Though many people feel the need to pursue nursing, men face many challenges when choosing to do so, but over come them. In the article, "Male Nurses Defy Stereotypes" by Laura Jerpi, Laura speaks on diversity in the workplace. Speaking on; Why men choose nursing careers, benefits of having male nurses on staff, and common stereotypes on male nurses.
Jerpi states, "Registered Nurse, Robert Fraser likes knowing that his work has a direct connection to his patients’ health." Men like a sense of accomplishment, which is easily accomplished while in the medical field. Also nursing is a decent paying job.
Stated by Jerpi, "Historically, especially in the medical-surgical areas where I have spent my career, men were used for ‘heavy lifting’ because they may have been physically stronger than the women on staff." Thus having the physical strength on top of the knowledge taught to all nurses, men somewhat have the advantage. While most people would prefer a woman nurse, men can do the job as good if not better.
Further in the article Jerpi states, "He says that men, such as himself, have had to fight a number of unwarranted stereotypes." Why do people believe they have a right to judge someone for their choice in career? I do not believe anyone should be judged for their choices unless it breaks the law.
With my aunt being a nurse I have asked before if they tease any of the males. Her response being very negative towards any teasing or stereotypical thought set me straight in my thinking.
In conclusion, males are a extremely useful piece in the nursing staff. With superior strength along with the same knowledge as the rest, they actually have the upper hand as to what stereotype says.
Monday, January 27, 2014
current connection 3.1
Rare to be seen in nursing, men tend to choose more "manly" professions. In the recent article, "Men in Nursing" by Tri Pham, Tri discusses the rarity of men in the nursing field and their value. Though nursing is a respectable career, men often shy away from nursing cuza; higher expectations, being outnumbered, and being ridiculed due to their profession.
Tri states, "being a male student comes with the additional challenge of facing society’s expectations." Society often pressures men to work more manual labor or prestigious careers such as; a mechanic, a lawyer, or even a doctor. Yet not all men wish to pursue careers pushed upon them by society.
In the article Tri says, "professors may neglect to tailor their curriculum to address concerns unique to male nurses." Nursing schools seem to lean more towards female students just as society does. Therefore not only society, but even the schools are against males.
Further in the article Tri states, "One of the primary reasons more men do not pursue a career in nursing is because of the assumption that becoming a male nurse will trigger ridicule from others." Nursing is not a very common job for men and it is not viewed as "cool" or "popular". Thus leaving nursing as the most desired career for males.
Even with all these negative points about males being nurses, my friend Patrick is a very successful male nurse and doesn't receive any ridicule or trouble out of his profession. Therefore the majority, yet not all, cases of being a male nurse end badly.
In conclusion, although male nurses are ridiculed, mistreated, and sometimes underprepared, I believe they are on the up rise in the career market.
Tri states, "being a male student comes with the additional challenge of facing society’s expectations." Society often pressures men to work more manual labor or prestigious careers such as; a mechanic, a lawyer, or even a doctor. Yet not all men wish to pursue careers pushed upon them by society.
In the article Tri says, "professors may neglect to tailor their curriculum to address concerns unique to male nurses." Nursing schools seem to lean more towards female students just as society does. Therefore not only society, but even the schools are against males.
Further in the article Tri states, "One of the primary reasons more men do not pursue a career in nursing is because of the assumption that becoming a male nurse will trigger ridicule from others." Nursing is not a very common job for men and it is not viewed as "cool" or "popular". Thus leaving nursing as the most desired career for males.
Even with all these negative points about males being nurses, my friend Patrick is a very successful male nurse and doesn't receive any ridicule or trouble out of his profession. Therefore the majority, yet not all, cases of being a male nurse end badly.
In conclusion, although male nurses are ridiculed, mistreated, and sometimes underprepared, I believe they are on the up rise in the career market.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
cc 2.1
In an article entitled "Is America Training Too Many Foreign Armies?" posted at Foreign Policy, author John Norris explains why America should choose countries a little more careful before training their armies for combat.
