1: In the broader biological word the male \’animal\’ is in competition with other males to \’win\’ rights to procreate – this leads to issues of power and strength being applied to assume domination. The male human often illustrates these traits (i\’m generalising) by \’competing\’ with one another in the workplace. These competitive traits may cause some to take unnecessary risks to show their \’machismo\’. Consider the male dominated construction and resource industry sectors which traditionaly show higher injury rates.

2: Females, as carers, often place themselves at risk to protect their \’young\’ or those they are caring for. Consider the female dominated nursing and other caring professions. I have noticed that female workers in these industries will take risks to protect a \’client\’ or \’patient\’ without thought of the potential impact on themselves.

Does anyone else carryout profiling using the Keirsey or Belbin systems to determine personality/behavior types when forming small cohesive autonomous groups do undertake problem solving etc?

While I realise that the camera\’s presence probably exacerbates and encourages outrageous behaviours, it is worth noting in the context of the \’gender effect\’, that even the description that they apply to their industry (\”Wild-catting\”) and to themselves (\”Roughnecks\”) plays to the mystique of macho that is counter to creating an OHS-accepting environment.

Many years ago I heard a line in a TV series that was a comment on the attitude of a military commander that created a whole series of problems through his \’bull in a china shop\’ approach. The throw-away comment made about him as we left the scene was: \”Worst case of testosterone poisoning I have ever seen.\” It gave me a great laugh, but it indelibly stuck with me, to the extent that I have used it as a lens to view and assess much behaviours and actions.

On a couple of reports that I prepared for my fellow managers on serious, near-miss potentially fatal incidents, I added a \”Testosterone Poisoning Index\” (Low, Medium, Extreme) as a short-hand pointer to something that certainly needed to be in the mix as an aggravating factor for risk behaviours on the individual, and, even more so, in the group (or heard / mob) level.

I hope this is the start of a worthwhile debate into gender and safety.

In many ways, Dane, he made me feel like an OHS dinosaur by pointing out a perspective that I should, at least, been aware of. I could blame my maleness for shortsightedness but as Dean Laplonge would say, gender is not a male thing or a female thing, it is an issue that we all need to be equally aware of.

I have a lot of catching up to do and will seriously consider Laplonge\’s gender and safety course later this year.

In reply to Tony, Dean cited numerous examples of where \”gender\” or more importantly the way a group percieves what it is to be a man was the cause of workplace injuries. He did qualify, that this isnt the be all end all, but it is a factor that needs to be addressed by the safety profession to gain a maturity in our understanding of worker mentality and actions.

I personally think that any view that challenges the way we think is brilliant, as we can all get trapped with our blinkers on from time to time.