tbrd450

"But my perception of what happened in the 70's is that a lot of young women coming up in the late 60's were open to knew ways of thinking of themselves and created a climate that forced courts and legislatures to accommodate their expectations." Absolutely!.... but here's the kicker..... in the 1970s, most "male jobs" remained male. And most "female jobs" remained female. The balance you see today in traditionally male jobs (approx. 50% of all college professors are now female, ... slightly more than half of all physicians are now female) did not exist in 1960, 1970 and even most of the 1980s. While those early years are what we often associate with the gender revolution, they really were more symbolic than anything else. Relatively speaking, all the solo trail blazing that occured in those early years did little more than incrementally increase the presence of "token" female engineers, truck drivers, police officers, etc. The real explosion... the real impact came much more quietly, almost under the radar, in the late 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. It wasn't the big banging SCOTUS cases of 60s and 70s.... it was the circuit court decisions that followed in the 80s and 90s. It was the tv commercials that followed.. It was Murphy Brown replacing Father Knows Best. it was the the slight shift in educational approach (emphasizing female perspective)... BAM!... now, women doing men's work like never before. Creeping along at 5% to 10% of the nursing profession, those proportions of male nurses will never truly change unless the underlying message to boys becomes different. That message will never change unless institutionalized proaction is taken -- NOT QUOTAS!, but preferences, points, altered message, ...male perspective. Strong outreach and recruitment looking specifically to bring in young men (in the same way major companies were FORCED to do in the 1990s forward, for bringing in young women). All the bra-burning hoopla of the 60s and 70s did nothing compared to what the massive Human Resource strategy shifts (quietly, company by company, fire department by fire department) did starting in the late 1980s. Real change comes when real action and intervention is taken. Yes, society definitely needs their trail blazers -- Rosa Parks, Gloria Steinam, MLK, JFK, etc..... All the racial equality hoopla post civil war era U.S. only produced a nation full of racists. The real change came many, many decades later when the courts got involved. Nothing really worked until lawsuits were won, and HR executives were fired. Nothing really changed until aggressive recruitment pulled in under-represented populations. "In terms of the under-representation of men in nursing, it isn't so much that nursing isn't meeting our demands as just that there isn't really that much demand." Absolutely right!.. there isn't really that much demand. There isn't really that much demand on insisting that men seriously consider nursing as an option. I am not trying to say hospitals are discriminating against men...no. I am not trying to say male nurses face discriminatory practice (although, I am not one and can't really speak to that). My only contention is that society (all of us) have an obligation to support efforts that actively attempt to bring balance to the nursing profession. Just as we (society) have always been asked to support interventions that bring balance to traditionally male professions. When it comes to balancing nursing (or elementary education, or counseling, or day care, etc.) we don't! We don't really care if there are more or less male nurses. Society actually prefers to collectively "think" of nursing as a female job. Intervention is needed -- to benefit society (all of us). NOT QUOTAS...just affirmative action interventions that have already proven to work for bringing balance to traditionally male professions. "I am well aware that there are women in the world who think men have no place in nursing, but they are a tiny minority who doesn't get along with much of anybody. To the extent my gender has been discussed, the reaction of my instructors, my employers, and my peers has been almost entirely, "Good for you--we need more men." Absolutely!.. you may be surprised to learn, as well, that there were many many men supporting those trailblazing females in the 1960s and 1970s. The common misconception is that those women only ever faced fierce opposition back then, from men. Some of those most against, most opposed to, female liberation were females. We need to stop thinking in terms of gender, and blaming. Society is more than the sum of its parts. Society is everybody. Cultural influence is immense. The message that reaches young men, even in this late date of 2010, is that boys don't become nurses, they become football players. The message that reaches young women, thank God, is that they can be whatever they want. Girls have a wide horizon -- one that I think society owes to its boys. Feminism has taught us a lot... let's learn from it. "I pretty much have to agree with triquee that it is mostly our problem, although I certainly don't buy any implication that it is entirely our fault." If 5% of nurses are male (95% female), then this is either a "problem," or it is not a "problem." Assuming this is a problem, then how can it possibly be "our problem?" who is the"our"... are you referring to half of society - the male half? If it is "problem," then it is a "problem" for society (all of us). Regarding "fault," it is not really relevant. Who really cares? Nonetheless, I have to wonder that if you concur that fault can not rest exclusively at the feet of males, how can you conclude then that the problem belongs to males? We are all in this together. Abortion is something I never had to worry about in my life (for me). I am a male. Nonetheless, it has been a major, ongoing problematic legal debate for decades. Every election year, male politicians stand and debate abortion. Society. It is an issue that belongs with society. Gender balance in all professions is an issue that belongs with society. If it is a "problem" then it is everyone's problem. "Some of the same incentives would likely apply to recruiting more of us, but those incentives might lose impact given the statistical likelihood that more of us will try it for a couple of years and then say to heck with that. So I think it may be that a lot of the burden of recruiting male nurses may fall to us, male nurses." Society got involved when it became necessary to ensure females wanted to pursue traditionally male professions. Fire Departments had to build additional living quarters. They had to lower weight and height standards. They had to change protocols requiring a set number of firefighters "man" a fire hose (they are very heavy). Police departments had to make all sorts of accommodations. The military still has a different physical standard for females than it does for males. Why? Because if it didn't, then females could not get in in any great numbers. Accommodations have been made. Efforts have been conducted. Interventions - legal, social and otherwise -have proven effective at getting women in traditionally male professions. It was never as easy and simple as women, individually, just stepping up demanding jobs. The collective message changed. Equal Employment Opportunity law requires that those hiring employees not hold gender against them -- if an employer tries to avoid female employees for fear she may run off and get married....nope. can't do it. If an employer tries to steer clear of male nurse for fear the turnover rate is higher based on gender (male), ...nope. Can't do it. About the only place this sort of blatant double standard is permitted, is when it comes time to get car insurance for you sixteen year old son and your sixteen year old daughter. Doh!

Today's typical young male who refuses to seriously consider any job collectively deemed "woman's work" isn't likely rejecting it because it is presumed easy. It is not the complexity of it that makes it "woman's work." Some of the most mundane, simplistic and "easy" jobs done in society are typically deemed - "men's work." In an oversimplified nutshell, men and boys who reject nursing (or elementary school teaching, or counseling, or day care, etc.) do so because it is deemed "woman's work" in so far as the perception follows that it requires nurturing, caring, talking (the typical man speaks about 1/3 rd the number words in a day as does the typical woman), socially dynamic interaction, empathy, etc. Most men and boys who reject those careers as potential threats on their manliness, acknowlege they are tough jobs and require a lot of skill and intelligence. They are just under the culturally-imposed misconception that men and boys don't have those skills, and when they do, they are gay or just unmanly. However, if they begin to see men doing the work -- doing it uniquely male-like -- they will begin to see outside the box and realize that the work was previously deemed "woman's work" only because women did it. When men and women do the work, it becomes just work. A male nurse may or may not do the very same nursing duty as would a female nurse, However, that is okay. Maybe a male nurse will emphasize, in general of course, a bit more of male perspective. Women have offered the female perspective in previously male dominated employment fields for decades and the world didn't come to an end.

