NEGOTIATION AGAINST PATRIARCHAL IDEOLOGY: A RESISTANCE OF WOMEN WORKERS IN MINING INDUSTRY (Paper in IGSSCI UGM Forum)
ABSTRACT
Mine cannot be separated from gender issues. It’s imbued with notions of masculinity, where men have assumed the natural workers. On the other hand, currently, many women are able to work in the mine, and even they have very good work performance. This research will find out how women interpret mining discourse? It also aims to examine how the patriarchal ideology works, especially for heavy equipment operators in the mine? This research will also reveal why women operators resist and negotiate against sexist practices in mining? The research uses a qualitative approach with ethnography research method. Informants are women heavy equipment operators at PT Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC), a coal mine industry located in East Kalimantan. The focus of this research is women who operate heavy mining equipment whose duties are directly related to mining risks in the field. The research result shows that women workers interpret the dangerous and risky mining discourse as a challenge that must be conquered. It’s also found that the patriarchal ideology in mine was practiced through sexism, both in the form of language and doubts about women’s ability to work and adapt to mining conditions. Therefore woman workers do resistance to free themselves from the views and practices that consider women as incapable of working in the mine. They emphasize that resistance is a way that must be taken to achieve gender equality, so that the existence of women is not marginalized.
Key words: mining; women workers; patriarchal ideology; negotiation
INTRODUCTION
Women are often described as weak human beings, so they are considered unsuitable for working in risky and challenging places such as mines. Doret (2016) said that stereotype such as mining is not a place for woman is still present, it is still cultural and perceptions issue. This opinion shows that the activities of women and men are seen as different because they are biologically different. Alice Rossi (1983) in Ritzer (2018, p.393) says that the state of human biology has determined many social differences between men and women. This view is very real when talking about the world of mining work, which often connotes men’s workplace. As Robinson says in Lihiri-Dutt and Robinson, “mining … is imbued with the idea of masculinity, in which men are seen as ‘natural’ workers, forcing a reluctant femininity to produce its hidden secrets” (2008, p. 21)). Robinson’s opinion illustrates that mining is a world of work that is synonymous with masculinity, and of course workers are more suitable for men. This opinion is not completely wrong when viewed from the reality on the ground. Generally, the world of mining work is dominated by male workers.
Working in the mines is also associated with taking a risky, dirty, and dangerous job that is more compatible with masculine character. In addition, pit life is seen as a unique male world, where they form a sense of solidarity with the risks involved. According to Evelin in Lahiri-Dutt and Robinson, “Workers in mines are represented as undertaking dangerous, dirty and hazardous works, characterized by a form of masculinity suitable for heroes. Pit life is perceived as a uniquely male world where the sharing of risks contributes to the formation of male solidarity” (2008, p. 125). The discourse on mining seems to represent the formation of the world from the perspective of men and does not give space to women. MacKinnon (1982) said that men shape the world from their own point of view, which then becomes a truth to be formulated. He emphasized that “… the power to shape the world from one’s point of view is power in the form of men.”
Apart from being seen from the issue of biology and the discourse on mining, there are several other factors that influence the minimum number of women working in the mine. Lahiri-Dutt said, “Three factors contribute to the differential gender impacts of mining: • The gender segregation in the workplace leading to exclusion of women from well-paying mining jobs; • The less secure and more sporadic forms of employment outside of the company are taken up by women workers; and • The disempowerment of women in mining communities” (2004, p. 12). The imbalance between men and women that appears in the workplace cannot be separated from the emergence of gender terminology which is based on patriarchal domination. Delphy and Leonard (1992, p. 258) said, men and women are socially separated because one dominates the other. According to Jackson (2019), this argument is in line with the Marxist analysis which states that men and women exist because of an exploitative relationship that unites and separates them.
Despite the existing theories and facts, it does not mean that there are no women who are capable and willing to work in the mines. This is evident from the large number of women working in the mining industry, not only as staff in offices but also as operators of heavy equipment fleets in the field. Although the physical condition is definitely different, the work demands are the same as that of men. However, the women heavy equipment operators are capable of carrying out their duties properly. This depiction can be found in the coal mine of PT Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) located in Sangatta, East Kutai, East Kalimantan Province. Women workers in this mine have been around since 1992.
