On my other blog, Pickernanny made the following statement about nurses [comments section]:
By the way, you might not be surprised by how raunchy some of the young female nurses I work with can be. Openly talking about their sex lives, the guys they would fuck in the building or have fucked, discussing penises etc.
I was not at all surprised by this. In fact, nurses seem to generally have a reputation for having loose morals. One of the most common sentences I’ve heard from guys who are good with women is that nurses are, um, very outgoing in the bedroom and require little in terms of persuasion to get there. (You can probably think of more concise ways of phrasing this.) While you can pick up the occasional nurse in a club, privileged access is afforded to doctors. I’ve met a few young doctors in my life, or medical students, and they all had stories to tell of nurses literally forcing themselves on them.
The anecdotal evidence seems pretty damning, but let’s give nurses a fair trial as I think that their reputation is not entirely justified. The first observation is that nursing is a heavily female-dominated profession. Thus, the fact that they openly discuss their sex lives is related to them being in an all-female environment. It has little to do with their being specific nurse-traits that make them behave in this particular way. If you have ever experienced this yourself, for instance on a birthday party of a female acquaintance in which there were 90% women around, or in a women-dominated office environment, you have probably learned that some women shamelessly discuss intimate details of their private lives. Partly, this is due to them trying to one-up each other by boasting about having gotten laid by Tyrone last weekend, but sometimes, they also want to signal their sexual availability to Chad in cubicle #00432 who has a habit of grabbing coffee in the kitchen at 10:00, so that’s where the hens congregate and tell each other lewd stories about their sexual exploits. All of this is just a more tame version of female behavior on a “girls’ night out” or a bachelorette party.
All it takes to get the average modern woman to talk openly about sex is a bit of alcohol and the presence of other women. That’s also when they will pull out their phones, showing off dick picks. Yes, I know that the official narrative is that women hate getting dick picks and that it’s sexual harassment, but in reality a lot of women engage in a proxy dick-measuring context by showing off pictures of relevant penises to their girlfriends. Your fuck buddy is boasting about your big dick when she’s hanging out with her besties, too. It’s part of standard female behavior. This is much more common in the West, it seems. I have it on good authority that in various Asian cultures it is a taboo among women to discuss sex or show a particular interest in the topic, to begin with.
Another aspect makes nurses an interesting topic of study: There used to be a time where a young, attractive woman had a good chance to marry a high-status man if she managed to break into those circles, even if only in an ancillary role. Big Dick CEOs married hot secretaries who barely finished high school, and Dr. Chad put a ring on Nurse Stacy, and lived happily ever after. This may have worked well until the late 80s or early 90s, but today, the name of the game is assortative mating. Dr. Chad may not even bang Stacy in the supply room anymore because he’s afraid of getting #metoo-ed. Even if that wasn’t a problem, he wouldn’t marry her because he probably wants a woman who is closer to him in terms of socio-economic status. Nurses who entered the profession in the last decade or so may still have had high hopes of seducing doctors, popping out a few kids, and retiring at the age of 24. Only once they have been burned, after realizing that this ship has sailed, will later generations have learned the lesson.
Time lag in societal trends is a big issue. It seems to take well over a decade before there is widespread knowledge of how the environment has changed. You still have absurd numbers of students in Law School, even though that path is a lot less lucrative nowadays, for instance. It’s just like how some people bought Bitcoin at the very peak. They read about X doing great, so they think that this will now be true forever and they get burned. To draw the connection to nurses: medicine used to be male-dominated profession. However, today women have either achieved parity or they even outnumber men in this field. This is largely due to changed admissions standards. I recall reading about how Western universities give female applicants a leg up over their male competitors. Anyway, the upshot is that today’s nurses are competing over a much lower supply of doctors, and those doctors may no longer have any interest in getting involved with nurses, both at the level of one-night stands or affairs, due to #metoo, as well as for long-term relationships, due to assortative mating. Also, men have less of an interest in getting married anyway these days.
