Gendered Relations in the Mines and the Division of Labour Underground

Author(s): Suzanne E. Tallichet

Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 9, No. 6 (Dec., 1995), pp. 697-711
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189536 .
Accessed: 07/01/2015 15:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and
Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GENDERED RELATIONSIN
THE MINES AND THE DIVISION
OF LABOR UNDERGROUND
SUZANNE E. TALLICHET
Morehead State University

This article focuses on how men's sexualization of work relations and the workplace contributesto
job-level gender segregation among coal miners. Thefindings suggest that sexualization represents
men'spower to stigmatize women in order to sustain stereotypesabout them as inferior workers. In
particular,supervisorsuse stereotypestojustifywomen'sassignmentstojobs in supportof and in service
to men. Once in thesejobs, men'spositive evaluationsof womenworkersbecome contingentupon their
fulfillmentof men'sgendered expectations.Theseprocessesfoster the gender typingofjobs and lead to
the gendered division of labor underground.

Among those women who entered nontraditional blue-collar occupations almost

two decades ago, many have remained in entry-level jobs (Reskin 1993). Despite
federal antidiscrimination regulations and the threat of litigation, men still dominate
the channels of upward mobility and retain the better-paying positions of authority.
Numerous studies have examined how men's reactions to women workers have
contributed to job-level gender segregation in different blue-collar occupations
(Walshok 1981), among auto workers (Gruber and Bjorn 1982), and corrections
officers (Jurik 1985), in manufacturing (Harlan and O'Farrell 1982), policing
(Martin 1980), steel making (Deaux 1984), and forestry (Enarson 1984). Even so,
there are still relatively few studies investigating women's on-the-job experiences
in other masculine-identified blue-collar occupations, such as coal mining. The
present investigation examines how supervisors' and coworkers' resistance to
women coal miners' integration has inhibited their job advancement at a single
mining establishment.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I appreciatethe encouragementand assistanceof CorneliaB. Flora, ConstanceL.

Hardesty,David R. Rudy,and CarolynE. Sachs duringvariousstages of the article. I would also like to
thankthe anonymousreviewers and those women minerswho so kindly consented to be a partof this
research.
REPRINT REQUESTS: Dr. Suzanne E. Tallichet,314 Rader Hall, Departmentof Sociology, Social
Workand Criminology,MoreheadState University,Morehead,KY40351.
GENDER& SOCIETY,
Vol.9 No. 6, December1995 697-711
? 1995 Sociologists for Women in Society

697

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

698

GENDER & SOCIETY / December 1995

THEORY AND PAST RESEARCH

The most recent theoreticalformulationsappropriateto this investigationare
social closuretheoryand the conceptof patriarchy.Social closuretheorystatesthat
"a status group creates and preserves its identity and advantagesby reserving
certainopportunitiesfor membersof the group"using exclusionaryand discriminatorypractices(Tomaskovic-Devey1993, 61). Patriarchyis the system of beliefs
and correspondingbehaviorsby which men preservetheiradvantages(Cockburn
1991; Hartmann1976; Reskin 1988). In workplaces dominated by men, their
privilege is manifestedprimarilythroughthe functionaldifferentiationof workers
by gender(Reskin 1988; Reskin and Roos 1987).
According to Reskin and Roos, the gendereddivision of laboris "groundedin
stereotypesof innate sex differences in traitsand abilities"and operatesthrough
"varioussocial control mechanisms"(1987, 9). Because women pose a threatto
men's masculine-basedprivileges,men will tendto emphasizewomen's presumed
incapabilityfor doing male-identifiedwork.Theirbehaviortowardwomen workers
underscoresthe termsby which they arewilling to acceptthem.As women become
integratedinto thejob hierarchy,they areexpectedto occupy subordinatepositions
requiringtheirdeferenceto men;thus,men areableto "toleratewomen in predominantlymale worksettingsif they workin 'women's'jobs... butresistwomen doing
traditionallymalejobs in male work settings"(Reskin 1988, 67).
The genderedstatushierarchyis preservedthroughcertain"socialpracticesthat
create or exaggeratethe social distancebetween statusgroups"(Reskin and Roos
1987, 7). Thesepracticesdictatesubordinates'behaviorin thepresenceof dominant
group membersand shape the casual interactionbetween them. When gendered
status hierarchiesare maintainedthis way, they are usually seen by both men and
women as naturaland, thus, appropriate,because they re-creategendered social
relationsoccurringin the largerculture.Because women who do "men'sjobs" are
challengingthe routinizationof the presumablynaturalorderof genderedrelations,
they are "at risk of gender assessment"(West and Zimmerman1987, 136). They
behaviorthroughother
are held accountablefor engaging in gender-inappropriate
women's andmen's evaluationsof theirbehaviorbasedon "normativeconceptions
of appropriateattitudes and activities" for their gender category (West and
Zimmerman 1987, 139); thus, these women are under pressure to prove their
femininity.
Kanter(1977a, 1977b)was amongthe firstto documentthatwomen's conspicuous token presenceleads to men's exaggerationof the differencesbetween them.
This is accomplished via men's "sexualization of the workplace," during
which work relationsbetween men and women are "sexualized"(Enarson 1984;
Swerdlow 1989). Sexualizingthe workplaceand workrelationsconsists of behaviors thatexpress"thesalienceof sexualmeaningsin thepresumablyasexualdomain
of work"(Enarson1984, 88). As the literatureon women in nontraditionalbluecollar occupationshas documented,many men engage in at least one of several
forms of workplacesexualizationusing sexual harassment,sexual bribery,genderbased jokes and comments, and profanityin orderto make gender differences a

