I found this article about affirmative action for male nurses in Norway very interesting. (Full disclaimer: everything I know about Norway was out of date a thousand years ago. Norwegians or people who know things about Norway, feel free to correct my analysis in the comments and I’ll update the post.)
In Norway, a couple different organizations, including the University of Oslo and the Gender Balance in Research committee, are considering affirmative action for men in the form of “sex points”– basically, an equally qualified man will be more likely to be admitted than a woman– in fields such as psychology, orthodontics, and nursing that are heavily gender-biased female. The use of “sex points” in fields gendered male, such as engineering, is already well-accepted. The University of Oslo decided not to use sex points but to recruit men to those disciplines, and the Gender Balance in Research committee endorsed the use of sex points for male nurses and, in fact, in any field where one gender comprises less than 30% of the students.
I approve of affirmative action for men in some disciplines wholeheartedly. Consider male nurses, for instance. Many men will be more comfortable around a male nurse than a female, particularly since nurses often have to deal with genitalia and other intimate body parts. Boys who see a male nurse will learn that they too can be nurses when they grow up, and having more men in the classes will make nursing a more welcoming field for future generations of men.
Many people are against affirmative action, because the people with the best grades should get in regardless of gender and it devalues the degree. I disagree, however. I do think that affirmative action is a temporary measure– if the genders are about fifty/fifty in a field, we should stop doing affirmative action. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need it. In the real world, there are structural and social barriers to some people of equal aptitude getting into a field; all affirmative action does is act as a blunt instrument to control for these barriers. In particular, including gender as a consideration in the admissions process won’t cause actively unqualified people to be accepted (the same way, say, a quota might). A slightly less qualified man might be admitted to the nursing program, but not an unqualified man.
In addition, some people are going to think that men are privileged and we should only have affirmative action for less privileged groups. (I think that’s an unnecessarily reductive way to look at gender, but let’s go with it.) I urge them not to think about politics but to think about raw self-interest. Most of the female-dominated majors are associated with lower pay (but, of course, often have other virtues, such as flexibility, reliability of employment, job satisfaction, or helping others). If we get more men into nursing and education, then we lower the pay gap. Isn’t that exactly what you want? We have to attack the problem from both ends– not simply encouraging women to go into engineering, but encouraging men to go into nursing.
About ozyfrantz
Men who are nurses don’t need the qualifier ‘male’. I am a registered nurse and my degree is a Bachelor of Nursing not a Bachelor of Male Nursing
“Men in Nursing” would mirror the “Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology” phrasing that usually hear.
I think, at least historically, one of the biggest benefits of affirmative action was the introduction of other criteria than grades as a measure of competency. If you put in someone with slightly worse grades, but they thrive in that profession, it makes an industry and an education system look at their units of measurement, which are overwhelmingly grossly irrelevant throughout the Western world.
Affirmative action not only helps the group its boosting — it helps the members of the other group who didn’t fit the irrelevant criteria get a job or an education they’d excel at.
And that is why, Ozy, I disagree with your implication that affirmative action is unfair (in stating that it’s temporary and implying that it’s undesirable state of affairs but the ends justify the means). I think the state of things pre-affirmative action were incredibly unfair, the state of affirmative action is fairer, and the state afterwards is the most desirable and not that affirmative action is the disgusting vegetable you somehow manage to swallow because it’s good for you. It’s a shake up that improves standards.
“I think, at least historically, one of the biggest benefits of affirmative action was the introduction of other criteria than grades as a measure of competency.”
This is absolutely right. this nails it. Very often the job requires something that can’t be measured in grades because it’s not covered in some curriculum somewhere. Cultural competence may be crucial to success in the work, for instance, and I cannot think of anay way that is measured by grades.
It seems like, even if it doesn’t give men that much of an advantage, just publicizing affirmative action for men would be very effective in getting men into female-dominated fields just because they know it’s easier to get a job in that field. And yeah, as long as they’re actively giving advantages to women in male-dominated fields, it’s only fair that they do the opposite.
“as long as they’re actively giving advantages to women in male-dominated fields, it’s only fair that they do the opposite.”
I was thinking that too. It’s like a middle ground. No affirmative action is preferred, but affirmative action for one gender and not the other is worse.
Education in the U.S. needs to be re-examined at all levels because it’s failing boys (and men). In higher education part of the problem is that men fall too far behind to catch up. The other part is that higher education is often hostile to men. Just the idea of providing support services to men at SFU caused controversy.
Affirmative action is a feel good approach that gives us the feeling that we’re addressing the problem without actually having to do anything.
In public education (K-12) it’s probably failing boys mainly because almost all the teachers are female and naturally teach more to the way girls learn because that’s what worked for them. That will give girls a huge advantage in school.
As for higher education being hostile to men, my experience was kinda the opposite but that might be because there are very few girls in my major (engineering) and almost all the professors are male. That said, I’ve heard about guys in liberal arts going to class every day to hear about every reason why white, straight males are horrible people.
