brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Parse Tree parsetree at
Tue Jul 16 17:39:02 EST 2002

"John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote in message
news:ur%Y8.6$3v4.2638 at
> "OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at> wrote in message
> news:ce660175.0207151836.317f32e8 at
> > John Knight wrote:
> >
> > >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at> wrote in message news
> >
> > >>FWIW, if women were not even allowed to attend college, then we
> > would
> > >>not have had the contributions of those individuals who have indeed
> > >>contributed to society, Nobel Prize or not. Here's an example for
> > >>you:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>Candace Pert, Phd, was a grad student when she discovered the opiate
> > >>receptor, the cellular bonding site for endorphins. This discovery
> > >>was a breakthrough in the way we understand the workings of the
> > human
> > >>mind and behavior. In fact, although it was she who made this
> > >>discovery, it was her male superior who took the credit (and the
> > >>Nobel Prize). This is because scientific research work is often done
> > >>in teams, with the head of the team representing the whole, as well
> > >>as internal politics and so forth that affect the decision-making
> > >>process of who will be the recipient of the award.
> >
> > [Note: I stand corrected on this, it was actually the Lasker Prize,
> > and not the Nobel Prize, although a Nobel nomination was considered].
> >
> > >Why is it that when men win a Nobel Prize or get a patent on their
> > >own, it's ok to claim that men get most of the prizes and awards, but
> > >when a man let's a woman on his research team, it's all of a sudden
> > >the woman who "deserved" the award?
> >
> > >No wonder men don't want women around in the lab.
> >
> > Point being, her work was a contribution to society, whether or not
> > she was a recipient of any prize.
> >
> > >Women got 4% of the patents last year, and my bet is that 95% of
> > those
> > >SHOULD have gone to men.
> >
> > WTF?  Now you're saying that people shouldn't be entitled to ownership
> > of their own idea or invention?
> >
> > FWIW, an original invention need not be that complicated.
> >
> > >Why? Because women are too far down the bell
> > >curve to really have the intellect to do this
> > >
> >
> > Circular logic again, I see.
> >
> > (Next you'll be saying that female cartoonists are impossible...)
> I suspect that any possible "contribution to society" made by Candace
> doesn't even come close to justifying the cost to get her there.  It's
> probably like women combat pilots, who've already crashed and destroyed
> expensive military jets and pilots than we've lost in combat for the last
> quarter of a century.  If we keep letting women fly, we won't need a war
> justify increased military spending--they'll wipe out the entire Air Force
> all by themselves
> To be specific, it was partly because of women that the raw cost of
> education in this country as a percent of GDP almost doubled while it even
> decreased slightly in countries like Japan and Korea (who BLEW us away in
> 8th grade TIMSS, scoring more than 100 points higher than us).  Had  SAT
> scores not plunged 98 points, our "education" system wouldn't be on the
> endangered species list, but as it is, it's more of a third world
> "education" system than real third world countries have.  That was an
> $8 trillion cost that women like Candace couldn't ever hope to recover.
> That money is lost and this nation is indebted to the hilt because of
> efforts that put her in a position she didn't deserve and probably
> have gotten without affirmative action
> Should I appreciate her contribution?  No.  And neither should you.

GDP would be lower if women were not working.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list