Stated by John, " the failure of the U.S. military training to instill respect for human rights in the Malian army now accused of massacring Arabs and Turegs as it fights its way north into rebel-held territory." Therefore making Americas choice in training this army somewhat responsible for the deaths of those in their way. Thus leading to the conclusion that its not who should get American training, yet who shouldn't.
Another troubling thought stated in this article, "military and economic assistance are treated as quite different creatures. For economic assistance, the U.S. has insisted that aid recipients at least demonstrate some commitment to democracy. This is not so on the military side" So we could be training terrorist or saints. The next Bin Laden or our biggest ally. The decision on who does and who does not receive training has extremely different outcomes when talking about best and worst case scenarios.
So should America not train everyone? Norris says, "a few months spent studying tactics and logistics in Kansas or Georgia rarely seems to slow down a power-hungry colonel when he is hell bent of toppling the elected government that just threatened to cut his budget." Therefore making it an ultimate judge of character and trust on who to train and who not to train.
Like many others have, I have put my trust into someone or something and it has abused or misused it. Much like that of the case in U.S. military training being used to slay innocent people for a pointless cause. So I can relate to how those trainers feel. For it becomes harder and harder for me to trust anyone after being stabbed in the back.
In conclusion, U.S. leaders should be a little more cautious when handing out deadly tactics and strategies to the unknown. For as you can see, it doesn't always end in our favor.
Stated by John, " the failure of the U.S. military training to instill respect for human rights in the Malian army now accused of massacring Arabs and Turegs as it fights its way north into rebel-held territory." Therefore making Americas choice in training this army somewhat responsible for the deaths of those in their way. Thus leading to the conclusion that its not who should get American training, yet who shouldn't.
Another troubling thought stated in this article, "military and economic assistance are treated as quite different creatures. For economic assistance, the U.S. has insisted that aid recipients at least demonstrate some commitment to democracy. This is not so on the military side" So we could be training terrorist or saints. The next Bin Laden or our biggest ally. The decision on who does and who does not receive training has extremely different outcomes when talking about best and worst case scenarios.
So should America not train everyone? Norris says, "a few months spent studying tactics and logistics in Kansas or Georgia rarely seems to slow down a power-hungry colonel when he is hell bent of toppling the elected government that just threatened to cut his budget." Therefore making it an ultimate judge of character and trust on who to train and who not to train.
Like many others have, I have put my trust into someone or something and it has abused or misused it. Much like that of the case in U.S. military training being used to slay innocent people for a pointless cause. So I can relate to how those trainers feel. For it becomes harder and harder for me to trust anyone after being stabbed in the back.
In conclusion, U.S. leaders should be a little more cautious when handing out deadly tactics and strategies to the unknown. For as you can see, it doesn't always end in our favor.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
current connection 1.2
In a recent article, "Over scheduled Children: How Big a Problem?" written by Bruce Feiler, much is discussed as to whether children are too busy in this day and age.
An example from the article, "“As a general principle, there is a line between a highly enriched, interesting, growth-promoting childhood and an over scheduled childhood,” This makes me believe that some parents and teachers "try to hard" or push too much on young students to become better; however, this adds stress to their already busy life. Therefore not helping, but hurting their chances at success.
Another example, "The real problem, he said, lies with parents, especially highly successful ones who have a high degree of control over their own lives and who try to take similar control over their children’s lives. " Busy parents trying to give their children "something to do" really just make them have more and more on their plate. Making school work, the more important of the two, lower on the totem pole as to after school events.
Bruce states, "the basic idea is that it’s great to have a computer, it’s great to have software, but if you overload a computer with software it breaks down." Giving the basic idea that a child is fine under a normal load, yet too much will break them down. Giving children too much to do takes them from a normal life or even the homework already assigned.
Personally i do not think i was "over loaded" as a child. Yet more and more cases are upcoming of parents over bearing their children with sports, music lessons, or anything you could think of. To me this is wrong. If it is the child's idea fine, but activities should not be used as a day care.
In conclusion, parents, teachers, even coaches are over scheduling students. With practices after practice then a ton of homework to be done there is hardly time to take a breather.
