brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Wed Aug 21 08:28:32 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>1)  Pierre Curie's answer,

His answer to WHAT?

The question of what he was answering is what determines who is
"spinning".  He was answering a private letter asking him WHY Marie
Curie was not nominated even though it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE that she
had done the pivotal work.

>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.

Does it matter what he said?  It was not HIS choice; it was the Nobel
committee's choice.

>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.

Not necessarily.  That could be taken as presumptive and offensive -
telling the Nobel committee what it should do.  It is polite for him
to speak of his emotional response "satisfying", but it would not be
polite for him to say "important" since it was not his role to decide
what was important.

>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].

You missed something that negates this conclusion.  Throughout the
speech he makes reference to both "M. and Mme. Curie", or to
"Professor and Mme. Curie", except for once: 
>"The first discovery in this field was made at approximately the same
> time by the German Schmidt and by Mme. Curie, both of whom found that
> thorium possesses radioactive properties to about the same degree as
> uranium."

>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.

They seem to think they are successful and happy in them.  And so do
their bosses, except of course when THEY are the boss.  An increasing
number of women are found at the top of businesses.  This must rankle
a poor nincompoop like yourself.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list