brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Aug 21 01:11:37 EST 2002


"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m34rdtjv4e.fsf at panix.com...
> Joseph A Nagy Jr <pagan_prince at charter.net> writes:
>
> > John Knight wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And, that Marie got a quarter of a Nobel Prize because ONE of these
men, the
> > > husband of Marie, asked:
> > >
> > > Would a joint award be "more satisfying from the artistic point of
view"?
> >
> > Actually, to qoute from http://www.aip.org/history/curie/recdis2.htm:
> >
> > "MARIE WAS NOT REALLY NOMINATED for her first Nobel Prize. From the
inception of the award in 1901,
> > the Nobel Prizes have been made after a lengthy evaluation of the merits
of nominees. In 1903 the
> > French Academy of Sciences nominated Henri Becquerel and Pierre -- but
not Marie -- Curie as
> > candidates for the physics prize. If not for the intervention of a
member of the nominating
> > committee, Swedish mathematician Magnus Goesta Mittag-Leffler, Marie
might have been denied
> > recognition for her work. But Mittag-Leffler, an advocate of women
scientists, wrote Pierre advising
> > him of the situation. In his reply Pierre made clear that a Nobel Prize
for research in
> > radioactivity that failed to acknowledge Marie's pivotal role would be a
travesty. Some strings were
> > pulled, and a nomination of Marie Curie in 1902 was validated for 1903."
>
> But look at all the bias in that quotation.  That isn't history, it's
> Feminist advocacy.  I mean, I'm sure the dates are correct, and the
> names of the persons involved, but everything that's spinnable is
> totally spun.  You see that, don't you?
>
> --
> Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom.  http://www.panix.com/~tehom

No, they don't see the spin, Tom, because feminazi spin dominates the
landscape and this just looks like part of that landscape to them.  The
obvious spin they're missing is:

1)  Pierre Curie's answer, dated 6 August 1903, has been preserved. He
wrote, 'If it is true that one is seriously thinking about me (for the
Prize), I very much wish to be considered together with Madame Curie with
respect to our research on radioactive bodies'.  'Do you not think that it
would be more satisfying from the artistic point of view, if we were to be
associated in this manner?' (plus joli d'un point de vue artistique)."

     a)  Does his letter say anything about "Marie's pivotal role"?  No.
     b)  Does it claim that failing "to acknowledge [it] would be a
travesty"?  No.

2)  If Pierre really agreed with Mittag-Leffler that Marie should be
included in the prize, then wouldn't he write: "it would be important to
recognize Marie's contribution to my research" rather than "it would be more
satisfying from the artistic point of view"?  Yes.

3)  Professor Becquerel got in the best dig when he said in his Presentation
Speech:  "This makes us look at God's word in an entirely new light: 'It is
not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for
him'"  [READ:  Listen up, King of Sweden, Marie got a Nobel Prize for being
a lab flunky--and the wife of the lab manager--while I had to bust my butt
to get your silly prize].
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1903/press.html

Feminazis have taken this chivalrous gesture on the part of intelligent men
to reward their "help meet", and turned it into an excuse for women to
divorce their husbands, abandon their children, and pursue independent
"careers" which women couldn't be successful or happy in for millions of
years to come.

John Knight








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list