"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>The simple fact that they have to go back a century and dredge up a woman
>who got a Nobel Prize BECAUSE her husband requested she be added to the list
>is proof enough of the lack of women Nobel Prize winners, eh?
http://www.almaz.com/nobel/women.html
lists 30 women who won Nobel prizes, many of them in the sciences, despite
the fact that because of sexism, women have had few opportunities to work in
the sciences.
The reason for going back to Marie Curie is that she was especially
noteworthy among scientists in general, made one of the most significant
discoveries of her time, did so under conditions even more adverse than women
face today, and was recognized within the first couple of years after the
Nobel prizes were established. (She also raised a daughter to the level that
30 years later she also won a Nobel prize in the sciences.)
That her husband requested her recognition is because he admitted that she
was at least as instrumental in the discovery as he was. In other words, he
was honest, unlike yourself.
lojbab
