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?
>Tom Breton wrote:
>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.
...and what was wrong about the "quality" of my list? It was
certainly a better "list" than the one John Knight provided -- (Jane
Fonda), implying that there were NO "accomplished" women. His
question was to name some "accomplished" women, so I answered the
question. They may not have been celebrities, but they did make
important contributions. And FWIW, those individuals have accomplished
far more than you or anyone here probably ever will.
-Nothing was said or implied in regards to women being "superior".
And if there are fewer female top achievers, so what? The majority of
the male population probably wouldn't be capable of accomplishing what
the top achievers have done either.
Nothing was said or implied in regards to the idea of the sexes
possessing equal mathematical capability.
Why is it that the naming of even ONE "accomplished" woman gets some
of your knickers in a knot? ...And why are you assuming it's for the
purposes of trying to demonstrate 50-50 equality among the sexes?
Here's another quiz for you all:
What is "superior":
-The radius
-The ulna
-The metacarpals
-muscle
...and should we get rid of the things in the list which we deem as
being "lesser"?
