John Knight wrote:
>OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
>>"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message news...
>>>"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
>>>>>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?
>Let's get back on topic.
>You wrote: "I'm female, and I was a numerical mathematics major in
>college. My IQ tested off the scale. So much for your theories" about
>the correlation between brain size and GRE scores for millions of test
>takers.
>Do you recognize the fallacy in that statement?
>John Knight
Indeed I do. ...It's called the "fallacy of misattribution".
I didn't write the paragraph you've quoted above. Please rewind thread.
