brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Thu Aug 22 02:40:41 EST 2002

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
news:asf8mu46oabd8idqd36enbv5q55t2ihqj5 at
> Tom Breton <tehom at> wrote:
> >But there is also a legitimate question of favoritism towards a
> >birth-group, women.  Consider just the facts we saw in the Curie case,
> >well before Feminism reached its current power:
> In an era when women had virtually no respect in the sciences in
> France, Marie Curie rose to the highest levels.
> >A confessed advocate for women scientists sitting on the nominating
> "confessed" - you make it sound like a sin.
> >and taking direct action to secure a woman's nomination,
> She WASN'T nominated, yet she was already well know for the work.  He
> simply asked why.

Do you still have that picture of Marie on the back of your bathroom door,
lojbab?  That's about the only reference you'll find that Marie "was already
well know for the work".  All anybody knew about her then was that she was a
lab flunky working for a scientist who'd received significant awards and
made significant discoveries 10-20 years before she ever showed up.

> >the admitted fact that Pierre secured Marie her part of the prize by his
> It is not "admitted".  Pierre's letter may or may not have had
> anything to do with her getting the prize.  It was a letter to that
> "advocate" who obviously already thought she was worthy of
> consideration, not to the Nobel committee.

Why would they bother to even contact Pierre in the first place if she "was
already well know for the work"?  If she was, they didn't need to ask Pierre
what he thought of it.  And did he reply "oh, her work is VITAL, it would be
a TRAVESTY to fail to award her the prize"?  No, he inferred only that it
would be "artistic".

> >Marie's
> >second prize for which the cited work was at best joint work with
> >Pierre,
> Actually, Pierre had NO part in that work

You're leaving out a lot of names, not the least of whom is her own husband
who made the MISTAKE of accepting the notion that "it would be more
satisfying from the artistic point of view, if we were to be associated in
this manner".

What does that mean?  "Associated" in what manner?  What's so "artistic"
about naming a lab flunky on your half of a Nobel Prize?  A scientist
usually views the word "artistic" as a dirty word.

Plus, they were married and would have shared the money anyway, and IF she
was really a contributor to the research, then they could have thrown a
party and told everybody.

Why should this prize have been split into fourths?  To satisfy the

> >Turning to minerals, her attention was drawn to pitchblende, a mineral
> > whose activity, superior to that of pure uranium, could only be
> > explained by the presence in the ore of small quantities of an
> > unknown substance of very high activity. Pierre Curie then joined her
> > in the work that she had undertaken to resolve this problem and that
> > led to the discovery of the new elements, polonium and radium. While
> > Pierre Curie devoted himself chiefly to the physical study of the new
> > radiations, Maria Curie struggled to obtain pure radium in the
> > metallic state--achieved with the help of the chemist A. Debierne,
> > one of Pierre Curie's pupils.
> Pierre was working on physics of radiation, while Marie was working on
> the chemistry.
> >a prize which the committee admitted (not noted on either site
> >AFAICT) was aimed at giving her unshared recognition.
> If she deserved unshared recognition, then why is this an "admission"?
> >Thus when a prize is shared between man and woman, there's a
> >legitimate suspicion that the man provided disproportionately more of
> >the gravitas and credibility, since the woman also provided the
> >rewarded quality of being female.
> Only for bigots like you who thing that one must be a man to have
> gravitas and credibility.

Only for IDIOTS "like you who thing that one must" only be a woman to
qualify for any special perk they demand.  She was given a special privilege
that no man ever got.

> To the rest of us, the fact that she overcame the anti-female bigotry
> in an era when there was no "affirmative action", to become one of the
> most highly recognized scientists in French history (even though she
> was Polish by nationality), the fact that she overcame silly scandals
> about her love life and went on to direct a major research institute
> and to singlehandedly raise her daughter to be a Nobel-caliber
> scientist, shows that her performance was unquestionably great.

And whose LIES were not discovered until the French realized they were two
decades behind in nuclear research, and Prime Minister Georges Bidault
removed her son-in-law without explanation from his position as high
commissioner, and a few months later deprived Irene of her position as
commissioner in the Commissariat a 1'Energie Atomique.

> >Of course, favoritism to women is not the only factor, it's probably
> >not even the dominant factor, but one shouldn't overlook it.
> If anything, the "favoritism" was AGAINST women.  When that happens,
> it takes a truly superior talent to overcome the favoritism, and
> sometimes it may even take an "advocate" asking a pointed question.
> lojbab

Or, it was because 32% of the responses of American 12th grade girls on
TIMSS physics were not statistically significant, 23% were statistically
significant because they scored lower than if they'd just guessed, and of
the 45% that was statistically significant, the amount by which they scored
lower than boys was statistically significant on 24.4%, by which they scored
higher than boys was statistically significant on 2.6%, and the difference
between boys and girls was not stastically significant on 18%.

Where's the pony?

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list