The presence of women in the mine proves that the meaning of mining discourse as a masculine workplace is not translated textually by some women. They are not trapped by the existing texts so that it does not dampen the desire to continue working in the industry. This condition is in accordance with Kelly’s opinion that women do not need linguistic or semiotic theory to see an object. She maintains that “one of the most influential things feminists have done and that still needs to be continued is to create new languages and meanings that provide women with various ways to name and understand their own experiences” (1994, p. 48). Kelly further said that the power to name and define can be understood in two ways: our power, as feminists, to rename and redefine our own reality, but also the power of dominant groups to name and define reality for everyone.
The meaning of the mining discourse from the side of women workers is an interesting thing to study, let alone bring up real action to work in mine. Because plunging into a very masculine industry requires courage. Their number, which is not large, will certainly make them a minority and even marginalized group. This condition opens up opportunities for sexist acts carried out by the dominant group, in this case, men, either through real actions or simply words that harass women. Although there is explicitly no harassment, acts of sexism can take other forms, such as seeing one group as inferior to another. Cameron (2009, p. 263) explains that for feminist groups, structural relationships in which women are subordinated are categorized as acts of sexism.
The presence of women in mines is a form of resistance to the interpretation of mining as a men’s workplace which emerged after the nineteenth century. Abrahamsson et al. (2014, p. 19) in research entitled “women’s long history as mineworkers” said that before entering the industrial revolution era in various countries, the number of women working in mining reached half of the total male workers. They even combine professions as mining workers and other professions such as being a farmer. This condition changed in the era of the 1900s when women workers were no longer found in the mining industry. This condition is due to the emergence of the idea that in terms of appearance and character, women are considered unsuitable for being in the mines. Even in the 1900s, a new rule emerged that women should not work in underground mines, which was eventually followed by the general disappearance of women from mining. Since then, the mine is considered a tough world and has masculine character. From this long history, Abrahamsson et al. (2014) concluded that the real character of mining is not defined as mining as the world of men or women, but is defined by a complex historical process and prevailing understanding of masculinity and femininity. One part of masculinization is the global history of the myth that the presence of women in mines leads to accidents and deaths.
The myth that the presence of women in mines is considered synonymous with accidents, indirectly confirms the inability of women to work in hazardous and risky areas such as mining heavy equipment operators. It contrasts with the results of research by Lahiri-Dut (2004) which confirmed that in terms of safety in the field, women are far more careful and able to minimize mining accidents. As Lahiri-Dutt said in his research, “One senior expatriate manager noted that women are more careful in their jobs and as result not one of them has had any accidents. They can also cope better with repetitive and tedious jobs, are easier to deal with, and tend to have a steadying impact on men” (2004, p. 43).
Although women have meticulousness and caution, which can be the main capital for the success of working in the mine, the potential for sexism and discrimination against women cannot be avoided. According to the research, some female participants indicated that they still experience severe discrimination by their male co-workers. “The male co-workers are often outspoken and the female workers often feel degraded and humiliated by remarks and comments made by them, especially when referring to women’s ability and capability to perform mine work” (Doret, 2016, p. 258).
This condition illustrates the strong patriarchal ideology in the workplace, especially in the mining industry. Based on dictionary of cultural studies (Barker, 2004), “The idea of patriarchy refers to a social order in which there is recurrent and systematic domination of men over subordinated women across a wide range of social institutions and practices (p. 142).” Relating to the concept of radical feminism, it is emphasize that patriarchy is the root of women’s inequality and social dominance of woman by men (Firestone, 1971). Meanwhile, Millet (1969) uses the term patriarchy in revealing the cause of women’s oppression and domination. Millet explains that patriarchal ideology is a set of beliefs that legitimize male power and authority over woman, and argues that the ideology within the patriarchy system is a set of ideas, explaining the social world (society as a whole). It indicates explicitly and implicitly how power has been disturbed within the world.
Patriarchal ideology among mining workers, especially heavy equipment operators, appears in various forms, one of which is sexism. Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies (2009) explains sexism is linked to power in that those with power are typically treated with favor and those without power are typically discriminated against. Sexism is also related to stereotypes since discriminatory actions or attitudes are frequently based on false beliefs or generalizations about gender, and on considering gender as relevant where it is not. Mills (2008) divides sexism into two forms, overt sexism such as hate speech and indirect sexism such as sexist humor.
