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.
It is certainly true that the barriers men face today are unlike the barriers that women faced in the past. Women's lib was in response to the cultural-societal position women were relegated to by men on a global scale and for a very long time. The current challenge men face stems from attitudes lingering from a time when no one ever thought that the status quo would shift so significantly that the utility of core male values would be questioned.
Well, for better or for worse, it has shifted. The upsurge of crisis pieces in current social commentary is enough to back that finding. For the first time, at least in my history, my father's history, and my grandfather's history, men are openly wondering if the ways in which they've defined and perpetuated their definition of themselves was prudent. A good bit of that wonderment has so far been attached to denial. That is to be expected since this "awakening" is in its infancy. But the sense of urgency is palpable. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves.
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
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.
tbrd450 has stated the case well. There are and have been serious, negative consequences as a result of imbalance within certain profession. Society has suffered from not having the female perspective (accompanied by the power to implement it) in many areas and occupations throughout history. Professions like nursing and elementary school teaching also suffer today from lack of significant male perspective. A fully human point of view consists of both male and female perspectives. Where that doesn't exist, we're not getting the benefit of the advantages that the genders bring to the table. It's not about needing men to make the profession better. It's about having enough of both genders to get a complete perspective. The result is all in all better care for the patient -- which is really the focus of all this.
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.
I WILL read your response in its entirety when I have the time to devote to it, but I wanted to respond to just this sentence for now, for clarification...
It isn't (in my estimation) that all men at some definable point "chose" to narrowly define themselves, but that they perpetuate that culturally accepted definition in word and deed, through the many day to day decisions over the lifetimes of generations of men. They are born into the stereotype and the stereotype is fostered and strengthened by their peers and mentors. Perhaps the most influential acts of men in perpetuating the definition/stereotype lie in inaction...for example, in silently accepting the advantages they've had for so long...for not crying foul when women face male imposed disadvantages...It sends a message to society and to developing generations that has been reverberating for as long as I can remember and for as long as the history books have been documenting.
When a man comes of age and possesses the knowledge and courage to challenge the stereotype, to define himself on his own terms, and shape the next generation, I think that he should....and I think that he should take that role very seriously. Until recently, it has been far more advantageous to perpetuate the stereotype and maintain the status quo. But the status quo is changing.
When a man comes of age and possesses the knowledge and courage to challenge the stereotype, to define himself on his own terms, and shape the next generation, I think that he should....and I think that he should take that role very seriously. Until recently, it has been far more advantageous to perpetuate the stereotype and maintain the status quo. But the status quo is changing.
I have absolutely no argument with the first sentence of the quoted paragraph. It's entirely consistent with what I perceive to be a man's role in life. Of course, it can be applied equally well to women, and I recognize that a great many women have accepted those challenges, as well.
I also concur with tbrd that it is a simplification to assert that responsibility for the social order of the past rests entirely with men. At least since the Industrial Revolution, most childrens' earliest mentors have been their mothers, and many of those mothers have had at least some complicity in perpetuating stereotypes. I don't mean they were willing collaborators in a great conspiracy to oppress women. Rather, I think they believed, as nearly everyone did, that things were as they were meant to be, and had to be.
But there's an assumption in the second sentence of the quoted paragraph that I find far more pertinent than apportioning blame, and that is that the previous order was in some way adventageous to men. That's a natural and pervasive assumption of the feminist movement. It isn't even entirely untrue. Women have certainly been under-represented in politics and in corporate board rooms until the very recent past, and many depictions of the lives of ordinary men have often seemed more interesting and glamorous than the lives of ordinary women. Still, being a "wage slave" doesn't seem especially more gratifying than being a "housewife." I suppose it's a good thing that there are more women CEOs and Senators than in former times, but I think the more proper goal of any movement toward social justice should be that ordinary people are more free to pursue happiness as they see fit.
Feminism has made important contributions toward that goal, liberating men from many of the assumptions of the past as well as women.
But I do think the status quo in nursing is clear evidence that the work is not done. I don't think we need an aggressive program of affirmative action for men in nursing. It would not serve our profession to bring in people who are less capable or less motivated simply because they are men. I would rather encourage diversity by educating people as to what nurses do, and raising awareness of the opportunities available. Nursing, today, has only slightly greater gender--and ethnic--diversity than the NHL. As triguee noted, not doing anything serves to perpetuate that stereotype.
Thanks for the link--an interesting read. It comports with what I've long thought is a central principle of evolutionary biology: sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Baumeister's explanation of cultural evolution also makes pretty good sense.
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.
mainly, we can be looked on as being GAY, or hate the ****** nurses, who whine too much! The women I worked with loved the way I handled patients.
I was at times the ONLY male nurse on some shifts, in the whole hospital. I loved the job, but it was also the politics, and I was also the only guy in nursing school.
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
I WILL read your response in its entirety when I have the time to devote to it, but I wanted to respond to just this sentence for now, for clarification...
It isn't (in my estimation) that all men at some definable point "chose" to narrowly define themselves, but that they perpetuate that culturally accepted definition in word and deed, through the many day to day decisions over the lifetimes of generations of men. They are born into the stereotype and the stereotype is fostered and strengthened by their peers and mentors. Perhaps the most influential acts of men in perpetuating the definition/stereotype lie in inaction...for example, in silently accepting the advantages they've had for so long...for not crying foul when women face male imposed disadvantages...It sends a message to society and to developing generations that has been reverberating for as long as I can remember and for as long as the history books have been documenting.
When a man comes of age and possesses the knowledge and courage to challenge the stereotype, to define himself on his own terms, and shape the next generation, I think that he should....and I think that he should take that role very seriously. Until recently, it has been far more advantageous to perpetuate the stereotype and maintain the status quo. But the status quo is changing.
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.
Life before affirmative action for women is still pretty fresh in cultural memory. You aren't likely to win many allies by obfuscating the struggles women faced and still face. But hey, whatever gets you through the day.
This is not my particular identity crisis, so I feel confident in being able to offer an outside perspective. What tangible value you gather from it is out of my control.
mainly, we can be looked on as being GAY, or hate the ****** nurses, who whine too much! The women I worked with loved the way I handled patients.
I was at times the ONLY male nurse on some shifts, in the whole hospital. I loved the job, but it was also the politics, and I was also the only guy in nursing school.
I apologize. Had to ask. So...hmm....What's wrong with being gay?
metal_m0nk, BSN, RN
920 Posts
It is certainly true that the barriers men face today are unlike the barriers that women faced in the past. Women's lib was in response to the cultural-societal position women were relegated to by men on a global scale and for a very long time. The current challenge men face stems from attitudes lingering from a time when no one ever thought that the status quo would shift so significantly that the utility of core male values would be questioned.
Well, for better or for worse, it has shifted. The upsurge of crisis pieces in current social commentary is enough to back that finding. For the first time, at least in my history, my father's history, and my grandfather's history, men are openly wondering if the ways in which they've defined and perpetuated their definition of themselves was prudent. A good bit of that wonderment has so far been attached to denial. That is to be expected since this "awakening" is in its infancy. But the sense of urgency is palpable. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves.