"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0207141248.51bf9fb7 at posting.google.com...
> John Knight wrote:
>> >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
>> >>John Knight wrote:
>> >>>"Shadow Dancer" <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote in message
>> >>>>I guess you forgot that people like Marie Curie are solely
> >>>>responsible for the use of X-rays and similar systems. I guess you
> >>>>did a good job of ignoring all the women who likewise contributed
> >>>>significantly to health, and society in general. But then again,
> >>>>they'd skew your male-favoring statistics, wouldn't they?
>> >>>Really? Why did Pierre write the following about the HALF of a
> Nobel
> >>>Prize he got (a CENTURY ago), a quarter of which was "awarded" to
> >>>Marie, but ONLY after he complained to the committee that:
>> >>>A joint award is "more satisfying from the artistic point of view".
> >>>http://christianparty.net/curie.htm>> >>>Does this *really*sound to you that Marie was "solely responsible
> >>>for the use of X-rays"?
>> >>>"members of the l'Acad»mie des Sciences, including Henri Poincar»
> >>>and Gaston Darboux, had nominated Becquerel and Pierre Curie for
> the
> >>>Prize in Physics. Marie's name was not mentioned."
>> >>>Well, maybe not after all.
>> >>>Do you have any female accomplishments more recent than a century
> >>>ago?
>> >>>No?
>> >>>Didn't think so.
>> >>>All we've come up with is Hanoi Jane Fonda? Are you fond'a Fonda?
>> >>Say what??? ...Now that's pretty sad, Mr. Knight, you're sitting
> >>behind a computer in the Information Age yet you're still living in
> >>the 1960s and invoking moldy invectives that are relevent mostly to
> >>the over-45 crowd. (I'll wager "Hanoi Jane" was before some of our
> >>times here).
>> >>...To wit, you have the World Wide Web at your disposal, where you
> >>are free to look up any such information in question. Type a few
> >>words into the Google search engine: "women inventors" or "women
> >>scientists" for instance. One does not need to be a feminist scholar
> >>to find out this information, you know. ...In fact, unless one has
> >>been living under a rock for the past 50 years, the idea that there
> >>have been no women who have accomplished *anything* at all is beyond
> >>the realm of the absurd, as we have seen plenty of examples of
> female
> >>achievers over the course of the past century.
>> >I'm not the one who dredged up Hanoi Jane--the feminazis are.
>> ...and you're assuming anyone else on this thread was thinking along
> the same lines? You have no evidence that anyone did.
>> >THEY
> >added her to "The Top 100 Women", which suggests that THEY are the
> >ones desperate to find some great women
> >http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050299.htm>> OK, but YOU are the one who dropped the name of "Hanoi Jane" after
> YOU presented the question of how many women have accomplished
> anything within the past century.
>> >Do you know what's wrong with your list of names? They were hired
> >during the era of affirmative action.
>> Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Did you even bother
> to read the links to the biographies? Most of the names I cited were
> of individuals who attained positions years before the era of the
> 1960s and 70s.
>> Let's take a look at a few of the names here:
>> -Gertrude Belle Elion "patented the leukemia-fighting drug
> 6-mercaptopurine in 1954 and has made a number of significant
> contributions to the medical field."
>http://web.mit.edu/invent/www/inventorsA-H/elion2.html>> [The "1954" date was included in the last post. Did that escape you
> somehow?]
>> -Stephanie Kwolek, chemist and inventor, winner of the Perkins medal:
>http://www.chemheritage.org/perkin/Kwolek/kwolek.html ...graduated in
> 1946 and hired by DuPont shortly after. Was this during the "era of
> affirmative action?" ...I think not.
>> -Jane Goodall. ...Was she "hired"? No, it was her idea to venture
> out on her own with the intent of conducting her own research.
>> -Leni Riefenstahl. German-born filmmaker, creating her most famous
> works during the 1930s. Did "affirmative action" put the visuals in
> her head to make the dramatic cinematographic images she is most
> famous for?
>> -Lise Meitner. ...That was also in the 1930s.
>> -Grace Murray Hopper. Worked during the 1940s.
>http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/hopper.html>> -Vinnie Ream Hoxie. ...Was she "hired during the era of affirmative
> action?" Hell no, she lived IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (predating your
> "past century" requirement).
>> ...Like I said, Mr. Knight, "willful ignorance" does not do much to
> back up your credibility.
>> >Do you know what that does to
> >their reputation, no matter whay you may think about it? It TAINTS
> >them, for the rest of their lives. Even IF they're completely worthy
> >of the awards, the simple fact that the awards were handed out during
> >that affirmative action era discredits each and every one of them,
> >forverer, throughout the rest of time.
>> Now you are adding red herrings of subjectivity to your argument.
> Your question was about women who "accomplished" anything. And, I
> gave you a list of names of women who did indeed "accomplish" things.
> ...Now, even if we were assume your argument was true -- that they
> were only there due to "affirmative action" -- how can we conclude
> that their visions, work, and ideas were not indeed "accomplishments"?
> Can we not deny that these individuals have all contributed to
> society? ...That it was Kwolek's ideas that led to the invention of
> Kevlar; Pert's ideas that led to her discovery and changed our
> understanding of how the mind works; Elion's contributions to the
> field of medicine, etc.
>> ...Are these not "accomplishments"?
>> >In addition to that, now that the Gaussian Distribution of
> >intellectual skills for men and women are fully known and can be
> >easily compared, would you not have some serious reservations about
> >how they even got their degrees? If not, then you are not a credible
> >witness. http://christianparty.net/timss.htm>> Your question was in regards to "accomplishments by women". I gave
> you a list of women who made real, tangible contributions to society.
> Now you're claiming that their accomplishments must not be valid
> because of the way girls score on the recent TIMSS tests, even thought
> these women DO exist, and they HAVE made contributions; and provided
> enough excellent work to advance themselves within their fields,
> within the companies that hired them, well after they were out of
> school.
>> You are using a fallacy known as "circular logic", Mr. Knight. This
> is a logical fallacy and therefore it is YOU who are not the "credible
> witness". ...For even if it is a general pattern for girls not to
> excel in math or science, you fail to take into consideration that
> there are always those rare individuals who are the exceptions to the
> rule.
>
As a man, if baba wawa named Jeffrey Dahlmer to the list of "Top 100
American Men", I'd be expressing outrage, rather than defending him they way
you're virtually defending the selection of Hanoi Jane.
And now you have the timerity to blame US for dredging up any memory of her.
She's a war criminal. She's a million times worse than Jeffrey Dahlmer, who
just had a few friends for dinner.
Don't get outraged at US because feminazis dredged up Marie Curie from a
century ago or Hopper from half a century ago, or Hanoi Jane the War
Criminal--feminazis did that on their own.
You should realize that the question about "recent" "female accomplishments"
is related only to the title of the thread "brain sizes: Einstein's and
women's", but there isn't a shred of data in any of your references that
supports or refutes the original thesis.
Which leads to the biggest problem with your response, which is that we're
discussing averages, and you're discussing individuals. Even IF "there are
always those rare individuals who are the exceptions to the rule", that
doesn't affect the averages AT ALL.
This apparently is an "abstract concept" to feminazis who never seem to
grasp it. Even those who proclaim from the rooftops "I'm female, and I was
a numerical mathematics major in college. My IQ tested off the scale" don't
seem to appreciate the difference.
I really hope you can prove us wrong.
John Knight