Due to women are a minority in the midst of male domination, it is very possible that female workers in mines become victims of sexual harassment, may include unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct. According to Pons and Deale (2010, p. 16) verbal forms of sexual harassment include unwelcome innuendoes, suggestions and hints, sexual advances, comments with sexual overtones, sex-related jokes or insults, unwelcome graphic comments about a person’s body made in his or her presence or directed towards him or her, unwelcome and inappropriate enquiries about a person’s sex life, and unwelcome whistling directed at a person or group of persons.
However women in particular who work in male-dominated industries have often resisted the dominant account about them and the traditionally assigned roles to them. Discussing women’s resistance usually focuses on collective or organized movements, not individual women’s resistance. It’s important to examine individual resistance and how such resistance emerges, so that we can better understand different levels of resistance and how these levels might interact. To express the mutual dependence of social structure and agency, Giddens argues that “social structure is produced and reproduced in what people do (1998, p. 77).” Giddens also said (1992, p. 28) “individuals, who live in the modern world, experience the process of monitoring, questioning and speculating about the behavior of the self and others within the particular social conditions. Modern individuals give reflected feedbacks to their own actions responding to the relations with others. Inquiring into self (the self-identity) is explicating the relations between the personal and the social. In terms of this, individual reflecting process is “institutional” because it is a “basic structuring element of social activity in modern settings.”
Giddens (1992, p. 64) posits self-understanding and autonomy of action to the self-monitoring or self-examination process of the modern individuals. Associating self-identity with personal autonomy, Giddens asserts that the process of reflexivity opens many emancipatory politics and autonomous development of the modern individuals. Giddens explains the development of reflexive attention entails the recognition of choice – the way to access life style opportunities. The creative construction of lifestyle becomes feasible through diverse ways – political resistance, distinctive cultural life style, or social movement. The reflexive shaping of self-identity is constituted in the exploration of different opportunities in everyday life.
While Giddens seeks to examine the reflexive modern self and its emancipatory possibility, Smith (1999, p. 4) explores the socially and culturally assigned condition of the individual for a particular emancipatory possibility, resistance. Claiming the social at the actual local site of the body, Smith argues that the sociological inquiry should start with the social agent who is actually (physically) located in the web of social relations. The knowing subject is always located in a particular spatial and temporal site, and sociological inquiry explicates what she/he does not know – “The social relations and organization pervading her or his world but invisible in it (Smith, 1999, p. 5).”
As a form of resistance to the patriarchal culture at the mine, especially among heavy equipment operators, the women workers conducted a number of negotiations. In this context, negotiation is meant as a process of joint decision making in which people with different preferred outcomes interact in order to resolve their differences (Hayes, 2002, p. 224). If it is associated with intercultural communication, Ting-Toomey (1999, p. 40) said, “the concept negotiation is defined as a transactional interaction process whereby individuals in an intercultural situation attempt to assert, define, modify, challenge, and or support their own and others’ desired self-image.”
The negotiation in this paper is focused on how female workers resolve social issues that arise due to the perspective of men on women’s roles. This paper will not discuss the negotiations of women workers on industrial issues, because in the mining company where this research was conducted, gender mainstreaming embodied in various written policies has been implemented. Based on the discussion, this research will find out how women interpret mining discourse? It also aims to examine how the patriarchal ideology works, especially for heavy equipment operators in the mine? It will also examine why women operators resist and negotiate against sexist practices in mining?
This research is intended to explore the experiences and opinions of women mining workers regarding the work they are engaged in. Therefore, this research uses qualitative approach. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2018, p. 43),
“Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials—case study, personal experience, introspection, life story, interview, artifacts, and cultural texts and productions, along with observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives.”
The method used in this research is ethnography. Due to this research is also intended to reveal the resistance of women mining workers to the patriarchal ideology that develops in the mine, then the type of ethnography used is critical ethnography. According to Thomas (1993) the critical ethnography is a type of ethnographic research in which the author advocate for the emancipation of group marginalized in society. Meanwhile Creswell and Poth (2018, p. 93) said “a critical ethnography will study issues of power, empowerment, inequality, dominance, repression, hegemony, and victimization.”