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet / GENDERED RELATIONS IN THE MINES

699

salient aspect of work relations(Enarson1984; Gruberand Bjorn 1982; Swerdlow

1989). These behaviors,accordingto Enarson,constitutea continuumof abuseand
reflect "a culturaltraditionwhich sexualizes, objectifies, and diminishes women"
(1984, 109).
Men's sexualization of work relations directly expresses the expectation that
women should "act like women" by making their integrationinto a sexualized
workplacecontingent upon their productionof gender as they interactwith men.
Because men's sexualizationof workrelationsidentifieswomen primarilyby their
gender category and not by their work roles, it objectifies them. As Schur (1984)
has pointedout, this objectificationof women workersleads to theirstigmatization
abouttheirwork-relatedinferiority.Objectificationand work-relatedtrivialization
are mutually reinforcing processes (Schur 1984, 142), which is how women
workers are matched with gender-typedjobs requiringfew skills, if any. Under
these circumstances,jobs to which women are assigned mirrortheirrelationswith
men, since these jobs requirewomen's supportof and service to men occupying
more skilledjobs. Because thereare simply too few women presentin a workplace
dominatedby men, women areusuallyunableto directlycountermen's expressions
of the negativestereotypesuponwhich this gender-typedmatchingprocess is based
(Kanter1977b).'
Studies have shown that men's gender-roleexpectations of women workers
negatively affect women's success in nontraditionalemployment because these
expectations color the men's perception of women's potential for or actual job
performance (For a review, see Roos and Reskin 1984). Accordingly, "male
workersmay inhibitintegrationboth by theirabilityto shapeemployer's decisions
and by affecting the preferencesof female workers"(Reskin 1993, 248). Reskin
and Padavic(1988) found thatsupervisors'stereotypesaboutwomen's capabilities
for doing sex-atypical work prevented them from objectively evaluating the
women's performance.They tend to selectively perceive only that behavior that
confirms their beliefs about women's lesser suitabilityfor doing men's jobs.2 In
examining women miners' day-to-day social relations with men coworkers and
supervisors in several western states, Yount found that "women are assigned to
positions thatareconducive to perceptionsof sex-stereotypicaltraits.In turn,these
perceptions(based on the work they perform)providelegitimationfor the assignments"(1986, 29).
The present study investigatedhow men's sexualizationof work relationsand
the workplace have contributedto coal mining women's concentrationin entrylevel jobs at a large undergroundcoal mine. As the women pointed out, men's
sexualizationhas reinforcedmen's, particularlysupervisors',stereotypicalbeliefs
about women's incapability for doing more masculine-identifiedwork. Stereotypes, they said, have influencedsupervisors'jobassignmentsandhave contributed
to the gender typing of jobs. The women's perceptionsof opportunitiesand, for
some women, the availabilityof necessarytrainingandexperiencealso constituted
barriersto theiradvancement;moreover,certainorganizationalconstraints,such as
realignmentsof the workforce and shift work, have negatively influenced their
advancementdecisions. Women'sresistancewas reflectedin theirawarenessof the

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

700

GENDER & SOCIETY / December 1995

consequencesof men's negativestereotypesandof the processby whichthe gender

typing of jobs occurred.Theircontinualindividualefforts to prove their competence as coal minersrepresentedtheirsolution to a collective dilemma.

METHODOLOGY
Primarydata were collected from in-depthinterviews,on-site observation,and
documentstudy done at a largecoal mine in southernWestVirginiaduringthe fall
of 1990. After getting permission from the company's home office, local mine
officials gave me toursof the compoundandthe mine. Interviewswith women and
men were solicited between shifts in the women's bath house and lamp house,
respectively.Being a womanin my earlythirtiesanddressedin a fadedarmyjacket,
flannel shirt,jeans, andboots facilitatedmy initialcontactwith the women miners.
Tenof the women contactedwere interviewedlaterin eithertheirhomes, my motel
room, or other places where they felt at ease. Seven otherwomen were willing to
talk only in the bathhouse becausethey fearedreprisalsfromthe company,saying,
"Sorry,but I need thisjob."Fourwomenflatly refusedto be interviewed.Two were
unavailablebecause of illness and injury.Relatively speaking, men miners were
considerably more difficult to interview than women. As revealed later, they
believed I was only interestedin "women'sproblems,"not theirexperiences.This
was not surprisingsince managerialpersonneloften referredto me as "thelady here
to talk to our lady miners."
In sum, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 women and the mine
superintendent.On severaloccasions, 20-minutediscussions were held with seven
more women. Conversationswere also held with the local union presidentand
several other men miners. All these individualswere contactedrepeatedly.Sampling amongmen was basedon convenience.Samplingamong women minerswas
a combinationof snowball and purposivetechniques.The first few women interviewed provided the names of other women who were selected because of their
tenure,job rank,and otherjob-relatedexperiences,such as sexual harassmentor
discrimination.With two exceptions,interviewswere taped.
The women in the samplewere diverse in termsof theirage, education,marital
status, and child bearing.The youngest woman in the sample was 29; the oldest
was 50. One woman finishedthe tenthgrade,seven hadhigh school diplomas,and
two had attendedcollege. When they were hired,threewomen were marriedwith
at least one child. Four were divorced with one or more childrento support.The
remainingthree were single withoutchildren.All of the women said they needed
a coal miningjob to supportthemselvesor theirfamilies. By the time of the study,
one of the marriedwomen divorcedand threeof the divorcedwomen had married
or were cohabiting,so half of the women in the samplewere coupledwith children.
Two of the women were divorced with one or two children to support.Two had
remainedsingle and childless. The youngest woman, a single mother,was Black.
The rest of the sample was White.

