7.4 Race, Gender and Health

A transmasculine doctor with his computer
Photo by Zackary Drucker,  CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Who you are affects your safety at work. Different groups of workers have varying safety experiences in the workplace. For example, 63% of WCB-reported injuries in Canada happen to men, even though they make up 52% of the workforce.[1] While it may seem on the surface that race and gender have no impact on health and safety—hazardous workplaces affect every worker—in fact, both have a profound impact on how safe a worker is at work. Race and gender can affect health and safety in two ways. First, they can shape how much risk a worker is exposed to. Second, race and gender affect the kinds of hazard workers face.

As suggested above, men are more likely to be injured and to be more seriously injured than women. Racialized workers are also more likely to be injured among both men and women. This means that racialized men have the highest injury rates overall.[2] Further, immigrants, in particular racialized immigrants, also possess disproportionately high injury rates.[3] Even citizenship status can affect safety, as the lack of status of undocumented workers (i.e., workers who do not have a valid visa to work in a jurisdiction) undermines their safety at work and their ability to stand up for their rights.[4]

A variety of explanations have been offered for these differential safety outcomes. One explanation centres on ascribed characteristics of the workers themselves. Women are claimed to be more risk-averse than men, and thus they seek out less dangerous occupations. Racialized workers are said to be less risk-averse due to lower education levels and lower income levels. They may also be assigned more dangerous tasks because of the belief that they have poorer language skills. A second explanation critiques the assertion that workers “choose” their paths free of social and economic constraints. While some individual choice is always present, workers’ choices are often limited by their circumstances. Economic and social vulnerability, fear of losing employment, and lack of options can lead workers to accept degrees of risk they would not otherwise choose.[5]

It is very important to remember that the racial and gender relations present in society do not stop at the workplace door. Attitudes, stereotypes, and behaviours about race and gender that pervade societal structures shape what happens at work. They govern what job opportunities are available to different groups of workers and they shape how work is conducted in the workplace. For example, due to stereotypes about masculinity and femininity, men are more likely to work in more physically demanding jobs (e.g., construction), which are linked to higher rates of injury. Women, in contrast, are discouraged from those occupations—both through overt discrimination and through job designs that do not accommodate the greater social reproductive responsibilities of women. While individuals do choose their career paths, we cannot understand those choices in isolation from the social forces that shape them.

In North America, there are clear power imbalances between men and women and between so-called “white” (or sometimes Anglo) workers and racialized workers. These imbalances do not work in isolation but cut across both race and gender. They are also reproduced in the workplace and thus will shape the health and safety experience of each worker. Those effects are complex but need to be integrated into our understanding of health and work. At the core, workers from groups that have less power in society will also have less power in the workplace to protect their safety. They will have less control over their choice of job. And they will have fewer options in navigating hazards in the workplace.

A second effect of gender and race is that groups of workers experience different kinds of hazards and risks. In part, this is due to occupational differences (e.g., construction entails different hazards than office work). But even workers doing the same job will experience the workplace from a different perspective, altering their health and safety. This can manifest itself in physical and psycho-social ways. As we saw in Chapter 5, women face additional chemical hazard risks (i.e., embryotoxicity and teratogenicity) due to their child-bearing abilities. Racialized workers are more vulnerable to workplace harassment (or violence) motivated by racism. Importantly, these different exposures can have significant health and safety impacts, as outlined below.

Gender and workplace health and safety

Two recently published academic articles examine the role of socially constructed gender roles on the health and safety of men and women.

Waitresses in “Breastaurants”[6]

This study examines the work health effects of women who work in restaurants that require female servers to wear revealing or body-accenting clothing. These restaurants, called “breastaurants” in the article, create environments where the servers are sexually objectified as part of their work. The sexualization occurs in the hiring selection process (picking stereotypically “attractive” women), mandated uniform requirements (tight-fitting or revealing clothing), and regulated behaviour toward customers (expectations of flirtatious friendliness). The study, a survey of 300 waitresses, finds servers in this type of restaurant experience greater rates of unwanted comments and sexual advances than workers in other restaurants. It also finds that the work environment results in negative psychological and vocational health outcomes, such as an increased incidence of depression arising from feelings of powerlessness, ambivalence, and self-blame.

Masculinity and Risk Taking[7]

This study is a review of 96 previously conducted studies examining the role of masculinity in occupational health and safety. Masculinity is the socially constructed set of practices attributed to male roles. The article argues that men are expected to follow four rules to establish masculinity: rejection of characteristics associated with femininity; quest for wealth, fame, and success; display of confidence, reliability, strength, and toughness; and willingness to break rules. They isolate five elements of masculinity that affect men’s workplace health and safety:

  • Celebration of heroism, physical strength, and stoicism
  • Acceptance and normalization of risk
  • Acceptance and normalization of work injuries and pain
  • Displays of self-reliance and resistance to assistance and authority
  • Labour market forces, productivity pressures

The five factors combine to cause men to take more risks, under-report incidents, work through pain, reject assistance, and break OHS rules.

The focus of both studies is not on the behaviour or employment choices of the workers but on how underlying social constructions of gender have occupational health and safety consequences. The health and safety experiences of men and women are different because their socialized roles and stereotypes shape those experiences.

The health and safety experience of a worker does not change because they happen to be male or female, Hispanic or Scottish. Rather, their OHS experience differs because the social meaning attributed to a specific gender or ethnicity alters a worker’s relationship to work, employers, co-workers, and customers. That relationship then shapes the worker’s health and safety at work (and in society). That a worker’s health and safety experience is rooted in these social relationships means the experience can be changed. If we alter our notions of masculinity and femininity and break down racial divides, gendered and racialized health and safety outcomes will be diminished. Such large-scale social change goes beyond the role of an OHS practitioner. Yet the differential health and safety experiences of women and racialized workers can be reduced if OHS practitioners become aware of the gender and race in the workplace and take action to reduce the power imbalances that arise from those dynamics.


  1. AWCBC. (2014). National Work Injury, Disease and Fatality Statistics 2010–2012. Ottawa: Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada.
  2. Leeth, J., & Ruser, J. (2003). Compensating wage differentials for fatal and nonfatal injury risk by gender and race. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27(3), 257–277.
  3. Mousaid, S., De Moortel, D., Malmusi, D., & Vanroelen, C. (2016). New perspectives on occupational health and safety in immigrant populations: Studying the intersection between immigrant background and gender. Ethnicity & Health, 21(3), 251–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2015.1061103
  4. Flynn, M., Eggerth, D., & Jacobson, J. (2015). Undocumented status as a social determinant of occupational safety and health: The workers’ perspective. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 58(11), 1127–1137. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22531
  5. Leeth, J., & Ruser, J., (2006). Safety segregation: The importance of gender, race, and ethnicity on workplace risk. Journal of Economic Inequality, 4, 123–152.
  6. Szymanski, D. & Feltman, C. (2015). Linking sexually objectifying work environments among waitresses to psychological and job-related outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(3), 390–404.
  7. Stergiou-Kita, M., et al. (2015). Danger zone: Men, masculinity and occupational health and safety in high risk occupations. Safety Science, 80, 213–220.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Canadian Health and Safety Workplace Fundamentals Copyright © 2022 by Connie Palmer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book