I am a female chartered builder who has been out of the industry for a few years bringing up my daughter. I still read your magazine, however, and was very disappointed to see clear examples of both sexism and homophobia in your April edition.

First, the claims QS is not necessarily a man (‘He’s back’). It’s one thing to use ‘he’ as a generic term, but another to characterise the claims QS as ‘this guy’ all the way through the article. An industry such as construction which suffers so badly from the under-representation of women should be more aware of this sort of thing and should certainly use non-gender specific language where possible. You may say that the article and the characterisation of the claims QS are lighthearted, and I can see that, but I still think it’s sexist, and silly.

The SNAFU cartoon on the back page is blatant homophobia and homophobic stereotyping, and not even funny. Your magazine also had an article about how difficult it is to recruit managers, which obviously this cartoon ties into. Does the article really mean, my goodness, how difficult it is to recruit fat white homophobes like us?

Also on the back page is a photo of urinals in the shape of women’s lipsticked mouths. Ha ha, how amusing – urinating into a woman’s mouth. You have to question why this picture is so compelling that it has been put in the magazine with some lame text about Englemere’s bathrooms. Oh yes, silly me, it’s really a picture of some flooring. Revolutionary, never-seen-before beige lino.

These three examples really bring down the tone of your magazine and give a clear reflection of (in my experience) this industry’s attitudes rather than setting a better example. I can’t wait to get back on site.

Source

Construction Manager

Postscript

Louise Welsh MCIOB