YES!... very well stated. I almost entirely agree with everything you wrote. I, too, find it difficult to swallow -- the basic notion that we are simply getting what we deserve. Granted, nobody has actually said that, but the underlying current of energy seems to support that claim. Here is where I disagree with you. I think it is only a slight disagreement. Yes, it is true that individual trailblazing women were the spark of change -- they blazed trails back in 1950. They were the pioneers. They were in much the same way those 5% male nurses are today. There were token women in almost all predominately male employment fields that were legally open to them. There were actually female pilots in WWII. In fact, for most male dominated career fields in 1950, the presence of women was probably only slightly less than 5% (roughly what men now make up of the nursing field). What happened between then and now for women -- now, when most physicians are female? now, when about half of all college professors are women? now, when more students in universities are female than male? now, when women are soldiers, police officers and correctional workers? What really happened? It wasn't just a few more token trailblazers building on their numbers, leading to some grand cultural shift and and social trend. No. What happened was real social and legal intervention. Actions happened. Deliberate strategies to change thinking happened. It was very similar, but on a smaller scale, to what happened after slavery was abolished. Peopled certainly didn't stop being racist because slavery was abolished. With regard to women, lawsuits happened. Preferences happened. The elimination of height standards happened. The elimination of upper body strength standards happened.. ...then, the message changed. The subtle message to young girls changed. Then, quotas existed to some limited extent. Then, busines loans at discounted rates happened. and on, and on, and on Through all that, we as a society emerged to the current state of balance we now have in previously male-dominated employment fields. The balancing act, however, was only really ever conducted in one direction -- bringing more women into male dominated fields. Unless serious intervention occurs in nursing, elementary teaching, day care employment, counseling, etc... the percentage of men will likely never exceed 10%. I'm not necessarily saying we need legal quotas (although, if patient gender preference ever truly trumps all issues, and boys and men begin requesting male providers, then we may very well need to implement such a drastic measure). But, no, instead I'm saying we need strong outreach. We need extra points on exams (like the ladies began getting back in 1970). We need limited preferential treatment at hiring time (like the ladies got back in 1975). We need nursing schools to begin seeking and recruiting males actively. Once the proportion of men in nursing rises, then watch how smoothly all the other stuff falls in line... all the crisis calming, man-redefinition, idealistic psycho-babble, etc. Actually show your 5th grade boys that men are nurses when they go to the local hospital and those boys will begin to view nursing as a valid career option. How do you do that? Well, the male nurse have to be there in the first place. How do we get them there? We provide incentives to get them there (like the ladies received back in 1980). Unless serious intervention occurs.... nothing will really happen. Waiting around for society to redefine men-ness (is that word?) on some abstract plane of faulty logic is not the answer. And, let's put to rest the notion that even if "redefinition" was the solution, only men could do it. Men are as much slaves to the grand cultural message on manliness as are teenage anorexic girls slaves to the grand cultural skinny message. In the past a lot of angry men struggled with all the preferential treatment, the affirmative action, the gender-specific incentives delivered to women in an effort to bring balance to the previously male-dominated career fields. They stood back, with arms in the air, and complained about losing jobs to do preferential treatment, discrimination and unfair advantages delivered to their female counterparts. But, in the end, it worked. Women are in every field of endeavor now, like never before. It can work for the men as well. And, yes, ladies it may be a hard pill to swallow at times, just as it was for you brothers 40 years ago. Just remember that we, as a society, are evolving. We are not there yet. Some of us have arrived, but not all of us. The job isn't finished until we all -- boys and girls, mothers and fathers, and sons and daughters -- have true equal employment opportunity coupled with the cultural freedom to exercise it. Show boys real male nurses present in the hospital and all the other stuff will fall right in line.

"If true, than who has "the stronger intuitive knowledge" of male anatomy? Male doctors, right? What are the implications of that when it comes to bedside nursing?" "I suppose that would entirely depend on if having a female practitioner or nurse is an issue for men. If it is, it would benefit the practice for it to be known so that something can be done about it. If it isn't, then it's a moot point." It is not culturally safe for a boy or man to make that known, at least on an individual by individual basis. Despite feeling violated, despite feeling marginalized and despite feeling exploited when it comes to modesty consideration, personal health consideration, or other "womanly" sensitive issues, boys and men are trained (by society) to discount their own intuition in favor of objective rationalization. And, to individually counter that is to put one's masculinity at risk. Real men don't cry. Real men don't go to the doctor unless they are really, really sick. Real men don't care if they are being examined by a female doctor/nurse or male doctor/nurse. Real men don't care if they are herded in to a group physical exam scenario in front of a team of cross-gender nursing staff. Or, so the society story goes. One thing is for sure, if a male does blaze the trail and actually speak up, his request for a male nurse will most likely be denied simply because there aren't enough male nurses around to accommodate him. Actually, the message to boys and men is that they should prefer female delivered treatment in today's society, even when on a deep level they recognize they would prefer someone with a membere examing their membere solely on the intuition that having one likely gives them an "edge" on understaning one. The very fact that women and girls have the freedom to share this concern, to raise the issue and demand same-gender care is clear testament to the crippling double standard boys and men face. Again, it is not a blame game. It is not women doing this to men and boys. It is society, and the message it sends out. Real men don't cry. Real men don't go to the doctor unless they are really, really sick. Real men don't care if they are being examined by a female doctor/nurse or male doctor/nurse. It is sort of like looking back to 1950. The housewife who was trained (by society) to discount her intuitive emotions on all matters before the family; after all, "Father Knows Best." That was the grand message she digested each day -- it came from TV, it came from her religous leaders, it came from her mother, etc. Was she in a grand crisis? Was this typical 1950's woman experiencing a grand gender crisis of global proportion? Was she free to share her true thoughts and feelings, and pursue her true ambitions without risking backlash? Was every single woman in 1950 being held back by this grand male patriarchal conspiracy? Again, real true change didn't come for women (or minorities) in this country until the courts got involved. After the courts got involved, legislation came. After legislation came, affirmative action came. After affirmative action came, balance began to actually unfold before young girls' eyes. There were finally boots on the ground, so to speak. Actually, there were high heels on the ground. Then, the entire cultural message to girls and women began to seriously shift toward pragmatic balance. Then, the message became,... women are not just allowed to be in nontraditional roles, but they actually need to be in those previously male dominated roles and fields. Their voice and perspective became critical. Now, it is simply the default message. No such collective shift ever occured on behalf of boys and men. Our professional male athletes run up and down the field wearing pink shoes in recognition of breast cancer awareness month. The irony is that eventually, most of them if they live long enough will end up getting some degree of prostate cancer. And, they don't even know it. I would love to conduct a scientifically designed experiment on this: Randomly select a representative sample of young women living in today's society. It would not just be college students, or well educated women. The group would be a true cross section including a balanced population on socio-economic and educational levels. Then, also do the same for young men. Then, independently survey each group (independent of each other) and ask them to respond to questions on their comfort level with images and descriptions of male workers in nontraditional fields of employment (male nurses, male day care workers, male elementary school teachers, male ob gyn, male single airplance passengers sitting next to children traveling alone, etc). Without knowing this with certainty, of course, I would bet dollars to nickles that the results would be very surprising. The logical hypothesis would naturally be that the female participants would be much more likely to feel comfortable with men in these nontraditional employment positions, roles and circumstances. And, the male particpants would be much more uncomfortable. While I think that would certainly prove accurate, I also strongly suspect it would be much closer than most people expect. There may not even be a statistically significant difference in the two groups. I think we would find that many, many average gals out there have very stereotypical and limiting ideas and beliefs about what it means to be a real man -- the very ones that cripple young male horizons of opportunity. Of course the men would as well. If that happened, what would that tell us about society's culturally imposed limitations on male definition? And, by extension, about society's culturally imposed collective message content to boys and men? And, then, is it an identity crisis as much as it is culturally-imposed double standard in collective thinking and intuitive rationalization about the narrowly-defined roles limited exclusively to boys and men in our society? A door is not truly open to someone who believes it is locked.

