Sexy nurse sparks fury on the wards - BALLOT (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Sexy nurse sparks fury on Worcester hospital wards
7:10am Tuesday 16th March 2010 in News
A BUS company in Worcester has refused to remove an advert featuring a sexy “matron”, despite nurses saying the image “demeans” and “devalues” them.
The sexy nurse image has been adorning the back of Diamond buses, promoting its routes between Worcestershire Royal Hospital and the city centre.
The blonde woman – who is wearing an outfit similar to those found in high street sex aids chain Ann Summers – poses provocatively next to the words “ooh, Matron”.
But the campaign has upset a number of nurses in Worcester, who feel it belittles the job they do.
Shaunee Irvine, a nurse and Royal College of Nursing steward at Worcestershire Royal Hospital, said: “Using this kind of imagery to portray nurses is clichéd and, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of most people, and it’s clear that it demeans nurses and devalues the nursing profession.
“Nurses object to the trivialisation and gratuitous sexualisation of nursing, not least because it can risk fuelling a mistaken impression of nurses among some people, and this makes our already difficult job even more challenging.”
Both Worcestershire County Council and the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust have received complaints, which they have passed to Diamond.
A spokesman for the trust said: “A number of our nurses are upset by this advertisement which they feel presents nurses in a derogatory and degrading manner.
"We have asked that these advertisements be removed and we are very disappointed that the bus company has declined our request.”
But Diamond Buses said the adverts were part of a “bright and positive” advertising campaign which had been shown to a group of nurses - before they were used - who said they found the adverts funny.
A spokesman for Diamond Buses said: “On several of our colour-coded routes we used humorous characters as adverts on the back of the bus to promote that particular service.
"In the case of the service 37 as it served the Royal Hospital we decided to use an image of a nurse.
“The advert is simply to provide a message that we provide a transport service into the hospital, a place which has its own parking issues and put a smile on people’s faces.
"Public transport has been seen as a boring alternative to the car for too long and we want to encourage existing and new people to use our services which in turn will reduce pollution and congestion in the city.”
• BALLOT: What do you think? Is this advert demeaning? Should it be removed?
Is it just a bit of a laugh, provoking an unjustified reaction?
Please vote in our poll and tell us your thoughts in the comment box, below.
Comments(44)
jb
says...
8:04am Tue 16 Mar 10
Tulstar
says...
8:46am Tue 16 Mar 10
.
99.9% of people in this country appreciate just how much hard work is involved in becoming a nurse, and just how far from the truth the picture of a blonde in a PVC Nurses Uniform is.
.
The picture on the back of those buses isn't going to change anyone's opinion of them. I wonder if these moaners would have preferred to have seen the picture of a grumpy receptionist, or a waiting room full of people instead...
economist
says...
10:05am Tue 16 Mar 10
Sarah Cronk
says...
10:27am Tue 16 Mar 10
I think it's a bit of fun and as you pointed out, an effective advertisement. Yes it may not be clever, but it's not trying to be - it's an advertisement at the end of the day. Just that – nothing else. And by talking about it, you are only adding to the effect it has had on you.
I don't think it has done anybody any form of harm – it hasn’t trodden on any form of unacceptable decency in my eyes as there is far worse out there - and on this occasion I do think the WN may be playing the political correctness card here.
Lighten up a little guys!! :)
I do wonder if the same fuss would have been made if the company was a big advertiser in the WN in the first instance.
pafcscotty
says...
10:29am Tue 16 Mar 10
any message that contains "I've heard" normally means that's it's not true. I heard from my gran who was told it by a man down the pub who saw it on Tv... sort of thing.
The only people who ever report bad service in A&E are generally the sort of scum who turn up drunk and abuse the staff. Yes nurses talk to each pther - generally whilst dealing with the patient. it's called multi-tasking.
I have been through Worcester A&E three times (once after being knocked over by a drunk driver - typical Worcester; second time when I broke my toe; third time when I had suspected meningitis) and have never seen anything but exceptional care.
Anyone who slags off A&E staff should try doing their job and putting up with the abuse from the patients.
murray kelso
says...