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet / GENDERED RELATIONS IN THE MINES

701

Coal mining jobs are arrangedaccording to five ranks, each containingjob

families. Six of the 10 women in the case study sample were classified in laboring
jobs, threeof whom were certifiedfor highergradejobs. Grade1 jobs are laboring
jobs usually involving mine maintenance.Thesejobs requirefew skills and more
physical strengthand endurance.3The four otherwomen held jobs in each one of
the highergrades. These jobs are more closely involved with coal productionand
requireoperativeskills or certification,or both.The women's experiencein mining
rangedbetween 9 and 15 years.Two of the women in the samplehad been working
together.The rest were working as token membersof their crews, as were most
women at the mine.
Similar to other large coal companies involved in the hiring discrimination
litigation of 1978, the case study company did not begin employing women in
appreciablenumbersuntil it was forced to do so. In 1975, only three women were
working there. By the early 1980s the company employed approximately800
miners.Between 80 and90 were women;however,severalyearslaterthe industry's
economic slump forced the companyto lay off almosthalf of its miners,including
morethantwo-thirdsof the women. At the timeof the study,the companyemployed
466 miners,including23 women. All the minerswere membersof the UnitedMine
Workers of America (UMWA). The company also employed a dozen men as
assistantforemen or "bosses."Theirduties undergroundwere strictlysupervisory,
so they were not membersof the UMWA.
Duringtheirfirst few monthson thejob, new minersareconsideredtraineesand
are assigned to Grade1 jobs, usually as generalinside laborers("GIs")or beltmen.
At the end of this period, they receive theirminer's certificate,meaning they can
bid on any newly postedjob in the mine. By UMWAcontract,jobs are awardedby
seniority defined as length of service and a miner's ability to perform the job
(United Mine Workersof America 1988). Since the mid-1980s, new job postings
at the case study mine had been infrequentand realignmentsof the working force
were occurringregularly.At the time of the study,the concentrationof women in
Grade 1 jobs at the mine was substantial.Eighteen of the 23 women miners (78
percent) were so classified, compared with 148 (33 percent) of the men. The
following analysesidentifythe social processesthatcontributedtojob-level gender
segregationat the case study site.
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Although most of the men treatedthem with some measureof respect, all the
women in the sample reportedthatduringtheirfirst few years underground,they
encounteredmen's sexualization of work relations in the form of either sexual
harassment,propositioning, or sexual bribery.More often than men coworkers,
foremen tendedto sexually bribe women throughthe misuse of their authority.In
responseto the women's complaintsaboutthe men's behavior,the companyissued
a formal set of rules forbidding obscene or abusive language. According to the

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

702

GENDER & SOCIETY / December 1995

women, the more direct forms of sexualization became less prevalent,in part,
because of the men's fearof sanctions;however,otherformsof workplacesexualization, such as gender-basedjokes, comments,andprofanityhave persisted.These
conditions,they said, havecontributedto the enduranceof the negativestereotypes
thatjustify women's assignmentsto lesser-skilledjobs.
Sexualizationof WorkRelations
Half of the women in the samplesaid they had been sexually harassedby either
men coworkers or foremen, who used verbal innuendo and body language to
convey a sexual message (Gruberand Bjorn 1982). Two women reportedthat
occasionally some of the men coworkers grabbed their own genitals and then
pretendedto have gotten "caught"urinating.Anotherwomanreportedan incident
of homosexual buffoonerywith a particularlypotent message accentuatingmen's
sexuality and solidarity:
theotherone,
theywasqueersinfrontof me.Onewashumping
Theywaspretending
buttheyhadtheirclotheson.Andthebosssaid,"Youscaredof us,ain'tyou?"I said,
"No,I'mnotscaredof youall."Andhe said,"Well,thisis ourlittleworlddownhere
andyoudon'tbelong."
Some men coworkersand foremeneither directly solicited sexual favors from
the women or repeatedlyaskedthem for dates. When women first startedworking
at the mine, one womansaid thatthey were treated"likea piece of pussy."Another
recalledthat "a boss [said] all the women made beds out of rock dust for the men.
You know, like that'sall we did was go in thereto sleep with them?"
Because of the power differential,sexual propositioningby foremen posed a
much greaterthreatto a woman'sworkstatusthanpropositioningby men coworkers. It was well known by women in the sample that when a woman failed to
capitulateto a foreman'ssexual demands,she usuallyfaced the prospectof getting
a more difficult work assignment.One woman who had been reassignedfor such
an offense was told by a man coworker,"If you let these bosses pinch your titties,
you'll get along. If you don't, you'll get the awfullest job that ever was." She
allowed that she preferredthe "awful"job every time.
Anotherform of punishmentused by a foremanwas social derogationdesigned
the woman who refusedhis sexual requests:
humiliate
to
Onetime[theforeman]toldtheguysbehindmybackthatI had"suckedhisdick,"is
the way he putit. It camebackto me abouta weekor so later.I wentthroughpure
miseryforabouta yearbecausethebossliedto thecrewthatI workedwith,telling
themstuff.I didn'tevenknowwhyeverybodyall of a suddenquitspeakingto me,
givingme thecoldshoulder.
In front of her men coworkers,she retaliated:
dickdownthe
I walkedup to him andI said,"Whendid I suckyourgoddamned
jackline?"He goes, "I don'tknowwhatyou'retalkingabout."I said, "You'rea
liar.Youtoldeveryoneof themandyoudidn'tthinkthatthey'dfindout
goddamned