In summary, the reputation of nurses seems to have less to do with those women being different in any way from other women. Instead, they behave in a less-restrained manner simply because they work in a female-dominated environment. The stereotype of nurses trying to seduce doctors exists for a reason, but the world has changed. In some sense, those nurses had been preparing for a world that no longer exists because Dr. Chad is not going to risk his career for some shallow sexual encounters with one of his nurses. Thus, there is now an oversupply of sexually active women who don’t have enough men among them to go around. Nurses arguably deserve the reputation they have, just like everyone else. Yet, we should cut them a bit of slack because the issue is not that nurses are particularly naughty. Instead, chances are that you are giving regular women too much credit. Put them in an all-female environment, and they’ll probably behave in a disreputable manner in no time.
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.
I’ve a really funny story to share. When I was studying abroad I once hung out with some Singaporean and Hong Kong peers. All of us girls were playing the game “I have never”, where everyone starts out with the same number of lives and takes turns to say something they’ve never ever done. The aim is to “kill” other people’s lives by saying what you’ve never done but think many others have done before.
One of the HK girls said “I’ve never not had sex”, thinking that she could take some others down with her (I don’t know why she wanted to kill one of her own lives in the process). But this was followed by dead silence and then she burst out laughing in a mix of embarrassment and incredulity. We quickly moved on.
I’m always impressed when I meet a woman that’s a nurse. It’s a profession that’s in great demand in the US, with a decent middle-class salary, and nurses make a real impact on people’s lives.
Compare this to a woman I was speaking with the other day who is an adjunct art professor. She spent a lot of time complaining about her poverty-level income, but did she spend 5 minutes to research the job market before she went down that career path? Similarly, there are hordes of women who major in something like women’s studies, and then wonder why they can only get a job at a coffee shop when they graduate. A lot of these women are enabled by parents who tell them to pursue their passions, and often cover a good portion of their expenses for a while.
I’ll take someone who picked something practical for a career, and not your average over-“educated” bullshit artist.
I agree with you. I think that nursing, just like allied health professions in general, is a great career choice. In addition to the positive aspects you mentioned, those jobs can’t be outsourced, so they provide a level of security that is hard to find elsewhere.
The phenomenon that parents are fine with their daughters studying highly questionable subjects is very common here in Europe as well. I think many parents are fine with it because they mentally live in a boomer world in which their sweetheart will marry some guy anyway and drop out of the workforce. This is still a fairly common life trajectory, yet men are increasingly dropping out of the blue-pill provider arms race. Also note that university degrees are normally free in Europe, so our baristas are not saddled with $250k in student loan debt. They are still screwed, but not as much as women in the US in a similar situation.
“Also note that university degrees are normally free in Europe, so our baristas are not saddled with $250k in student loan debt. They are still screwed, but not as much as women in the US in a similar situation.”
I am happy to see discussions in Switzerland about “clawback clauses” for students who study at the expense of the taxpayer yet then don’t go to work. Of course the argument is framed in a neutral way, i.e. it was discussing both men and women who study useless stuff, but everybody knows what the discussion is all about, i.e. women studying worthless shit and then working part time in a clothing store.
That’s interesting. However, such a clawback would strike me as only a roundabout solution. Why not just shutter “women’s studies” and related departments altogether? I find it scandalous enough that taxpayers’ money is wasted on those. In Germany, there are around 200 professorships in this discipline, so we are talking about a hefty 8-digit Euro amount in salaries and if you add the cost of running a department, payment for extra staff, maintenance of libraries (online and offline), the total easily in the order of 100+ million euros annually. Then take into account the societal damage that kind of indoctrination creates and the waste of time and money of students, and you may even end up with a billion euros or so wasted every single year. It’s mindboggling. Note that this is just one discipline. There are many more utterly useless subjects, like the entire field of “grievance studies”, as critical commentators call them.
“Why not just shutter “women’s studies” and related departments altogether?”
I think this is a political question. My libertarian view says that as long as we go by the “Verursacherprinzip” there is no need to ban any topic to study. It just must have the fair price. It will become unsustainable very soon, wouldn’t you say?
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
(https://nzzas.nzz.ch/magazin/schweizer-frauen-haben-es-gern-bequem-nun-macht-mal-vorwaerts-ld.1522295)
“Was Schweizerinnen endlich anpacken sollen, lässt sich grob auf vier Punkte reduzieren.
(…)
Drittens: Frauen (und Männer!), die ein Studium in erster Linie als lustiges Konsumerlebnis sehen und danach sofort Teilzeit arbeiten oder gar auf Arbeitstätigkeit verzichten, zahlen ihr Studium zurück («clawback»).