10:55am Tue 16 Mar 10
Is there any chance commenters could stick to the subject rather than use this article as an opportunity to make serious allegations about nursing staff?
Thank you in advance.
.
MK - Digital Editor
Ze_Truth
says...
11:32am Tue 16 Mar 10
CJH
says...
11:59am Tue 16 Mar 10
.
Incidentally, my brother is a nurse, and he doesn't look anything like the picture on the bus!
pafcscotty
says...
11:59am Tue 16 Mar 10
Luckymummy
says...
12:22pm Tue 16 Mar 10
w sarah
says...
1:09pm Tue 16 Mar 10
SkyCaptain79
says...
1:47pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Maggie Would
says...
3:31pm Tue 16 Mar 10
If I was a nurse, I might think differently.
economist
says...
3:53pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Looks like we have stepped right back to the 1960s/70s!
SkyCaptain79
says...
4:14pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Piccolo
says...
4:21pm Tue 16 Mar 10
CYNIC_AL
says...
8:32pm Tue 16 Mar 10
mummyticklemonster
says...
9:09pm Tue 16 Mar 10
baldegale1001
says...
10:06pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Common Sense
says...
11:16pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Great fun - more please!
CS.
.
PS: Increasing teenage pregnancies are happening because of MORE sex education - not because of lack of it!
They now experiment - and there's no fear of pregnancy - like there was "in my day"! Goodness, how we worried! Didn't dare touch a girl! Now they explain everything - and show them the way!
Big mistake, at that age - but not yet acknowleged by the "do-good brigade"!
Let 'em sweat, until they are old enough to be responsible for the child they are so quick to produce - say in their late teens!
Now, pregnancy is used as a method of obtaining a council house! Does this not strike you as being slightly wrong? Cart before the horse?
PC, and do-gooders, have long been the downfall of this nation.
Biggles
says...
11:24pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Or a police uniform, or a short skirt, or a long skirt, or tight trousers, or any trousers, any skirt.
In fact, most men find women attractive in general ....... most women seem to like this !
As I get older I'm begining to think a recent pulse is a bonus.
Some people do seem to take things far too seriously
Brian Hunt
says...
1:58am Wed 17 Mar 10
Get a Bus Get a Life springs to mind.
To imply that these ads will affect children beggars beleif.
economist
says...
10:33am Wed 17 Mar 10
What message do you think this Ad puts out to people - including children - about what females need to do to be attractive? School children reguarly use this bus to go to school and to other destinations.
How would people react if a school booked a coach with the same Ad all over it to take their pupils on a school trip or holiday? A coach with sexualised images all over it taking teenage girls and boys on a school holiday for example - or indeed junior school kids on an outing? No concerns about this at all - all just a bit of fun? Really?
I agree with the comment above about parents needing to take responsibility for ensuring that their children aren't dressing inappropriately for their age, aren't exposed to ****, etc. - all very difficult with the web, etc. but it can be done. So, the parents do this and then come a school day they send their children out the front door to catch the bus to school - and, of course, its the bus with the pornified image of a nurse all over it. Parents have a responsibility to ensure that their children do not become sexualised too early but so does society as a whole. Sending our kids to school on a bus with highly sexualised images all over it is really going to ensure that we adults meet our responsibilities? - all just a bit of fun? - yeah, right.
If a lap dancing club was to advertise itself on buses in the same way it would more than likely use images that are sexualised to the same sort of degree as the Ad under question - just a bit of fun? Wouldn't impact on childrens development of thinking, attitudes and behaviour about sex and sexuality? Ad companies are really clever aren't they? They can make sure that their Ads only impact on adults and not on children can't they?
That people think that the sexualisation of public spaces does not contribute to teenage girls (and younger) dressing inappropriately and to becoming sexually active sooner than they should (including getting pregnant) beggars belief.
CJH
says...
10:38am Wed 17 Mar 10
mummyticklemonster
says...
12:09pm Wed 17 Mar 10
economist
says...
1:52pm Wed 17 Mar 10
You identify pop videos to argue that the sexualisation of public spaces and its impact on children as a non-issue - remarkable. I thought there was actually quite a bit of concern expressed in recent years about the content of pop videos and the sexualised images they contain and the targeting of, and impact on, children.
