Patriarchal paradox: gender performance and men's nursing careers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – In this paper, the authors situate existing scholarship about men in nursing within the broader gendered landscape of the profession and society. As a consequence, the need to reframe the discourse about men in nursing from the current emphasis on personal or collective experiences to collective action becomes apparent. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – A critical synthesis of scholarship addressing men in nursing serves as the basis for a conceptual paper which challenges the existing discourse on men in nursing. Findings – The experiences and careers of men in nursing are profoundly shaped by patriarchal power structures that situate caregiving within the realm of the feminine. Although men generally benefit in the context of patriarchal society, men in nursing are subject to a patriarchal paradox that marginalizes their performance of masculinity and situates them as unlikely caregivers. Therefore, men in nursing are preoccupied with balancing the contradictions and tensions in their lives associated with enacting a contextual performance of masculinity depending on the social context of their gender performance. Originality/value – A comprehensive synthesis of the existing men in nursing literature is presented and these findings are situated within a broader discussion of gender in nursing and society. This analysis provides the impetus for a “call to action” for nursing to comprehensively and meaningfully address the negative consequences of patriarchal forces on the profession of nursing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".