An example from the article, "“As a general principle, there is a line between a highly enriched, interesting, growth-promoting childhood and an over scheduled childhood,” This makes me believe that some parents and teachers "try to hard" or push too much on young students to become better; however, this adds stress to their already busy life. Therefore not helping, but hurting their chances at success.
Another example, "The real problem, he said, lies with parents, especially highly successful ones who have a high degree of control over their own lives and who try to take similar control over their children’s lives. " Busy parents trying to give their children "something to do" really just make them have more and more on their plate. Making school work, the more important of the two, lower on the totem pole as to after school events.
Bruce states, "the basic idea is that it’s great to have a computer, it’s great to have software, but if you overload a computer with software it breaks down." Giving the basic idea that a child is fine under a normal load, yet too much will break them down. Giving children too much to do takes them from a normal life or even the homework already assigned.
Personally i do not think i was "over loaded" as a child. Yet more and more cases are upcoming of parents over bearing their children with sports, music lessons, or anything you could think of. To me this is wrong. If it is the child's idea fine, but activities should not be used as a day care.
In conclusion, parents, teachers, even coaches are over scheduling students. With practices after practice then a ton of homework to be done there is hardly time to take a breather.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
current connection 1.1
Lauren Miller, author of "High School Homework: Are American Students Overworked?" a teen writer, talks about how high school teachers assign entirely too much homework, which benefits no one.
From Miller's article, "The average student is glued to his or her desk for almost seven hours a day. Add two to four hours of homework each night, and they are working a 45 to 55 hour week!" While Miller says students should receive no more then ten minutes of homework per grade level. This leaves students over working themselves daily in order to come close to a good grade.
Yet another statement from Miller, "Too much homework is sapping students' strength, curiosity, and most importantly, their love of learning." Teachers seem to think that assigning more homework is beneficial; however, it takes the fun out of learning. School, supposed to be a fun place of learning, has burdened students with hours of homework and made them hate school itself.
Miller states, "Teachers who assign large amounts of homework are often unable to do more than spot-check answers." Therefore the majority of hard work students put into homework are merely skimmed over, while each student spends much of their time doing it. If the teacher only plans to skim over it, what is the point in assigning it?
Personally, fifteen to forty five minutes of homework does not seem like that much. Yet when you are assigned that amount from each and every class the problem turns into a mountain of unfinished work. For example, try studying for a math test, while also typing a current connection, then completing your speech for oral communications in one night. This just seems to overload my mind.
In conclusion, teachers should not only think about the amount of homework they assign yet the total amount assigned before they ask for a four page paper.
From Miller's article, "The average student is glued to his or her desk for almost seven hours a day. Add two to four hours of homework each night, and they are working a 45 to 55 hour week!" While Miller says students should receive no more then ten minutes of homework per grade level. This leaves students over working themselves daily in order to come close to a good grade.
Yet another statement from Miller, "Too much homework is sapping students' strength, curiosity, and most importantly, their love of learning." Teachers seem to think that assigning more homework is beneficial; however, it takes the fun out of learning. School, supposed to be a fun place of learning, has burdened students with hours of homework and made them hate school itself.
Miller states, "Teachers who assign large amounts of homework are often unable to do more than spot-check answers." Therefore the majority of hard work students put into homework are merely skimmed over, while each student spends much of their time doing it. If the teacher only plans to skim over it, what is the point in assigning it?
Personally, fifteen to forty five minutes of homework does not seem like that much. Yet when you are assigned that amount from each and every class the problem turns into a mountain of unfinished work. For example, try studying for a math test, while also typing a current connection, then completing your speech for oral communications in one night. This just seems to overload my mind.
In conclusion, teachers should not only think about the amount of homework they assign yet the total amount assigned before they ask for a four page paper.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Reflection time
I am in English 11 and have been asked by Mrs. Gilmore, the number one English teacher ever to be created, to write a short story. The idea is to create your own character, scene, setting, plot, and even world if you are that creative.
To begin, the easiest and most rewarding thing accomplished so far is the creation of my character, Chief Squatsalot. It is easy to just start with a thought and bring it to paper when the only rules is the length of the story. The reward is to know that i have successfully completed the first part in writing a detailed short story. To be rewarded for an easy assignment is amazing, even from the best teacher ever.
