John Knight wrote:
>"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
>>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.
[Note: I stand corrected on this, it was actually the Lasker Prize,
and not the Nobel Prize, although a Nobel nomination was considered].
>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.
Point being, her work was a contribution to society, whether or not
she was a recipient of any prize.
>Women got 4% of the patents last year, and my bet is that 95% of
those
>SHOULD have gone to men.
WTF? Now you're saying that people shouldn't be entitled to ownership
of their own idea or invention?
FWIW, an original invention need not be that complicated.
>Why? Because women are too far down the bell
>curve to really have the intellect to do this
>http://christianparty.net/patents.htm
Circular logic again, I see.
(Next you'll be saying that female cartoonists are impossible...)
