/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

There is no doubt that some women are perfectly fine mentally speaking to conduct STEM research, it's just a significantly smaller portion of the female population that is able and willing to do so.
Regarding your picture, even if that unsourced infographic is true (doubt it), that shit has been done since time immemorial regardless of sex.

In high school there were just as many girls as boys getting top marks in school/ stem. In my school system it was cool to be smart and the most popular people were usually the smartest.

In university I think women get brainwashed into Marxism/ sjw. Which is unfortunate as the smartest girls went to uni. And they were often hard workers who paid their way with jobs or scholarships.
They were then converted to feminists and delayed kids until 30s, if ever.

The problem as I see it with STEM careers, is that even if girls got top STEM marks in highschool, at a certain point in their 20-30s, they get bored. I think hormones change and drive them to more creative or nurturing things.
Hormones may also be driving them to find a mate and procreate but since they have a career and are feminists, it turns into bitchiness, manipulation, bullying and a toxic workplace.

Women are angry and unhappy but don't know why because we have disconnected humans from animals and don't believe we are affected by biological drives.

Over the last few generations, this has caused dysgenics. Plus all the environmental toxins, cultural Marxism, critical theory, etc. And intelligent/ responsible women being told not to over populate the planet, whereas the druggies, race mixers and low IQ didn't care.



So yes, women are smart enough but many lose interest.
And the dysgenic effect on women has arguably been worse then in men…..



I have seen articles stating that the white race has lost 15 IQ points since the Victorian times. You can Google it. I believe they attributed it to war and birth control as well.
Note- this

>What are outliers
Women with exceptional qualities of intelligence should and are allowed to peruse scientific fields. They just should expect that it will make them happy.

And what, you think just because some Women had credit taken from them that the same thing doesn't happen to men on a regular basis? Ah, but when it happens to women it's sexist!

Nonsense.

>>12516
Shouldn't*, sorry.

Engineer here.

From my experience most women aren't pedantic enough to be a good Engineer. You need the kind of mind that is interested seemingly insignificant details.

>>12516
If you're referring to my original post, nowhere did I claim sexism, and reading through the replies thus far I don't see that anyone else did either. In fact if anything I'm supporting the claim that women aren't cut out for STEM fields, and merely curious as to why that is. So take your shilling back to /pol/, thanks.

>>12514
Damn that's a really good point I hadn't thought of. Now that you bring that up I am curious whether or not a woman, relatively red-pilled in terms of SJW tactics and cultural marxism, wou>>12522
ld have a better chance of succeeding and maintaining interest/focus in more scientific fields even through the typical "child bearing" years.

>>12522
Also an interesting point. Do you think that attention to detail can be cultivated? I know plenty of people, both male and female, who aren't all that detail-oriented.

Messed up my post, damn tiny phone keyboards.

>>12536
Your OP picture insinuated sexism as the reason for those women not succeeding in STEM.

OP's question is irrelevant and really shouldn't be a point for discussion any longer.

There are some rare diamonds of women that have the capacity for STEM work, and it is the LAST thing they should be doing.

These intelligent Aryan women should be at home breeding intelligent white children. I'm talking like SIX to EIGHT kids. Odds are a few will be boys and their contribution will far outstrip anything their mother could have ever accomplished in a lab.

We as a white community need to really start re-thinking our priorities.

The fact that we ask ourselves "should women be in STEM?" means we haven't come far enough…We should be asking "how do we start forcing intelligent white women to breed?"

>>12536
>Do you think that attention to detail can be cultivated?

Probably, but it would be an uphill battle. Like trying to change the kind of food or music you like.

the thing about the kind of women who go into STEM is that they're often considered weird and offputting by 'normal' women.

my ex wife was like this, she was largely driven by reason and logic (with of course emotional outbursts at times), and her all-female department treated her like an exotic animal or insect. They simply couldn't understand why she'd get upset when people prioritized socializing and 'making sure nobody's feelings get hurt' over accomplishing goals.

>>12603
I read an article about women in the tech industry. There are two different people.
Women in Tech™ and women who work in the tech industry.

Women in Tech™ are just retards who blog about how they were raped because someone said a joke to someone else and they were within 20 feet of the two people. They never actually do anything technical.

Women who work in the tech industry don't give a fuck if someone makes a joke, work hard, and rarely if ever get on social media.

Sounds like your ex was one of the later types working with the former.

>>12498
Discovery is also attributed to chance, being at the right place at the right time standing on the right knowledge that has been made available by other people.

So, thus I am skeptic at your OP image, because women in STEM has been made a touchy subject, it is not out of the question that this could be false and in fact mere propaganda, people want to believe and make believe. I'm sure some women made some discoveries.

The fact that if men have kids and their wives supports them, they might have greater drive to succeed than unmarried men whereas women who have kids will have a hard time continuing her work while having kids.

Also men tend to be more interested in STEM, increasing the chances a man will be on the discovery, the top individuals will also be men, top individuals don't have 100% of being successful, but their chances are greater.

Nursing isn't really stem

The problem goes deeper, Matriarchal society has created a STEM-Beta underclass to work their cult of Technis. Most of these people cannot really adapt to modern life in the way that is now demanded. Women have no interest in having careers that are not socially fulfilling. Yet once again feminism creates its own problem. They will not join hard sciences, maths or tech because there is not anyone there they want to talk to. Granted this has changed in recent decades due to propaganda, more women are getting into these fields than ever to only find out they don't enjoy them in the slightest. A far greater crime than a few not feeling comfortable as it has been till present. Women also see the "S" and have saturated life and medical sciences- turning them pink over the last few decades.

>>12607
I agree with this quite a bit

>>12498
I would prefer to see evidence about those claims. Overall though, I really don't think it matters. I got involved in technology, and I've never had a "hero" in science, or someone I looked up to. I just liked it a lot.

Girls that I have seen that have gotten out of tech, it has usually been for 3 reasons:
1) mandatory public school killing personal interests after 15 years (affects men too)
2) stupid academic grading methods (to weed people out - imo, females are more sensitive, and they therefore respond more negatively to being treated like a number)
3) other things to do as a girl. One of the smartest girls I know dropped college to become a model. I've met some male models, but they don't make as much money, and they still want to start their own businesses, etc.

I can tell you that the girl that's a model now, and another female I know, are among the smartest people I've met. Neither one is doing STEM - which, imho, is a shame, since they could contribute so much.

Hormones affect your interests:
http://news.psu.edu/story/155787/2011/09/01/sex-hormones-impact-career-choices

IMO this is basically the end of the argument.

>>13161
"We found there is a biological influence on that interest toward things, so maybe women aren’t going into STEM careers because what they're interested in – people – isn't consistent with an interest in STEM careers," said Beltz. "Maybe we could show females ways in which an interest in people is compatible with STEM careers."

>>12551

I'd argue that's true of anyone, regardless of gender.

By the time a person sees the obvious benefits of the STEM fields or a language, or how to play guitar, or any other skill, really, they've already lost some of their neuroplasticity. Granted, you never really lose it all until Alzheimer's kicks in an brings a whole host of other issues, but it's still not as easy as it would have been to learn the foundations when you were five or ten.

One could very easily make a case for talent, which would certainly make it easier, but it would still be an undertaking, else everyone would be Renaissance Men.

Computer Engineer here. Let me clear up a few things.

First off, it does not actually take exceptional intelligence to get into STEM. Yes - usually the people who get into STEM, and who MATTER, are exceptionally intelligent. But most people getting engineering degrees, for example, are going to go into jobs where engineering degrees weren't really strictly necessary, and will never deal with any calculus outside of their classes in school. A person of average intelligence, if they work hard, can muddle through the more difficult STEM classes, do well in others, come out and get one of those jobs. Really, in all honesty, they could be trained ON THE JOB for it. There's no reason why they had to have 4 years of engineering school that they most likely forget the majority of within a year.


So could women do well in STEM? Yes, but most likely the majority of them would then go into the low-key jobs that didn't really require a STEM degree. These are often good steady jobs - you put in time, you get paid well - which is why they appeal specifically to MEN. You know the stereotype about Asians dominating engineering? It's not because they're particularly smart. It's because they're gunning for these nice, steady, well-paid jobs, because those sorts of jobs are ideal for supporting a family, and that's what Asian men are most concerned with long-term. Which I'm not insulting at all, it's a very good goal to have.

But those sorts of jobs don't appeal to women because they usually don't have to support a family. Women in general want:

1. A job with significant leisure time (not necessarily a bad thing, I want one like that too, but if I had a family I'd be willing to give it up to support them)
2. A job that nets them some social prestige (Which, most of the engineering jobs are quiet, behind the scenes sort of things)

Which is why you see propaganda like the pic in OP running. No one's saying to women, "Oh hey, girls, get into STEM so you can work in this medicinal manufacturing plant, and quietly make sure it runs smoothly, and get paid well to support your family!" They're saying "Women, go into STEM so you can claim the social prestige these MEN get" while failing to mention those men are a very, very, very small portion of the people who get into STEM.

So I think it actually has little to do with women's intelligence and more to do with women's desires. Women don't desire the typical STEM job. They would like the social prestige of the EXCEPTIONAL STEM job, but they don't necessarily consider getting that job all that likely, and there are easier routes to social prestige anyway.

tl;dr: The average STEM job isn't all that exciting and is more suited to quietly supporting your family, and the last thing women want is to sacrifice their time to quietly support their family.