"Also consider, that in some cases, that preference might stem from the cultural hypersensitivity women have garnered from a history of sexual objectification, exploitation, shaming, and brutalization at the hands of who? Oh yeah, men." And, there you have it. I rest my case.

"I hardly think that in general, men face fierce cultural opposition from women (their mothers included) when they decide to become nurses. With women, more so than with men, there is a greater flexibility with regard to gender role fluidity, especially in this day and age. How many women do you know that say they wouldn't welcome more exhibitions of empathy and caring from the men in their lives? I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it." This is a very common misconception. The stereotypes that hinder boys and men from pursuing female fields are not simply perpetuated by boys and men. Frankly, they don't have that much power. For the first 18 years of their lives, boys walk around with almost permanent erections. Every three seconds they are trying to figure out how they can convince a pretty girl to find them attractive -- it motivates much in the early man's life. What girls and women think about them matters much, and it serves as the impetus for them "defining" themselves within acceptable standards. The message is culture-wide. Boys do not become nurses, they become football players. Boys do not babysit, they deliver newspapers. The teenage cheerleaders have as much, if not more, to do with that message than their middle aged, white-shoe-wearing, generationally-gapped, dinasour fathers. There are countless examples of the way mothers steer their sons in the "right" direction. Granted, the abstract concept of male nurses may be more acceptable to society's intellectual females, in general, in hypothetical discussion, than society's typical males; but when it really comes down to her son becoming a male nurse watch what typically happens with the typical mother message.

I can't help but cringe when people place the "crisis" situation at the feet of men, exclusively. It actually is somewhat of a condescending contention toward all women. It sort of minimizes their role in our society, their input, their contribution and their voice. As a man who now identifies himself as a feminist, I have come to learn much from feminist philosophy. I want to actually hold Lynndie England, and Janice Karplansky, fully accountable for their actions. Our mothers and grandmothers were part of the patriachy. They, like our fathers and grandfathers, raised sons to be good, manly men. Society is everyone. The predominate culture evolves and stews in time with the ladies as well as the dudes. In my opinion, it is certainly not a blame game, but failing to see the real avenues of change through a gender-neutral lens of objectivity is failing to see the next wave of cultural evolution. When society makes it safe, men will begin to see themselves as nurses, elementary school teachers and day care workers, and only then will they will be truly free to see, appreciate and eqully respect their sisters as physicians, engineers, tank commanders and police officers.

Men are afraid of doing "woman's work." YES. Absolutely. Everyone acknoweldges that. Now, let's go a step further. WHY? Why is it so? To change the grand collective perception that doing "woman's work" is unmanly -- a perception, by the way, that is mostly detrimental to men and boys (and less so, for indirect reasons, for women and girls) -- because it limits the male horizon of opportunity. This horizon is wide and far for young women these days. The collective message that reaches boys and men has to change in our SOCIETY. Society is bigger than just men redefining themselves. Many, many individual women redefined themselves in 1960 and all it ever led to was a relatively small proportion of token women doing "men's work" for quite some time. Employment environments never really changed until the collective message began to change, when efforts deliberately driven with purpose and goals (in some areas, actual numbers) were delivered upon fields of endeavor. There were real consequences for failing to ride the real winds of change. The relatively improved balance that now exists in fields like University professors, correctional officers (in some places as high as 40% female), police, military, physicians, etc. didn't simply appear because a few women burned their bras in 1960s. Long lasting, real efforts -- legal, social and philosophical (writing) -- were levied on American culture like show tunes and parables in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. They continue to this day. Lawsuits happened. Affirmative action happened. Preferences happened. Quotas happened. Today, HR execs in almost every field of employment have a very clear message coming back to them from their legal office -- you better be able to explain not hiring a woman. Incidentally, the general justification for all this proaction on behalf of balancing male dominated employment fields was that once society sees women doing this work and realizes they can, the collective thinking will change. In the case of actual discriminatory practices utilizing quotas, the legally sound argument was that the ends justify the means. Keep something in mind, many of those opposing feminist advancements for all women, were women. Likewise, we can't expect to bring balance to female dominated fields today unless the collective message sent to boys and men changes. That message is not simply the concoction of a dozen white haired patriarchal men hammering out the next gender domination strategy behind some locked, exclusive club door. The message is in sneaker commericals. The message is in the TV sitcoms. The message is in the next Ben Stiller movie in which he plays the comical male nurse swimming up the stereotype stream. The message is in the classrooms. The message is when the pretty sophmores go goo goo eyes over the manly men who wouldn't think of being caught dead in nursing scrubs. The message is on the billboards, beach banners and boardwalk t-shirts. The message is everywhere in society -- what real men can be in life, in our society, risk-free, is vastly limited to this day. Maybe there is some room now for letting the ends justify the means. It worked in the past. The message is society. It is not as simple as men having once shot themselves in the proverbial foot, and their sons now finding themselves in a grand crisis. It is not as simple as men simply redefining themselves in hope that all of society will follow. As we all learned from serious past efforts, including affirmative action (most affirmative action does not involve quotas), real society-wide change can occur. Simply look at how working adult women are now portrayed to young girls -- they are soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, physicians, etc. The only thing we ever really seriously seem to want to drum in to our young male minds these days is that they have a responsbility to grow up and respect women. And, in so doing the message goes they will be "real" men. But, we collectively fail to truly expand the young male horizon. As this article touches on, we sort of send a collective message to our sons that they are a tad defective due to their testosterone -- they need to wield is carefully. We don't teach them they can be babysitters growing up, we don't teach them they can nurture and care for people. Mothers don't and fathers don't (in general of course). Why? (there's that question again Tbrd). Because they will likely get their bahooky kicked in gym class if the other guys find out your son is a babysitter and a candystriper. Society is everybody -- boys, girls, women and men. Again, Tbrd wants to ask WHY? Oh, Tbrd...give it a rest already! I, in my lowly opinion, without monopoly on anything other than my own naracisstic detachment and penchant for stirring the pot, would like to now offer up a possible reason: There is no real incentive to do so. There are no lawsuits. There are no real consequences should we fail to bring balance to female dominated fields. We, collectively as a society, are fine with boys enjoying a more narrow scope of view on fulfillment and self-worth. We simply don't care if there are, or are not, more male nurses. Actually, I would even contend that we (society) are a bit leery of, and cautious of, the very concept of more male nurses, day care workers, elementary school teachers and counselors. We are fine with a female gym teacher in our son's locker room. We are not fine, however, with a male gym teacher in our daughter's locker room. Just as one airline requires all children riding alone to be placed next to females passengers (or male children) and not be permitted to sit next to a single male rider, we don't really care about the potential for legal recourse or the gand message we send to our sons. We (society ) are not afraid of men with lawyers. We are afraid of women with lawyers. More male nurses may mean more scheduing conflicts to accommodate female patients (or male patients) that want a female nurse. More male nurses may mean more false (and true) accusations of unprofessionalism. More male nurses may bring us trouble; and, frankly, why do that? ... so says the proverbial Human Resource Analyst of today. There is no real reason to practively impact/change the lopsided nursing gender ratio. There are more female fire fighters today because some judge somewhere back in the early 1970s ruled there should be. Yes, it certainly did take that initial trail blazing woman to want to be a fire fighter...to redefine herself. But, the prospect as a true option never really existed in the typical young girl's mind (of today) until she actually saw a few female fire fighters (or police officers, or soldiers, or, etc.) in her home town, on her favorite TV shows and speaking to her graduating class. And, that shift -- true shift -- didn't occur until some judge said "let it be so." What has worked in the past to bring balance to male dominated fields should now be employed to bring balance to female dominated fields. And, I am not putting this whacky notion up for public beat-down now simply on/from a raw "fairness" premise (althought that alone would justifiy it); rather, I do so because I believe more male nurses would bring a more balanced and uniquely male perspective to an environment that is now almost exclusively female. It would improve the limited environment as did the female perspective improve the previously limited male dominated fields of employment. We all benefit. It's important to include feminism in this discussion because it provides the blue prints for change. It's important to learn from the past. The past is not smoke and mirrors. Abstract concepts without real intervention and affirmative action are, however, in my humble opinion, simply smoke and mirrors. Feminism has taught me that.

