Sophie Germain is a good example, and she was a mathematical genius.

Actually, a woman did have something to do with splitting the atom. Ever hear of Lise Meitner?

A very astute observation. I will add that feminism isn’t about benefitting all women ( of course we see that it was never about liberating men either). Feminism is about what benefits it’s heirarchy and some of the followers of the coven.

I’d say that some men have added to the drudgery.

Like the BOZO’s that MADE THE LATEST WINDOWS OS!!!!

Of course not, Mother Nature wouldn’t stand for it for obvious reason(survival of the species).

Brain research over the last 30 years has begun to show how the male and female brain differ and why men have always played the role of creator and destroyer.

Although deep down in our genes men create the material culture to make themselves more desirerable to women, i.e., men compete, women choose. To expect the science department of a school like Harvard to have something even close to 50% women could only happen in an Orwellian world where standerds were lowered.

What also seems to be clear, from the record so far, is that women do not have the capacity to innovate. They bring great talents to developing what Thomas Kuhn called “normal science,” but they have no record of creating the “paradigm shifts” that lead in new directions. It may be, of course, that as the feminists sometimes claim, this is because they were never encouraged to engage in these activities. But to need encouragement, to depend on models to follow, is precisely not to have a capacity to innovate. It has been men who have invented things and found challenges in nature, such as climbing high mountains or sailing alone around the world. And once men have done it, women will also do it. These remain highly notable enterprises, well beyond the reach of all but a few men, but they also exemplify the fact that innovation remains largely the specialization of white males. Women can do marvellous things with a house, but they do need the house to be there in the first place.

Women & Govenrment
Its no accident that we had the blessing of Founding Fathers not Mothers. The most fundamental role of government, as reflected in the thinkers of the Enlightenment and in our constitution, is to PROTECT not to PROVIDE. That is, freedom is seen to be inherent in allowing people to choose and pursue, with as little constraints as reasonably possible, life, liberty and happiness. The more government concerns itself with providing rather than protecting the less freedom the individual has because the only way government can provide is to tax and the more it taxes the less the resources the individual citizen has to seek his own happiness. Hence everything a citizen earns is his and he and his fellow citizens decide through their elected officials how much they are willing to give to the government to PROTECT them. Socialists and their ilk take a diametrically opposite position. They think the role of government is to provide many of the necessities of life.They think,(although they woul d never admit it here in the USA) that everything a citizen makes is the government’s and the government decides how much you can keep! They are willing to live a much more limited life since the Faustian bargain they accept, consciously or unconsciously is to have very diminished financial resources but a guarantee of a mediocre existence.

This is the real rift between conservatives and liberals today. This is why women in general and single women in particular vote more Democratic than Republican. Unlike most men they prefer a guarantee of a modicum of safety and have little desire for the possibilities that can accrue when one is willing to take risk. Of course this is just what Mother Nature wants since to have it otherwise would be to the detriment of children which are the hope of future existence.

The problem is if society chooses to be provided for as opposed to being protected the consequences can and will eventually be dire. Hence Liberals ask for entitlements and every type of social welfare program and ignore or even abhor the need for national defense and lower taxes.

Alexis de’tocqueville saw this conundrum 200 years ago when he said the main problem with a democracy is that people will eventually see that they can vote themselves a welfare state, at the expense , of course , of the most productive citizens!

http://www.popecenter.org/comm…..ml?id=2135
.# 18 August 2009 at 12:31

Yes I do recall reading that many years ago. I forget his name – it was a doctor in Vienna who made the discovery, intrigued by the fact the hospital he worked in had a much higher rate of death than another one not that far away. He considered the differences between the two, and realized that his hospital was a teaching one with corpses being handled, and the other wasn’t. So he devised an experiment, where some women bearing children would be handled only by doctors who had recently handled a corpse, and another group wouldn’t. High death rate amongst the former, barely any amongst the latter.

As I read it I couldn’t help but think how cavalier this seemed with regard to human life, that he would risk these women when he had reasonable grounds to believe he was endangering them. But of course, I speak with the benefit of an ethical attitude that has similarly been developed over history by those who had the time, talent and inclination to give serious consideration to subjects like Ethics. I might like to think I am ethical, but like anyone else, I absorbed all this from the environment I grew up in. Being the little monkeys that we are, imitating others is something we do without even thinking – and that includes blasting all those who went before us because they didn’t have the benefit of the same knowledge, and being blissfully unbothered by the fact that it was they who provided us with the skill to judge them so harshly.

Most people in the Netherlands live 5km or less from a hospital. The average distance in the US is more than triple that. Living closer to the hospital means that you only have to leave to try to get there once a complication begins (assuming it is not identified beforehand), allowing for a higher rate of births outside of the hospital, and a higher survival rate. The fact that the populace of the Netherlands is healthier (in particular, less likely to be over- or under-weight) is also relevant to their lower infant mortality.

No one is claiming that doctors always do what is best; but they have consistently acted and experimented in an effort to improve results.

In the Netherlands, where 1/3 of births are at home, attended by midwives, the mortality rate is *signifcantly* lower for births than in North America.

The introduction of the medical field into childbirth has had mixed consequences. Some good may have come from it, but some not-so-good things have as well.

For more information on childbirth, check out the following books:

Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities by Henci Goer
The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth by Henci Goer
Ina May’s Guide to Childbirth by Ina May Gaskin
The Politics of Birth by Sheila Kitzinger
Rediscovering Birth by Sheila Kitzinger

Also, watch following dvds:

With Woman: A Documentary about women, midwives & birth
http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Documentary-about-women-midwives/dp/B000KJTBTW/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1257297987&sr=8-6

The Business of Being Born
http://www.amazon.com/Business-Being-Julia-Barnett-Tracy/dp/B0013LL2XY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1257297987&sr=8-2

I really think that you would find these books interesting to read. You probably have an opposing viewpoint from me on the subject, but you might find it worth it to read, if only to know the position you are debating against. You can probably find some of them at the library, if you don’t want to buy them. And for the videos, I know I saw Business of Being Born at the video rental place.

Take care… God bless.