"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?
>>http://www.almaz.com/nobel/women.html>> lists 30 women who won Nobel prizes, many of them in the sciences, despite
> the fact that because of sexism, women have had few opportunities to work
in
> the sciences.
>> 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.)
>> 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.
>> lojbab
Really?
How astute of you, lojbab.
John Knight
ps--what does the following say to your little "liberal" pea brain?:
"plus joli d'un point de vue artistique"?
Would you like that in English?
'Do you not think that it would be more satisfying from the artistic point
of view, if we were to be associated in this manner?'
http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
Does this sound to you like lavish praise for her great technological
achievements, lojbab? Or does the word "artistic" mean anything to you? Do
you know why he wrote that? He was on his last leg, dying of radiation
poisoning, and of unclear mind, when a Swedish woman suggested he write the
Nobel Committee and ask that she receive a "joint award" for his half of a
patent.
