Mothers want to raise minors not be miners

No one is forcing mothers to spend time with their own children, but some of them might still enjoy the experience it seems. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal laid bare the assumptions of the feminist waters in which we swim. Entitled in the paper’s print edition, “Mining Firms Fail to Lure Women,” the article examined the miniscule growth and in many cases reduction in the percentage of women making up the labor force in the mining industry. The assumption of the article seems to be that the lack of women eager to work in a challenging industry is proof of a problem that must be overcome. But is it?

Described in terms of an effort to “rebalance” a predominantly male workforce, the attempts by several mining companies to convince more women to work for them have resulted in failure. Just like Sheryl Sandburg’s drive to push more women to the top of the corporate ladder has resulted in no discernable positive results, so mining remains just as, in some cases even more so, an industry of men.

Women in the industry interviewed by the Wall Street Journal noted “a lack of flexibility in a career that can include months away from home at isolated sites” as unappealing to women. Revealing how demented we have become in the postmodern age, the article goes on to spell out why this might be of particular concern to women, who have the potential to be mothers. One woman interviewed worked in mining in Australia for several years until giving birth to her first child. She told the Wall Street Journal, “I wanted more flexibility to see the baby grow up.” How odd that we must spell this out now with an illustrative example: most mothers become so by bearing a child in their body for many months and then many do not want to be separated from that child of their flesh and blood and miss the rewarding experience of coming to know that person as he or she develops.

However enticing the pay and managerial prospects of mining, packing the baby off to some extended daycare while you trek out to remote areas to work with a boatload of men is obviously undesirable. Yet, we are to be deeply concerned with overcoming this aversion.

There was also the vague suggestion of unspecified harassment in a “macho culture” that was disliked by women. However, the first complaint—inflexible and uncompromising work in remote areas—is the only one substantiated and likely the most important factor. Mining companies, facing a recruiting shortfall, are seeking more flexible, exciting, Millennial-friendly ways of packaging their employment opportunities. That seems foolish. Why would a talented woman with many prospects opt for working in mining over some ethereal industry with no heavy machinery and obnoxiously out-of-the-way mining locations? The industry might be setting itself up for yet greater failure by trying to compete with cushy tech companies and service industry cakewalks instead of being what it is: dirty and difficult.

The very last paragraph of the Wall Street Journal article notes, “Other women are put off by a perception that mining requires brute strength, recruiters say.” We are reassured, “While some roles remain very physical, most modern mining, from lab work to management and operating automated machinery, isn’t.” How very reassuring. Whether or not you can put someone in front of a computer to do much of the work with minimal physical exertion does not seem to change the fact that heavy machinery and large complex problems attract men.

Instead of trying to dress up tough work and introduce smooth incentives, maybe the mining industry could accept that it is a male-dominated work environment and seek to challenge men of merit to rise to the challenge and take a difficult job for which their sacrifices will be compensated. Instead of beginning with the assumption that we all need to find fulfilling jobs that let us have what we find to be an acceptable number of hours each day with our children, why not begin with the assumption that there are difficult tasks that must be accomplished in order for us to maintain the quality of life we enjoy. The job is there; let him who is man enough take it. Of course, that would require tearing little boys away from their video games, but surely there are some men left among them.

There seems to be an assumption in this “rebalancing” and the diversity thinking that a group of men unsupervised by the fairer sex, ahem, female comrades, is necessarily distasteful or harmful. One of the odd things is that women, by definition, have never been part of an entirely male group. Perhaps she overheard snippets of conversation. We’ve all heard surreptitiously recorded audio from such gatherings. But to be a woman is to be excluded from the mysterious bonding that occurs when men form groups. Clearly, some undesirable things occur (such as the aforementioned recorded audio or the soused frat boys bellowing, “Let’s go break s**t!”). But are these gatherings inherently bad? It would seem cohesive groups of men who know and trust each other are a tremendous asset in times of catastrophe, natural disaster, and warfare. Perhaps also in the arduous task of continually innovating and risking life and limb to extract materials from the Earth.

But no. The diversity police will never surrender. As one Australian mining exec put it, “You can’t just say, yes, diversity is good and we will just let it happen organically, because it won’t.” That’s right; demonstrably, women, especially mothers, will not in large numbers enter a field that is at odds with who they are. Absent necessity, most women will find other professions. Absent necessity, many mothers will choose the profession of homemaker. And the activists will not rest until we fix that.

If women will not work by choice, then they must be convinced to. The print title of the article is more accurate: there’s been a failure to “lure” women into mining. The online edition changed the title to the more innocuous, “Miners’ Efforts to Attract More Female Workers Fall Flat.” The latter is a simple invitation rejected, the former is a term associated with ensnarement and manipulation. It’s easy to convince a bright 12-year-old girl that she wants to be an engineer. Convincing a mother holding her newborn to place her child in the hands of company-provided childcare so she can get back to her computer is more difficult. The feminist assumptions we’ve imbibed about who needs to work where might be worth interrogating.