be done' to get more women into the profession, nobody gave a shite when we were all paid peanuts to freeze our arses off on muddy construction sites in the middle of winter.

In reply to Dave 88:


The roles would never be evently split. Ten thousand generations of our ancestors shared work by gender because it gave them an evolutionary advantage. That's an inheritance we will never ged rid of (its possible the gender specialization is evolutionary advantage still)

In reply to UKC Articles:

So statistically the rest are those who "identify" as men?

Which means in old fashioned terms there could still be a heap of actual women?

In reply to UKC Articles:

Written by Joanna Castle. Picture copyright Martin Castle Ltd. Coincidence?
Is this just a free recruitment piece for Martin Castle Ltd?

In reply to FactorXXX:
Maybe we should talk about teachers who climb, because I know more of those who climb than rope access workers. This is nothing more than thinly-veiled excuse for the author to voice their victim complex really.

It has nothing to do with climbing.

In reply to Kristof252:

Strange comment! Of course rope access work is related to climbing. It's an industry which has been attractive to many climbers due to... er, the nature of the work!

It's a bit like saying being a climbing instructor has nothing to do with climbing as it's just teaching, right?

In reply to Michael Gordon:



In a lot of cases it isn't even teaching, it's just some punter belaying.

In reply to webbo:

Maybe, but it would be hard to say it has nothing to do with climbing.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

What's walking or getting lifts to top of buildings then dangling off the end of ropes got to do with climbing, apart from the rope work that is?


Just remembered, what are your thoughts on steeplejacks?
My mate used to be one and all his work mates were pissheads, who'd never been climbing in their lives.
Can't recall many Fred Dibnah rock related videos, either.

They're just two more trades.

In reply to Lusk:


You've answered your own question.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


True, but of course the most dangerous profession for women isn't covered by the HSE, include prostitution and the numbers double.

In reply to The New NickB:

From what I can see, similar numbers of prostitutes are killed (as victims of crime) in 25-ish years as the total number of people killed at work in a single year, so I’m not sure what point you’re making.

In reply to The New NickB:

Oh, and 97% of workplace fatalities last year were to men.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Just an observation about the nature of risk, work and gender. I see below that you are making a point of not recognising that dangerous, predominantly female profession.

In reply to The New NickB:

Just an observation about the nature of risk, work and gender. I see below that you are making a point of not recognising that dangerous, predominantly female profession.

Bit of a pointless comparison.
Legalise prostitution and run it in a controlled environment and then it becomes comparable.
If you really want to play 'Work Related Death Top Trumps', then we need to include deaths in the Armed Forces and all deaths with a criminal element association.

In reply to The New NickB:

Even if you add the figures for prostitutes in it makes no discernible difference to the stats.

Workplace fatalities are an area of significant gender inequality. It’s an absolute fact.

In reply to FactorXXX:

There's been so much talk about it lately I assumed it was legalised! If not, it's surely inaccurate to call it a 'profession', much likely burglary, drug dealing etc.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I'm not the one playing workplace death too trumps, I'm just making a simple observation.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I am a woman, and have been an IRATA Level 3 for 24 years, and not heard so much rubbish. Rope Access is statistically very safe in the construction industry. This is not climbing it's work, and risk assessments in work planning should provide a safe systems that keeps everyone well and happy to work again the next day. All the macho talk is what puts women off, STOP IT!

In reply to 1-2-3-40:

Are you responding to the article or what someone has said in the forums?

In reply to UKC Articles:

I considered working in rope access when it looked like i would be made redundant a few years ago. I ended up getting another software job so didn't. My current job pays better so it makes sense to stick with that. However, should I become financially free-er so money doesn't matter so much then rope access work might be something I'd look at if I fancy a career change. I've always worked in male dominated environments and never found it a problem. Most people I've worked with care more about you're doing a good job/have a suitable skill set than my gender. Work life balance, location and pay are my major criteria for considering jobs.