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet/ GENDEREDRELATIONSIN THEMINES 703

I'm notdoingthe shityou saidI was doingandcomebackandtell me things,did

you?"Rightthereit provedto theguys[hewaslying].
In the above case, the foreman'srumorsleadto hercoworkers'lack of on-the-job
cooperation,buteven in the absenceof rumors,the women'spotentialfor becoming
socially isolated was especially great because of their token status. This seriously
hinderedtheir ability to do theirjobs and made them vulnerableto the perception
that they were incapableof doing the work. A miner's reputationis importantnot
only for being respected and appreciatedby coworkers but also for gaining the
opportunitiesnecessary for advancement.Men's sexualization of work relations
underscoredthe women's sexuality at the expense of theirwork-roleperformances
and substantiatedthe culturalcontradictionof a woman doing a man'sjob.
Althoughthe women in the samplerecognizedthatthe men's sexual harassment
was usually unprovoked,some tended to place the responsibility for the men's
actionsalmostentirelyon women themselves.This was especially trueamongthose
women who had received little or no sexual harassment.Accordingto one woman:
Themajorityof themenuptherearegoodto youif youletthem.Butthey'lltreatyou
howtheysee you act.See, men,theytendto watchwomenmore,I believeit'sjust
themalein them.
When the women were treatedas sex objects, each woman was regardedby the
men as a representativeof her gender category;hence, each woman was made to
feel that she had a moral responsibilityto herself and to all her women coworkers
for avoiding"loose"behavior.4Conversely,the sexual indulgencesof otherwomen
were also a reflection upon each of them. As one woman explained:
[Theforeman]wantedto sleepwithme.I wouldn'thaveanythingto do withhim.He
thoughtif a womanworkedforhim,shehadto sleepwithhimbecausetherewasone
womanworkingon the section[whowas]sleepingwithhim.Everybodyknewit.
Whenit camemy turn,I wouldn'tsleepwithhim.
In orderto thwartthe men's sexual advancesand uphold the image of fidelity,
several of the women reporteddoing the following:
WhenI firstcamehere,I setmyselfuprightaway.I've madeit known:Don'tbother
me,I'mhereto work.I'mnothereforromance[butfor]finance.Onceyouestablish
yourself,theyknowyourboundaries.
Because of her behavior,this single and childless woman had challenged men's
heterosexistbeliefs. As a result,a mancoworkeronce askedherif she was a lesbian,
to which she responded,"Whatdifferencedoes it makewhatI tell you? Youalready
have your mind made up."No one ever askedher thatagain. She explainedthatnot
only were the men intimidatedwhen women could handle coal mining jobs, but
they were also intimidatedby the possibility of a woman's homosexuality.In this
case, a woman could remain not only financially independentbut also sexually
independentof men and their control.
When the company issued its mandateagainstharassment,the superintendent
told me it was necessaryto "teachthe men what harassmentwas." His subsequent

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

704

GENDER & SOCIETY / December 1995

remarksimpliedthatthe men were so accustomedto regardingwomen in termsof

their sexuality that they would find it difficult, if not unnatural,to develop
egalitarianwork relationshipswith them. Althoughthe rule has effectively eroded
these incidentsof sexual harassment,the women addedthatits enforcementput the
onus of responsibilityon them. Using the rule had a double bindingor "damnedif
you do, damned if you don't" quality,because it was the women, not other men
(such as foremen), who were solely responsiblefor reportingharassment.Some
women indicatedthatthey were often reluctantto do so because it createdtension
among crew members.It also violated a UMWAoath of solidarity,defeating the
women's attemptsto become socially integratedas unionized members of their
crews; moreover,those women who reportedinfractionssaid thatit was they, not
theirharassers,who ended up being transferredto otherwork locations.
At the time of the study, most of the women insisted that any kind of sexual
harassmentwas largelya thing of the past.A few also said thatits saliency was the
result of media hype and was not indicativeof their currentexperiences.As one
women said:
I thinkthingshavechangedso muchsincethefirstwomancomeintothemines.She
was harasseda lot [saidwithemphasis],butthingshavechangedbecausethey've
acceptedus.
Another woman agreed that sexual harassmentwas declining, but for a vastly
differentreason:
Oh,they'vejustaboutquitnowbecauseafterall thistimetheysee they'renotgoing
to get in my pants.At firsttheyget madat you anddon'tspeak.Eventually
they'll
starttalkingto you,buttheydon'tharassyouno moreforsex.
Anotheradded,"Ithinkit's still going on, it's just moresubtlenow."Hercomment
indicatedthatalthoughthe men'ssexualizationof workrelationshadchangedform,
it certainlyhad not disappeared.
Sexualizationof the Workplace
Typically,men will continueto relateto women in sexual termsas long as the
division of laborprovidesthe potentialfor women to be equal to men (Reskin and
Roos 1987). Over time it had become clear to the women that their successful
integrationhaddone littleto seriouslydisruptmen's sexualizationof the workplace.
As one woman put it:
It's a man'sworld.AndwhenI startedI knewI was goingintoa man'sworldand
menhavetheirways.Whenthe firstwomenwentintothe mines,it was hardfor a
manto changehis ways.
Two types of men's behavior that contributedto workplace sexualization were
sexualjokes and stories and profanity.
Gutek (1985) concludedthatsex in the forms of graffiti,jokes, comments,and
metaphors for work is a part of workplaces dominated by men regardless of