Affirmative action for men in admission is being debated in the U.S. I’m not sure how I feel about it. Ideally and ultimately you need to go after those things that cause the imbalance. I also really have a problem with denting someone who deserves the opportunity an opportunity because they are the wrong gender. If it allows a less qualified man in over a more qualified woman, she is being victimized by the system. This also doesn’t address what happens when they get there.
From a draft paper I wrote.
Other studies that examined gender discrimination in nursing school found that men have faced gender bias in nursing school. The Association of Women, Obstetric, and National Nurses survey its’ male members and found that 42% of the respondents experienced gender bias from the faculty or nursing staff. It is important to note that these male nursing students reported that the bias did not come from the patients. Other studies examining the reasons men felt bias in nursing school found the lack of male models and mentors (Kaite, Kputa 2011, p. 60). There have also been cases of male student nurses being denied the opportunity to provide intimate care to female patients when female student nurses were allowed to provide intimate care for both male and female patients. In England, a male student nurse won a case based on the denial to provide intimate care to female patients (Batty 2006, para 1). Although he won his case, the experience caused him to leave nursing (Batty 2006, para 3).
References
Batty, D. (2006 June 9. Student nurse win NHS discrimination case. The Guardian. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jun/09/health.genderissues
Jaschik, S. (2010 January 26). Gender gap stops growing. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/26/gender.
Kaite, C. P., Kouta, C. (2011 January) Gender discrimination and nursing: A literary review. Journal of Professional Nursing. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.professionalnursing.org/article/S8755-7223(10)00146-8/abstract
” The University of Oslo decided not to use sex points but to recruit men to those disciplines, and the Gender Balance in Research committee endorsed the use of sex points for male nurses and, in fact, in any field where one gender comprises less than 30% of the students.”
I’m very impressed nobody made a ‘Heehee, sex points’ joke.
I think the relevant metric is the % of people working in the field post graduation, not the % of the students. It would also be profitable to look at which gender dominates the senior positions in the field.
For example, Law. Most Law schools are majority female (not to the point of 70% female, perhaps, but still). But Law is a male-dominated profession, chiefly because a lot of female Law students find themselves stymied on their way up the career ladder. To extend affirmative action to male Law students on this basis would be transparently a very bad idea.
If affirmative action -is- a good idea it needs to be deployed using criteria other than simply how many students of each gender are studying it.
“For example, Law. Most Law schools are majority female (not to the point of 70% female, perhaps, but still). But Law is a male-dominated profession, chiefly because a lot of female Law students find themselves stymied on their way up the career ladder. To extend affirmative action to male Law students on this basis would be transparently a very bad idea.”
Umm, no it wouldn’t. You’ll just end up with the greater number of women entering becoming the majority later on when there are no replacements for the other men. Or do you take a census on the law profession and set a limit for each gender so it doesn’t make the balance favour one gender too much? (2x more women at the start, then taper down?)
If affirmative action exists elsewhere, I would keep affirm action for law. The issues of career progression need to be dealt with, not ignored n hope that more women in the profession will balance it out when that can potentially lead to a majority of women later on. Even it up where you can, AND tackle the career issues.
You suspect right Hugh. There seem to be what some have dubbed a “glass escalator” for male nurses. But the reasons for that seems to be more complex than the patriarchy that the people who came up with the “glass escalator” term were thinking of. A study (I think it was part of a master thesis) I saw a few years back interviewed some male nurses (in Norway) and found that among the reasons why they tended to go into administrations was being “pushed out” by their pre-dominately female co-workers. They found working in a pre-dominately female workplace hard and unwelcoming. Another very common reason was the desire to work full-time (in keeping with the vread-winning expectation). Most nurse position in Norway are part-time positions while most administration positions are full time.
I have never supported the idea of Affirmative Action nor will I in the future. Regardless of whatever gender is the target, it is fundamentally flawed system. Equality of opportunity is already a reality. Affirmative Action only ensures equality of outcome based on raw numbers. If you wish to see more people in a given profession based upon perceived inequality of representation, then there are far better ways to do it than shoehorning more under represented people in. Increase promotional drives targeting under represented groups. Basically encourage more people to apply so that the numbers will increase naturally over time rather than forcing people in under a program. I would be willing to wager cash money that the AA program for males in nursing will be a flop. It will be a flop because the vast majority of men will simply not wish to be perceived as having the job based on anything other than their qualifications. AA entrenches these perceptions such that, even if a person has achieved their place purely on merit, that achievement will inevitably be tainted by the spectre of favouritism. This will be a reality so long as such a program exists.
As a sidenote I can mention that Sweden has taken another approach to this. Sweden have alloved universitites to have gender quotas since 2003 (the majority of students were male). In 2010 when women made up 60% of the students and studies which are hard to get into (more top marks applicants than spots) like veterinary studies, medicine, dentistry and psychology were seeing men getting affirmative action the government (after some women won some court cases against universities) abolished affirmative action by gender.
The Minister for Higher Education and Research, Tobias Krantz wrote “The education system should open doors – not shut them in the face of young women who are motivated to study,”
http://www.thelocal.se/24330/20100112/
http://www.thelocal.se/25604/20100318/