hee, hee. yep, that's me - I likely have more issues than Time magazine! But, my friend, as M. Scott Peck once wrote, it is the unwise man who claims not to. Or wait... maybe that was from a Woody Allen movie!. Doh! However, that has nothing to do with objective analysis and consistent logic applied withnin a genuinely honest discussion delivered on gender dynamics within the context of a nursing employment field consisting of 95% women. Gotta run now. It's been real.

It is simply about keeping things real. There is genuine altrusitic reward in doing so. While "winning allies" may not always appear likely at first, I've come to realize that people tend to know the truth when they hear (or read) it. I take solace in that. See you on the flip side as well.

Re: "When a man comes of age...." Yes, men and women coming of age should define themselves in their own terms; and they should do so seriously for the benefit of the next generation. For a young man, this means braving the cultural message that tells him he is not a real man if he becomes a nurse. For a young woman, this means braving a nontraditional future in which reward and accountablitiy are entirely her own to fully embrace and accept. She should try to remain true to her convictions and deliver consistency in rejecting the bazillion little, quiet, daily "female privleges" that even feminists have acknowledged and written about for decades -- the privleges that eminate from a past patriarchy askew. Re: "Until recently, it has been...." The "advantages" have been a bit over dramatized and overly relied upon to justify the tired argument, in my opinion. Men die earlier. Young men (not young women) are required by law to register for the draft and face war. Men are over incarcerated (women doing the same crimes are much more likely to be given "breaks" that include treatment and probation). Men know more about breast cancer in this society than they do about prostate cancer. Boys are molested as children, as are girls. However, the typical molestor of girls will molest about 35 girls (statistically proven) before getting caught. Whereas the typical molestor of boys will molest about 200 boys before getting caught. Males are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes, by a huge margin. Random acts of violence committed against an innocent male victim (riding a bus for example) will rarely result in bystander intervention/protection. Random acts of violence committed against the typical female bus rider are much more likely to generate outrage, and phsyical intervention. If all rapes occuring in society were counted, most experts agree that more men than women are raped each year (counting those in jails and prisons). However, there is not one single rape crisis center in this country that is dedicated to the unique issues associated with male victims. Women need to own their place in society now. In most ways, they have arrived. They need to own their potential for contributing to the collective message we send to our young minds -- the boys and girls who are our future. One way they can do that is by owning their past inaction and silence, and holding themselves fully accountable for their actions. The next time an adult female school teacher or correctional officer abuses a male teenager sexually, I hope the jury (consisting of men and women) has the integrity to hold her accountable -- to appreciate this new world order in which we live, and deliver true equality. Nursing, counseling, day care workers and elementary school teachers are predominantly female. No other fields are as lopsided in gender representation as these. Someday, when the cultural messages to our sons are balanced and fair, accurate and sincere, they may have the freedom (true freedom) to genuinely consider these fields as career options. Until then, sadly, it will only be those rare men who have the courage to blaze the trail. High school guidance counselors (male and female) need to begin speaking up and delivering these options to all students -- not just the girls. Girls and women need understand, and take seriously, their role and responsibility in shaping that message. Society is everybody -- girls and women, boys and men, fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons. We all contribute to the grand design.

YES!... This dude is dead on accurate, in Tbrd's assessment. He wrote: "Nor is this about trying to argue that men should be regarded as victims. I detest the whole idea of competing to be victims. And I'm certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it's more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems-and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. Society is bigger than just men defining themselves -- or men failing to protest. Feminism proposes a fundamental philosophy with which I mostly agree. People are people. Everybody deserves equality of opportunity. But for far too long, and in far too many ways, feminism has wanted to place all societal ills at the feet of the big bad patriachy of the past. It has lead to the environment as described in this article -- men are bad, women are good. It has lead to a culture that wants to excuse, instead of hold accountable (equally accountable) women who do bad things. For example, it wasn't really Lyndie England's fault she was caught holding a leash on a naked Abu Ghraib detainee -- her boyfriend made her do it. It wasn't really General Janice Karplansky's fault her prison (Abu Ghraib) turned out to be a stage for brutal degradatioin, humilitation and abuse. It was the "male environment" within which she had to operate. If affirmative action efforts (most of which don't ever involve actual quotas, ... only preferences) were ever justified to balance previously male dominated fields, then they are certainly justified now for being used to bring gender balance to nursing. When employed to get more women in male fields, the argument is always that affirmative action doesn't lead to hiring unqualified people -- it just means preferring to hire females when applicants are similar. The same logic could apply here to preferring to hire males when he is competing with a similarly qualified female applicant.

