» » One-Eyed Science: Occupational Health and Women Workers (Labor And Social Change)

Download One-Eyed Science: Occupational Health and Women Workers (Labor And Social Change) fb2

by Karen Messing
Download One-Eyed Science: Occupational Health and Women Workers (Labor And Social Change) fb2
Medicine & Health Sciences
  • Author:
    Karen Messing
  • ISBN:
    1566395984
  • ISBN13:
    978-1566395984
  • Genre:
  • Publisher:
    Temple University Press (April 14, 1998)
  • Pages:
    264 pages
  • Subcategory:
    Medicine & Health Sciences
  • Language:
  • FB2 format
    1230 kb
  • ePUB format
    1615 kb
  • DJVU format
    1194 kb
  • Rating:
    4.4
  • Votes:
    471
  • Formats:
    azw lrf txt lrf


Messing investigates different types of occupational health issues for women, notably the controversial topics of male/female differences in jobs, health, and basic biology

Messing investigates different types of occupational health issues for women, notably the controversial topics of male/female differences in jobs, health, and basic biology.

One-Eyed Science book. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Start by marking One-Eyed Science: Occupational Health and Women Workers as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

By Messing, Karen; Baker, Patricia. By Messing, Karen; Baker, Patricia. Rather, she critiques the flaws in these processes by situating them, and the scientists who engage in them, within their class- and gender-biased social, political and ideological contexts.

One-Eyed Science : Occupational Health and Women Workers. Select Format: Paperback. ISBN13:9781566395984.

Understanding Occupational Disease in Women Workers Karen Messing .

Understanding Occupational Disease in Women Workers Karen Messing and Jeanne M Stellman. 23. Issues in Occupational Mortality Lado Ruzicka. Reproductive Health and Occupational Hazards Among Women Workers Irena Figà-Talamanca.

Recognition by occupational health specialists has been delayed due in part to: A perception that women's issues have .

Recognition by unions is slowed when women and their concerns are absent from union membership and/or governing structures.

Messing investigates different types of occupational health issues for women, notably the controversial topics of male/female differences in jobs, health, and basic biology.

Environmental Science. oceedings{Malenfant1999KarenM, title {Karen Messing : One-Eyed Science. Occupational Health and Women Workers. author {Romaine Malenfant}, year {1999} }. Romaine Malenfant.

Includes bibliographical references (pages 193-233) and index.

After decades of research by the author and her colleagues into what women do in positions such as bank teller, secretary, waitress, nurse, factory worker, and poultry processor, Karen Messing is astonished to find that for many policymakers, researchers, and activists, the topic of women's occupational health doesn't exist.Responding to the tough question, why are scientists so unresponsive to the needs of women workers, Messing describes long-standing difficulties in gaining attention for the occupational health of women, ranging from the structure of the grant process and the conferences crucial to the professional life of researchers to the basic assumptions of scientific practice. Messing laments the separation of even most feminist health researchers from workplace concerns and asserts that it is time to develop a science that can prevent women workers' pain and suffering.

generation of new
great information on occupational H&S....was for school, but still good to know for workplace.
Bandiri
Karen Messing's book advocates setting up of a fruitful dialogue between those interested in women's health and those interested in occupational health. The author decided to study the interactions of biological and social factors. "Environment", according to Messing, "channels the performance and well-being of biologically divergent populations".
Messing states that the work environment ignores women's needs because tools, workspaces and load factors are geared for men and not women as well. She suggests that rather than finding a worker to fit the job, the job should be made accessible to the workers. She also decries the fact that science treats women's biology in ways that reinforce their subordination in society. Scientific studies about the workplace also tend to forget about the additional work load that women have at home, or to treat it as a reason against women holding certain jobs or not deserving insurance compensation.
This glaring discrimination is obvious in the scientific treatment given to work-related injuries. When men get injured, they get compensation more often than women, because cause and effect can easily be established between, say heavy lifting and a back injury, whereas the repetitive strains that women are subjected to in their jobs are less visible and more cumulative in nature. Moreover, men tend to be promoted out of repetitive types of jobs and have greater control over their work environment and methodology.
Karen Messing believes employers, scientists and insurance companies should be accountable for this state of affairs. She recognises that labour unions work very hard to protect their members, but they do not always have the support of highly paid scientific experts or lawyers to protect the rights of women. She also deplores the fact that an agent, or condition must be proved dangerous before being removed from the workplace or the environment, hence she pushes for a preventive approach. Many scientists opt for scientific certainty thereby relying on evident illness rather than symptoms to determine whether job hazards are to be validated by them. Messing diagnoses a male-gender bias in the scientific community at large.
Karen Messing's "Occupational Health..." contains useful information for researchers who wish to ensure that their methodology is not gendered. However, this jumble of facts and findings can be a bit confusing for other readers such as policymakers, labour union representatives, feminist groups and just plain workers who wish to gain an insight into this most important subject. Hopefully readers, especially scientists, will not be put off by this minor drawback in their quest for a science that has two eyes to see both sides of the question.
Trash
The implications of Messing's arguments regarding the disparate orientation of policies and practices, research and research funding, and record keeping regarding workers, is a call to awareness about how bias toward men workers has resulted in omission of women's occupational health issues from research and policy. The thoroughness of her review, the integration of hundreds of studies and the multitude of concrete examples clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of the problems for parity in occupational health research and remedies.