Just Horseplay? Masculinity and Workplace Grievances in Fordist Canada, 1947–70s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines men’s grievances concerning horseplay, profanity, alcohol, and violence, primarily in their legal arbitrated form, as a means of probing the gendered nature of the Fordist system of grievance arbitration. Horseplay grievances, for instance, were infused with ideas about masculinity, with the majority dealing with male-on-male activities, usually among workers. In arbitration discourse, horseplay and violence were naturalized as essentially male behaviour. An examination of these “bad behavior” grievances highlights how the arbitration process was not only shaped profoundly by class but also by gender and, to a lesser extent, ethnocentric ideologies. Gender stereotypes and moralistic assumptions shaped the arguments and outcome of grievance arbitration, and, with each decision, the system became more legalized and bureaucratized, with gender norms firmly embedded in arbitration discourse. While some gender norms changed their form in the post-Fordist workplace, current grievances concerning horseplay indicate some continuity with the past and the persisting equation of working-class masculinity with violence, rough behaviour, and intimidation in the workplace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".