Triquee, Good points. I mostly agree. I differ a little from what I think is your understanding and contention that this sort of predicament men find themselves in now in this evolutionary snapshot in time is as simplistic as resulting solely from men choosing to narrowly define themselves. Society is everybody -- boys, girls, men and women. Any society's dominant cultural influence reflects the grand concoction of input from everybody. Women were legally allowed to pursue most careers dominated by men, for many, many years prior to actually pursuing them. Looking back in history, the barriers against female pilots, engineers, math professors, physicians, truck drivers, construction workers, etc, were very much rooted in cultural influence. They didn't pursue them because they didn't really see them (view them mentally) as realistic options. What would the ladies at the church think if I became a correctional officer!?! Institutionalized, global efforts were taken, however, in a grand way to change that. Today women are given incentives to start businesses. High school girls are given scholarships to pursue nontraditional studies. Affirmative action efforts continue toward "balancing" professions previously dominated by males. The military even had to lower physical standards for new female recruits in an effort to bring "balance" to the armed forces. Police departments had to eliminate height standards and overlook weaker scores in an effort to entice the few female applicants that existed. Fire departments had to redesign protocols that mandated heavy lifting (those hoses are really heavy!). Accommodations were made. Outreach was conducted. Lawsuits were filed and won. The argument had always included the component that making these accommodations is beneficial for everyone. The female perspective is needed. It improves things. Advertisements on TV now clearly reflect programmed thinking that it is necessary and beneficial to show young women they can pursue anything they want in life. Take-your-daughter-to-work day was implemented to show girls they can do or be anything. Discounted loans exist for female run businesses. For the past fifty years, signficant interventions have been developed and implemented with the specific goal of increasing female representation in male-dominated fields. Today, there are not only more female nurses than male nurses (by a bazillion or so), but also there are actually more female physicians than male physicians. Outreach and affirmative action worked! Part of the argument for doing so has always been that with a more "balanced" perspective, the field of endeavor (whatever it happens to be) is improved. The implication had always been that with male only environments, there was room for improvement. With more women, things will be/are better. It would seem logical, therefore, that such an argument would be appropriate now for ramping up the affirmative action and outreach efforts on "balancing" the nursing profession. Sure, it seems logical that to extend that argument we can conclude the environment would be improved with more male perspective. With more men, things will be better. High school guidance counselors still, to this day, do not really make any serious effort to hand out nursing school brochures to male students. Nor do they, in any serious way, illuminate the wonderful rewards and opportunities that exist in elementary school teaching, counseling, or nursing. Day care... well, um..... forget that. Nobody wants men taking care of their children in a Day care. We, as a collective society, don't even want single male riders sitting next to children traveling alone on planes (one airline actually forbids it). Society (all of us -- boys, girls, women and men) has a narrow lens through which we view maleness. Society is everybody -- boys, girls, men and women. Through our thinking, and behaviors, we all make up the influence that relegates boys to a narrow male template of opportunity. The Marlboro man rides strong! Sure, men have the legal right to go into nursing. But it is way too simplistic and inaccurate to conclude that there are far too few male nurses today simply because they don't want to go into nursing. It is still not really a genuinely open option for male high school students to consider. We all know that. Some guys brave it and, in so doing, they swim up stream. The few guys out there that have the true opportunity and open avenue for crossing this scary gender construct threshold are middle aged, secure men with little to prove. Society needs to change. Society is everybody. Thinking needs to change. Everybody's thinking needs to change. To state that men can do whatever they want is not accurate. Boys and men are just as heavily influenced by cultural influence as are girls and women. We certainly wouldn't say to a teenage girl with anorexia that she just needs to want to eat more. Our culture has thrown magazine covers and TV personalities up in her face showing skinny, happy, successul women. In her culturally influenced mind's eye, skinny is good, and skinny is successful, and skinny is love. She is influenced by society. Images need to become realistic for her, in her mind, to simply "want to eat." Boys and men are influenced by their messages as well. We often overlook that. We are not used to viewing boys and men as vulnerable to image pressure. These messages may not be the same that are sent to girls and women (unrealistic skinny models, for example) but they are something else and just as real and just as hindering. Sadly, to this day, one of those messages men and boys receive in our society is a picture of a male nurse wearing baby blue scrubs with a large line drawn through his face.

It is true that while the barriers to women entering traditionally male fields appeared more direct and overt, the barriers now preventing men from entering traditionally female fields are definitely real, significant and crippling. They are just more systematically entrenched in our culture - in how we think. One need only explore these Allnurses threads to see countless examples of female posters indicating that they would not want a male nurse for certain procedures. The barriers to males, however, look and feel different than those that impacted females in the past (from entering traditionally male occupations). Nonethess, they are very real. In our society, we tolerate (socially, legally and otherwise) a double standard that burdens men (and boys) by narrowing their scope and perspective. Who they can be is much more limited -- in real terms. Sure, they can apply for any job (except maybe a waitress at Hooters), but they do so at great risk -- risk to themselves. We, as a society, tolerate a trailblazing woman much more so and readily than a trailblazing man. We are suspicious, a little, when our child's kindergarden teacher turns out to be a man. We are suspicious, a little, when our daughter's pediatric nurse turns out to be a man. Who is to blame? We all are. Our culture is one in which a woman wearing men's attire, for example, is considered edgy and stylish. Our culture is one in which a woman kissing another woman on the big screen is considered civilized and sexy. Whereas it is the same culture in which a man kissing a man is still considered perversion. Our culture is one in which a woman pursuing nontraditional endeavors is considered bold, independent and, well,... normal. Our culture is one in which a the perception of females breaking down barriers is considered preferable, if not downright idealistic. We want our female reporters in the male athlete's locker rooms. But, none of us want male reporters in the female locker rooms. We want our daughters to see the world as their opportunity. We want our sons to turn out to be traditional men -- for we all know, intuitively, their lives will be easier if they do. We want women to succeed. To cross lines and explore all of human dynamics. Men and boys, however, you still need to follow a template. If you don't, be prepared for backlash. We instruct our new teachers to call on more girls in the classroom, and tranquilize the boys when they can't sit still....(then just label it something like ADHD.) We call our teenage sons' sexual abuse at the hands of their adult female teachers "affairs" and "relationships." We explain the adult female abusers as troubled, and struggling. The adult male teachers, however, whom do the same thing are perverts, deviants and criminals of the highest degree. Before men truly have avenues to nontraditional endeavors in society, including real opportunities to consider nontraditional professions, our fundamental thinking about men (and women, for that matter) has to change. What is certain to me, as a male, is that barriers definitely exist -- to minimize them is to trivilize the issue. The barriers are not like the barriers women faced in the past. They look and feel different, and in some real ways they are more severe and entrenched.

Thank you for the compliment. However, nothing I have written here hasn't already been written/said. The slippery slope has been well researched and studied. There are few things in this world that are absolutely certain, however, one thing that comes amazingly close to 100% predictability is the intoxicating effects of power and authority. If there is any true uniqueness to this message at this time, it probably has more to do with the forums it now finds. My passion for human rights drives my writing and not the other way around. The topic of this thread is what is it like to be a nurse in a prison? One can not really understand or appreciate "what it is like" without understanding the context - the environment. The day to day details, logistics, routines and regimented approach to a healing profession (nursing) behind bars can only really be imagined from an outside inquirer if he/she first puts it all in the proper contextual framework. That is important to understand. It is a custody world, not a hospital. It is security first and breathing second. It is desensitization through universalization. It is us vs. them. For someone who is currently working in corrections this dichotomous contrast of context is easy to miss, easy to look past, and easy to omit when mentoring new staff. While it is difficult to view the same environment from two completely separate and polarized perspectives, that is exactly what one has to try to do should he/she decide to think independently on these "correctional" issues before embarking on such a career. And, that is precisely "what it is like to be a nurse in a prison." Inmates are people. They are human beings. They have thoughts, loves, memories and pains. They cry. They bleed. They have children that suffer every day of their lives because they have to explain to somebody that mom or dad is in a correctional facility (incidently, personally, that is basically the only time/circumstance I am okay with leaving that correctional word absent quotes -- when it serves to ease, however slightly, the pain for loved ones on the outside). They are criminals. They have been sentenced and they only deserve that sentence -- time and all the real loss that comes with it. If we are speaking of safety nets for the staff, then yes, absolutely. They exist and they serve staff well. It is a very safe profession relative to many. If, however, we are speaking of safety nets for the humans in the orange jumpsuits, then I can only fear that true, legitimate safety nets are cursory, shallow and hollow at best. But, the good news is that that is beginning to change.

True, true.... and more true. Requesting a female be present was as much about protecting the medical professional as it was about protecting the female patient. Why? Because society has not been able (even to this day) to fully grasp the out-of-wack logic that presumes females are only ever capable of potentially being victims OF MALES and males are only really ever capable of being potential abusers OF FEMALES. In truth, it has never really been like that. For example, adult women have been having sex with teenage boys since the beginning of time. It was only in relative recent times that such behavior was looked at as potential abuse. Adult men having sex with teenage girls have been well established as evil-doers of the worst kind -- worthy of the most severe societal consequences. What about the victims? For example, teenage girls who have sex with their adult male teacher have traditionally been viewed as clear-cut victims. Teenage boys who have sex with their adult female teachers have traditionally been viewed as getting lucky and/or overly sexualized and/or manipulative and/or charming. Certainly such scenarious are not viewed equally. Society has a mindset about who abusers and victims really are -- they look a certain way, they are of a certain Race, they are male and they deserve the utmost vigilence in oversight and monitoring. Middle age male physicians with 20 years experience still are subtely viewed through this suspicous lens of misconception. Ah... but the 23 year old female nurse who just started last year... we don't have to worry about her. The patients won't have to worry about her. After all, she is female. When scientific research proves otherwise.... well... it just doesn't seem right, or logical. It can't be. Say it isn't so, Tbrd. OMG!... female school teachers are bedding their male child students these days like drug addicts chasing their next high. Female correctional officers are bonking male juvenile detainees these days like bull sharks on a feeding frenzy. Females have flown under the radar of scrutiny on these issues for thousands of years. They have enjoyed the get-out-of-jail-free card ever since ... well.... ever since... um... since the beginning of time. Society needs to grow up. Society needs to view females through the same lens of respect and accountability it has traditionally viewed males. Responsibility comes with that -- it is not one sided. It is work. It is not easy. Things get more complicated. Under a more realistic perception/perspective, we can no longer view all female nurses as incapable of cross-gender abuse. And, we can no longer view all male nurses as potentially capable of cross-gender abuse.

It is good to hear that this is often not an issue. The fact remains, however, that healthcare choices are gender based to some extent. Ideally, a nurse is viewed as a nurse. It sounds like most patients do view it that way. Patients come with their own individually-unique issues and past histories. I certainly can understand that a female patient may have past issues that impact her preference for a particular gender. It has nothing to do with with a particular male nurse on duty (she doesn't even know him). But, her feelings need to be factored in. My only point is that patients with issues don't only come in the female version. Male patients can have equally significant gender and modesty issues that should be equally factored in their care delivery equation. They are not. The reality is that She has the choice and can exercise it should she choose to do so. He does not.

What is it like to be a nurse in a prison? It is highly autonomous. Your patients' health is in your hands. They have no second opinion. You will not have to worry about your patients' families. You will feel the pull of the custody culture around you. You will reside on the edge of a slippery slope -- one that has claimed many people. Slide the slope and you will change, you will become somebody you may not ultimately like. You risk losing your nursing ideals. Understand a simply formula, that is that desensitization leads to dehumanization. And, dehumanization leads to devaluing yourself. In so doing, you will recognize the subtle signs of unwanted transition. It is an environment with a huge power imbalance. Power is intoxicating for many people. Recognize the pitfalls should you choose to embark on this. Recognize the truth when you hear (or read) it. And, most importantly, act on truth and not narcassistic, self-serving rationalizations to the contrary. It is an environment in which humans will get raped, extorted and abused. Recognize your workplace for what it truly is. Don't drop the soap jokes are considered funny. Recognize that such humor is really humor about the rape of human beings. Recognize that there is no place for such humor. Recognize that around every correctional corner is somebody waiting to get his/her "licks" in, so to speak. Know yourself well beforehand, then embark on this career with a prime directive to remain true to yourself.

One way that researchers conclude whether or not outreach and recruitment is working or not (in any field) is to look at the results. That is often how policies designed to bring gender balance to traditionally male fields were/are evaluated. Obviously, with a 95% female nursing ratio (generally accepted estimate in 2009) either little is being done to pull males in, or that which is done is failing miserably. The bottom line is that traditionally female professions like elementary school teaching, counseling, and nursing remain hugely lopsided toward females despite huge gains for females in traditionally male professions. I happen to think that the very reason why outreach and recruitment for male nurses and elementary school teachers has clearely failed (when even such efforts were attempted) has something to do with an underlying cultural attitude. Efforts have been half-hearted. Why? Because of universal attitudes that males don't need or deserve such consideration. And that the nursing profession, for example, would not necessarily be better with more males in it. Males can be viewed as a liability for hospitals -- they need chaperones everytime they treat a female patient. They are vulnerable to false accusation. They are not as readily trusted, all else equal, with kids. That is all unjustified, but it is a pragmatic consideration for administrators. High school guidance counselors don't typically deliver up nursing as an option for male students, and certainly not in the same manner they deliver up engineering, business and and trades to female students these days. Males, in general, are viewed as perpetrators and abusers....females, in general, as victims. Why recruit men for nursing? After all, it was men who kept women out of other professions for so many years...those bad, bad men folk. Why help bring balance.... we don't want balance, we want revenge! Granted, that may be a silly oversimplification, but there is a hint of truth in that. We all know that. Equality and equity are convenient truths for far too many. They are high holy ideals when they suit us. They are abstract and secondary when we need them to be so.