Hunderte Millionen Franken subventionierter Bildungs-Fun ist egoistisch, volkswirtschaftlicher Unsinn, belastet die Steuerzahlerinnen und ist schlichtweg ungerecht. Dass die Liberalen nicht schon längst einen Clawback oder Studiengebühren fordern, verwundert sehr.
Viertens: Frauen leisten ebenfalls Militär- oder Zivildienst. Dass die selbsternannte Leadership-Institution Armee zu dumm ist, um zu verstehen, dass unter den Stärksten, Mutigsten und Schlausten des Landes rein statistisch etwa die Hälfte Frauen wären, und sich damit selber unnötig schwächt, macht die Sache nicht besser.”
(let’s ignore that women are statistically not represented at a rate of 50% among the smartest part of the population. NZZ is still a leftist, fact-ignoring, truth-spinning piece of shit paper, but that’s life)
And here, my favourite part:
“Schweizerinnen studieren beispielsweise sehr gerne und immer öfter – danach mit dem teuer Erlernten viel arbeiten, das machen aber eher weniger von ihnen. Eine vor einigen Jahren veröffentlichte Studie zeigt, dass vier Jahre nach Studienabschluss nur die Hälfte aller Schweizer Akademikerinnen voll arbeiten (Männer: 72 Prozent). 14 Prozent arbeiten sogar weniger als 50 Prozent. Und keine Angst, die Zahlen haben sich in den darauffolgenden Untersuchungsjahren nicht gross verändert.
Wir bilden also teuer Frauen (und zugegeben auch einige Männer) aus, die dann zu grossen Teilen lieber Teilzeit arbeiten, und das noch lange bevor sie Kinder allenfalls dazu zwingen würden. Klar ist, dass die Frauen so natürlich nicht ihre volle Arbeitskraft, ihr Wissen, ihre Kreativität und Erfahrung einbringen können, geschweige denn Karriere machen.
Bei einem oft benutzten Richtwert von 20 000 Franken Kosten pro Studentin und Studienjahr kommen bei 100 000 Schweizer Studentinnen pro Jahr mehrere hundert Millionen Franken an zumindest statistisch «verlorenen» Ausbildungskosten zusammen. Doch das Teilzeiteln der Schweizerinnen gilt nicht nur in der Akademikerinnenwelt: Insgesamt arbeiten Schweizerinnen noch immer rund 15 Prozent weniger als beispielsweise die Schwedinnen.
Die gängigste Verteidigung für diese Situation ist jeweilen, dass Frauen wegen der Kinder dazu gezwungen werden. Merkwürdig nur, dass die wenig arbeitenden Schweizer Frauen auch wenig Kinder betreuen müssen. Die Geburtenrate liegt bei 1,54 Kindern pro Schweizerin. Schwedinnen bekommen 1,85 Kinder – haben also zumindest statistisch 17 Prozent mehr Betreuungsaufwand.
Auch wenn Kinderbetreuung sicher nicht linear mit der Anzahl Kinder steigt, sind Zahlen nun mal Zahlen. Wer Zahlen zu kalt oder zu abstrakt findet, dem sei eine Fahrt mit einer beliebigen Schweizer S-Bahn um 11 Uhr vormittags zu empfehlen – einer Zeit, in der wirklich alle, die beschäftigt sind, beschäftigt sind (Büro, Industrie, Gastronomie, Bildung, Verkauf): viele Frauen allen Alters, aber praktisch keine Männer. Was genau machen alle diese Frauen um diese Zeit in der S-Bahn?
Auf Kosten der Allgemeinheit
Schweizerinnen betreuen also weniger Kinder, arbeiten aber trotzdem weniger. Es ist jedoch nicht bekannt, dass die vielen Kinder der mehr arbeitenden Schwedinnen vermehrt als degenerierte Problemkinder enden würden, weil ihnen (mütterliche) Liebe und Zeit vorenthalten wurde.
Laut übereinstimmenden Studien existiert entgegen der Ansicht vieler Schweizerinnen keine Korrelation zwischen Rabenmüttern und Problemkindern. Vieles deutet sogar auf das Gegenteil hin: Das Problem, das schon länger erkannt wird, ist Overparenting. Mehr Zeit für Kinder zu haben, ist vielleicht sogar richtig und schön, aber es sollte als das bezeichnet werden, was es ist: ein Luxus auf Kosten der Allgemeinheit.
Spätestens hier kommen in der Regel drei Argumente. Zuerst einmal könne man Schwedinnen nicht mit Schweizerinnen vergleichen. Zweitens müssen Frauen mehr Zeit für Kinderbetreuung aufwenden, weil die entsprechenden Einrichtungen fehlen. Und neuerdings kommt jeweilen noch ein Argument: Die halt konservativen Schweizerinnen wollen sich bei der Erziehung nicht staatlich bevormunden lassen.
Alle drei Argumente stechen aber leider nicht. Aber der Reihe nach. Schweden und die Schweiz sind ähnlicher, als man denkt. Die Länder sind etwa gleich gross und wirtschaftlich ähnlich entwickelt – notabene mit vielen Sektoren, die traditionell offener und einfacher für Frauenkarrieren sind. Vor allem aber sind beide Länder eher wertkonservative Gesellschaften mit historisch gewachsenen Strukturen, klaren gesellschaftlichen Regeln und keinen kriegs- oder revolutionsbedingten Disruptionen. Es ist vor diesem Hintergrund überhaupt nicht nachvollziehbar, wieso in Schweden die Frauen mehr arbeiten und gleichzeitig mehr Kinder haben als in der Schweiz.
Argument Kinderbetreuungs-Infrastruktur. Stimmt, da sind Schweden, Frankreich oder gar Deutschland in der Tat deutlich besser aufgestellt. In der Deutschschweiz nutzen laut der eben veröffentlichten BfS-Studie noch immer nur rund 50 Prozent der Familien eine Form von Krippen oder Ähnlichem (in der Romandie ist die Zahl – wenig überraschend – höher).
Doch wenn es auf der Welt ein Land gäbe, das finanziell in der Lage wäre, quasi mit einem Fingerschnippen eine flächendeckende Infrastruktur von Kinderkrippen und Tagesschulen (ob nun staatlich, staatlich-privat oder privat mit Vouchern) zu schaffen – dann ist es die Schweiz. Entweder top-down via Parlament oder bottom-up via Volksinitiativen. Einzelne Kantone könnten vorpreschen und hier Standortvorteile aufbauen. Frauen sowie moderne und wirtschaftlich rechnende Männer ergäben in jedem Fall eine strukturelle Mehrheit für ein solches Anliegen – oder aber die Mehrheit der Frauen möchte keine Veränderung. Denn es passiert interessanterweise nichts.
Dieselbe Schweiz könnte ebenfalls mit einem Fingerschnippen die Heiratsstrafe abschaffen und damit Zweit-Vollzeitarbeit steuerlich gleichstellen. Aber scheinbar möchten die Frauen auch dies lieber nicht, denn sonst wäre plötzlich viel mehr Druck da, zu arbeiten.
All dies fordern Schweizerinnen nicht: Entsprechende Volksinitiativen sind inexistent. Feministisch-getünchte Inaktivität und bornierte Passivität der Frauen reicht in der Schweiz bis tief in linke Sphären und ist genaugenommen Ausdruck einer Opferrolle, in der man es sich sehr bequem eingerichtet hat.
Das dritte Argument – Frauen wollen halt traditionelle Geschlechterrollen – ist besonders lustig. Wer konservative Positionen anführt, sollte diese nämlich einmal zu Ende denken. Staatliche Bevormundung abstellen? Gerne, dann aber auch keine staatlichen Ausbildungssubventionen für Frauen.
Man könnte den konservativen Gedanken auch noch weiterspinnen und fordern, dass Frauen gemäss der klassischen Rollenteilung nicht mehr beziehungsweise nur begrenzt zu weiterführenden Ausbildungen oder zum Studium zugelassen werden oder ihr Studium selber bezahlen sollen.
Man könnte auch das Frauenwahlrecht wieder abschaffen oder zumindest einschränken (sie haben ja «eine andere Rolle»). Traditionelle Geschlechterrollen? Wir könnten hier, wie weiter oben dargestellt, viele Millionen sparen und mit diesem Geld etwa die AHV entlasten.
Man kann den Staat sehr gerne aus der Genderdiskussion entfernen. Dann muss man aber auch Nein sagen zu genderspezifischen De-facto-Subventionen wie bei der Bildung, der Freistellung vom Militär- und Zivildienst oder dem Pensionsalter. Protokonservative Positionen gibt es eben nicht nach Gusto.”
(…)
“Fassen wir also noch einmal zusammen. Schweizer Frauen haben wenige Kinder, möchten diese wenigen Kinder aber so intensiv betreuen, dass sie klar weniger arbeiten als ihre Schwestern in vergleichbaren Ländern. Sie sind offenbar gerne finanziell abhängig von ihrem Partner – auch wenn sie aus politischen Gründen männerkritisch sind. An Führungs- und damit Machtpositionen sind sie nur begrenzt interessiert.
Dieses traditionelle Frauenbild konterkarieren Schweizerinnen aber mit ihrem Anspruch, auf Staatskosten äusserst gut ausgebildet zu werden. Sie leisten keinen Militär-und Zivildienst und gehen zumindest offiziell ein Jahr früher in Rente als Männer, obwohl sie generell länger leben.
Dabei reisen sie übrigens viel und gerne und fliegen beispielsweise sogar mehr als Männer (obwohl sie es beruflich kaum müssen) – offenbar haben sie viel Zeit zum Rumfliegen. Irgendwie schwindet hier das Verständnis für Frauenstreiks aller Art. Vielmehr möchte man eigentlich auch gerne Schweizer Frau sein.”
I can’t imagine an article that critical of women to be published in a mainstream mouthpiece in any other Western country. The comparisons with Sweden are quite off, though. The biggest issue is that the total fertility rate is misleading as there is a particular demographic that has a lot of children whereas that author suggests that blonde native-born Swedish women are outcompeting their Swiss counterparts in the birthing competition. Of course, in Sweden race is a taboo topic so it is very difficult or even impossible to get data. I once asked a Swedish midwife about it, by the way. First she played dumb, then she got really upset when I used the terms “race” and “ethnicity”, telling me that “we are all black or white or anything else, just to different degrees”, which gave me a good chuckle.
“I can’t imagine an article that critical of women to be published in a mainstream mouthpiece in any other Western country. ”
Actually I was quite impressed, too.
NZZ has been degenerating significantly since 2013, but recently they seem to paddle back. In 2015, the midst of the migrant shit show they closed the comment function. Now they re-opened it again, albeit with restrictions.
Pendulum seems to swing back a lot.
Here’s another topic for your other blog: To what extent is the EU already gone?
Seems like nationalism is coming back and we’ll see more than just the Brexit in terms of countries exiting. I say Italy is a prime candidate for the next nation to leave.
Anyway, don’t want to hijack the nurse topic too much.
That’s interesting. I have to ask my girlfriend if she has heard some of these stories.
She’s in her first year of education and about to become a certified nurse in 2022.
Generally, I’d suggest the consideration that sectors with high levels of social interactions and irregular working hours generally attract easy women. Think hospitality and airlines. Nursing fits right into that category.
Good point. Doctors, at least in this part of the world, are famed for only seriously dating within their class/profession, because they can’t be trusted when horny after 36-hour shifts and shit.
I’ve always been very attracted to nurses. I prefer women in nurturing, feminine careers. Except teachers. In my anecdotal experience they tend to be old maids who love children but can’t find a man to have them with.
Aaron,
“…the official narrative is that women hate getting dick picks”
In other words, they only love it if Chad is sending them dick pics despite what women claim?
“…nurses seem to generally have a reputation for having loose morals.”
“…they behave in a less-restrained manner simply because they work in a female-dominated environment.”
On a related note, I have known couple of girls in the past who were former strippers who became medical assistance. A medical assistant isn’t really a career path here in the US but it’s a stepping stone. What surprises me is that a lot of guys tend to associate or attribute “career” and “quality” interchangeably. For instance, a lot of men often think that a woman who is a nurse is often a quality woman for marriage or relationship since she has her life together.
If men really knew what kind of background some of these nurses had in their past they would be in shock. Some of the strippers who I knew who became nurses detested their past. Men don’t realise a how slutty of a background some of these nurses have.
That’s a good point. However, nowadays it is quite common for young women to make money with their bodies on the side. Stripping, camming, or being a sugar baby have also reached mainstream acceptance in the West, it seems. This means that today, you’ll find former strippers in all walks of life. Thus, men should do their due diligence no matter what job a woman has.