Women in STEM

From IncelWiki.com, the largest incel encyclopedia
The gender disparity in STEM explained.

Women in STEM refers to an effort by technocratic feminists to increase female power and representation in the information technology work sector.

There is controversy in the incelosphere about the presence of women in STEM, with some incels excited by the idea of having women to talk to about nerdy hobbies. Others claim that having higher amounts of women in STEM workplaces increases potential dating opportunities for incels. In contrast, most tradcon incels are vehemently against the idea.

Female with masculine characteristics operating an early computer.

Do co-ed spaces help inceldom?[edit]

Scientific studies only show only a mild-effect size as far as co-ed spaces helping incels.

While it may be corrupting to the STEM fields, having co-ed classes seems to be statistically more beneficial to men than not, when controlling for time. Indeed, according to a study by Ivy Wong, students in single-sex classes report later onset of dating experience and fewer dating partners than members of co-ed classes,[1] however the effect sizes were small (d = .2) and in most other measures of sexual activity there were no significant effects. So in other words, yes having co-ed classes means more dates and partners, just by a very small amount, and it isn’t known who exactly benefits.

A similar study by Ivy Wong demonstrated that students from single-sex classes report more anxiety around the opposite gender than students from co-ed classes, again with a small effect size (d=0.26). Men from mixed schools also had more close friends of the opposite gender, with a moderate effect size (d= .47).[2]

According to the Donnelly Study, some incels report gender segregation at work and lack of exposure to females in general as a cause of their celibacy, especially among male incels.[3] A study of Redditors found lack of exposure to the opposite gender as the ~9th most common cause of their singledom and 4.70% of all responses (see causes of inceldom).

These studies show potential for women in STEM vis-a-vis incels.


However, not all incels agree, citing female hypergamy among other things.

More recent research (McClintock, 2020) has indicated that heterosexual males in occupational categories that have a surplus of women are less likely to initiate cohabitation or marriage than men in more male-typical jobs (that have a high ratio of males in those professions).[4] While this effect is argued to be mainly mediated by the social penalties of violating gender norms or the characteristics of men that are drawn to these profiles, it is interesting to note that this analysis found little evidence that mere exposure to a large amount of women at the workplace improved men's marriage prospects. The study attempted to control for potential confounding factors such as income and occupational status. There was only an effect found for men being in more "communicative jobs," which was argued to be mostly a product of the interpersonal skills demanded by such occupations.

However, such findings may not necessarily apply to some STEMcels, as work may the only real source of social opportunities for particularly socially isolated individuals.

Social engineering[edit]

There is a reasonably strong desire in feminist, liberal developed countries to bring more women into STEM fields. One tactic has been letting any woman with arms into any low-level tech job, which, of course, causes issues. Other tactics have consisted of campaigns to encourage “girls who code.” Proponents include Karlie Kloss, Hillary Clinton, the entire U.S. Democratic Party, various tech boot camps, and various documentaries such as Code Girl Movie.[5]


Women as “pioneers in STEM”[edit]

Feminists hold up female engineers such as Margaret Hamilton, as “powerful” examples of women being pioneers in STEM.[6] These feminists usually don’t elaborate on how this applies to any large portion of women. Nor do feminists acknowledge that engineering such as computer engineering is not seen as, “discovery”, type academic work.[7] But rather, more to do with relative and temporary societal concerns.

Many of these women often also received substantial male aid and patronage, or were even posthumously given credit for work they didn’t play a large role in by eager feminists, e.g., Ada Lovelace, who is often claimed to be the first computer programmer in history, was likely predated by her confidant Charles Babbage in this accomplishment, and there is no actual evidence that she contributed in any substantial way to Babbage’s work in this regard.[8]

Even the unquestionably most distinguished female scientist in history, Marie Curie-Skłodowska (a two time Nobel prize winner), is apparently less eminent in regards to encyclopedia entries and academic citations, than her husband and colleague Pierre Curie, according to the author Charles Murray.[9]

Developing countries[edit]

There exist more women in STEM in developing countries than in developed countries.[10]

This is commonly known as the gender-equality paradox, where more gender egalitarian countries are often seen to exhibit stronger sexual dimorphism in a number of occupational, physiological and behavioral outcomes than many less egalitarian countries. For example, Fryer and Levitt (2010) found less of a gender gap in mathematics PISA scores in Middle-Eastern countries than Western countries.[11]

This is seen as possibly born from economic necessity, and it may also stem from parental restriction of women’s career choices. Since people in these countries often have more salient immediate survival concerns than in developed countries, it can represent a sound economic investment to induce a talented daughter to enter a potentially high paying STEM career path, as opposed to the “intersectional feminist studies” type nonsense that girls in developed countries are frequently allowed to study.


See also[edit]

This page contains text from an editor (Altmark) who wanted his text released under CC-BY-4.0. William also releases his text on this page under the same license, and so this whole page is CC-BY-4.0, with the exception of content released under other licenses. If using the material under this license, you may credit it as: Altmark, William et al, unless otherwise stated to not credit William, in which case to just credit: Altmark et al. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use outside of here unless expressely stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.