"Hyerdahl"  wrote in message
news:1112202380.328230.87250{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Templeton wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > JerryWong wrote:
> > > > The fundamental theorem of men and women is as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Part 1
> > > > Every woman needs a man but not every man needs a woman.
> > >
> > > That doesn't make much sense to me, since women are...today...doing
> > > everything men are doing PLUS they can gestate their own family,
> > quite
> > > without any particular man.  She is the unit.  He is the other.
> > >
> > Male scientists can gestate their own families in labs hehe.
>
>   Not yet they can't.  And btw, so could female scientists.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Discussion:
> > > > It would seem, based on empirical evidence and historical fact
> that
> > > > women have never been able to live without men much less
> accomplish
> > > > anything significant without their support.
> > >
> > > You have not offered any "empirical evidence", and
my evidence will
> > > clearly show that women can and do exist without men.  My evidence
> is
> > > widows.  Widows all over the world raise their families without a
> man
> > > as head of that family.
> > >
> > So do widowers(without a woman), but they are not recognised for it.
>
> Widowers are recognized more than widows, but what does any of that
> have to do with the FACT that women do accomplish alone, without male
> support?
> Nothing.
>
> > This is because men are expected to endure while when women do it
> > they're "courageous". Widows are also regarded with
more pity than
> > widowers, and and often receive help from their communities.
>
> No, the truth is that a man raising a child gets much more compassion,
> probably because it is so rare.  Widows, otoh, are grouped into the
> "single moms" column.
>
> > >   On the other hand, many> men over the ages have had spectacular
> > > results in the fields of medicine, math and physics not to mention
> > > chemistry without the meddling of women.
> >
> > > Women scientists, chemists and physicists don't particularly care
> > > whether or not you want them there.  There are there.  They don't
> > seem> to be going anywhere either.  :-)  So, that you find them
> "meddling" isn't really an issue for them.  Alto, if you create a
> hostile workplace for them, YOU may make it an issue for YOU.  :-)
> > >
> > He meant "meddling" in their lives, not in the field.
>
> Are you his interpreter?  :-)
>
> Once again, a> misguided rant.
> >
> Since you're NOT his interpreter, you are the rantor.
>
> > >  In fact, it would seem that some men, many of them famous, have
> done
> > > their best work while single and unattached.
> > >
> > > That kind of reasoning, makes me think of the word, sublimation,
> for
> > > some reason.  :-)  However, women working alone also are creating
> and
> > > inventing these days.  No new product comes to the market without
> > women> > at many levels of development, and that seems to be what is
> likely to> continue.
> >
>
> > How many products/inventions have women come up with by themselves as
> > opposed to men?
>
> Why do you expect me to do your homework for you?  What difference
> would it make anyway?  Most folks don't blame women for the oppression
> of men, Steve.  Most people understand that women have accomplished
> quite a bit in the short time they have enjoyed equal rights.
> >
>
>
> > >  Not so> for women.  Take two scientists:  Iscaac Newton and Marie
> > > Curie.  Both> are famous.  Both worked hard.  Yet Newton was a
> loner,
> > > Marie had a> husband.  Some women probably sense a threatening tone
> > in this> article.  Relax.  I am just starting to develop this theory.
> > >
> > > Well,  it would be nice if you actually had some facts to back you
> > up,> dear, but here are many single female scientists:  I'll give you
> a
> > few > and you can look up more yourself.  Let's do keep in mind that
> today > women need not marry to work for equal pay, so keep you eyes
> open as> the female scientists of today razzle and dazzle you.
> > >
> > > Hildegard of Bingen 1098  (She was a nun)
> > >
> > > Barbara McClintock  1902Born 1902, Brooklyn, New York
> > > B.A. 1923, Cornell University
> > > Ph.D. 1927, Cornell University, Botany
> > > 1927-1931, Instructor in Botany, Cornell University
> > > 1931-1933, Fellow, National Research Council
> > > 1933-1934, Fellow, Guggenheim Foundation
> > > 1934-1936, Research Associate, Cornell University
> > > 1936-1941, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri
> > > 1942-1967, Staff member, Carnegie Institution of Washington's
> > > Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
> > > 1967-1992, Distinguished Service Member, CIW Department of
> Genetics,
> > > Cold Spring Harbor
> > >
> > >
> > > Henrietta Swan Leavitt,
> > > b. July 4, 1868, d. December 12, 1921
> > > A deaf, female scientist-over 100 years ago!
> > >
> > > Annie Jump Cannon
> > >
> > > http://www.mada.org.il/website/html/eng/2_1_1-31.htm
> > > Annie Jump Cannon was the eldest of three daughters of Wilson
> Cannon,
> > a
> > > Delaware shipbuilder and state senator, and his second wife, Mary
> > Jump.
> > > Annie's mother taught her the constellations and stimulated her
> > > interest in astronomy...Cannon also published catalogs of variable
> > > stars (including 300 she discovered). Her career spanned more than
> > > forty years, during which women in science won grudging acceptance.
> > She
> > > received many "firsts" (first recipient of an
honorary doctorate
> from
> > > Oxford, first woman elected an officer of the American Astronomical
> > > Society, etc.). At Harvard she was named Curator of Astronomical
> > > Photographs, but it was only in 1938, two years before her
> > retirement,
> > > that she obtained a regular Harvard appointment as William C. Bond
> > > Astronomer.
> > > 1944, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> > > 1945, President, Genetics Society of America
> > > 1967, Kimber Medal
> > > 1970, National Medal of Science
> > > 1981, Lasker Award
> > > 1983, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
> >
> > These *female* scientists are remarkable. That's exactly the point.
> > Male scientists with equal or greater achievements are hardly
> > remarkable.
>
> These female scientists are all SINGLE WOMEN, Steve; they need not
> account for male oppression; they rose above it.  The point here is
> that women should not have to do everything men WHILE OPPRESSED, but
> they...
> ...have.  :-)

Women were "NEVER" and never have been "OPPRESSED!!




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 4:47:46 PM ---