Half Question/Half Pet Peeve

[roser13]

This is a sincere question and not an intention to flame.

Why are we seeing threads (yes, multiple) from male pre-nursing or pre-CNA students asking (in essence) how many advantages & benefits they will attain simply because they are of the male gender? These posts commonly carry an "what am I entitled to?" sentiment that just puts me over the edge.

Seriously, is it "out there" that all male applicants to an historically female profession can pretty much count on magical admission rates to school and rapid promotion rates while employed?

Adding to my distress at this trend are the nurses who respond positively to these threads:

"Yes, our elderly patients really have a higher respect for male CNA's/nurses. They always think they're doctors!"

"Yes! We can use you on the Lift Team!"

"Yes, we like working with male nurses more than we like working with female nurses because they don't gossip!"

"All the male nurses in my unit get promoted quickly to management."

I guess I've pretty much answered my own question. If we (current nurses) are encouraging male nursing applicants by promoting how "special" they will be, it's no wonder that the word is out there that the nursing field is ripe for male exploitation.

Which essentially.........depresses me.

[BrandonLPN, LPN]

It made me so mad that every class would elect a male class president even though the majority of students were female.

Well, if a majority of FEMALES voted for the male canidates each time, you don't really have the right to be angry now do you? Those males were elected, after all, not appointed.

[BrandonLPN, LPN]

If a male made such a comment in business or other area's it would automatically be labeled sexist and attacked with vigot. There was a recent article about lowering the physical requirements for female military members to qualify for combat assignements. The need for diversity was the battle cry justifying lowering it for females. There have been numerous efforts to increase females in numerous professions for the sake of diversity. Yet the perception of the same for males in a profession so lacking of gender diversity is met with this kind of commentary because males cannot be victims of discrimination only females can? The effort to create diversity is only valued for females? While you can try to reduce it to only those males who feel entitled, would the same attempt be accepted for females? There has been only two cases legally allowing discrimination against hiring a gender in the medical profession, both against males in the OB. If it is healthy to do things to encourage diversity for females, why is this an issue in a profession that is so important, so personal, and so lacking of gender diversity? The obvious answer is because it possibly might favor males. Sexism is not bounded by who it is against.

At the risk of going off on a tanget, I also hate that professions like firefighting, police and the military are creating seperate, lower physical requirements for females.

Sure, a woman can be a firefighter IF she meets the same physical standards. If this narrows down the pool of eligible women to only those of exceptional strength, then so be it.

[LithEruiel]

Well, if a majority of FEMALES voted for the male canidates each time, you don't really have the right to be angry now do you? Those males were elected, after all, not appointed.

Yes, I do have the right to be angry at women who think that men are better leaders than women just because they're men.

My nursing school class had 4 guys out of 20 slots... I don't know how many applicants there were but there were a bunch of guys at the information session I attended.

In my department, it's probably 25% guys - both at the bedside and sitting at the desks... our director and our clinical manager are both female... as is our CNO. At my last two jobs, the managers were both female as were both of the DONs.

Of the new hires behind me, it's about 2/3 female, 1/3 male.

I see no evidence of bias at the places I've worked though I suppose one could argue that men should be preferentially hired if one believes that the workplace should reflect the population it serves (which I personally do not... gender, race, religion, etc should have no bearing in hiring/promotion decisions).

[malenurse122879, MSN, RN]

How about this? I'm a Male in an ALL FEMALE unit. I chose NICU because I enjoy taking care of the little ones. So far in 99% of the units I've worked on I've been the only male or only straight male (Not saying that's an issue, but sometimes the female nurses view them as just one of the girls). For the most part the girls are fine and easy to get along with; However, you do run into the bitter crowd, or those that feel men shouldn't be in their unit. I have yet to work my way into management. I'm wrapping up my BSN next month after 6 years of ADN nursing. I'm finally sick and tired of the cattiness in the hospital and I'm leaving to move into case management on the outside world. I'm starting grad school at the end of the summer to get my FNP so I can hopefully have some freedom in a practice - I know there's still drama/BS but it will be a different type.

No, I haven't seen men get favoritism (then I've usually been the only one). There is big time discrimination and cattiness towards men in the units where you're the only one. There are some women who find it nice to have a man in the group, but more times than not the number that don't want a man there are the majority. So no, guys, it's not a cakewalk.

[mappers]

The idea that women have somehow cornered the market in behaving badly at work infuriates me. Are men somehow above this "catty, backstabbing behavior" simply because they are men? I don't believe that.

Because when men do it, they are just getting ahead and showing "assertiveness".

[middleager]

Gender dispairity is addressed in the vast majority of situations by putting attention and sometimes special effort to remediate that inequity. That attention and efforts often create the appearance and perhaps the expectation of entitlement. Given there is a well recognized history that the majority of these cases were females entering a male dominated profession, females entering with expectations and an attitude of entitlement have been accepted perhaps even seen as deserved to overcome the obsticles of being a minority. Given this is a male minority perhaps it is not that unexpected that it would be seen as different and met with resistance. The reality is the act or perception of it not that unusual, the gender of the minority is, which makes this discussion more acceptable and seemingly less offensive to some. Once again, simply change male to female in the original post and ask if a male had posted that about females...would the conversation be different?

[roser13, ASN, RN]

Gender dispairity is addressed in the vast majority of situations by putting attention and sometimes special effort to remediate that inequity. That attention and efforts often create the appearance and perhaps the expectation of entitlement. Given there is a well recognized history that the majority of these cases were females entering a male dominated profession, females entering with expectations and an attitude of entitlement have been accepted perhaps even seen as deserved to overcome the obsticles of being a minority. Given this is a male minority perhaps it is not that unexpected that it would be seen as different and met with resistance. The reality is the act or perception of it not that unusual, the gender of the minority is, which makes this discussion more acceptable and seemingly less offensive to some. Once again, simply change male to female in the original post and ask if a male had posted that about females...would the conversation be different?

Sorry - I totally got lost in your paragraph.

" Given this is a male minority perhaps it is not that unexpected that it would be seen as different and met with resistance. The reality is the act or perception of it not that unusual, the gender of the minority is, which makes this discussion more acceptable and seemingly less offensive to some. Once again, simply change male to female in the original post and ask if a male had posted that about females...would the conversation be different?"

Would you mind simplifying your question/statement?

[middleager]

That's not surprising, my daughter once told me, your brain doesn't work like everyone else's, you just aren't quite right. I am sure she meant it in the nicest way. Let me try again, when we see a profession or institution that is nearly completely dominated by a gender or a race attempt to increase diversity, there often is additional focus placed on the minorities they are attempting to increase. The focus and often accommodations they make to increase participation often create an appearance of "preference". The appearance can create a sense of entitlement to the minority. I am entitled to this preference be it affirmative action or otherwise because I am a minority and this evens the field or helps me overcome the obstacles being a minority creates. I am entitled to this to right the wrong. Historically this has been females and African Americans trying to enter into a white male profession. While that is changing the history has been the need to focus on bringing females and racial minorities in. The white male has traditionally been the favored majority and therefore for lack of a better term the "oppressor" or "privileged" so we see males in that role. We accept the appearance/sense of entitlement from the traditional victims (female or racial minorities) as historically that has been the case. We have a much harder time accepting the same behavior from a male whom has and still is for the most part seen as "privileged". I question if these actions were from an African American, would you feel as comfortable saying "I get sick of these African American students with a sense of entitlement"? Or even, I get sick of seeing women with a sense of entitlement that because they are a minority in this profession they think they should get special consideration"? I work with a large multi national company whom has made it a known goal to increase the number of females in management. They did a recent restructure and let a large number of middle management (mainly male) go, they replaced them almost entirely with females. While no one can say for certainty the appearance of intentionally replacing the males with females is certainly strong. Yet, no one is willing to come out and say it for fear of backlash. I don't know if that cleared what I was trying to say or not. Stuff makes sense in my mind that creates the "what the heck did he say" face on a regular basis.

[ceccia]

No one is saying that men shouldn't be welcomed as nurses and given equal consideration with women. Entitlement is when a male SN or nurse expects to have an easier time getting hired (especially for the high-desire practice settings that everyone wants and new grads rarely get), be promoted over equally- or better-qualified women, receive a higher rate of pay compared to women with equal experience/qualifications, and/or be put on the fast track to management simply because he is male and "guys are naturally better leaders". And yes, I have heard male co-workers (and students, when i was in school), literally say that they expect those things.

[dudette10, MSN, RN]

It's unfair and obviously sex/gender discrimination has no place in the workplace or anywhere else. Women and men can do equally well in all professions.

That being said, I do know that some schools have higher admit rates for men as there are less male applicants. I had an admission director at a highly ranked BSN program admit that they have a 90+% male acceptance rate despite having an overall acceptance rate of less than 20%. I'm not sure if that's exactly wrong - they want a diverse class and if only a few men apply they have no choice. No different than affirmative action for some races - it helps create a diversity.

Yes, it is considerably different from Affirmative Action for women and non-white races. Women in society have been barred from certain professions in the past, and they were found to be fit only for teaching, nursing, and secretarial work, so those professions were, and still are, dominated by women. (Ironically, teaching in higher education, except for nursing education, is still dominated by men. Chew on the reasons for that one!)

Men were not barred from nursing; they avoided it because it is a "girls only" profession. Now, schools are actively recruiting men not to correct a social wrong, but to convince men that it isn't a feminine job. It saddens me to see the annual report of my alma mater touting the percentage of men in the total student body, holding special "Men in Nursing" seminars, and establishing a "males only" scholarship. For what? To lure them into a profession that they have simply chosen to ignore as a viable option because it's women's work? That chaps my hide.

i don't resent my male coworkers; I resent the notion that they've had to somehow fight for their place in this profession, when in reality, the general historical idea was that it was beneath them to do as men. It's a reverse diversity, if you will, in that we have to convince men that our profession is "good enough" for them to be a part of. What a crock.

[dudette10, MSN, RN]

I'd also like to comment on the changes to physical fitness requirements for certain professions. The original standards, much like the physiological norms in medicine, were historically based on the norms men. On average, men have more muscle mass and less body fat than women. That's a fact. If the changing of the standards (or scoring of maneuvers) is different, but still represents what would need to be successfully accomplished during combat, why all the uproar? We are physiologically different! Does it upset anyone that the fitness training has different requirements based on age, regardless of gender? Should the older soldiers be summarily dismissed from duties because they aren't as fast or agile as the 22-year old recruit?