Presumably if Blue Peter was to donate a mini-bus to a school and had this Ad (the one under discussion) emblazoned all over it you would think - yep, that's fine, just a bit of fun, not inappropriate at all, etc.?
The sexualisation and pornification of public spaces and its impact on children does not concern you - nor the impact on nurses trying to do their job free from sexual harrassment, free from being viewed as sexual objects .... it's all a bit of fun. The nurses don't deserve our support when they say that the Ad demeans and devalues them .... they just need to put up with it and provide you with health care?
economist
says...
1:59pm Wed 17 Mar 10
waste
says...
2:37pm Wed 17 Mar 10
economist
says...
3:11pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Still the attitudes about gender issues reflected in your comment says it all really.
Olga
says...
5:23pm Wed 17 Mar 10
....................
....................
..has Mary Whitehouse been reincarnated?.......
......."
Biggles
says...
9:24pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Olga wrote:It would seem so, someone give him/her a hug, quickly
"........Crikey..... .................... .................... ..has Mary Whitehouse been reincarnated?....... ......."
lol
Common Sense
says...
10:45pm Wed 17 Mar 10
(They are not actually interested in anything much these days, from what I can tell! As long as they can text and clutch a mobile phone to an ear!)
The advert is aimed at the motorist following the bus - trust me, we had them all over the backs of B'ham Corporation buses in the 1950s and 60s. It is not for the passengers!
The advertiser wants "the manager" in the car behind.
You are going totally bananas about sex and dress - and this is only because the PC brigade and all the do-gooders in our society, insist on giving them sex education lessons and showing them exactly what to do!
Barking mad, in my opinion!
.
I wish it had been like that, when I was at school! Oh, boy - did I miss out big time!
But.....there were no unwanted pregnancies, either!
The do-gooders should swing - along with all our politicians, for what they have done to destroy our nation!
CS.
economist
says...
7:42am Thu 18 Mar 10
Your solution to the problem of children being sexualised in the UK is to withdraw sex education but support the sexualisation/pornif
ication of public spaces including the buses that take our children to school.
You are still, in effect, arguing that Advertising is a complete waste of time and that the whole industry may as well shut down. You are still ignoring the large body of research that links advertising and public images of women with the increase in anxiety disorders, depression and eating disorders in female children of all ages as well as young adults - which shows that such Ads and public images do impact on childrens attitudes, beliefs, behaviour and the psychological, physical and psychiatric problems that they experience.
My comments have nothing to do with the 'PC brigade/agenda' and everything to do with the welfare of children + the support that our nurses deserve.
You state 'no unwanted pregnancies' in your era - that is not true. There have been unwanted pregnancies for girls (children) and women in all generations in the past. The current generation, in the UK, has the highest rate of child pregnancy and the highest in Europe. But then we have, here in the UK adults who cheer on the sexualisation of public spaces, including the buses that take our children to school.
Common Sense - from your comments I would say that you have lost touch with any real understanding of children and how they interact with their (all of ours) environment - they do not exist in some kind of 'other worldly' protective bubble whereby the Ad under discussion does not impact on them.
So the people who think the Ad is unproblematic have said:
- its just a bit of fun
- children live in a protective bubble and the environment does not impact on them
- the Ad is only visible to motorists behind the bus and invisible to children
- to be concerned about the sexualisation/pornif
ication of public spaces and the impact on children is just PC nonsense
- music companies use sex and pornified images to sell their CDs to children so this Ad is nothing to worry about
- despite research confirming a link between Advertisments and public images and the rise in anxiety and eating disorders and depression in female children of all ages and young adults sexualised images in public spaces have zero impact on children
- despite nurses having explained how the Ad demeans and devalues them they do not deserve the support of the public, and indeed should simply develop a sense of humour (see it as a bit of fun)
I wonder why I am not convinced by any of the case put forward by the 'it's just a bit of fun - it has no impact on children - our school buses should be emblazoned with sexualised images - our nurses don't deserve our support' brigade?
economist
says...
