"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:SPoZ8.5892$Fq6.335215 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ce660175.0207161135.7ceb234c at posting.google.com...> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:<BQOY8.65681$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?
>> 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
No, she didn't, you hopeless village idiot.
I DID.
