[,alt.religion.wicca,alt.education,alt.religion cut to reduce
spamming]
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:46:23 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org>
wrote:
[..]
>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.)
I am not surprised to see you ignoring Frederic Joliot-Curie as well as
Pierre Curie. After all, they were only men.
Marie Curie won her first Nobel *jointly* with Pierre Curie (the Curies
were awarded half the Nodel Prize for Physics in 1903, the other
half going to Henri Becquerel for the discovery of the very thing the
Curies later investigated further, having seen Becquerel's work)
Irene Joliot-Curie won her Nobel *jointly* with Frederic Joliot (sometimes
called Frederic Joliot-Curie).
What evidence do you have to prove your assertion that Pierre Curie
played no role at all in raising Irene Curie? She was 9 when he died.
Is it reasonable to say that he had *no* role in raising her?
Marie Curie is noteworthy amongst scientists in general. It is a shame
that so many people consider her noteworthiness to be about her
genitals rather than her mind.
>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.
Pierre Curie was a very modest, uncompetitive man who deliberately worked
to ensure that Marie Curie got most, if not all, of the credit for the
work they did together.
If a man and a woman collaberate on a project, is it really fair that
only the woman gets any recognition outside their peer group for the
work they did jointly?
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
