zlacker

Not really; the gender of a nurse is accidental, other properties are essential.

>>tines+(OP)
While not essential, I wouldn't exactly call the gender "accidental":

> We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women's empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in.

Source: https://psyarxiv.com/zhvre/ (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29040132)

>>codeth+U2
The "Gender Equality Paradox"... there's a fascinating episode[0] about it. It's incredible how unscientific and ideologically-motivated one side comes off in it.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsEsTvfT-M

>>tines+(OP)
How do you know this? Because you can, in your mind, divide the function of a nurse from the statistical reality of nursing?

Are the logical divisions you make in your mind really indicative of anything other than your arbitrary personal preferences?

>>paisaw+V5
No, because there's at least one male nurse.

>>codeth+U2
If you ask it to generate “nurse” surely the problem isn’t that it’s going to just generate women, it’s that it’s going to give you women in those Halloween sexy nurse costumes.

If it did, would you believe that’s a real representative nurse because an image model gave it to you?

>>tines+(OP)
Not really what? How does that contradict what I've said?

>>tines+a7
Please don't waste time with this kind of obtuse response. This fact says nothing about why nursing is a female-dominated career. You claim to know that this is just an accidental fact of history or society -- how do you know that?

>>paisaw+t9
I meant "accidental" in the Aristotelian sense: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/

>>tines+Cb
Yes I understand that. That is only a description of what mental arithmetic you can do if you define your terms arbitrarily conveniently.

"It is possible for a man to provide care" is not the same statement as "it is possible for a sexually dimorphic species in a competitive, capitalistic society (...add more qualifications here) to develop a male-dominated caretaking role"

You're just asserting that you could imagine male nurses without creating a logical contradiction, unlike e.g. circles that have corners. That doesn't mean nursing could be a male-dominated industry under current constraints.