Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
[I'd like to trim the newsgroups line but I'm not sure where you're
reading this, I'm reading it in bionet.neuroscience]
> "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,
John left himself totally open to that, but (eg) Mother Theresa's
peace prize still doesn't demonstrate female intellectual achievement.
> despite
> the fact that because of sexism, women have had few opportunities to work in
> the sciences.
I don't buy it. I've seen too much phony Feminist history already.
We're told women couldn't own property, false, we're told women
couldn't vote in the USA before 1920 (try 1869), we're told a lot of
untrue things.
It's clear to me the real sexist zeitgeist is pushing in the opposite
direction. That impression is underlined when I see Grace Hopper's
and Marie Curie's workaday contributions exaggerated to the point of
being called world-class achievements. It is confirmed by the quality
of OhSojourner's list. Clearly many people want very badly to see
women as more accomplished than they actually are.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
