zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. tines+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-05-23 22:59:55
No, because there's at least one male nurse.
replies(1): >>paisaw+j2
2. paisaw+j2[view] [source] 2022-05-23 23:16:48
>>tines+(OP)
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?
replies(1): >>tines+s4
◧◩
3. tines+s4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-05-23 23:35:37
>>paisaw+j2
I meant "accidental" in the Aristotelian sense: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
replies(1): >>paisaw+Wg
◧◩◪
4. paisaw+Wg[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-05-24 01:22:31
>>tines+s4
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.

[go to top]