John Knight wrote:
>"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
>>John Knight wrote:
>>>"Shadow Dancer" <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote in message
>>>>I guess you forgot that people like Marie Curie are solely
>>>>responsible for the use of X-rays and similar systems. I guess you
>>>>did a good job of ignoring all the women who likewise contributed
>>>>significantly to health, and society in general. But then again,
>>>>they'd skew your male-favoring statistics, wouldn't they?
>>>Really? Why did Pierre write the following about the HALF of a
Nobel
>>>Prize he got (a CENTURY ago), a quarter of which was "awarded" to
>>>Marie, but ONLY after he complained to the committee that:
>>>A joint award is "more satisfying from the artistic point of view".
>>>http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
>>>Does this *really*sound to you that Marie was "solely responsible
>>>for the use of X-rays"?
>>>"members of the l'Acad»mie des Sciences, including Henri Poincar»
>>>and Gaston Darboux, had nominated Becquerel and Pierre Curie for
the
>>>Prize in Physics. Marie's name was not mentioned."
>>>Well, maybe not after all.
>>>Do you have any female accomplishments more recent than a century
>>>ago?
>>>No?
>>>Didn't think so.
>>>All we've come up with is Hanoi Jane Fonda? Are you fond'a Fonda?
>>Say what??? ...Now that's pretty sad, Mr. Knight, you're sitting
>>behind a computer in the Information Age yet you're still living in
>>the 1960s and invoking moldy invectives that are relevent mostly to
>>the over-45 crowd. (I'll wager "Hanoi Jane" was before some of our
>>times here).
>>...To wit, you have the World Wide Web at your disposal, where you
>>are free to look up any such information in question. Type a few
>>words into the Google search engine: "women inventors" or "women
>>scientists" for instance. One does not need to be a feminist scholar
>>to find out this information, you know. ...In fact, unless one has
>>been living under a rock for the past 50 years, the idea that there
>>have been no women who have accomplished *anything* at all is beyond
>>the realm of the absurd, as we have seen plenty of examples of
female
>>achievers over the course of the past century.
>I'm not the one who dredged up Hanoi Jane--the feminazis are.
...and you're assuming anyone else on this thread was thinking along
the same lines? You have no evidence that anyone did.
>THEY
>added her to "The Top 100 Women", which suggests that THEY are the
>ones desperate to find some great women
>http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050299.htm
OK, but YOU are the one who dropped the name of "Hanoi Jane" after
YOU presented the question of how many women have accomplished
anything within the past century.
>Do you know what's wrong with your list of names? They were hired
>during the era of affirmative action.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Did you even bother
to read the links to the biographies? Most of the names I cited were
of individuals who attained positions years before the era of the
1960s and 70s.
Let's take a look at a few of the names here:
-Gertrude Belle Elion "patented the leukemia-fighting drug
6-mercaptopurine in 1954 and has made a number of significant
contributions to the medical field."
http://web.mit.edu/invent/www/inventorsA-H/elion2.html
[The "1954" date was included in the last post. Did that escape you
somehow?]
-Stephanie Kwolek, chemist and inventor, winner of the Perkins medal:
http://www.chemheritage.org/perkin/Kwolek/kwolek.html ...graduated in
1946 and hired by DuPont shortly after. Was this during the "era of
affirmative action?" ...I think not.
-Jane Goodall. ...Was she "hired"? No, it was her idea to venture
out on her own with the intent of conducting her own research.
-Leni Riefenstahl. German-born filmmaker, creating her most famous
works during the 1930s. Did "affirmative action" put the visuals in
her head to make the dramatic cinematographic images she is most
famous for?
-Lise Meitner. ...That was also in the 1930s.
-Grace Murray Hopper. Worked during the 1940s.
http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/hopper.html
-Vinnie Ream Hoxie. ...Was she "hired during the era of affirmative
action?" Hell no, she lived IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (predating your
"past century" requirement).
...Like I said, Mr. Knight, "willful ignorance" does not do much to
back up your credibility.
>Do you know what that does to
>their reputation, no matter whay you may think about it? It TAINTS
>them, for the rest of their lives. Even IF they're completely worthy
>of the awards, the simple fact that the awards were handed out during
>that affirmative action era discredits each and every one of them,
>forverer, throughout the rest of time.
Now you are adding red herrings of subjectivity to your argument.
Your question was about women who "accomplished" anything. And, I
gave you a list of names of women who did indeed "accomplish" things.
...Now, even if we were assume your argument was true -- that they
were only there due to "affirmative action" -- how can we conclude
that their visions, work, and ideas were not indeed "accomplishments"?
Can we not deny that these individuals have all contributed to
society? ...That it was Kwolek's ideas that led to the invention of
Kevlar; Pert's ideas that led to her discovery and changed our
understanding of how the mind works; Elion's contributions to the
field of medicine, etc.
...Are these not "accomplishments"?
>In addition to that, now that the Gaussian Distribution of
>intellectual skills for men and women are fully known and can be
>easily compared, would you not have some serious reservations about
>how they even got their degrees? If not, then you are not a credible
>witness. http://christianparty.net/timss.htm
Your question was in regards to "accomplishments by women". I gave
you a list of women who made real, tangible contributions to society.
Now you're claiming that their accomplishments must not be valid
because of the way girls score on the recent TIMSS tests, even thought
these women DO exist, and they HAVE made contributions; and provided
enough excellent work to advance themselves within their fields,
within the companies that hired them, well after they were out of
school.
You are using a fallacy known as "circular logic", Mr. Knight. This
is a logical fallacy and therefore it is YOU who are not the "credible
witness". ...For even if it is a general pattern for girls not to
excel in math or science, you fail to take into consideration that
there are always those rare individuals who are the exceptions to the
rule.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://sojourns.150m.com/photoindex.html
