"Shadow Dancer" <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote in message news:ah0ff1
> As for claiming that no women of the "modern" age won Nobel Prizes, here
is
> data which refutes your claim, taken from
And exactly who made such a claim? Are you just trying to demonstrate the
poor reading comprehension of American women which enabled a statistical
zero percent of them to get the correct answers on TIMSS math and physics
problems? http://christianparty.net/timss.htm
It was merely a question about why feminazis have been dredging up Marie
Curie's name for a century now as an example of the "superior" female
intellect, while never being able to say the words "Pierre" or "Becquerrel",
who were the MEN who constituted three quarters of the prize. That's all.
As proof that my views were archaic, you then dredged up a public servant
named Hopper from a mere half century ago as the modern icon of feminist
intellect, even though you again missed the numerous men who got patents for
compilers then, and the hundreds of thousands of men who've gotten
computer-related patents since then.
>http://www.almaz.com/nobel/women.html:>> Quoted because I know you won't read it:
> ===
> In 1903, only two years after the Nobel Foundation was established, a
Nobel
> Prize was awarded to a woman, Marie Curie, for the first time. Women have
> been winning Nobel Prizes ever since. In fact, one woman, Bertha von
Suttner
> was influential in convincing Alfred Nobel to set aside a Prize for peace.
> Women have won Prizes in all categories with the exception of Economics
> (which was established in 1968 and first awarded in 1969).
>> Physics: 1903 Marie Sklodowska Curie
> 1963 Maria Goeppert Mayer
>> Chemistry: 1911 Marie Sklodowska Curie
> 1935 Irene Joliot-Curie
> 1964 Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin
>> Physiology & Medicine: 1947 Gerty Radnitz Cori
> 1977 Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
> 1983 Barbara McClintock
> 1986 Rita Levi-Montalcini
> 1988 Gertrude Elion
> 1995 Christiane Nusslein-Volhard
>> Peace: 1905 Baroness Bertha von Suttner
> 1931 Jane Addams
> 1946 Emily Greene Balch
> 1976 Betty Williams
> 1976 Mairead Corrigan
> 1979 Mother Teresa
> 1982 Alva Myrdal
> 1991 Aung San Suu Kyi
> 1992 Rigoberta Menchu Tum
> 1997 Jody Williams
>> Literature: 1909 Selma Ottilia Lovisa Lagerlof
> 1926 Grazia Deledda
> 1928 Sigrid Undset
> 1938 Pearl Buck
> 1945 Gabriela Mistral
> 1966 Nelly Sachs
> 1991 Nadine Gordimer
> 1993 Toni Morrison
> 1996 Wislawa Szymborska
> ===
> Now...either you are using reverse-psychology to get good data of women
> displayed on Usenet, or you are hopelessly and irretrievably narrowminded,
> dangerously ignorant, and should be confined to an island somewhere where
> only other men live.
Why would you presume that someone who provided precisely the url that
detailed the percentage of Nobel Prizes awarded to men and women (and an
entire host of other awards http://christianparty.net/menare.htm ) could
possibly be unaware of these awards to women, or would require the internet
services of a feminazi to do his research for him?
Are you merely attempting to demonstrate your poor reading comprehension
again, or do you just enjoy looking like a foolish feminist?
The following list is an example of how feminazis *are* capable of
*research*, because it was a feminazi who noted that one of the 93 items at
http://christianparty.net/menare.htm was in error. She won a Dewey Button
and worldwide fame on the worldwide web:
==========================================
Men are:
Ninety nine point seven percent of "Nobel Prize in Physics" winners.
Ninety nine percent of "Nobel Prize in Chemistry" winners.
Ninety six percent of "Nobel Prize for Medicine" winners*.
One hundred percent of "Nobel Prize for Economic Science" winners.
Ninety eight (oops, ninety three, oops ninety) percent of "Nobel Prize in
Literature" winners.
Ninety five percent of "Nobel Peace Prize" winners.
One hundred percent of "Pulitzer Prize for News Photography" winners.
Ninety six percent of "Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting" winnners.
==========================================
Do you believe that there would have been more women winnning such prizes if
they didn't have such small heads? I mean, do you believe that an extra 3
1/2 billion brain cells might have been of some help?
John Knight
