Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
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.
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
"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.
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
"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?
triquee -- Interesting comments. I don't totally disagree. You make some good points. But so so many assumptions. There are different perspectives. Male perspectives and female perspectives. And female perspectives are not any more priviledged than male perspectives.
Assumptions:
"With women, more so than with men, there is a greater flexibility with regard to gender role fluidity..." If true, is that a product of women, or a product of the culture changes.
"That is a different discussion." To some extent, perhaps. But not totally. Your comments, though, about male violence against women is right on. No justification or excuse for that.
"I hardly think that in general, men face fierce cultural opposition from women (their mothers included) when they decide to become nurses..." Huge, huge assumption. Based upon what? I don't know if there any studies out there -- but if there are, I'd bet you'd be surprised.
"Intuition though, gives female care providers the edge, because who has the stronger intuitive knowledge of female sexual anatomy and (patho)physiology?" 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?
"Women aggressively defended the profession because they had very few other occupational options and not because they thought men were unfit for the profession."
Not true. The cultural assumptions of the day assumed that men were unfit for that profession and that females were unfit to be doctors and other male dominated occupations.
"Not so much oversimplifying as much as cutting through the blame game and getting to the core of the issue." Your assumption is that there's one core, one truth, and you've got it. As I said, this is a much more complex issue that reducing it to your core issue.
I don't diminish all the good points you have made throughout this discussion. But they represent your opinion. And, I'm not necessarily in favor of aggressive recruiting on the part of nursing schools. I've brought it up for discussion. If you haven't read the article I referred to, "Is There Anything Good About Men," I'd ask that you do and give me your response. You're right. This is not a blame game. It's not men against women. It may be men and women vs. how the culture uses them to preserve itself.
Not true. The cultural assumptions of the day assumed that men were unfit for that profession and that females were unfit to be doctors and other male dominated occupations.
Multiple truths....Some might argue that with regard to women, the assumption was reactionary - especially considering the fact that the notion that men are unfit for female dominated professions is a notion that lingers most stringently in male perceptions of masculinity, while it has mostly dissipated in female perceptions of men's roles as the cultural/economic playing field levels.
Male perspectives and female perspectives. And female perspectives are not any more priviledged than male perspectives.
No assumption of privilege here. I take the male perspective into the utmost consideration. If I didn't, this discussion would be of no interest to me.
If true, is that a product of women, or a product of the culture changes.
I'm not entirely sure why it might be true. I only know that in my (very limited in the grand scheme of things) experience and observation, it is accurate.
I'd like to think that it has something to do with the female socio-cultural experience in general in that, when men have so long been regarded as more of everything that is lucrative (whether that is true or not), bending cultural norms in an effort to aspire to be regarded similarly, makes them more tolerant. That combined with the growing sense of self-esteem that comes with having increased control in their lives makes them say, "Why shouldn't a man aspire to more traditionally female values? Females are awesome." or, "What's so bad about women that men don't want to ever resemble them in word or deed?"
But that's just my own speculation.
Huge, huge assumption. Based upon what? I don't know if there any studies out there -- but if there are, I'd bet you'd be surprised.
We're all making assumptions here. None of us are sociologists (that I know of) or experts on cultural trends. But I think that if there were fierce opposition from women to be faced by men entering the profession, we'd have seen it by now (if it is indeed fierce and if it is indeed for the reason that women think male nurses inappropriate) and I'm just not seeing it - not in my personal experiences or in anything I've read or observed. Additionally, I feel certain that in the cultural pieces you've linked that discuss the topic, there would have been something mentioned (probably quite ardently) to that effect if it were a significant barrier to men entering the profession.
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.
Your assumption is that there's one core, one truth, and you've got it. As I said, this is a much more complex issue that reducing it to your core issue.
No assumption. Just bringing to the forefront what seemed to be missing from this discussion. It's an important consideration, certainly not the only one. My only real sticking point, is that it should not be ignored.
I don't diminish all the good points you have made throughout this discussion. But they represent your opinion. And, I'm not necessarily in favor of aggressive recruiting on the part of nursing schools. I've brought it up for discussion. If you haven't read the article I referred to, "Is There Anything Good About Men," I'd ask that you do and give me your response. You're right. This is not a blame game. It's not men against women. It may be men and women vs. how the culture uses them to preserve itself.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I gave it a once over while my mind was on other things, but I'll look it over in more detail soon. This has been a refreshing break from writing med cards (ugh!).
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
"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.
What tbrd450 is strongly suggesting if not outright stating, is an idea that I believe as well -- that is, the power of culture. Sometimes I think that cultures often set people up to diminish the power of culture over them and their choices. In other words, one of the assumed ideas is that the culture isn't that powerful. Especially in our culture -- which is strongly individualistic. We like to think that we're really completely in control of what we do, how we think, who we vote for, what we buy, the clothes we wear, how we speak, etc. Well, we're not. Now, I'm not being deterministic here. I'm not saying we have no free will and can't make choices. We can. But it's not as easy or as non complicated as we like to think. Much of what we decide is sub or unconscious. Perhaps the only real way we can come up against these cultural stereotypes and their power is to first, recognize that they exist and admit how powerful they are. Once we do that, we can become aware of them, learn to recognize them when we see them, and actually make conscious choices one way or the other.
Again, if you haven't read the URL I gave for the essay/speech I provided, please, please read it and see if it doesn't make some sense in the context of what we're discussing.The basic concept applies to women too. It's about the power of culture.
