Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
*Shrug*
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.
See you on the flip side.
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.
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.
*Chuckle*
You're tragic, dude. No offense, but if your ego pushes you so far as to claim a monopoly on truth, some self examination is probably in order.
You're missing the point and proving it all at the same time.
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
*Chuckle*
You're tragic, dude. No offense, but if your ego pushes you so far as to claim a monopoly on truth, some self examination is probably in order.
You're missing the point and proving it all at the same time.
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.
nothing wrong with being gay! Its the PUBLIC interpretation of men in nursing. Dont get your knickers in a knot over it! I counted this comment with humour. But men are generally afraid of nursing, because its a womans job. But for me, it was a rewarding field, despite all the politics. for advancement, I am the wrong sex, wrong colour at the time.
nothing wrong with being gay! Its the PUBLIC interpretation of men in nursing. Dont get your knickers in a knot over it! I counted this comment with humour. But men are generally afraid of nursing, because its a womans job. But for me, it was a rewarding field, despite all the politics. for advancement, I am the wrong sex, wrong colour at the time.
Looking back on my clinicals and my externship...I noticed (through observations) that men of the floors seemed to be of two types. One group was rather effeminate (whether they were gay or not, nor do I care if they were.) The other group were on the side of manly men that seemed to me to overcompensate a little. Not too many "regular guys" (at least my interpretation of it.) I don't know if anyone else has made an observations like this....and mind you, these observations are very personally subjective from my point of view. But this is what I saw and internalized as I went clinicals/externship on the floors.
Royhanosn. Perhaps some folk (general public) out there have seen the first group of nurses on the floor and have taken that away as what a male nurse is/acts like. And this has given off a perception that you talked about in an earlier post. But as I said in an earlier post. I think men in general are going to end up dumping that perception in short order as the need for employment/changing job market will force men to "deal" with economic realities. Also I think as men get more involved through the next decade or two that stigma of woman's work will fade. And.........as men get involved more I think on the end of the manly men of nursing may start of relax a little and will just be themselves ( of course some of these guys could just be manly men by nature.) Basically the workforce of men personalities will balance out. Lastly as I said in an earlier post to help with the perception of Men and Nursing overall. Is to promote people in nursing as "MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS." while that might not seem like it may do much. I have this feeling if the General public really got an idea of how much is involved in being a nurse they would not be so quick to judge any men in the profession.
But men are generally afraid of nursing, because its a womans job.
There it is.
All the talk about feminism and affirmative action is smoke and mirrors.
This probably more accurately reflects what's at the heart of why most men decide whether or not to enter into a female dominated field. And it is a personal/cultural identity issue created and perpetuated by men - men pressuring and ridiculing other men, sometimes threatening them with violence over the assumption that what they do for a living means more than what they do for a living...and men who fear this public perception who avoid nursing of their own volition. This has nothing to do with women's lib. In fact, women's lib nods to the notion of non-traditional gender roles. It's a problem men will have to look inward (not outward) to solve.
That is what I have been saying and others have been saying.
Until this cultural identity crisis is dealt with, no other measure will prove effective and long lasting.
This is probably more accurately reflects what's at the heart of why most men decide whether or not to enter into a female dominated field.
....
That is what myself and others have been saying.
Until this cultural identity crisis is dealt with, no other measure will prove effective and long lasting.
Absolutely!
There was an article posted in this thread (I think) that I read a few days ago. I can't be bothered to go back and find it, but the general impression I got from it was that nursing schools should change the the way they present nursing (currently with buzzwords like "caring") in order to lure men into the field. In a sense, the article was proposing "masculinizing" nursing with stereotypes, as if "caring" was totally a woman's domain.
"To hasten this transition, schools that train 'nursing professionals' should launch aggressive, male-oriented advertising campaigns and male-to-male recruiting drives that stress technical expertise, career-advancement potential, and beyond-the-bedside opportunities."
This isn't the article that I was referring to in my previous post, but I really, really hate this whole statement from another article.
As if women wouldn't appreciate nursing schools that recruited in this manner. "We should only stress this to get men in!" Good grief. How about just elevating nursing for the good of the profession rather than for gender-oriented recruitment purposes?