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet/ GENDEREDRELATIONSIN THEMINES

705

women's presence.As women enterthe worksetting,they areobligatedto set limits

on some of the men's activities in orderto avoid being degraded.Sometimes the
men miners were careful about telling jokes in the women's presence. At other
times, the women found themselves in the position of havingto "drawthe line" on
the men's unacceptablebehavior.On her crew, one woman said that, althoughshe
generally"laughsstuff off," she was carefulnot to "getrowdy with them,"because
invariablythe action would escalate. She commentedthatif they got carriedaway,
she would "makethem stop." Another woman attemptedto curb the men's "sex
talk":
andwomen.So I'd
Theywouldstartmakingsexualremarksabouttheirgirlfriends
say,"Hey,you shouldn'ttalklikethat!What'sthematterwithyou guys?Youought
to be ashamedof yourself!"to get themto watchwhattheysay.
Although she stated"you're not going to change people,"she concluded, "all you
can do is have them have respectfor you."
Similar to other workersemployed in dangerousoccupations,coal miners are
notorious for using profanity.The women said that men would apologize if they
thoughta womanhadoverheardthemusing foul language.Theirapologies strongly
imply that there is a difference between men's and women's language. Language
maintainsrole boundaries.If profanityis not fit languagefor a woman to hear,then
certainlyshe should avoid using it. The women variedconsiderablyin theiruse of
foul languageand in their willingness to tolerateit from others.A few women did
not swear andhad no tolerancefor it; however,most of the women minersadmitted
to using what constituted "men's language,"but they said they were careful to
conceal or curtailtheir use of it. For example:
There'sa lot of stuffI will say.I usedto notcusstoobad,butI'll cussnow.I'll sayit
undermybreath.I don'tthinkthey'veeverheardit.They'ddie if theyheardme say
whatI sayto myself.
Another said, "I cuss some when I get mad, but I always try to watch what I say
because I'll lose thatedge." That "edge,"she explained,was the men's respect.
The emphasis some men place on sexuality and gender differences in the
workplacereassertsthe subordinatestatus of women by focusing on their genderrole behaviorat the expense of their work-roleperformances.As one woman put
it, "The men look at our bodies and not at what we can do." The sexualizationof
work relationshipsand the workplacehad the effect of stigmatizing women as a
group,allowing the imputationof stereotypesaboutwomen's inferiorityrelativeto
men when it came to doing "men'swork."
Men'sStereotypesand the GenderTypingof Jobs
In a masculine-identifiedworkplace, men's sexualization maintains the gendered relationsbetween women and men, but it also defines women's appropriate
positions in the work hierarchybased on the stereotypicaldifferencesin women's
and men's respective abilities. All of the women in the sample identified men's

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

706

GENDER & SOCIETY / December 1995

negative stereotypesas a means for justifying women's work assignments.These

stereotypeswere expressed verballyby some men coworkersbut were also demonstratedby foremen'sbehaviortowardthe women.
During their first few years at the mine, all of the women complainedthat at
least some men coworkershadmadederisiveremarksquestioningthe appropriateness of their presence or their work-relatedcompetence. One woman's account
capturesthe natureof these remarks:
Evensomeof ourunionbrothers
[said]I don'tthinkwomenoughttobe inhere.They
oughtto get out of hereandlet a good manhavethisjob. Theysaidwe shouldbe
homecleaninghouse,raisingkids.
Another woman was asked why she had taken a coal job if she could not do the
work. She said "theydidn't want you to [work]. They don't even want you to try
because you're crowding in on theirturf."
Severalof the women said thatwhen they firststartedworking,some of the men
told them thatminingjobs were too physicallydifficult for them. On the job, their
men coworkersmadethe women'sjobs unnecessarilydifficultby ignoringthemor
reducingtheirown efforts.Othermenrespondedin a chivalrousfashionby offering
women unnecessaryassistance.The womenrecognizedthe implicationthis hadfor
their presumedinadequacyand refusedtheir help. As one man miner said with a
sneer, "They wouldn't let nobody help them do nothing. They'd chew you right
out. And they've stayed here and become real independent."
Even at the time of the study, however, men miners were still expressing the
same views. The women felt that these men had exaggeratedtheir claims and
assertedthatthese ideas constitutedmen's mythologydesigned to keep them from
becoming miners. They likened the men's views to the superstitionthat women
were badluck in a coal mine.Underthesecircumstances,most of the womenagreed
thatestablishinga good workreputationwas harderfor womenthanit was for men.
In orderto avoid fulfilling the men's propheciesabouttheirpresumedincapability,
the women felt they had to constantlyprove themselves.
Foremenalso communicatedto the women thatthey were not suitedfor running
machinery.Half the women in the sample said thatthey had been passed over for
a man when skilled work was being assigned.As one women commented:
We'vehada coupleof bossesuptherethatthoughtthatwomencouldn'tdo nothing
butshovel.I hadoneforeman[who]hadme on a sectionas anextrapersonto hang
rag.I roofboltedbeforethatandroofbolterswouldbe off. Hewouldsendtheother
[men]GIsto roofbolt.Well,I wentto theunionto file a grievanceon it. Afterthat
nightI roofbolteduntiltheysentmeto [anothershift].
And from anotherwoman:
Thisone bossjust bypassedme on a job he knewI coulddo for anotherguy who
nevereven runa motor.Hejust lookedat me andwenton. I've beenon a motor.
Takingit in andout wasn'ta problem.Theboy thatI workwithjust lookedat me
Mostof
afterwe got aroundto theothersideandstartedlaughing.He understood.
did.
themen[coworkers]

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet / GENDERED RELATIONS IN THE MINES

707

Not only did foremen "haveit in their minds thatwe are the weaker sex," another
womanminersaid, butthe superintendentinsistedthat"menhada moremechanical
approach"to theirwork, and the women had the more menialminingjobs because
of "the naturalsettling of their skills and theirapplication."
As documentedelsewhere in the literatureon women in nontraditionaloccupations (Deaux 1984; Harlan and O'Farrell 1982), the women miners perceived
themselves as having less opportunityfor advancementthan men. Before the
company implementedits training policy, getting on-the-job training on mining
machinerywas almost impossible, accordingto one of the earliestwomen miners.
Although she heardthatsome women had been shown how to run equipment,she
had not been shown.
I was puton thebeltlineshovelingandthenon thebeltheadrunningthecoal into
I didn'tgetthat[because]we werekeptoutof
thecars.As faras runningequipment,
I don'tknowhowto
theface.Theydidn'tofferus anychanceto runanyequipment.
todayandI don'tcare.I likemyjob. Staywhereyou'reatandyoureallyknowwhat
you'redoing.
Even aftermanagementinstructedsenior minersto honornew miners'requestsfor
on-the-job training, the women said that getting the training or the temporary
assignment to get the experience was rare. Men coworkers and foremen "think
women are harderto train,"one woman said, "like we're dumbor something."
Three Grade 1 women in the sample said they had the skills to run machinery,
but were not really interestedin bidding on higher-gradejobs requiringoperative
skills. Those few higher-gradeoperativejobs thatwere posted were on night shifts
and conflicted with theirfamily responsibilities.Othersindicatedthatthey did not
wantthe addedpressuresandresponsibilitythatthosejobs entailed.As one woman
explained:
Sometimesa generalinsidelaborjob, it's noteasy,butthere'sno pressure.There's
no majorhead-busting
decisionsto make.Somebodyelse tells you whatto do and
takestheblameif it doesnotgetdoneright.Sometimesit'seasyto fallintoa situation
whereI don'thaveto makeanydecisions,[so]if youdon'tadvance,youdon'ttake
a chanceon beingwrongor messingup.
She added that when a woman did operatemachineryand made "a mistake, [the
men] really don't let you live it down." She concludedby saying that the women
were less likely to take such a chance "probablybecause we are women and we're
feeling inferior."Likewise, those women who hadjobs operatingmachinerysaid
they were more closely scrutinizedthanthe men workingin similarjobs.
Some women who had once held operativejobs had been reassignedto Grade 1
jobs as the result of workforcerealignments.5They contendedthat women were
disproportionatelydowngradedrelativeto men.Like these women, anotherwoman
minerwho had once bid unsuccessfully on a higher-gradejob hadbecome discouraged at the prospect of trying again. Anothersaid that one time she had bid on a
job knowing that she had the necessary seniorityand skills, but was turneddown.
When she complained to the foreman who had assigned a man in her place, "he

