brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Shadow Dancer insomniac at winterslight.org
Sun Aug 18 11:43:36 EST 2002


"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m31y8xhskx.fsf at panix.com...
> Joseph A Nagy Jr <pagan_prince at charter.net> writes:
>
> > Tom Breton wrote:
> >
> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> writes:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>The only thing Marie Sklodowska discovered was how to convince a
gentile
> > >>scientist with radiation poisoning to marry her so she could take
advantage
> > >>of his weakened mental condition and convince him to give away half of
his
> > >>half of a Nobel Prize to her.
> > >
> > >
> > > I understood they were married long before he got radiation poisoning.
> > > ISTM she got half of that Nobel because of old male chivalry.  Nothing
> > > to do with radiation poisoning or Jews/Gentiles.
> >
> > And nothing to do with male chivalry. As I qouted before, she got
> > the prize because she EARNED it.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's just silly.  No man would have been given a
> Nobel prize for being Pierre's assistant.  You don't like hearing
> that, well, sorry.

No, what you are proposing is "just silly".  I just looked up their Nobel
Prize information on http://www.almaz.com/nobel/.  It was Pierre who is
listed as a co-recipient.  Here's the direct link to the information:
http://almaz.com/nobel/physics/1903c.html.

What I find absolutely amazing is how you folks can still deny that Mml.
Curie earned it, fair and square.

> >  >
> >  >
> >  >>Marie and her daughter set the French so far behind in nuclear
research that
> >  >>it's most likely she was part of a zionist plot to sabotage France
> >  >>http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > You know, I agree her accomplishments have been Feministly
exaggerated
> >  > out of all proportion, but I certainly don't agree she set back
France
> >  > or nuclear research.  AFAICT, she was a very capable assistant to
> >  > Pierre.  It's not a negative thing.
>
> >  Assistant my ass. You obviously didn't read the site, either.
>
> Yes, assistant, your ass.  Quoting some spin-doctor talking about
> "Marie's pivotal role" doesn't change the fact.  You've obviously put
> too much stock in what Feminists and chivalrists tell you.

See my link above.  All sites dealing with the Nobel Prize agree, whilst
they fail to agree with your assessment.

> >  She wasn't, just a smart woman, which makes her Jewish in Mr. Knight's
eyes.
>
> >  Chauvenist pigs like Mr. Knight and yourself are a discredit to the
male of ANY species.
>
> I *knew* it!  The least bit of opposition, and the rabid name-calling
> starts already.

It's not a name-calling fest; it is a fact that you and your cohorts exhibit
amazing levels of chauvinism in this day and age, all things considered.

>
> That's the sort of emotional chivalry that keeps these notions going.
> Anyone can see that Marie Curie's is celebrated largely for her
> husband's work.  You don't like that, so you call me names, but that
> doesn't change the facts.

I doubt the Nobel Prize Committee considered it "emotional chivalry" to
award Mml. Curie her prize - and all the other prizes similarily awarded to
women over the decades.  Those prizes aren't dependant upon gender, no
matter how much you would like to think they are.

>
> And take a moment to consider: In light of what you just called me for
> nothing more than what I said, it's very clear that the whole issue is
> colored by chivalry and a misguided notion that you are somehow
> "defending" women by believing this.

Nobody was "defending" women.  We were stating facts.  There is a
difference.

Why are we once again forced to dig up the same information, again and
again?  Is it because you refuse to give respect to any source, no matter
how credible, that says something positive and beneficial about a woman's
major contribution to this planet?

Please don't make any mistake; I am not "defending feminism" as it is
currently known, as a movement.  You might say I am of the "old school" of
thought on the matter; women deserve the equal rights to better themselves,
compete in the workplace, and be recognized for those achievements - as long
as they also assume the responsibility.  This I find to be true for any
gender (and in this current day and age, there ARE more than two).

The entire point of the original suffrage movement, the precursor of today's
feminism movement, was equal rights for *everyone* regardless of gender
classification.  I staunchly stand behind that definition.

The Shadow Dancer
P.S.  I am keeping bionet.neuroscience in because I suspect the person I am
answering posts there; however, I ask that further replies to this post omit
bionet.neuroscience, as the current topic has nothing to do with their
group.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list