Data in this study were obtained from women mining workers who are known as operators. They are informants who are the main source of research. Streubert and Carpenter (2011, p. 28) said “individuals are selected to participate in qualitative research based on their first-hand experience with a culture, social process, or a phenomenon of interest”. The number of informants in this study is five people. The informants were selected based on years of service and work performance. The working period is expected to illustrate the resilience and ability of a person to adapt to the work. Whereas achievement in the workplace will prove that the perspective of women as a marginalized group can present a more comprehensive and precise perspective than the perspective of men who are in a dominant position.
The data collection was carried out in two ways, observation and in-depth interview. The researcher went directly to the mine area to make in-depth interview and observations of the informant’s perceived work situation. Data consisting of transcripts of interview results and observation notes were processed and coded using hypothesis coding. According to Miles et al. (2014, p. 71), “codes are labels that assign symbolic to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study.” Meanwhile, the choice of hypothesis coding refers to the opinion of Miles et al. (2014, p. 78), that said “the codes are developed from a theory/prediction about what will be found in the data they have been collected or analyzed.” The research was conducted in PT Kaltim Prima Coal, a coal mine company located in Sangatta, East Kalimantan.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The Mine Discourse in the Eyes of Woman Workers
PT Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC) is a coal mining company that is based in Sangatta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. It operates one of the largest operators of open pit mining in the world with total coal mining concession area of 84,938 ha (KPC, 2019). KPC is not the only big-scale company operating in this area. There are hundreds of multinational companies that open job opportunities for the community, both local and migrants. This company started mining in 1990. Based on KPC Human Resources data in March 2021, KPC currently employs 4.167 people. The employees who work as heavy equipment operators reach 1698 people. Among the thousands of employees, there 120 women operators.
The presence of women in the mine proves that the opinion of Robinson (1996, p. 137) which states “mining … is imbued with notions of masculinity, where men are assumed the natural workers, forcing the reluctant feminine of nature to yield its hidden secrets” is not entirely true. If mining is considered men’s work, of course, women will not be able to compete in the labor test to become mine operators. In fact, based on KPC’s HR data, the number of female applicants from time to time is always increased. In 1993, for the first time KPC opened a mining fleet operator position, the number of female applicants reached 90 people. The number of women who are interested in becoming operators continues to increase. In 1999 the number of female applicants reached 111 people and in 2019 there were 562 female applicants (Mahmudah, 2020). In general, the applicants are high school graduates and they are of single status.
Women’s interest in this job shows that the discourse of mining as a male workplace with a risky and dangerous connotation does not influence their decision to choose a job. They interpret the dangerous and risky mining discourse as a challenge that must be conquered. It can be seen from the results of interviews with informants. The informants who were the object of this research generally had the same reasons why they chose to be woman operators. They admit that mining work is a job that is challenging, cool, and also proud. Windiyanti, who has worked for 12 years at the KPC mine, admitted that she was prevented from applying to work as a mine operator. She said,
“My two brothers who are mine operators always say that working in the mines is risky and dangerous. Mine is not suitable for women, better find another job. But I didn’t want to be influenced by this discourse, so I was determined to apply and eventually became a mining operator until now.
Meanwhile Umandia, 28 years of service said,
“It is my desire to be a heavy equipment operator. When I first applied, I only saw heavy equipment that had to be operated through pictures. When I saw directly at the mine, I was even more excited. In 1993 when I started working, it was very rare for women to work as operators. I am challenged that if men can I also have to be able to. Being a female operator is proud, it feels cool to be able to drive a car as big as a house. At that time, the operator’s salary wasn’t really good, but I was happy to choose that job. I never thought that the mine was a men’s workplace.”
Umandia’s reasons are almost the same as for other woman operators. Sherly Tempang, 28 years of service said,
“From the beginning, I wanted to be a driver, because at that time (1993) women who became drivers were very rare. So I tried to apply to be an operator. Before that, I didn’t know the size of the fleet I was going to drive. When my application was accepted, I was escorted to the mine. When I saw the heavy equipment I had to drive, I was challenged, not afraid. If men can, women should also be able to. Even though I have not started operating the tool yet, I feel proud because he will operate a vehicle that is as big as a house. Moreover, the salary I will receive is greater than my previous workplace.”
