"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0207130541.5c9f2b70 at posting.google.com...
> FWIW, if women were not even allowed to attend college, then we would
> not have had the contributions of those individuals who have indeed
> contributed to society, Nobel Prize or not. Here's an example for
> you:
>>http://www.drredwood.com/interviews/pert.html>> Candace Pert, Phd, was a grad student when she discovered the opiate
> receptor, the cellular bonding site for endorphins. This discovery
> was a breakthrough in the way we understand the workings of the human
> mind and behavior. In fact, although it was she who made this
> discovery, it was her male superior who took the credit (and the Nobel
> Prize). This is because scientific research work is often done in
> teams, with the head of the team representing the whole, as well as
> internal politics and so forth that affect the decision-making process
> of who will be the recipient of the award.
>
Why is it that when men win a Nobel Prize or get a patent on their own, it's
ok to claim that men get most of the prizes and awards, but when a man let's
a woman on his research team, it's all of a sudden the woman who "deserved"
the award?
No wonder men don't want women around in the lab.
Women got 4% of the patents last year, and my bet is that 95% of those
SHOULD have gone to men. Why? Because women are too far down the bell
curve to really have the intellect to do this
http://christianparty.net/patents.htm
John Knight