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

708

GENDER & SOCIETY / December 1995

went over [to the posted assignmentsheet] and rubbedhis name off thereand put
mine on it." As anotherwoman who had advancedconcluded,"The women have
to standup for theirrights.If you wantto advance,you got to make waves."Most
of the women, she contended,were not willing to risk the men's hostility by doing
so. Even when thesejobs came up for bid, they did not bid on them.As one woman
miner said about most of the women in Grade 1 jobs, "I think they just accept
theirself in thatposition. They like it [or] they don't like it, but they're there, and
they're afraidto advancetheirself."About herself she said:
Forthe past 10 yearsI felt likeI wastheunderdog,thatI shouldn'tbe steppingon
theirtoes.I haven'tfelt likeI wasa person.Theytell me to go shovelandI usedto
standbackandlet thingsUobs]go by.If therewas a top-paying
job, if I thoughtI
coulddo it, mostof thetimeI'd saylethimdo it.
Some of the Grade 1 women also said they could not compete with the men's
greaterseniority;however,one women who had advancedsaid that"a lot of them
women got the seniority to bid over half them guys out." Data from company
documentssubstantiatedher claim. As previousstudies on women in occupations
dominatedby men has shown, "theperceptionsof opportunitiesare in partdependent on evidence that membersof one's own group occupy particularpositions
within the organization"(Deaux 1984, 292). Indeed, the women in Grade 1 jobs
were unable to name any or only one or two more advancedwomen at the mine,
even though therewere five women so classified at the time of the study.
The sex bias occurringat the mine also substantiatedthe suitabilityof assigning
women to certainjobs requiringthose characteristicsthatwomen are presumedto
possess in relation to men. During one of my conversations with several men
miners, one exclaimed that "thereare some jobs women can do in the mines!"
Accordingto women in the sample,they were often expectedto performdutiesthat
mirroredthe work they traditionallyperformedin their homes in service to or in
supportof men.6
SundayI carriedcinderblockandrockdustbehindthem,I cleanedupthegarbage,I
carriedtheirjunkto themif theywantedit. It'sjustlikeyou'rea goferor something.
It'supto usto go cleanuptheirmess.
Whentheysetup,theythrowdowneverything.
becausemostof us are
I knowall the womenexperiencethe workdiscrimination
gofers,hardmanuallabor.
And from anotherwoman:
I've hadbossesthattreatyouworsethanthemen.Theymakeyougo pickupthings.
WhenI wasgeneralinsidelabor,it didn'tmatterwhatsectionI wentto they'dexpect
me to cleanthedinnerhole.
When I askedone womanif therewere "women'sjobs" in the mine, she exclaimed,
"Oh yeah! You got yourself on the belt, that's a woman'sjob. You go shovel the
belt, you help the masonbuild stoppings."Conversely,thesejobs, such as general
inside laborand beltman,carrya certainstigma.The same womantold me, "[As a
GI] you're the flunky. I mean you're the gofer. It's real hard."And anothersaid,
"It'sjust like you don't have no sense to do nothingelse."

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet / GENDERED RELATIONS IN THE MINES

709

Over time, the men's, particularlythe foremen's, genderedstereotypingabout

women's work capabilities have remained prevalent, making token women's
negotiations with men over how they evaluate themselves and other women as
miners highly problematic.The men's expectations that women should perform
support activities requiringfew, if any, technical skills has resultedin the gender
typing of jobs at the mine. At least some of the men have acted to restrict the
women's advancementby redefiningthe women's and men's respective places in
the undergroundwork hierarchy.
CONCLUSIONS
Sexualization of work relations and the workplacereinforces the assumption
that men and women are inherently different in terms of their physical and
mechanical abilities. Accepting these differences as natural implies that their
consequences, such as job-level gender segregation, are beyond organizational
control.As the findingsof this researchhave shown, sexualizationandthe resulting
stigmatizationof women as inferiorto men maintainsthepotencyof sex stereotypes
that negatively affect their employment outcomes through the application of
organizationalprocedures.The strengthof job-level gendersegregationrests upon
the enduranceof men's stereotypicalbeliefs about women's capabilitiesfor doing
men's work. These beliefs, behaviors, and correspondingorganizationalconsequences constitutethe preservationof men's privilege. As long as these beliefs are
supportedby managementin the form of reactive as opposed to proactiveantidiscriminatorypolicies and their enforcement,advancementfor women miners will
be unnecessarilydifficult.
Over the years, despite their pessimistic advancementattitudes,women have
been tireless in resisting men's attemptsto stereotypetheir abilities throughtheir
own hardwork.Theirresistancecan be furtheredin at least two ways. First,despite
some personaldifferences,the women sharea commonsense of being subordinates
in a "man's world."They could gain an even greatercollective consciousness by
forming a supportgroupat the mine.Then,as one womantold me, "we'd be a force
to be reckonedwith."
Second, there is strongevidence that nonsexual, egalitarianrelationshipshave
developed between at least some of the men miners and their women coworkers.
Despite the women's disillusionmentwith weak local leadership,their allegiance
to the unionandtheirunionbrothershas remainedstrong;hence,the bondsbetween
women and men miners could be strengthenedthroughunion solidarity.Women
miners could remindtheirless-acceptingunion brothersthattheirentryrepresents
the inevitable changes in the largerculture;thattheirpresenceshould be regarded
as a source of strengthandnot weakness;andthatwhile some men arebusy looking
at women's bodies, managementis busy using all miners' bodies to their own
advantage.Specifically,management'suse of makingselectivejob assignmentshas
been a powerful tool for dividing and controllingminers.The belief thatan injury

