A series: What the AI Revolution and Construction have in common (2)
Anna, Founder
March 12, 2026
Part two of a three-part series on AI, construction, and the foundations of inclusion.
Conditional belonging and withdrawal in construction
In part one, I explored how inequality is embedded in systems through code and construction. Those systems are not theoretical. They shape everyday experience, who is taken seriously, who feels safe, and who decides the cost is too high to stay.
When I listen to women in trades and training, and reflect on Laura Bates’ work, I see the same dynamic repeatedly: when environments fail to respond to harm, women adjust their behaviour, or they leave.
When institutions fail to intervene, women leave
Research cited by Bates shows that in online gaming environments, when women experience harassment and platforms fail to respond effectively, many withdraw entirely.
Not because they aren’t skilled or because they don’t want to be there, but because the emotional cost outweighs the benefit.
That dynamic is not confined to digital spaces.
In construction, I see three broad responses:
Adapt and assimilate: often by leaning into more traditionally “masculine” behaviours.
Tolerate and endure: minimising issues to survive.
Leave.
That withdrawal isn’t a personal failing; it’s a rational response to risk.
When reporting mechanisms feel ineffective, when leadership is inconsistent in addressing behaviour, or when “that’s just site culture” becomes an excuse, the burden shifts to the individual.
It becomes her job to adapt, and adaptation is far from inclusion.
Conditional belonging and withdrawal in construction
Listening to this book forced me to ask a difficult question:
Is self-withdrawal what we’ve been seeing in construction for decades?
When women don’t apply. When they don’t speak up. When they don’t report. When they choose office-based roles over site-based roles. When they leave entirely.
Have we too often interpreted absence as lack of interest rather than cumulative deterrence?
When women are not visible on site, it is easy to assume they simply chose differently.
In fact, what if those choices were shaped long before the application form? What if repeated experiences (online, in public space, in education, in early site exposure) quietly narrow what feels possible, safe, or worth the cost for women and minorities?
If belonging feels conditional once inside, and exposure feels hostile before entry, then women’s departure is not that mysterious at all.
If site culture, informal norms, leadership responses and now digital tools all send subtle signals about who truly belongs, then self-withdrawal is not simply an individual decision; it reflects the conditions women repeatedly encounter.
If withdrawal is not about confidence or capability, but about the conditions women encounter, then the solution cannot sit solely with individuals.
In the final article, I’ll explore what this means for how we are building We Build Too and the responsibility industry leaders carry as digital transformation accelerates.
