Talk:Women in STEM

JP's anecdote

please cite whatever Peterson is citing, as verbal anecdotes from an anti-incel are not valued to most incels. William

It's from one of his JRE appearances: https://youtu.be/jsMqSBB3ZTY?t=293 (<- odd that youtu.be blocked by this wiki as link). AFAIK the source of this claim is unknown. It's likely an unpublished result, but I see no reason to question it. Bibipi (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Donnelly Study

Will, could you point to the exact part that claims male-only work spaces were one of the largest predictors of inceldom? The study only seems to claim that malecels are more likely to face this issue than femcels, but without quantifying this. They subsume it under a point "living arrangements, work arrangements, and lack of transportation", which 20% of virgins and 28% singles reported as barriers. With <20% this does not seem to be one of the strongest predictors (e.g. compared to physical appearance ~50%, shyness ~90%, inability to relate to others socially 41% of virgins and 23% of singles)

More evidence pertaining this point:

Pro evidence:

• ...but small effect sizes and unfortunately not broken down by gender:

  graduates of single-sex schools and graduates of coeducational schools. No significant differences were found by school type in past and current engagement in 16 dating activities, in the level of involvement in or the duration of current dating experi-ences, or in the intention to marry the current dating partner, ps > .05. However, participants who attended single-sex schools reported a significantly later onset of first date than participants who attended coeducational schools (M = 16.97, SE = 0.19 vs. M = 16.25, SE = 0.18), t(455) = 2.74, p = .006, d = 0.26, and a significantly smaller number of boyfriends or girlfriends (M = 1.39, SE = 0.11 vs. M = 1.86, SE = 0.18), t(455) = 3.00, p = .003, d = 0.28.

  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1187-6

• • Redditors often mention the lack of contact to the opposite sex as the ~9th most common reason: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326904341_Why_Men_Stay_Single_Evidence_from_Reddit

Con evidence:

• There is less gender segregation now, but incel rates are higher than ever.
• MeToo and anti-harassment make the workplace a bad place to meet people.
• Meeting through coworkers has declined 50% despite decreasing gender segregation: https://www.swiss-miss.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screenshot-2019-07-14-19.41.53-480x377.png

Bibipi (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good points, I changed it to saying that some see it as a barrier. If no one saw it as a barrier then it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But it is a frequent complaint, just maybe not a top 8 complaint.William (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Also added your counterargumentsWilliam (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as pre-industry having sex-segragation and it not causing a problem vis-a-vis inceldom, that's probably because parnerhips were implicitly or explicitly arranged outside of work, culturally or otherwise. One could see the push towards less sex segragation in the workplace as a form of "culturally enforced partnerships", as there was a time when meeting through the workplace was quite high as well.William (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"one could see the push towards less sex segragation in the workplace as a form of culturally enforced partnerships", right except that sexual relationships seem to be often frowned upon in work environments and are in the way of and very prone to business politics. add to this metoo and it is a really bad idea. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#27.25_of_men_report_avoiding_one-on-one_meetings_with_female_work_colleagues Bibipi (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

women in STEM

We have one study in there that controls for time that Bibipi graciously gave. In that study, having it be co-ed improves the man's chances by a small amount. Inceldom rates vs. co-ed rates since 1990 is not strong evidence of the benefit of being in a co-ed class vs. not. It only shows that co-ed classes are not anywhere near enough to reverse inceldom. The only reason I would still think co-ed classes wouldn't be good would be if for some reason having men and women together destroys the social fabric or whatever, and that causes inceldom down the line, but that's both unlikely and hard to prove.

It's like the antidepressant argument. I can say that antidepressants 'don't work because suicide rates are going up. Well, that actually doesn't prove that antidepressants don't work. It's just an argument that they are not strong antidepressants and they shouldn't be used as first line treatment. To prove they don't work you need to reference a good study that isn't just correlation, which then show that yes, antidepressants don't actually work.

tl;dr, framing it as "do co-ed classes improve the incels situation", and then stuffing the paragraph with correlates is odd when co-ed classes clearly help incels (a tiny bit). Framing it as "how much do they help" is more accurate. The only reason someone might take such objection to this would be if they thought that co-ed classes hurt incels chances, which is just not accurate.William (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

the implications of this study was very limited as it only looked at averages, did not break down by social status. e.g. it could be that high status males have more sex in co-ed, but low status males less, so it cancels out most of the effect. evidence for this in the proposal below. Bibipi (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

While we don't have a WP:SYNTH rule like Wikipedia does, there are good reasons why they enforce their WP:SYNTH rule for controversial issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material . Relying on synthesis of already existing material creates an essay writing contest that never resolves (when the topic is controversial). William (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

On a more personal note, I went to sex-segregated school my whole life, there is no way in hell you can convince me that shit is good for incels in the absence of arranged partnerships. Like half my classmates from those things are still incels. The idea that spending no time around women growing up would be a boon to your social skills with women is just insane. On the other hand, co-ed classes can be miserable too, but at least you have a shot.William (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect both are bad, but co-ed slightly worse (evidence below). Bibipi (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Then please cite a window-in-time study referencing a group of men who suffer from co-ed classes if any exist. Otherwise this just becomes an essay contest that never resolves. The thrust of your paragraph seems to push in the direction of co-ed classes being harmful to incels, but as it defies common sense (as not having co-ed classes, there are not women to mate with), it would need a lot more than conjecture, anecdotes and citing women as hypergamousWilliam (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this section is kinda boring as it does not yield solid data. We do not know whether number of opposite sex friends trickles down to low status males. IIRC Scott Aaronson mentioned somewhere on his blog that many of his colleagues are/were incels. Still it is entirely anecdotal and indirect evidence. Suggest to remove it to shorten the article. Bibipi (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a good section imo as it's a highly talked about topic with regards to inceldomWilliam (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Women in STEM may be a boon to nerdcels who have already graduated

Given women date up in age and prefer to date those who have similar interests.William (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Move to "Women in science"?

E.g. due to the significance of women in the social sciences, which is not really STEM. Bibipi (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The popular meme surrounding the term tends to use the term "STEM" more. And it's generally focused on getting more women in realms where they are unrepresented, so the formal science fields where there is a lot of growth (machine learning, programming etc). The exclusion of social sciences from STEM doesn't seem clear, though many universities do only include natural and formal sciences as part of this category:https://stem.ucdavis.edu/what-is-stem/
However, since the whole article is more memey than academic is tone and broadly a rant opposing the general influence of women in academia at all, I suppose "women in science" would fit better. Altmark22 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

STEM are not created equal

Getting PhD in Astrophysics is much harder than fixing an old car or code some shit in javascript I assume that females can easily handle about 80% of casual STEM-fields. United States just have very underdeveloped tertiary education system comparing to Europe, so you are forced to get an university diploma even for the most nobrainy shit.