Material problems and other abnormalities are ignored until something actually breaks.
It's important to remember that operation to failure is a totally acceptable maintenance methodology unless there is some negative repercussion associated with the failure.
When I first got out of the Navy, I worked at a DOE nuclear facility where they didn't practice preventative maintenance. The Maintenance Manager only focused on corrective maintenance. The new Facility Engineer was an ex-Navy Nuke who wanted to develop and implement a PM program for the facility. He clashed continuously with the Maintenance Manager who thought that PM for PM's sake only wore the components out faster. He asked what risk or cost was associated with the component failure before he'd agree to doing PM on it.
The answer was that they were both right, in some cases there are risks [e.g., nuclear accident] or costs [direct or opportunity] associated with component failures. In other cases there aren't (e.g., how many of us replace light bulbs in our homes before they burn out?) In the Navy and/or nuclear power, we did PMs on a lot of things because of risks and opportunity costs. In many civilian nonnuclear applications, run to failure is the most efficient method.
As far as dudes sleeping at work, is it a management expectation that they don't do this? If so, it sounds like a management problem. When the cost of ignoring the problem becomes big enough, then they'll need to fix it.
My advice is to look at the things that are bothering you and ask why are they that way and who should care. If everyone but you seems fine with it, but you're having trouble adapting, then you should probably move on to a place with a culture more in line with your expectations. It doesn't mean that you or they are good or bad. It just means that there may be better places for you to work.
Good luck,
mgm