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

710

GENDER& SOCIETY/ December1995

to one is an injuryto all needs to be reassertedbecause the informalexclusion of

women as union members diminishes the potential effects of union solidarity.
Together,minerscould pressurethe companyto more vigorously enforce its own
policies for all miners,therebyrecognizingthatwomen deserve to be acceptedas
competentand not merely toleratedas "hereto stay."
Coal mining is only one of many male-identifiedblue-collaroccupations into
which women have made importantinroads. More research needs to be done
delineatingtheirexperienceswith men coworkersand supervisorsin these nontraditionalsettings.Otherstudiescould focus on the women'srelationshipswith each
other and the collective strategies they have devised to resist how men have
attemptedto discreditand exclude them.
NOTES
1. When women's resistanceto men's stereotypicalwork-roleexpectationsis minimal or nonexistent, they fall victim to what Nieva and Gutek (1981) have labeled "sex-rolespillover."This occurs
when workersin men'sjobs are expected to " 'act like men' to be perceivedas good workers"(Gutek
1985, 133). For women in nontraditionaljobs, being perceivedas competentis problematic.
2. Women who disconfirmed these stereotypes by successful advancementwere regarded as
"exceptional"(Reskin and Padavic 1988).
3. Typically,the entry-leveljobs of beginningminersconsist of rock dusting, hanging ventilation
curtain, setting timbers for roof support, shoveling coal along a belt line, moving heavy belt line
structuresand power cables, and laying track.
4. Not only did the women minersplace the burdenof sexual responsibilityupon themselves, but
miner's wives' opposition to women miners reinforcedit and, according to women in the sample,
partiallyaccountedfor the men's negative behaviortowardthem.
5. Realignments were done to accommodate major changes in the extraction of coal. Before
realignmentsoccurred,minersindicatedin writingtheirjobandshiftpreferencesto management.Miners
were then reassignedon the basis of theirpreferencesand seniorityin years and qualifications.
6. A few women in the sample likened theircrew membershipto being in a family, a social unit in
which patriarchalcontroland women's subordinatestatushave alreadybeen defined (See Crull 1987,
233-4).

REFERENCES
Cockbum,Cynthia.1991. In theway of women:Men'sresistanceto sex equalityin organizations.Ithaca,
NY: ILR Press.
Crull,Peggy. 1987. Searchingfor the causes of sexual harassment:An examinationof two prototypes.
In Hidden aspects of women'swork,edited by ChristineE. Bose, Rosyln Feldberg,and Natalie J.
Sokoloff. New York:Greenwood.
Deaux, K. 1984. Blue-collarbarriers.AmericanBehavioralScientist27:287-300.
Enarson, Elaine Pitt. 1984. Woods-workingwomen: Sexual integration in the U.S. forest service.
Birmingham:Universityof AlabamaPress.
Gruber,JamesS., andLarsBjom. 1982. Blue-collarblues:The sexual harassmentof women autoworkers. Workand Occupations9:271-98.
Gutek, BarbaraA. 1985. Sex and the workplace: The impact of sexual behavior and harassmenton
women,men and organizations.San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Tallichet / GENDERED RELATIONS IN THE MINES

711

Harlan,SharonL., andBrigidO'Farrell.1982. Afterthe pioneers:Prospectsforwomen in nontraditional

blue-collarjobs. Workand Occupations9:363-86.
Hartmann,Heidi. 1976. Capitalism,patriarchy,andjob segregationby sex. In Womenand the workplace:
The implications of occupational segregation, edited by MarthaBlaxall and BarbaraReagan.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Jurik,Nancy C. 1985. An officer and a lady: Organizationalbarriersto women workingas correctional
officers in men's prisons.Social Problems 32:375-88.
Kanter,RosabethMoss. 1977a. Men and women of the corporation.New York:Harperand Row.
. 1977b. Some effects of proportionson group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token
women. AmericanJournalof Sociology 82:965-90.
Martin,Susan. 1980. Breakingand entering:Policewomenonpatrol. Berkeley:Universityof California
Press.
Nieva, V. F., andB. A. Gutek. 1981. Womenand work:A psychologicalperspective.New York:Praeger.
Reskin, BarbaraF. 1988. Bringingthe men back in: Sex differentiationand the devaluationof women's
work. Gender & Society 2:58-81.
. 1993. Sex segregationin the workplace. In AmericanSociological Review. Vol. 19, edited by
JudithBlake andJohn Hagen. Palo Alto: AnnualReviews.
Reskin, Barbara,and IrenePadavic. 1988. Supervisorsas gate-keepers:Male supervisors'response to
women's integrationin plantjobs. Social Problems35:536-50.
Reskin, BarbaraF, and PatriciaA. Roos. 1987. Sex segregationand statushierarchies.In Ingredients
for women's employmentpolicy, edited by Christine Bose and Glenna Spitze. Albany: State
Universityof New YorkPress.
Roos, PatriciaA., and BarbaraF. Reskin. 1984. Institutionalfactorsaffectingjob access and mobility
for women: A review of institutionalexplanationsfor occupationalsex segregation.In Sex segregation in the workplace:Trends,explanations,and remedies,editedby BarbaraF.Reskin.Washington,
DC: NationalAcademy Press.
Schur, Edwin M. 1984. Labeling women deviant: Gender,stigma, and control. Philadelphia:Temple
UniversityPress.
Swerdlow,Marian.1989. Enteringa nontraditional
occupation:A case of rapidtransitoperatives.Gender&
Society 3:373-87.
Tomaskovic-Devey,Donald. 1993. Genderand racial inequalityat work. Ithaca,NY: ILR Press.
United Mine Workersof America. 1988. National BituminousCoal WageAgreement.Indianapolis,IN:
Allied Printing.
Walshok,MaryL. 1981. Blue collar women: Pioneers on the malefrontier. New York:AnchorBooks.
West, Candace,and Don H. Zimmerman.1987. Doing gender.Gender & Society 1:125-51.
Yount,Kristen.1986. Womenand men coal miners:Copingwith genderintegrationunderground.Ph.D.
diss., Universityof Colorado,Boulder.

SuzanneE. Tallichetis AssistantProfessor of Sociology at MoreheadState Universitywhere she

teaches sociological theoryand a graduate seminar on Appalachianculture.Her initial work
on women coal minersbegan with her dissertationin 1989. Currently,she is workingon a book
about the historyof womenminers in Appalachia.

This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:43:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions