I like how it is explained away as a latent "woman-hating" directly in the Wikipedia article when clearly it is anything but.
"The God particle" or the "Women are wonderful effect".
I've now read the Wikipedia page and it's still unclear what they actually demonstrated and to what degree we can actually have faith in what they found once we figure out what that actually was, never mind what conclusions are safe to draw from it.
Maybe it's "clickbaity" yes but isn't that a good thing in the realm of knowledge? It's not like I'm paying to read that wikipedia article or to learn about super-massive black-holes.
The fact that the Wikipedia article doesn't contain a lot of information or that the subject hasn't been researched enough has nothing to do with the name IMO.
Pretty simple to summarize imo
> Although research on competence judgments has not shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work, it has demonstrated prejudice against women in masculine domains (e.g. male-dominated jobs, male-stereotypic behavior). This targeted form of prejudice is consistent with the generally more favorable evaluation of women than men obtained in attitude and stereotype studies because this positive evaluation derives primarily from the ascription to women of nice, nurturant, communal characteristics, which people think qualify individuals for the domestic role as well as for low-status, low-paying female-dominated jobs. Women's experiences of gender discrimination and feminist protests concerning a contemporary backlash against women reflect women's inroads into traditionally masculine arenas, especially their efforts to gain access to high-status, high-paying male-dominated jobs, which are thought to require characteristics stereotypically ascribed to men.