I just happen to think that there hasn't been any real major push to recruit males to nursing schools. There hasn't been any real effort to display/project the profession as one potentially appealing to male graduates (high school or college). Unlike the push in years past to get females more entrenched in previously male-dominated fields (military, engineering, buisiness administration, math and science, etc.), there has never really been anything done, universally, to draw in males to nursing. All in all, I don't think most of society (including most males) care much whether or not the nursing profession ever becomes balanced. That may change some day, but we don't appear to be moving much in that direction. The males that become nurses these days really, really want the job -- they become nurses despite the negative backlash, despite the fall-out, so to speak. They swim up stream to become nurses. In general, across the board, males don't support males the way females have supported females on most equity, or double standard, related issues in society.

Excellent Point! The "face" of public relations is so often female for a reason. But before I comment on that, there is a separate issue here. That issue is what appears to be a double standard in how gender dominated professions are balanced through outreach and recruitment. In particular, here, the nursing profession. Clearly, it seems only cursory, minor efforts have been extended to recruit men in to nursing as compared against efforts made to recruit women in other male dominated professions. Why? There haven't been any real consequences considered or implemented for failing to recruit more men in to nursing. Whereas, in years past, very real consequences were established and enforced in many areas that failed to recruit girls and women in to previously male dominated fields and opportunities. Things like Title IX, for example, made it necessary for equal sports opportunities despite a massively disproportionate interest in sports. In other words, despite having approximately 8 girls in a typical high school that may want to consider playing sports, the 225 sports hungry boys have to share their sports budget with girls programs on a 50/50 basis. Why? In the interest of balance and "fixing the system." Another example is that when the military was trying to recruit more females, the TV commercials showed young gals scaling the obstacle course walls. One watched that and got the impression, however briefly, that the military was full of women. At that time, it was not (less than 10%). However, the TV spots made it appear as through women were everywhere in the military. Efforts were made to balance things. Accommodations were extended. Feminism has evolved and has been well entrenched in many areas of society. Feminism has been around for some time now. The early pioneers are now retiring. There are now very vocal, and powerful, third generation feminist with clout. The very idea of boys and men needing assistance, needing outreach, needing support for anyting is still mostly a strange idea for many people in our society. The male gender has been marginalized for so many decades that to switch the reference frame on itself is almost counterintuitive. I think that has occured mainly because women have had a voice of solidarity well established, well entrenched and well supported for many many years now. Many, many non-feminist females (self-identified as such) benefit today from that feminist movement and voice of solidarity. As they fill the universities in disproportioniate numbers, climb the ranks of the military, graduate from medical schools in higher proportions, they often do so while trying to distance themselves from "feminism." It is almost a dirty word these days. Feminism, however, has been extremely successful in opening all doors to girls and women. We, in America, live in one of only a few societies in the modern world that actually allow female correctional officers to strip search male inmates. How did such a thing every occur? Equal employment opportunity rights advocated through the feminist movement. We, in America, live in a society that permits female sports reporters in to male athlete locker rooms (free society professional men) even when they themselves (the free society professional men) don't want the intrusion on their dignity. Why? Equal employment opportunity rights advocated through the feminist movement. Now, imagine something if you will. Imagine for a moment that when you woke up tomorrow morning the nursing profession was 95% male and 5% female. How long do you think it would take for lawsuits, outreach campaigns, recruitment incentives and legislative change to bring "balance" to the profession. It would be viewed as a broken system in need of fixing. Now, back to my first point. The other issue. A female is the "face" of public relations for just about everything -- even professions that are not single gender lopsided. The reason is obvious. They are viewed as more appealing to the collective eye, so to speak. They are viewed as inherently wholesome, decent, and honest by virtue of the gender alone. They sell products and messages on that basis. The nursing profession should implement serious efforts to recruit more men in to it. But, seriously, why will it if there are no real incentives for succeeding or consequences for failing. Seriously, why would a hospital, clinic or practice want to recruit more male nurses when every time a male nurse treats a female patient he has to have a female chaperone. Instead, just hire the female competitor and then be in a position to more efficiently utilize staff.

Exactly. The healing role is different than the custody role. Someone inside the facility has to treat the inmates' medical conditions from a perspective of advocacy, albeit, limited and narrowly constructed. Someone inside has to view them as humans in need of care, when care is needed. If the nurse is knocking heads and subduing people, then the people with the smashed faces (the inmates) are going to be a bit hard pressed to view the guy/gal as a "healer." I'm sorry if I sound (read) a bit sarcastic on this point. I guess I just sort of took this as a given -- something that didn't need to be pointed out, so to speak. I do get frustrated with this stuff sometimes.

The paraplegic inmate was "relocated to the floor," according to the official statement from the sheriff's office (http://www.tampabay.com/components/video/?bctid=47948381001). Interesting way to describe the event. It almost gives one the impression the inmate was gently lowered to the floor for his own protection. Um... Words. They can turn a gut-wrenching display of inhumanity in to a clinically necessary protocol in a matter of seconds. If delivered from the veil of authority and power, under the guise of "treatment," one can almost buy anything. They are no longer cross-gender "strip searches," conducted to demean, humiliate and degrade, but rather they are "unclothed searches" conducted for the inmate's own safety. The guards at Abu Ghraib initially attempted to described the forced masturbation as a strategy for "keeping the detainees awake." ' Ahh... and then there are those zany Stun Guns. They can no longer, legally, be described as non-lethal weapons. Why? Because they are not. They must now be descibed as "less-than-lethal." Our society had to learn that one the hard way -- hundreds of deaths since they were first implement. Doh! In its sales pitch, the primary manufacturer of the restraint chair describes its "device," or "correctional tool," application as comparable to that of cupping your hands gently around a distressed bird in an effort to calm it down and protect it from itself. The inmates call it the "devil chair." Umm... interesting dichotomy in describing the same thing. Words. They can twist logic in to illogic, reverse decency and compasion with one or two substitutions, and infect a collective mindset with laser-like precision. Then there are those tried and true ones: "resisting" and "noncompliant," They can be used in just about any imaginable correctional scenario, lowered like a blank check on human dignity, and delivered like a permanent flaming line through fundamental human righs with the greatest of ease. Preemptive taser shots, one, two, three, etc.... they "save lives," according to most law enforcement PR departments. Why chase down the teenager that ran on to the MLB outfield as a prank, as we did for so many years in the past? Now, simply tase him. Zzzzzz! We have saved him! Words can present the irrational as rational. Back in the early 1930s, a very evil man rose to power and changed the world by using his words -- his ability to twist the truth. He really had little else to use. The small cages in which inmates are forced to stand (someplace down South) while wearing only too small underwear ("daisy dukes"), for hours on end "under observation" for suicide prevention are not really what they are -- "squirrel cages" -- but, rather, they are "observation cells." It cleans up nicely doesn't it? Words, however, can only produce half of the conversion. Ultimately, people have to search their souls and either recognize the truth for what it is or accept the blind justification tucked safely under the veil of knowledge. Walking along a frozen dream, I happen on a solitary man. Who is this man thinking his thoughts on my time, in my space? I wonder, if I am to understand this must I awake? But, when is a frozen dream frozen, for if I am to see it as such must I then be awake? Dreaming through reality is easy and polite. It is narrow imagination on an imaginary canvas. Half-hearted humanism delivered during a brief window of opportunity is but an ice pick chipping on one's frozen soul. The opportunity is far from frozen -- it arrives and passes many times each day. Opportunities taken can be recognized as divine sparks igniting one's compassion -- one's true identity. Does everyone get these opportunities? Absolutely! It is an opportunity to hear a broken voice as a crushed spirit. It is an opportunity to recognize the faulty foundation on which we stand. The higher one is perched, the greater is the opportunity. A moral catharsis when nobody is looking or listening is little more than a squirrel caged incarceration of mind and spirit when nobody is thinking. 1. The United States of America locks up more people than any other nation in the world. Think about that. We lock up more people than China and the Russian Federation. We lock up more people than Brazil. 2. Long-term solitary confinement -- a U.S. favorite -- is increasingly common in the United States. The "hole" is used for just about anything these days. The United Nations Committee against Torture defines confinement in supermax prisons and control units as torture. 3. "Electronic weapons," a.k.a. Stun Guns are increasingly common in U.S. correctioinal facilities. People are getting stunned for almost anything these days. I recently read an article where one deputy was fired for tasing his female colleage as a prank. When I read that, I thought to myself... wow, what must he be doing with the "disrespectful" inmates. The United Nations Committee against Torture has concluded that the use of electronic shock devices is torture. 4. In the United States, prisons are the new asylums. In 2006, 65% of people in jail, 56% of people in state prisons, and 45% of people in federal prisons had symptoms of serious mental illness (Source: National Alliance on Mental Illness). Zzzzz!... come out of your cell and stop hearing voices! Is all this working? Should this punitive mindset be fixing the crime problem? Shouldn't we have less crime than say, China, for example? Words - they often mean as much by their absence as by their presence. How do correctional nurses navigate the custody culture language? How do nurses partake in these twists and turns and still maintain a simple, yet powerful, nursing standard predicated on humane clinical empathy?

Yes, Katkonk, many people incarcerated are murderers and rapists. And, for what it is worth, it is also a fact that the overwhelming vast majority of all incarcerated Americans never murdered anyone nor raped anyone. The percentage of non-violent incarcerated Americans is staggering. It shot up throughout the 1980s and 1990s when the whole "get tough on crime" mentality (the "us vs them" mentality) swept our nation in what appears now to have been a fanatical feeding frenzy of biblical proportion. States are starting to wake up. I believe California, for example, has begun to reexamine the whole three-strikes laws on the books -- to recognize them as inherently wrong. Many people only murder after they get incarcerated; they do so to join a gang to protect them. They do so to avoid dying. Some inmates rape other inmates just to avoid being viewed as weak themselves thus exposing themselves to targeted attack. Inmates often ramp up the brutality, bravado and rebellion precisely because they want to continue to live and remain safe. Think about that, seriously. What type of system is that? It is a failing of society that we do this to people -- we put them in "gladiator domes," house vulnerable inmates with murderers and rapists because it facilitates overall controll, and neglect their needs under the pretense of manipulation and attention-seeking. It is a failing of the system. We put men in situations in which they must murder to live. It is disgraceful that we herd men together in dangerous living arrangements and then stand back and say to ourselves ... look at how evil they are. We feed an "us vs them" way of thinking, we increase the number of people locked up, we privatize human dignity to the lowest bidder; and then we in free society like to stand back and marvel at the brutality of the "them" in the grand equation. That said, however, the point is that it is all irrelevant in the context of this discussion. The correctional employee (officer, nurse, counselor, administrator, etc.) was not hired to punish anyone. This is a fundamental concept that has to be embraced by anyone that wishes to work in corrections. Also, please remember that it is a mathematical certainty that some number of those convicted -- some percentage that consistently rises in proportion to the rising raw number of incarcerated -- are truly innocent people wrongly convicted. If you have worked in corrections for any significant length of time, you likely dealt with such a person, or many such people. You just don't know it. Think back.... imagine one, two, maybe three or four guys you dealt with in your past correctional experience. Can you honestly say you have no regrets about how you dealt with any of them, assuming you learned tomorrow some were truly innocent? If you can answer yes to that hypothetical question, then you are on the right track. Now, imagine one of them was your son. umm... does that change things? Regardless of all that, however, it doesn't matter. If a correctional employee is not capable of delivering humane, decent oversight, care and protection of/to the lowliest of the low, then he/she needs to get another job immediately. (This is particularly true of a medical provider - a nurse -- operating under higher ethical standards). The stakes are too high. People everywhere need to be treated like people, all the time, period. I know it isn't always easy as we sometimes let our own emotions drive our actions. However, for the incarcerated their sentence was incarceration. It was not whatever disregard, abuse and neglect an individual correctional employee can think up. There are too many Lynndie Englands out there to tolerate such failing system. Their sentence was the incarceration itself. They are humans with very little rights inside -- rights we take for granted in free society. If a person is raped in free society, he/she can likely remove him/herself, prosecute and then rebuild his/her life. If an inmate is pressured under the threat of abuse and/or rape, his life is not in his own hands. He has to hope the 8 hour per day, high school graduate correctional officer believes him. He has to hope the autonomous nurse doesn't discount his plight, assuming he gets to see her in a timely manner. The system needs some serious work

What you are describing here is a system that is fundamentally faulty; it is a system designed on the wrong foundation. The "us vs them" mentality that permeates the typical correctional system is one that indoctrinates (programs) correctional officers and correctional employees toward a somewhat unnatural, inorganic conclusion -- the dehumanization of humans. Granted, it is arguably couched under the veil of "security," and "safety," but in the end it is only what it is. Look up the Stanford Prison experiment from the 1970s. If, however, the system was designed such that humans -- even the lowliest of the low -- retained their right to their own humanity, then everyone (including the correctional employees guarding them), would elevate their outlook, raise the standard on every-day dignity, and ultimately retain the sanity needed to stand fast on a slippery slope dividing the "us" from the "them." Power and authority are the two most dangerous things that exist inside a correctional system. Who, inside, has these? .. The inmates and the correctional staff.