Meanwhile, Yenny Aristha, who has worked for 15 years, admitted that her desire to work in the mines was based on her interest in the profession itself. Yenny said,
“Initially, I saw women operators go to work wearing mine clothes. I saw that the women were cool and strong in their operator uniforms. At that time I was only 17 years old, so I didn’t think about working to earn money because I was still living with my parents. I decided to apply to become an operator because for me this is an interesting and challenging profession.”
Yenni’s opinion is no different from Dewi Kartika and Windiyanti, who just started working at the mine in 1999. Both emphasized their desire to prove that mining, especially heavy equipment operator is not a masculine workplace. Even though women are often connoted as being weak, they can work well in the mines. The presence of women in the mine proves that the discourse of mining as a masculine workplace is not textually translated by some women. They stay in the job, not for a short time. Hundreds of female operators who work at the KPC mine have worked for more than 10 years, even some of them have been in this profession for more than 25 years.
Woman operators work with the same operating standards as man workers, including the working hours, fleet to operate, safety standards, and uniforms to wear. If it is a night shift, woman operators will also stay up all night to operate the mining fleet. The silence of the wilderness and the darkness of the night no longer prevent the woman workers from working seriously. Helmets, vests, and safety shoes are the attributes that they must wear every time they work. With these attributes, of course, their appearance is far different from office women who can change accessories anytime to be seen following fashion trends. The existence of woman workers in mining at the same time shows that the character of mining is not actually defined by mining as a male or female world, but is defined by a complex historical process and the prevailing understanding of masculinity and femininity as mentioned by Abraham et al (2014, p. 19).
Woman operators working at the KPC mine in Sangatta, East Kalimantan
(Source: Book of Menaklukkan Tambang; Potret Perempuan di Pertambangan)
How Does the Patriarchal Ideology Work in the Mine?
The depiction of mining workers who are represented as risky, dirty, and dangerous acts as described by Evelin above leads to the thinking of workers, especially men that women will not be able to adapt and survive in the long term. This thinking also arises due to gender terminology which is based on patriarchal domination. In addition, the number of woman operators, which is only around 7% of the total male operators, has put women into a minority group in the mine. This condition results in acts of marginalization and also sexism by male operators against female operators, especially in verbal forms of sexual harassment include unwelcome innuendoes, suggestions and hints, sexual advances, comments with sexual overtones, sex-related jokes or insults, unwelcome graphic comments about a person’s body of woman.
In 1993, there were very few women as operators. According to Suryani when women entered the work, it seemed strange for male workers. She told, “We are together on the bus when we go to and come home from work, but it will be separated when we are at the work location. Just then a male operator touched my cheek. Spontaneously I clawed and hit the man wearing a helmet. Since then, they didn’t dare tease me. Not only have that but they (men) also sometimes doubted whether I can work in the mines. Now I have been in this profession for 28 years. They actually praised me back that I am strong and could go through this very tough routine.”
Sherly also felt a similar experience. She said, “Before working here, I worked at Matahari Department Store. Every day I dress up in full makeup. I carry this habit in the mine. Men always comment “red lips yeah.” I’m not angry, instead, I tease back “do you like it?” Gradually they got tired of teasing me. Woman operators often experience harassment against their bodies that are considered weak. Yenny Arista, a woman who comes from the Kutai tribe (a native tribe of Kalimantan), shared her experience,
“Due to my stature is small, sometimes the male operators say, “Are you really strong to work in the mine? Your body is too small. ” I said, yes I can do it. They did not immediately believe it, instead they returned a comment, “we’ll wait how long you can last.” After I proved that I could work for up to 15 years, they (men) said, “You are enough strong to be a mine operator. Salute, women with a small posture like you can work carrying heavy equipment.”
Woman marginalization through sexism, both overt and indirect sexism as mentioned above by Sara Mills, do not only come from man colleagues. Man workers, who are actually brother and also husband, also do the same to woman operators who are either their relatives or their wive. Sherly’s husband is the mine supervisor where she works for. She admitted that her husband often asked her to stop working on the grounds that mining was not suitable for women. Her husband wanted Sherly to take care of the household, but Sherly always refused the request.