9:46am Thu 18 Mar 10
- feminism (ie gender equality) is pathetic
- using sexualised images of women for advertising is unproblematic because it's what men like
jovialcommonsense
says...
11:18am Thu 18 Mar 10
I appreciate what you are saying, but you are going too far and sanitising society to sheer boredom.
Life is about balance and if we follow your thoughts do we ban holiday brochures showing scantily clad beach scenes. Do ladies (mens) underwear shops have their windows blacked out and only allow adult females (males) in.
The antics of the drunks mean we should ban all alcohol?
Do we ban all junk food as that is really ruining the future of our children?
Cars and buses kill people so do we have blanket speed limits of 5mph?
Where would you draw the line?
economist
says...
12:23pm Thu 18 Mar 10
And similarly for somking.
Do we have restrictions in place for speed? Yes.
Are holiday brochure photos of people on the beach deliberately sexualised images? No (although perhaps some are inappropriately so).
Is racism acceptable even though some argue that it's just a bit of fun? Society has decided that at least legally we don't accept this.
Are sexualised images on buses that take our children to school, and that demean and devalue our nurses acceptable? I stand by everything I have said above and have not seen any real counter arguments presented - should we add 'a boring world' along with children exist in a protective bubble, that Advertising has no impact, etc, to the list?
Draw the line? I wouldn't accept racist images in Advertising, nor do I think sexist images are acceptable - and this Ad is clearly sexist in terms of presenting females as sexual objects.
Do you really think we should do nothing about the images putting pressure on our children (some as young as 7 or 8) to develop eating disorders, anxiety dosorders, depression because their bodies are not like the images they are bombarded with by the media? Do you really think we should do nothing about that on the grounds that if we do the world will become boring? Should there be a free for all on TV including times that children are likely to be watching TV or do we, as a society, set limits? Should these limits be removed because the world is boring with these limits?
Would it be possible for Diamond Buses to run an effective advertising campaign that does not involve sexualised images, that does not shove sexualised images into the faces of our children, that does not demean and devalue our nurses? Of course they could. Would the world then be boring? I think not.
w sarah
says...
12:29pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jovialcommonsense
says...
1:17pm Thu 18 Mar 10
" before our public spaces started to become so sexualised and pornified?"
I don't know what you are alluding to, perhaps my sight is going.
sarah,
absolutely agree, but I feel the Star is very different to the bus advert.
economist
says...
3:24pm Thu 18 Mar 10
thy, and damaging sexualisation of children - both girls and boys.
economist
says...
3:34pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Common Sense
says...
5:52pm Thu 18 Mar 10
You have said (at length) what we all know to be true - it's called evolution and like it or not, it happens.
The nurse advert is but a small chink of light in a very black world! Don't worry, my friend - all will be well - have another tablet. Don't fret.
Strangley, (for little me!) I forecast all this debauchery in the mid-1960s when they started showing TV programmes like Grange Hill and glorifying all the nearly delinquent children in the show! The public copied, of course.
The PC brigade and the do-gooders made no comment at all and it was allowed to progress and get ever more "anti-social".
Over the years, of course, we have witnessed this develop rapidly and without restraint - the result you can see in Worcester (and most towns) any day!
Still - I believe Rome and their Empire went much the same way, so I am told. C'est la vie?
CS.
DRM.
says...
9:35pm Thu 18 Mar 10
CJH wrote:come on CJH, you'll upset the boffins in the Transport Dept at County Hall if you slag thier bus lanes off!!
Well, it could be worse. It could be Clr Prodger dressed in a nurses outfit to encourage us into his bus lanes!
Mind you Clr Derek Prodger in a Nurse's uniform sounds very kinky!, just hope he wax's his legs first!
Biggles
says...
9:46pm Thu 18 Mar 10
I do however think the "sex" side isn't much of an issue, compared to the "violence" side, especially in computer games .
I find that advert on the bus almost non sexy, it is so tame, so 1960's
I do however agree with the comments regarding certain newspapers.
But ...... I also remember being a teenage paperboy sneaking a look at "page three" as I delivered it !
fnightingale
says...
9:18pm Mon 22 Mar 10
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with