Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#41

Post by moomin »

GhostVII wrote: post #40
moomin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I have sympathy with your cynicism 1) that's not true of _good_ managers and 2) processes are the raison d'etre of HR, which is hardly a male-majority profession.

I would argue that HR is much more about dealing with people, and managers are responsible for providing systems for the people to work effectively in. Especially if you are upper management, you aren't going to be working with people most of the time, you are going to be finding ways to make them work more effectively in a systemic way.

It's funny, everyone thinks HR is about dealing with people, whereas it's actually about processing them. Processing entitlements, processing grievances, processing legal documentation, processing disciplinary procedures. Your line manager's the one with a personal relationship with you.

Mind you, quite a few people think an HR officer is the right person to go to with a problem. This is a _very_ bad idea. HR's job is to protect the firm, not the employees (sometimes this involves pushing out someone senior, but that's unicorn-level rare). If you want someone to represent your interests at work, it's time to unionize. :)

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#42

Post by nailer »

watwut wrote: post #37
nailer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because people find certain roles more attractive. Men doing physical work, women doing nurturing roles are found attractive by more of the population. I think that the women who find males nurses unattractive simply find them unattractive, rather than looking down upon their own gender. It seems a bit of a stretch and a really nasty thing to claim that these women have internalised misogyny.

Women who find males nurses unattractive simply find them unattractive and that is fine. Then there are women and men who look down on male nurses or would feel ashamed in front of friends if their husbands/familly started to work as nurses. That is different and unfair. Calling it sexism (or internalised sexism) is accurate. There are women who believe that women are less capable in a lot of ways - and expect that f…

Social value is based on attraction. If a woman feels ashamed of her husband being a nurse, it's because, since most people don't feel this is attractive, society doesn't feel it's attractive. She has chosen a partner that most women would reject as he has low income, making it hard to provide for her children, and is concerned with nurturing rather than competition, which is an undesirable trait for her male children to have.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a partner who has social value, and you have no right to shame anyone for their biological desires.

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#43

Post by Khaine »

tptacek wrote: post #6

We should rename the profession. "Nurse" is gendered, but also poorly captures the responsibilities of the modern nursing profession. It is batshit crazy that our first line of medical care in the US is medical doctors. For 80% of what ordinary people see doctors for, Nurse Practitioners are superior to doctors: they're more available, can spend more time with patients, and can more easily escalate cases to doctors o…

We should absolutely not rename the profession. All it does it put it the title on the euphemism treadmill[1]. Instead we should look to break down sterotypes through positive role models and portrayal in the media.

[1] http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/euphemism-trea...

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#44

Post by maxerickson »

inopinatus wrote: post #31
tptacek wrote: post #6

We should rename the profession. "Nurse" is gendered, but also poorly captures the responsibilities of the modern nursing profession. It is batshit crazy that our first line of medical care in the US is medical doctors. For 80% of what ordinary people see doctors for, Nurse Practitioners are superior to doctors: they're more available, can spend more time with patients, and can more easily escalate cases to doctors o…

The remaining XX% (I dispute your claimed 80%, it sounds fabricated) is why so-called "nurse practitioners" must not act as though they are front-line doctors. These people have too high an opinion of their medical qualifications. What you propose will increase mortality rates due to incorrect diagnosis of serious conditions. That is entirely unacceptable. That suggestion of "Associate doctors" is a travesty that wou…

What you are asking for - what you have listed as the positive outcomes - is properly handled by a patient advocate. These are rare today, I would see it grow as a profession.

I wonder if there is a way to structure payments such that doctors fill this role. It would be convenient if their incentives were so well aligned with patient interests.

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#45

Post by solatic »

inopinatus wrote: post #33
solatic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it in more tech-industry terms, doctors are either Level 2 (general practitioners) or Level 3 (specialists) health support. Adding more low-cost Level 1 health support is a great way to reduce the workloads of L2 and L3 and thus both reduce costs throughout the system as well as improve outcomes for most ~customers~ patients.

Sorry to burst your bubble: this works in the tech industry because the impact of a bad judgment call at L1 is not the death of a human being.

And nobody's saying that L1 health support should be uneducated (no dedicated schooling), unaided (no need for patient records indicating allergies etc.), or all-powerful (including, say, the ability to prescribe powerful doses). The argument is that there's plenty of room for people who went through a (significant) fraction of the time it takes to complete traditional medical school to earn a (significant) fraction of a doctor's earnings in order to reduce overall system costs and improve overall availability of care.

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#46

Post by throwawaycopy »

GhostVII wrote: post #39
throwawaycopy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monkeys don't have language and culture. This study suggests nothing about the impact of culture and society on human individuals.

Isn't that the point? Monkeys don't have language and culture, but males and females still prefer different types of things, giving evidence to the argument that it is not simply culture influencing children's toy preferences

This is a study about monkeys. How does this and why should this apply to humans?

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#47

Post by mythrwy »

majewsky wrote: post #30
mythrwy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "Flesh Mechanics"? That might get a man or two interested. "Nurse" has mammary overtones.

That phrase is quite demeaning to the nurses' subjects, which is probably why you're being downvoted.

Understandable and no complaints, down-votes taken with a smile and not personally.

I don't understand your point about "demeaning" though.

Are you saying calling people under nurses care "flesh" is demeaning? Or saying the word "Nurse" has mammary overtones (it does, and I assume some sort of common root) is demeaning?

I would have down-voted the comment for being dumb rather than demeaning (admittedly it is kind of a dumb comment).

Just struggling to understand demeaning here because I'm not the kind of persons who wants to demean so maybe I should know something I don't.

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#48

Post by majewsky »

mythrwy wrote: post #47
majewsky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That phrase is quite demeaning to the nurses' subjects, which is probably why you're being downvoted.

Understandable and no complaints, down-votes taken with a smile and not personally. I don't understand your point about "demeaning" though. Are you saying calling people under nurses care "flesh" is demeaning? Or saying the word "Nurse" has mammary overtones (it does, and I assume some sort of common root) is demeaning? I would have down-voted the comment for being dumb rather than demeaning (admittedly it is kind of…

The flesh part. It makes it sound like humans are just a pile of flesh. (And please don't make this into a philosophical debate about whether that captures the human condition because this is clearly not the point.)

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#49

Post by 0xbear »

flukus wrote: post #32
0xbear wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is interested in whatever their donors tell them to be interested in. That's why ACA is a trillion dollar giveaway to healthcare industry instead of net savings. ACA also disincentives private insurers from wanting to reduce cost. Their profit is now limited to a certain percentage of the premiums, so naturally their only real way to profit is by raising the living shit out of the premiums.

Things weren't heading that way before the ACA and they aren't heading there anywhere else in the western world. Whatever problems you have with the ACA, it's not the cause here.

I didn't say it was the cause. The cause is that the congressmen/women will sell their mom for a buck.

Re: Men Don’t Want to Be Nurses. Their Wives Agree

#50

Post by mythrwy »

majewsky wrote: post #48
mythrwy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understandable and no complaints, down-votes taken with a smile and not personally. I don't understand your point about "demeaning" though. Are you saying calling people under nurses care "flesh" is demeaning? Or saying the word "Nurse" has mammary overtones (it does, and I assume some sort of common root) is demeaning? I would have down-voted the comment for being dumb rather than demeaning (admittedly it is kind of…

The flesh part. It makes it sound like humans are just a pile of flesh. (And please don't make this into a philosophical debate about whether that captures the human condition because this is clearly not the point.)

No, no debate. Thanks for the feedback and clarification.
Post reply on HN