However the character was easy, the plot is a completely different story. Before you can start writing you have to think with the end in mind. For example, you can't expect your story to just fold out without knowing what will happen in the end. Details do not just connect themselves in the line you want without planning ahead. Therefore some forethought before writing will be followed by an optimum story.
Furthermore, my character, Chief Squatsalot, is an Indian chief of tribe Lotsoftrees. He is rather tall, with a built body tone and a little bit of an overextended stomach from all the offerings of food from his loyal tribesmen. The members of the tribe jump at his word, do anything and everything needed without a murmur of dissatisfaction, and most of all stand by him in good and bad times. The one detail of the Chief is his preference of clothing. A simple triangle of leather is worn at the waist and the rest is left bare for tanning purposes.
In conclusion, with the best teacher, easy writing conditions, and a mind full of thoughts, this short story will surely give me a passing grade followed by a nod of approval.
To begin, the easiest and most rewarding thing accomplished so far is the creation of my character, Chief Squatsalot. It is easy to just start with a thought and bring it to paper when the only rules is the length of the story. The reward is to know that i have successfully completed the first part in writing a detailed short story. To be rewarded for an easy assignment is amazing, even from the best teacher ever.
However the character was easy, the plot is a completely different story. Before you can start writing you have to think with the end in mind. For example, you can't expect your story to just fold out without knowing what will happen in the end. Details do not just connect themselves in the line you want without planning ahead. Therefore some forethought before writing will be followed by an optimum story.
Furthermore, my character, Chief Squatsalot, is an Indian chief of tribe Lotsoftrees. He is rather tall, with a built body tone and a little bit of an overextended stomach from all the offerings of food from his loyal tribesmen. The members of the tribe jump at his word, do anything and everything needed without a murmur of dissatisfaction, and most of all stand by him in good and bad times. The one detail of the Chief is his preference of clothing. A simple triangle of leather is worn at the waist and the rest is left bare for tanning purposes.
In conclusion, with the best teacher, easy writing conditions, and a mind full of thoughts, this short story will surely give me a passing grade followed by a nod of approval.
Friday, February 22, 2013
cc#4 unfinished
In a recent magazine by New York Times, called Upfront, an article called "The Gun Debate" author Patricia Smith enlightens readers of the gun debate, gun laws, and the possible future of gun control.
Patricia tells about December's tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, an how it is prompting a new look at the nation's gun laws. The weapon used in the Newtown shooting was a very popular assault rifle called the AR-15. Adam Lanza, the criminal in this case, used the AR-15 to kill 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, of the 6 adults his mother was included. A statement from the article, "Gun dealers say it's the most popular rifle in America." In my opinion, just because Lanza used this particular rifle in the shooting should in no way affect another citizen from legally owning it, which is what the gun laws will enforce.
The debate over guns in America date back as far as when the first gun was brought here. President Barack Obama states, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society." This statement somewhat contradicts Obama's stand on gun control for he is directly implying that it will not prevent evil, senseless acts of violence. A well known statement, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is where i stand in the matter. I understand if people have guns it is easy to commit a crime, yet if guns are taken law abiding citizens will be the only ones left defenseless for the criminals already disobey the government's laws.
Patricia tells about December's tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, an how it is prompting a new look at the nation's gun laws. The weapon used in the Newtown shooting was a very popular assault rifle called the AR-15. Adam Lanza, the criminal in this case, used the AR-15 to kill 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, of the 6 adults his mother was included. A statement from the article, "Gun dealers say it's the most popular rifle in America." In my opinion, just because Lanza used this particular rifle in the shooting should in no way affect another citizen from legally owning it, which is what the gun laws will enforce.
The debate over guns in America date back as far as when the first gun was brought here. President Barack Obama states, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society." This statement somewhat contradicts Obama's stand on gun control for he is directly implying that it will not prevent evil, senseless acts of violence. A well known statement, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is where i stand in the matter. I understand if people have guns it is easy to commit a crime, yet if guns are taken law abiding citizens will be the only ones left defenseless for the criminals already disobey the government's laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)