"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>Questions:
>>What did Marie do to deserve an award?
The Nobel citation, which I quoted in another post, specifies why she got
each of her two Nobel awards.
>Why did the Nobel committee allow a Nobel prize winner to add his wife to
>the prize?
The Nobel committee did not "allow a Nobel prize winner to add his wife to
the prize". One person associated with the committee noted that his wife had
not been nominated, and Pierre indicated that it would be more appropriate
("artistic") to include her, and explained why. The Nobel committee then
made its own decision.
>If a century-ago award was such a breakthrough for feminist intellectuals,
>where are the modern day "Madame Curie"s?
There are. But citing them is not useful, since you will merely say that
they are the result of affirmative action.
>Why do feminists focus so much attention on a woman who received a quarter
>of a Nobel Prize almost a century ago?
She received TWO Nobel prizes, not just one.
>Why is nothing known about Prof. Becquerel who received the other half of
>the prize?
Quite a lot is known about Becquerel. But he isn't particularly relevant to
the discussion.
>Why do feminists promote so many half-truths?
Why do you promote so many lies?
>What can be gained by basing an entire ideology on lies and half-truths?
I don't know. Why don't you answer it for your own ideology?
>Why was the French nuclear energy program 1-2 decades behind the rest of the
>world under Curie's leadership?
Marie Curie had nothing to do with the French nuclear energy program. She
was dead before there was such a program.
>Why did the French government summarily fire her in th
She was not employed by the French government.
>Do women understand physics?
Some do and some don't.
>Answers:
Your "answers" do not address the above questions.