As a dominant group, male workers also often think that their ability to work is better than that of women. This thought can be seen when the best operator competition was held. Dewi Karticha and Windiyanti, who at that time participated in the competition, had doubts about their abilities. Karticha said,
“When I joined for the best operator competition in my department, many man operators commented that it is impossible for me to be the winner. After I succeeded in eliminating about 700 other operators and being able to represent the company to the Asian level, then they said “it turns out that women are capable of being the best”. After that, many man operators like to ask questions about how to operate their machines properly and safely.”
Male workers often use sexist humor to seduce women. Windiyanti is very offended by a male colleague’s joke. He said, one day when it was raining heavily in the mine, his friend said, “Windi, if it rains it’s also good to take shelter under the blanket on the bed, why bother working in the mine? Windiyanti, who is a widow, admits that she often receives sexist insinuations from her colleagues. Various experiences felt by female operators show that men tend to apply patriarchal ideology to marginalize women.
Why Do Women Operators Resist and Negotiate Against Sexism in the Mine?
Various reasons were put forward by the women operators for resisting and negotiating against sexism that occurred in the mines. Based on in-depth interviews with informants, it was found that the basic reason for their resistance was to show the public that mining cannot be said to be a men’s workplace. In addition, their ability to adapt to the mining work environment proves that even though they are physically different, it does not mean that women cannot work in workplaces that are dominated by men. For women operators, their thoroughness and prudence is an important asset to conquer a risky and dangerous workplace such as a mine.
Another reason, resistance is a way that must be taken to achieve gender equality, so that the existence of women is not marginalized. They emphasized that eliminating the patriarchal ideology completely is indeed a difficult matter considering that woman operators are a minority. By engaging in this resistance, they are trying to free themselves from the views and practices that consider women as incapable of working in the mines. Windiyanti said,
“By working as an operator of a mining fleet, which in fact is dominated by men, I want to show that women are taking emancipatory steps from the shackles of patriarchy domination. I and other woman operators are proof that women are not only able to work in offices. Women can also work in very harsh and risky terrain such as mines.”
Windiyanti’s statement proves that women resist the meaning of mine as a masculine workplace. The same opinion was shared by other informants. In exercising this resistance, the informants conducted a number of negotiations in their own way. There are those who negotiate with actions like what was done by Suryani when she was poked on her cheek, there are those who negotiate with words like Sherly’s, and there are those who prove it with work performance like Karticha and Windiyanti. Everything they do is closely related to the goal of negotiation to assert, define, modify, challenge, and or support their own and others’ desired self-image as negotiation concept mentioned by Ting-Toomey previously.
Sherly was able to work for up to 28 years after negotiating with her own husband and also supervisor at KPC mine who considered women unsuitable for working in the mines. Sherly emphasized that it is unfair for women to be returned to the domestic sector just because men are worried that women will not be able to handle household chores properly. There is no double standard between male and female operators in following all procedures and rules that apply in the mine also understood as part of negotiations to achieve gender equality. Windiyanti, who has been the best operator three times in a row and had the opportunity to represent the company at the Asian level event said,
“Sometimes there are field supervisors who give dispensation because they consider the physical condition of women. For me, it has the potential for women to be underestimated because they are considered spoiled and take advantage of their gender to gain leeway in working. Acceptance of this dispensation will further strengthen the stigma that women are weak creatures. I choose not to accept the concessions granted unless I am really sick. Dispensation for sick workers is the right of all workers, it has nothing to do with gender issues. So even if I ask for a break, it’s just because I am sick. It’s not because I am a woman who needs mercy.”
Through resistance and various negotiations carried out, woman operators can not only show the same work performance as men. They were even able to demonstrate to the mining industry that the presence of women who were thought to be closely associated with risk and death was not proven. This can be seen in the company’s accident data which shows that since the first time there were female operators in 1992 until now, there has never been a Lost Time Injury involving a female operator (Mahmudah, 2020).
Women in mine are situated and located in a particular context. They have learned cultural expectations about women through the socialization process, and they have also learned what is expected for a mine woman worker through encountering events in mining workplace. They acknowledge the rules and regulations for being a mine worker, but they sometimes want to violate the rules invented and maintained by the dominant members of mine workers, men. Women in mine volunteer to follow the rules to be a mine operator, but simultaneously they seek to find the chances to be different from the expected mine workers. Their situated-ness or locality triggers the opportunities to reflect upon the self as a woman and as a mine worker, and the situated-ness or locality can lead to resistance.
