"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message news:<BQOY8.65681$P%6.4412439 at news2.west.cox.net>...
> "OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ce660175.0207151511.1ffec2c0 at posting.google.com...>> > >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?
> >
>> You did help to illustrate the point of this thread, though,
No I didn't.
> which is that
> you really can't name a recent notable woman intellectual (unless you
> subscribe to the theory that Betty Friedan is an intellectual).
So, now you're changing the criteria to "intellectuals"? Before, you
were simply asking if there were any women who "accomplished"
something. So, I did a quick search on "women inventors" as an
example of what the search engine could find. Those were just some
names picked at random from the first two pages of the search. I
thought the "point" of this thread, or this subthread, was about the
existence of women who made accomplishments.
Certainly, there are other accomplished women in other fields, such as
in the arts, literature, music, etc. However, you did not specify
that you wanted to see an all-encompassing list, or even a list of
"major" achievers. (FWIW how could you leave out the author of "Atlas
Shrugged"? Love or hate her ideas, she was considered to be one of
the influential thinkers of the 20th century.)
> So if the "gender gap" didn't narrow, as the GRE scores prove, what exactly
> did we get for that $8 trillion EXTRA we've spent for "education" in this
> country? http://christianparty.net/gre.htm>> You wrote:
> > 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.
>> I don't even buy that. Their only contribution was a negative one. They
> encouraged women to enter fields they could not possibly succeed in,
> initiated a worthless gender war, tore our social fabric apart, and doubled
> our already high divorce rate.
This is purely a subjective viewpoint, with the motive being to
promote your sexist and bigoted agenda. If you were concerned with
quality-only issues, I could think of other hypothetical proposals
besides your sex-discriminatory one.
> Just by not being that big a negative influence, ALL of the men on this
> forum accomplish far more than they ever did, every day.
Even Chive Mynde? (Rather doubtful).
> On top of that,
> what you continue to ignore is that 400 men got patents yesterday, and the
> day before, and, ..., the majority of which are far more advanced, far more
> important to society and technological achievement, and require one heck of
> a lot more intelligence, than "inventing" a compiler that she didn't even
> get a patent for, half a century ago http://christianparty.net/patents.htm>> John Knight
So? What are you running -- a contest or something?