There have been moments in this discussion when I have felt impatient with some of the posts by female members, to the point where I've wondered whether women really have much to offer on the subject of redefining masculinity. Clearly, they have much to say, butsome of the commentary has at times seemed more interested in blaming men for how things have been and are than looking at how things could be. It seems as though some of the ideas raised are somehow a threat to women's monopoly on victimization. A different thread, on the topic of discrimination against men in nursing, had posts that went as far as to suggest it serves us right.
I don't mean to offer this gut reaction as a defensible position. Clearly, there is nothing remotely fair in blaming posters on this thread for views expressed by other posters on another thread, but this feeling has led me to what I think is a reasonable observation. It has been said that women's entry into traditionally male occupations began with court rulings, but it actually began with women deciding to change their expectations and demand equality. Early feminists met resistence from men and women, but they didn't let anyone else dictate their position. It seems clear to me that this is a model we need to adopt and adapt. Even we male nurses aren't in exactly the same position as the suffragettes, but I think we may be talking about a somewhat similar task, not in the sense of wresting power from some maternalistic elite, but in redefining ourselves as men. I don't think I buy that it's an identity crisis, but then again, I'm a nurse. Compared to, say, my father's generation, I've already taken some pretty serious steps on that journey.
Honestly, I don't know whether aggressive affirmative action is justified or needed. I certainly support the idea of showing young men, and even older men looking to start a new career, the possibility of nursing as a rewarding career. I don't particularly see men as the salvation of the profession (as one thread asked) but I do believe increasing the proportion of men in the field would strengthen it. Explain it any way you like, my floor runs more smoothly with a few guys in the mix. (Frankly, that surprises me, because the women I work with are generally strong people possessed of many of the qualities I admire in a man. Still, at least on my crew, most of the guys are generally more laid back, and it seems contagious.) I'm even less able to explain why, but I'm fairly sure our profession would benefit from recruiting more black and hispanic women, and men. I believe diversity will make us stronger. Does that mean our present homogenity makes us weaker? Well, I've seen discussions here and elsewhere on ideas to improve nurses' professional standing, and they seem almost inevitably to pit one group of nurses against another. Maybe one reason we aren't more united is that we are too much alike.
So, maybe, at least for now, the best any of us can do is to model, to our peers and our patients, that we are the new face of nursing. And if we need a shave, well, that just makes us look more studly and macho.
And with that, I'm going to go have myself a little coma. 'Night, all.
Specializes in I have watched actors portray nurses.
There have been moments in this discussion when I have felt impatient with some of the posts by female members, to the point where I've wondered whether women really have much to offer on the subject of redefining masculinity. Clearly, they have much to say, butsome of the commentary has at times seemed more interested in blaming men for how things have been and are than looking at how things could be. It seems as though some of the ideas raised are somehow a threat to women's monopoly on victimization. A different thread, on the topic of discrimination against men in nursing, had posts that went as far as to suggest it serves us right.
I don't mean to offer this gut reaction as a defensible position. Clearly, there is nothing remotely fair in blaming posters on this thread for views expressed by other posters on another thread, but this feeling has led me to what I think is a reasonable observation. It has been said that women's entry into traditionally male occupations began with court rulings, but it actually began with women deciding to change their expectations and demand equality. Early feminists met resistence from men and women, but they didn't let anyone else dictate their position. It seems clear to me that this is a model we need to adopt and adapt. Even we male nurses aren't in exactly the same position as the suffragettes, but I think we may be talking about a somewhat similar task, not in the sense of wresting power from some maternalistic elite, but in redefining ourselves as men. I don't think I buy that it's an identity crisis, but then again, I'm a nurse. Compared to, say, my father's generation, I've already taken some pretty serious steps on that journey.
Honestly, I don't know whether aggressive affirmative action is justified or needed. I certainly support the idea of showing young men, and even older men looking to start a new career, the possibility of nursing as a rewarding career. I don't particularly see men as the salvation of the profession (as one thread asked) but I do believe increasing the proportion of men in the field would strengthen it. Explain it any way you like, my floor runs more smoothly with a few guys in the mix. (Frankly, that surprises me, because the women I work with are generally strong people possessed of many of the qualities I admire in a man. Still, at least on my crew, most of the guys are generally more laid back, and it seems contagious.) I'm even less able to explain why, but I'm fairly sure our profession would benefit from recruiting more black and hispanic women, and men. I believe diversity will make us stronger. Does that mean our present homogenity makes us weaker? Well, I've seen discussions here and elsewhere on ideas to improve nurses' professional standing, and they seem almost inevitably to pit one group of nurses against another. Maybe one reason we aren't more united is that we are too much alike.
So, maybe, at least for now, the best any of us can do is to model, to our peers and our patients, that we are the new face of nursing. And if we need a shave, well, that just makes us look more studly and macho.
And with that, I'm going to go have myself a little coma. 'Night, all.
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.
All I have to say is I challenge any posturing macho a**hole to survive one shift on my floor (especially a shift like last night's when the sky started falling around 5 am.)
Great comments, thoughts and dialogue. Personally I cannot wait to get into the nursing field. At 48 yrs of age and yes a Male and previous "Macho" lol contractor and business owner I am looking forward to a career where I might make a real contribution to our society. As far as m/f, e/o/e and marketing for males in the work place..... I am hoping no matter what road blocks that may be placed in front of me I will confront and conquer them as I then will persevere no matter what. So what! Life is not perfect and neither are we as humans. I can fill 50 pages on how I have been discriminated against and witnessed others being as well. We are all human being. I will not reach to define "discrimination" but overcome real life challenges.... All that I ask of anyone "respect me and I will respect you" and we all will get along.
tbrd450
154 Posts
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.