"And it is a personal/cultural identity issue created and perpetuated by men - men pressuring and ridiculing other men..."
I'd suggest that women (not necessarily nurses, who are probably more open to men in nursing than the general population of women) have as much to do with perpetuating this stereotype as do men. It would be interesting to poll mothers to see how many of them would want their sons to become nurses, and compare that with a poll of the fathers. If the quoted statement above were true -- then why do a significant number of female patients prefer female doctors and nurses? Why are male nurses still (in some cases) still shut out of OB-GYN floors? Cultural stereotypes are absorbed by both genders, and the influence that women, as mothers, have over young boys is significant. Remember, for a number of years men were not allowed into nursing schools, men were not allowed to be nurses in the military. In an age when few opportunities were available for women, the nursing profession aggressively defended the female identity of nursing. I'm not judging that right or wrong. I'm just presenting it as a fact, a fact that contributed to this current culture-identiy issue. To say that this cultural situation was created by and is currently being perpetuated by men, is to oversimplify a complex social issue.
"And it is a personal/cultural identity issue created and perpetuated by men - men pressuring and ridiculing other men..."
I'd suggest that women (not necessarily nurses, who are probably more open to men in nursing than the general population of women) have as much to do with perpetuating this stereotype as do men. It would be interesting to poll mothers to see how many of them would want their sons to become nurses, and compare that with a poll of the fathers..........Cultural stereotypes are absorbed by both genders, and the influence that women, as mothers, have over young boys is significant.
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.
If the quoted statement above were true -- then why do a significant number of female patients prefer female doctors and nurses? Why are male nurses still (in some cases) still shut out of OB-GYN floors?
That is a different discussion. Obstetrics and gynecology are specialties that deal specifically with female sexual anatomy and (patho)physiology. Both men and women are trained to provide the best obstetric and gynecological care possible, I'm sure. Intuition though, gives female care providers the edge, because who has the stronger intuitive knowledge of female sexual anatomy and (patho)physiology?
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.
Remember, for a number of years men were not allowed into nursing schools, men were not allowed to be nurses in the military. In an age when few opportunities were available for women, the nursing profession aggressively defended the female identity of nursing. I'm not judging that right or wrong. I'm just presenting it as a fact, a fact that contributed to this current culture-identiy issue.
Those days are not these days. As women were allowed more occupational opportunities, that aspect of female dominated professions has diminished. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note the correlation and draw the conclusion that women aggressively defended the profession because they had very few other occupational options and not because they thought men were unfit for the profession. Someone who draws the latter conclusion has some research to do, as it represents a knowledge deficit, not a cultural one.
To say that this cultural situation was created by and is currently being perpetuated by men, is to oversimplify a complex social issue.
Not so much oversimplifying as much as cutting through the blame game and getting to the core of the issue. It is saying that all things considered, probably the most important and influential key to working out a male cultural identity crisis in the culture of our times (and the years ahead) lies in men examining, resolving and/or discarding traditional males values that have lost their utility in our current social climate.
Which, if you go back to the "Man Up" article - that is exactly what the article is saying. The article did a great job of discussing the issue, the weakness, in my opinion, was in the implementation of change it proposed. Aggressive recruiting is not the answer. It does not address the issue and will probably muddy and exacerbate the issue.
The question then becomes, "Change the world or change your perspective?" Well, the world is changing with or without your dictation, so what's the most viable option?
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
There it is.
All the talk about feminism and affirmative action is smoke and mirrors.
This probably more accurately reflects what's at the heart of why most men decide whether or not to enter into a female dominated field. And it is a personal/cultural identity issue created and perpetuated by men - men pressuring and ridiculing other men, sometimes threatening them with violence over the assumption that what they do for a living means more than what they do for a living...and men who fear this public perception who avoid nursing of their own volition. This has nothing to do with women's lib. In fact, women's lib nods to the notion of non-traditional gender roles. It's a problem men will have to look inward (not outward) to solve.
That is what I have been saying and others have been saying.
Until this cultural identity crisis is dealt with, no other measure will prove effective and long lasting.
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.
tbrd450
154 Posts
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.