Maxx0763

That's the sheltered world you live in. Biased, partisaned, and narcissistic with apathetic, and indifferent perspectives. Advantageous/Egalitarian when it benefits you, unrecognized when it's to your disadvantage. The original premise was the dissatisfaction expressed by female nurses when asked to exchange disqualifying work duties for mundane ones. It's not a favor you're doing us, it's mandatorily required. Were forced to relinquish those responsibilities unrelated to competence. Unless those policies, and guidelines are equally enforced, thats the reason you receive that type of attitude, contempt, and impudence. If females were set to the same standards, and principles as males, their would be no discussion.

Thank you, I'm the "perpetrator", remember. Stating facts and realities. No problem.

Really, males are instructed to acquiesce to authority, and conduct themselves stoicly, even when abused, and berated by females from inception till death. If males protested, and complained that metric would be comparable. If it's not reported and compiled as a statistic, it's okay? I used to be a bartender, and personal trainer before getting into healthcare. I've had my junk, arms, *** grabbed and chest/shoulder/back touched by more women without consent than my massage therapist. So have a lot of my friends. Females are way more physically aggressive, and lascivious than men are because what is socially permissable, acceptable and allowable. But they can turn that on and off switch of that nature off but males can't? Its a hypocritical paradox where females can openly fondle/grope/touch a man without consent for fear of being reprimanded, penalized, or punished. They use that double standard to the fullest extant knowing males are legally handcuffed, and what is "permissable" by females in that sexual dynamic. The public view is naive, ignorant, and supressed from facts and truth. All is not what it appears to be.

You don't think personally that males are "perverts". Well society does and imposes this pervasive sterotype in all facets which permeates into work responsibilities when interacting with the opposite sex of an intimate nature. You think chaperoning is equated. You can cath both sexes equally alone if warranted. Males don't have that privilege and the chaperone is mandatorily required to be female. The blame, and accusations are almost exclusively female. Males are not respected and if we were supported, those guidelines, and policies in regards to treatment of an intimate nature would be equally addressed, enforced, and practiced. But, it's not except on "documentary filings". Your asking if a female consents to a cath, or have another male as chaperone, it would be okay. If all things equal, sure. I've never witnessed that scenario happen in various settings in many environments. I could get into the dynamics but it lengthy, taxing, and superfluous. Females are safeguarded, and protected, that even when they feel comfortable and consents, a female chaperone is still mandatorily required. No such entitlements are given to males. The double standard exists unjustly imposed by society benefits females. As males, we are handcuffed and restricted be fortunate you have the freedoms to do whatever you want. When you assist us you're not doing any favors, but when you use that as leverage when we help you it's a favor. Just realize those realities, from a males perspective what we have to contend with. We're not displacing responsibilities because of convenience, or intolerance, it's because we're bound and we have to.

Because we know the inevitable outcome will be due to mandatorily required policies and guidelines, with associated legal/social/cultural expectations, is to enlist a FEMALE. You do both male and female patients unencumbered without the stigma and ostracization we as males endure. You should be so fortunate. I would diligently do my tasks unimpeded but are handcuffed by both intrinsic/extrinsic factors and by no fault of my own, be labeled a sexual threat and limited when it comes to female intimate care. Which is worse to be labeled a victim/oppressed without ever being victimized while receiving all its benefits, or being labeled a predator and forced to be supervised by another female while innocent and branded with the detriments. Blame society. That's the current playback. You're not doing any favors. You don't understand this double standard. Let me enlighten you. Women in society in regards to sexuality are provided protection, and safeguards with or without consent (males are exempt). Men are penalized, left out of the equation, discouraged, and are treated in an infantile manner in regards to intimate female care. It's not our fault the standard exists. Solution is to let males treat females alone and improve your fragile psyche (males are treated/examined by females plus female chaperones all the time) or put a freeze on female hirings and employ an influx of male RN's (actually all general healthcare providers/workers) to level the playing field. I'm sure lesbians, and gays have their own societal/cultural dynamics to deal with.

Reverse the script. If a male were the "non-threatening" ones and the females were the unduly stigmatized, males would not see an opportunity to exchange favors and just do their required responsibilities. Seems like manipulation where females use a disadvantaged (negative sexual stigma and stereotype, though no fault of their own which permeates thru every facet of society) position to impart mundane duties to males. And males do care, it's social conditioning, and non expressive stoicism, not comfort that allows to be treated by females. Modify the system where either males can tend to females in intimate care, or employ more male personnel. If the problem was inverted and female genitals were on the line, it would immediately be addressed, rectified, and resolved.

Personal observational experience working in a clinical setting. The dynamics are such only females are required female chaperones when it's a male healthcare provider performing an intimate exam on a female. If a female healthcare provider is performing an intimate exam on a male, the chaperone will be always be exclusively FEMALE. In an ED setting female healthcare providers (whether it be a physician, RN, etc) will examine a males genitals alone without a thought or think its an intrusion on his privacy, or modesty. Never a scenario exist other than Media, or if you live in Antarctica will there ever be a male healthcare provider with a male chaperone examing a females genital alone. The female healthcare provider may require a chaperone most likely for her protection against physical harm perputrated by the male patient. It's for the protection of females in all scenarios. All other scenarios are not applicable. The primary reason it's pervasive sexual perception and power dynamics in sexual inter action between males and females. If your a male, though know fault of your own, you're viewed as a sexual predator/oppressor, and if you're a female you're viewed as a sexual prey/victim/oppressed. It's like the tale of the wolf and the sheep, and the fox and the henhouse. You would never let the wolf interact with the sheep without a shephard present. Nor would you allow a fox in the henhouse alone without the farmer present. Even if you never once ate a sheep or hen, you could never be trusted to be alone with them. On the flipside, a sheep, or hen can inspect an injured wolf, or fox alone without fear of repercussion. It's primal, immature, rudimentary, but true. Women feel always threatened by the opposite sex, well men if they feel it, will not express it, or be believed. Coupled with fiscal liability and damaged reputation from the corporate viewpoint, it's strictly enforced for females, but trivial issue to equate it for males. They may say its equal policy, legally, but is lax and rarely enforced equally due to that prior power dynamic, and social perception. There are other issues involved between male/female interactions which are relative and strengthens that belief, but that's most likely the primary reason. It may not be politically correct to say, and to a certain extent you may disagree, but that's reality. If not, it wouldn't be currently practiced, expected, and accepted.