"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:6qu4ju4i27ra7ti5gts1ndhivj7onim5mj at 4ax.com...
> "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.
If Grace Murray Hopper really did invent the compiler, then her impact has
been far beyond that of Marie Curie, and most Nobel Laureates in general.
http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/hopper.html