Woman operators in KPC mine, Sangatta, East Kalimantan
(Source: Book of Menaklukkan Tambang; Potret Perempuan di Pertambangan)
CONCLUSION
Based on the various discussions above, it can be concluded that women do not agree with the discourse which says that mining is a men’s workplace and is not suitable for women. The emergence of the depiction of mining as a hard, risky and dangerous workplace has not discouraged women from entering the world of work.
The patriarchal ideology adhered to and applied by male workers in mining is manifested in various actions, such as marginalization and sexism by male operators against female operators, especially in verbal forms of sexual harassment include unwelcome innuendoes, suggestions and hints, sexual advances, comments with sexual overtones, sex-related jokes or insults, unwelcome graphic comments about a person’s body of woman.
Based on in-depth interviews with informants, it was found that the basic reason for their resistance was to show the public that mining cannot be said to be a men’s workplace. In addition, through their ability to adapt to the mining work environment, they prove that even though they are physically different, it does not mean that women cannot work in workplaces that are dominated by men. Another reason, resistance is a way that must be taken to achieve gender equality, so that the existence of women is not marginalized. By engaging in this resistance, they are trying to free themselves from the views and practices that consider women as incapable of working in the mines.
One thing that is interesting is the harassment that occurs to woman operators at the KPC mine in the form of verbal harassment, not in the form of sexual harassment such as rape. This is closely related to the rules for termination of employment for employees who are proven to have committed acts of rape. Given that sexism can take many forms, there needs to be a socialization of regulations that emphasize that sexism in all its forms, including sexist humor, should not be practiced. Thus, the protection of female workers whose existence is a minority group will be more optimal.
REFERENCE
Abrahamsson, L., Segerstedt, E., Nygren, M., Johansson, Jan., Johansson, B., Edman, I., & Aerlund, A. (2014). Gender, diversity, and work condition in mining, Mining and sustainable development, 43-67. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology Press.
Barker, C. (2004). The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications
Cameron, D. (2009). Teori bahasa feminis in Pengantar teori-teori feminis kontemporer book. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
Cresswell, J. W., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five aproaches (4th ed.). California, USA: Sage
Delphy, C & Leonard, D. (1992). Familiar exploitation: A new analisys of marriage in contemporary western societies. Oxford: Polity.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Texas, USA: Sage.
Doret, B. (2016). Woman in Mining: An assessment of workplace relations struggles. Journal of sosial science volume 46.
From https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09718923.2016.11893533?jo urnalCode=rjss20
Firestone, S. (1971). The Dialect of Sex. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc.
Jackson, Stevi. (2009). Membentuk Teori Gender dan Seksualitas in Pengantar Teori-Teori Feminis kontemporer. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
Giddens, A & C. Pierson. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hayes, John.(2002). Interpersonal skills at work (2nd Edition). New York, USA: Routledge.
Lahiri-Dutt, K. & Robinson, K (2008). Bodies in contest: Gender difference and equity in coal mine. Asian Studies Association of Australia, 121-135.
Lahiri-Dutt, K (2004). Gender survey of Kaltim Prima Coal Sangatta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Canberra, Australia: ANU press.
Kelly, Liz. (1994). Stuck in the middle in Trouble and Strife Magazin29/30. Manchester: Sandypress.
Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies. (2009). Glossary of gender-related term. https://medinstgenderstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Gender-Glossary-updated_final.pdf
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. B., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis a methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). California, USA: Sage.
Millet, K. (2000). Sexual politics. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press
Mahmudah, Z. (2020). Menaklukkan tambang; Potret perempuan di pertambangan. Jakarta: BIP Gramedia
Mills, Sara. (2008). Language and sexism. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press
Pons A, Deale P 2010. Labour relations handbook. Revision Service 18. Cape Town: Juta.
PT Kaltim Prima Coal. (2020). Sutainable development report 2019. Jakarta: Subur Printing.
Ritzer, G. (2018). Teori sosiologi modern (7th edition: translation). Depok: Prenada Media.
Smith, D. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing advancing the humanistic imperative (5th ed). Philadelphia, USA: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, USA: The Guilford Press.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage