11 Women Who Did Groundbreaking Things That Men Got The Credit For
This goes out to all the ladies who've ever had their ideas mansplained back to them.


The man who invented Monopoly did not invent Monopoly. Charles Darrow made millions off the game that he sold to Parker Brothers ― 30 years after a woman named Elizabeth Magie created it.

It’s a tale as old as time: A man took credit for a woman’s idea.

We’ve seen this theme play out through history, with women’s work being erased from the labor movement, civil rights movements, and over and over again in science.

In the spirit of unearthing the “hidden figures” whose stories often go untold, we’re highlighting remarkable women who, despite their contributions, were sidelined by men.

Happy Women’s History Month!


1. 1868: Margaret Knight invented the paper bag machine.

In 1868, while Margaret Knight was working at the Columbia Paper Bag Company, she began thinking about the possibility of a machine that could create flat-bottomed bags, one that would be much faster than the slow process of manually assembling them.

Within a few months, she created a working model and took it to a local shop to refine her machine. According to ASME, she moved to Boston to work with two machinists on it.

A man named Charles Anan came by her shop to examine Knight’s machine. When she went to file a patent, her application was rejected because one had already been given to Anan.

Knight sued and won.


2. 1900s: Alice Guy was the first female film director and first female studio owner.

Alice Guy made over 100 films in the early 1900s before marrying the manager of the production studio she worked for, a man named Herbert Blaché. She became the first female film studio owner opening Solax Studios in 1910.

According to Broadly, Guy was reversing gender roles on screen decades before the term “gender role” entered the lexicon. In one film, she imagined “a world in which women flourished in traditionally male roles while men writhed under oppression.”

Ironically, her name would eventually be erased and her husband would get the credit for her visionary work in film. He opened a studio after she did, convinced her to merge companies and to let his name be at the forefront.

According to Broadly: "In 1920, author Carolyn Lowrey published The First One Hundred Noted Men and Women of the Screen and dedicated a page to Herbert Blaché's legacy, making no mention of Guy. Lowrey did so kindly mention a few of her films — she just falsely credited them to Blaché."


3.  1903: Elizabeth Magie invented Monopoly.

ccording to the New York Times, secretary and stenographer Elizabeth Magie was outspoken politically and  “lived a highly unusual life” because she supported herself and didn’t get married until she was 44.

In 1903, she designed a game called “Landlord’s Game” to protest “big monopolists” like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

More than three decades later, a man named Charles Darrow claimed a “version of it as his own,” and sold his game to Parker Brothers. Darrow made millions for the game we know today as Monopoly, while Magie’s creation earned her around $500.


4. 1930s: Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission.

When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Austrian physicist Lise Meitner was acting director of the Institute for Chemistry. She eventually had to flee, but kept in touch with chemist Otto Hahn. Letters between the two of them show that they discovered nuclear fission together in the 1930s.

According to Dr. Chris Padgett, a history professor at American River College, Meitner was denied proper credit due because she was Jewish and a refugee. “Hahn, who stayed loyal to the Nazis, later won the Nobel Prize for this work, but refused to give Meitner credit,” he said.

The Berkeley Nuclear Research Center calls Meitner’s story “one of the most glaring examples of women's scientific achievement overlooked by the Nobel committee.”

5.  1900s: Nettie M. Stevens discovered that a man's sperm determines the sex of a child.

In the first decade of the 1900s, scientist Nettie M. Stevens found that male sperm carried both X and Y chromosomes, while women only carried X chromosomes in their eggs, which lead her to the conclusion that a baby’s sex is determined by the male sperm.

Another scientist named Edmund Beecher Wilson independently came to the same conclusion at around the same time as Stevens, and submitted his paper to The Journal of Experimental Zoology 10 days before she did. Wilson did include a footnote that he was aware of Stevens’ findings.

According to a journal article by physicist and historian Stephen G. Brush, “The scientific and chronological relation between their contributions has rarely been specified, and the role of Stevens, who died in 1912 before she could attain a reputation comparable to that of Wilson, has sometimes been forgotten.”

6. 1950s: Dr. Chien-Shiung Wu discovered the law of parity.

During World War II, Dr. Chien-Shiung Wu joined the Manhattan Project (the Army’s secret project to develop the atomic bomb) at Columbia University. 

She continued her work at Columbia when the war ended. Along with two male colleagues, Dr. Tsung-Dao Lee and Dr. Chen Ning Yang, she “overthrew a law of symmetry in physics called the principle of conservation of parity,” according to the National Women’s History Museum. “Wu observed that there is a preferred direction of emission, which disproved what was then a widely accepted ‘law’ of nature.”

In 1957, the men received the Nobel Prize for their breakthrough. Wu was excluded from the award.


7. 1951: Rosalind Franklin played a big role in discovering the double-helix.

While working as a research associate at the King's College London in the biophysics unit in 1951, Rosalind Franklin and her student Raymond Gosling discovered that there were two forms of DNA, a dry "A" form and a wet "B" form.

According to Biography.com, “One of their X-ray diffraction pictures of the ‘B’ form of DNA, known as Photograph 51, became famous as critical evidence in identifying the structure of DNA.”

A colleague named Maurice Wilkins showed Photo 51 to competing scientists James Watson and Francis Crick -- without Franklin’s permission.The duo used Franklin’s findings as a basis for their DNA model and won a Nobel Prize for it in 1962 -- four years after she died.


8. 1952: Willie Mae Thornton was the original singer of “Hound Dog.”

In 1952, singer and songwriter Willie Mae “Big Mama” Thornton recorded “Hound Dog” -- a song Elvis Presley would eventually cover and make famous.

Nevertheless, she persisted, and achieved great success, being inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame in 1984. Her song "Ball and Chain" (made famous by Janis Joplin) is on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame list of "500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll."


9. 1960s: Margaret Keane was actually the artist behind "The Big-Eyed Waifs."

The subject of Tim Burton’s “Big Eyes," Margaret Keane was the painter who created "the big-eyed waifs" -- pieces of art that became wildly popular in the 1960s. Her husband, Walter Keane, convinced her that they would make more money if he put his name on the paintings. Years later, she claimed in court that he threatened to kill her if she ever went public with their secret.

Eventually, Margaret divorced her husband and told a radio host the truth in a 1970 interview. She challenged Walter to a live painting contest to prove she was really the artist; he didn’t respond.

Then, in 1986, she took him to court. According to a People Magazine article at the time:

"Margaret, 58, and Walter, 70, hadn’t laid eyes on each other for nearly 20 years when they walked into federal court in Honolulu last month. They proceeded to have at it in an often heated 3½-week trial. Margaret acknowledged that she had gone along with Walter’s claims during their marriage, but only because he threatened to kill her and her daughter by a prior marriage if she revealed the truth. At the behest of her attorney, Margaret sat before the jurors and in 53 minutes painted a small boy’s face with those unmistakable outsize orbs. The painting, Exhibit 224 of the trial, may be her greatest artistic triumph."

10. 1960s: Jocelyn Bell Burnell was the first person to observe radio pulsars.

As a graduate student at the University of Cambridge, Jocelyn Bell Burnell helped Anthony Hewish and Martin Ryle construct a radio telescope to monitor quasars (a massive and extremely remote celestial object). It was Burnell’s job to analyze the data from it.

According to Biography.com: “After spending endless hours poring over the charts, she noticed some anomalies that didn’t fit with the patterns produced by quasars and called them to Hewish’s attention... Over the ensuing months, the team systematically eliminated all possible sources of the radio pulses — which they affectionately labeled Little Green Men, in reference to their potentially artificial origins — until they were able to deduce that they were made by neutron stars, fast-spinning collapsed stars too small to form black holes.”

In 1974, Hewish and Ryle received the Nobel Prize for Physics for the discovery.


11.  1963: Anna Arnold Hedgeman organized the March on Washington.

Anna Arnold Hedgeman was the only woman on the organizing committee for the 1963 March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.

But according to Bowdoin College professor Jennifer Scanlon, who authored a biography about Hedgemen, the civil rights leader was “hidden, concealed, out of sight” by the men around her. Not only did Hedgemen galvanize many different groups of people to participate in the march, she organized transportation and made sure attendees had food and water. 

Says Scanlon: “She also demanded that her male colleagues provide women a speaking voice during the march, but as in other things relating to gender, the men proved unrelenting in their sexism.”

A group of leaders who organized the March are often referred to as the “Big Six.” Of course, Hedgemen (or any other woman, for that matter) was not included in that group. 

Hedgeman is shown above with her hands on the map of the mall, posing with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins, two of the men among the “Big Six” organizers of the March.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/11-women-who-did-groundbreaking-things-that-men-got-the-credit-for_us_58ca9e67e4b00705db4ca2f5

Should we name a million things men did?

But wait! There's more:


Candace Pert, opioid receptor: When Pert, then a graduate student at Johns Hopkins, protested that her professor, Dr. Solomon Snyder, had received an award for her discovery of the receptor allows opiates to lock into the brain, Snyder's response was curt: "That's how the game is played." Pert protested in a formal letter to the award committee ("As a graduate student who played a key role in initiating the research and following it up") and then, having thoroughly revolutionized neuroscience, got back to work. She was working toward a more effective treatment of Alzheimer's when she died in September.

Setanta wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:28pm:

Should we name a million things men did?

Bet they got the credit for it though, eh?

Ada Lovelace, computer programming: The daughter of Lord Byron, Lovelace was steered toward math by her mother, who feared her daughter would follow in her father’s "mad, bad, and dangerous" literary footsteps. Luckily, she loved the subject, and remained devoted throughout her brief life—she died in 1852 at age 36, soon after an ambitious, proto-Moneyball attempt to beat the odds at horse racing by developing mathematical models to help place her bets.

When she was barely 20, she started collaborating with the inventor Charles Babbage at the University of London on his "Analytical Engine," an early model of a computer. In 1843, she added extensive notes of her own to a paper on Babbage's machine, detailing how the Engine could be fed step-by-step instructions to do complicated math, and trained to work not only with numbers but also words and symbols "to compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent."

The notes are considered the first descriptions of what we now call algorithms and computer programming, and for decades, historians have argued over whether Lovelace came up with them herself, or Babbage was somehow the real author. "Ada was as mad as a hatter, and contributed little more to the 'Notes' than trouble," writes one historian, and a "manic depressive with the most amazing delusions about her own talents." But Babbage's own memoir suggests she deserved credit for the "the algebraic working out of the different problems," and more recently she's been honored with, among other things, a British medal of honor, a Google Doodle, a tunnel boring machine in London, and her own annual celebration. In 2011, the Ada Initiative was founded to help promote women in computer science and open-source technology.

Judy Malloy, hypertext fiction: A self-taught computer programmer, conceptual artist, and single mom working at a tech company in the early days of Silicon Valley, Malloy self-published a short story called Uncle Roger in 1986. It's a wry take on California tech culture through the eyes of an eccentric computer chip salesman, and at the time, the experience of reading Uncle Roger was totally new. It lived online (and still does), and the reader clicked through fragments of the story in whatever order they chose, twisting and reshaping the narrative along the way. Malloy created an elaborate new database system to tell her story, with 32 UNIX shells and a sophisticated search engine for its time. But in 1992, a New York Times book critic crowned the young novelist Michael Joyce's afternoon, a story as the "granddaddy of full-length hypertext fictions," though Uncle Roger came first and Malloy's piece was acclaimed by the emerging digital art community as the earliest notable example of the form.


http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/10/ada-lovelace-eight-inventions-women-erasure-credit

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh?

Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine.

There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind.

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

1. 1868: Margaret Knight invented the paper bag machine.

Mothra should be thankful.

rhino wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:34pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:05pm: 1. 1868: Margaret Knight invented the paper bag machine. Mothra should be thankful.

That was kinda funny but was it necessary?

Setanta wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:34pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh? Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine. There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind.

Who's whining? I'm celebrating amazing women who history has overlooked.

For most of history, women were not allowed to publish in scientific journals, certainly didn't receive funding for their research and were, quite frankly, lucky to have been educated at all.

I think these women deserve to be spoken about without accusations that i am "whining" by doing so.

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:39pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh? Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine. There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind. Who's whining? I'm celebrating amazing women who history has overlooked. For most of history, women were not allowed to publish in scientific journals, certainly didn't receive funding for their research and were, quite frankly, lucky to have been educated at all. I think these women deserve to be spoken about without accusations that i am "whining" by doing so.

What about the female mathematicians who put man on the moon or the code breakers in WW2?

Many people are overlooked in life and history. Men and women.

big woop, plenty of males overlooked.

Setanta wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:41pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:39pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh? Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine. There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind. Who's whining? I'm celebrating amazing women who history has overlooked. For most of history, women were not allowed to publish in scientific journals, certainly didn't receive funding for their research and were, quite frankly, lucky to have been educated at all. I think these women deserve to be spoken about without accusations that i am "whining" by doing so. What about the female mathematicians who put man on the moon or the code breakers in WW2? Many people are overlooked in life and history. Men and women.

Who's denying it?

Yet women were systematically overlooked by virtue of being women.

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:42pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:41pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:39pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh? Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine. There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind. Who's whining? I'm celebrating amazing women who history has overlooked. For most of history, women were not allowed to publish in scientific journals, certainly didn't receive funding for their research and were, quite frankly, lucky to have been educated at all. I think these women deserve to be spoken about without accusations that i am "whining" by doing so. What about the female mathematicians who put man on the moon or the code breakers in WW2? Many people are overlooked in life and history. Men and women. Who's denying it? Yet women were systematically overlooked by virtue of being women.

If it was systematic why do we know of famously achieving women?

Setanta wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:45pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:42pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:41pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:39pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh? Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine. There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind. Who's whining? I'm celebrating amazing women who history has overlooked. For most of history, women were not allowed to publish in scientific journals, certainly didn't receive funding for their research and were, quite frankly, lucky to have been educated at all. I think these women deserve to be spoken about without accusations that i am "whining" by doing so. What about the female mathematicians who put man on the moon or the code breakers in WW2? Many people are overlooked in life and history. Men and women. Who's denying it? Yet women were systematically overlooked by virtue of being women. If it was systematic why do we know of famously achieving women?

Researchers. Obviously.

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:46pm:

Researchers. Obviously.

How so? You think we only know of them because someone researched them and uncovered them?

Setanta wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:48pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:46pm: Researchers. Obviously. How so? You think we only know of them because someone researched them an uncovered them?

Yes. That is precisely what i am saying.

Take, for example your reaction to my talking about them I was accused of "whining".

Yet these are women who fought against institutionalised sexism (are you denying there was institutionalised sexism?)  to do great things ... that men got the credit for. Their names were intentionally left of academic papers. Their husbands or colleagues were credited with their work.

Tell me Setanta, did you read their stories? Or are you simply reacting to the 'principle'?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:56pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:48pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:46pm: Researchers. Obviously. How so? You think we only know of them because someone researched them an uncovered them? Yes. That is precisely what i am saying. Take, for example your reaction to my talking about them I was accused of "whining". Yet these are women who fought against institutionalised sexism (are you denying there was institutionalised sexism?)  to do great things ... that men got the credit for. Their names were intentionally left of academic papers. Their husbands or colleagues were credited with their work. Tell me Setanta, did you read their stories? Or are you simply reacting to the 'principle'?

I'm reacting to the principle. Men and women get their credit ripped off. You can name 11 women, if I did a bit of a search I'm sure I could find more men with their creds given to someone else. Why are you not  sticking up for men that have had their creds for accomplishments transferred? How about 22 people that have had their accomplishments credited to others?

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:01am:

mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:56pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:48pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:46pm: Researchers. Obviously. How so? You think we only know of them because someone researched them an uncovered them? Yes. That is precisely what i am saying. Take, for example your reaction to my talking about them I was accused of "whining". Yet these are women who fought against institutionalised sexism (are you denying there was institutionalised sexism?)  to do great things ... that men got the credit for. Their names were intentionally left of academic papers. Their husbands or colleagues were credited with their work. Tell me Setanta, did you read their stories? Or are you simply reacting to the 'principle'? I'm reacting to the principle. Men and women get their credit ripped off. You can name 11 women, if I did a bit of a search I'm sure I could find more men with their creds given to someone else. Why are you not  sticking up for men that have had their creds for accomplishments transferred? How about 22 people that have had their accomplishments credited to others?

By simply reacting to the principle (thanks for admitting it), you have missed the fact that some of these women were intentionally left off of academic papers because they were women.

If a woman managed to get an education and a job (no mean feat) in years past, she would find herself prohibited from publishing in academic journals, receiving any funding and bereft of any wider community recognition of what she achieved.

By virtue of her being a woman.

You yourself, a page back, cited the moon landing as the domain of men. Yet you overlook  Margaret Hamilton, the lead software engineer for Project Apollo; Katherine Johnson,  an aerospace technologist at NASA; Dottie Lee, an aerothermodynamics subsystems manager;  Ivy Hooks, a member of the original Space Shuttle design team and also Johnson Space Center director and director of engineering ... to name a few.

Yet you assumed it was all men. Why was that Setanta?

And those women all achieved greatness despite institutionalised sexism, which, i'm sure you would agree, was rife throughout history.

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:39pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:29pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh? Or other men. Not everyone gets the credit for their work, just because some women didn't get credit is not a reason for a whine. There are many renowned women who got credit for what they did. Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie come to mind. Who's whining? I'm celebrating amazing women who history has overlooked. For most of history, women were not allowed to publish in scientific journals, certainly didn't receive funding for their research and were, quite frankly, lucky to have been educated at all. I think these women deserve to be spoken about without accusations that i am "whining" by doing so.

Where are the other ten things?  A short story?  I can do one of those in a day....... and have done - one to acclaim from an audience who generally just do not respond to my 'works'... well.. I also got a review in a play once from a  gay magazine (The Oxford Weekender)  that said I gave a 'sensitive' performance (as Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Sioux in the play 'Indians' - later translated to Hollywood as 'Buffalo Bill and The Indians'), but who am I to judge?....

I'm just a weary old actor, and a lot of other things as well, and not gay... but hell - a good review is a good review....

Footnote:- My GF in 1973 was our University's first Woman Ph.D in Chemistry - she was gorgeous and smart, red-haired and fabulous (just my type) - she went on to a stellar career as a Prof in England - I promised to follow, but was waylaid by my career as an Army officer...... though at times our paths nearly crossed again due to secondments.... that's called life....... but I must re-connect with her before I go.....

A promise is a promise...... hmmm - might be a book there..... or a screenplay....

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:01am: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:56pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:48pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:46pm: Researchers. Obviously. How so? You think we only know of them because someone researched them an uncovered them? Yes. That is precisely what i am saying. Take, for example your reaction to my talking about them I was accused of "whining". Yet these are women who fought against institutionalised sexism (are you denying there was institutionalised sexism?)  to do great things ... that men got the credit for. Their names were intentionally left of academic papers. Their husbands or colleagues were credited with their work. Tell me Setanta, did you read their stories? Or are you simply reacting to the 'principle'? I'm reacting to the principle. Men and women get their credit ripped off. You can name 11 women, if I did a bit of a search I'm sure I could find more men with their creds given to someone else. Why are you not  sticking up for men that have had their creds for accomplishments transferred? How about 22 people that have had their accomplishments credited to others? By simply reacting to the principle (thanks for admitting it), you have missed the fact that some of these women were intentionally left off of academic papers because they were women. If a woman managed to get an education and a job (no mean feat) in years past, she would find herself prohibited from publishing in academic journals, receiving any funding and bereft of any wider community recognition of what she achieved. By virtue of her being a woman. You yourself, a page back, cited the moon landing as the domain of men. Yet you overlook  Margaret Hamilton, the lead software engineer for Project Apollo; Katherine Johnson,  an aerospace technologist at NASA; Dottie Lee, an aerothermodynamics subsystems manager;  Ivy Hooks, a member of the original Space Shuttle design team and also Johnson Space Center director and director of engineering ... to name a few. Yet you assumed it was all men. Why was that Setanta? And those women all achieved greatness despite institutionalised sexism, which, i'm sure you would agree, was rife throughout history.

I was not citing the moon landing as the domain of men, there was an army of women mathematicians behind it, that was the point I was making, just as the code breaking in ww2. You misread me.

You could look at it as every person that accomplished something had a mother. Fine things they are and no progress would be made without them.

I'm kinda a bit peeved that you want to make it a woman/man thing when you aspire to something different usually.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:24am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:17am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:01am: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:56pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:48pm: mothra wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:46pm: Researchers. Obviously. How so? You think we only know of them because someone researched them an uncovered them? Yes. That is precisely what i am saying. Take, for example your reaction to my talking about them I was accused of "whining". Yet these are women who fought against institutionalised sexism (are you denying there was institutionalised sexism?)  to do great things ... that men got the credit for. Their names were intentionally left of academic papers. Their husbands or colleagues were credited with their work. Tell me Setanta, did you read their stories? Or are you simply reacting to the 'principle'? I'm reacting to the principle. Men and women get their credit ripped off. You can name 11 women, if I did a bit of a search I'm sure I could find more men with their creds given to someone else. Why are you not  sticking up for men that have had their creds for accomplishments transferred? How about 22 people that have had their accomplishments credited to others? By simply reacting to the principle (thanks for admitting it), you have missed the fact that some of these women were intentionally left off of academic papers because they were women. If a woman managed to get an education and a job (no mean feat) in years past, she would find herself prohibited from publishing in academic journals, receiving any funding and bereft of any wider community recognition of what she achieved. By virtue of her being a woman. You yourself, a page back, cited the moon landing as the domain of men. Yet you overlook  Margaret Hamilton, the lead software engineer for Project Apollo; Katherine Johnson,  an aerospace technologist at NASA; Dottie Lee, an aerothermodynamics subsystems manager;  Ivy Hooks, a member of the original Space Shuttle design team and also Johnson Space Center director and director of engineering ... to name a few. Yet you assumed it was all men. Why was that Setanta? And those women all achieved greatness despite institutionalised sexism, which, i'm sure you would agree, was rife throughout history. I was not citing the moon landing as the domain of men, there was an army of women mathematicians behind it, that was the point I was making, just as the code breaking in ww2. You misread me. You could look at it as every person that accomplished something had a mother. Fine things they are and no progress would be made without them.

Apologies for misreading you.

Now, about you accusing me of "whining" .....

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:26am:

Apologies for misreading you. Now, about you accusing me of "whining" .....

See late edit above.

Hush - but you can accuse me all you like - you'll still be wrong.....

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:35am:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored.

I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it.

You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:40am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way.

I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history?

I agree with Voltaire - and often quote the same myself.... (pats self on back).... so where are these things that men take credit for that women actually did?

(shuffles through some old papers).... ummmm .. no... women didn't land on the moon.... ummm.. no.. when Apollo 13 went bust, women didn't work out all the details to save it (as a CLANSMAN of mine did - NOTE - clansman)... ummmmm.. no women didn't design the F-35...... ummmm..... lemme think now.....

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:43am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way. I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history?

Yes.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:43am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way. I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history?

I must have missed the first two times. No I don't deny it, I also don't deny many other things that i disapprove of in our history, but we are living now, not in the past. Dwelling on the past is a surefire sign of victimhood.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:46am:

I agree with Voltaire - and often quote the same myself.... (pats self on back).... so where are these things that men take credit for that women actually did? (shuffles through some old papers).... ummmm .. no... women didn't land on the moon.... ummm.. no.. when Apollo 13 went bust, women didn't work out all the details to save it (as a CLANSMAN of mine did - NOTE - clansman)... ummmmm.. no women didn't design the F-35...... ummmm..... lemme think now.....

No. You agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who actually said it.

As for the rest of you rant, Setanta, do you see what i'm talking about?

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:47am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:43am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way. I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history? I must have missed the first two times. No I don't deny it, I also don't deny many other things that i disapprove of in our history, but we are living now, not in the past. Dwelling on the past is a surefire sign of victimhood.

Who's "dwelling in the past"?

I'm simply telling the stories of great women.

It appears to be meeting with some resistance?    :-?

When most people had limited horizons - it became a necessity that men did the hard yards and women did the home front...... thus men earned the money and women handled the home front.... I suppose that was different in Aboriginal communities.... where women often handled it all...

You can't judge past situations by modern realities.... they are not the same.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:47am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:43am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way. I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history? I must have missed the first two times. No I don't deny it, I also don't deny many other things that i disapprove of in our history, but we are living now, not in the past. Dwelling on the past is a surefire sign of victimhood. Who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply telling the stories of great women. It appears to be meeting with some resistance?    :-?

'Resistance'?  That is the language of victimhood... nobody is 'resisting' anything - simply stating the facts.

You reckon I did not consider my Chemistry Ph.D GF as MY equal when I rejected the fish that John West would accept?

Jay-Zuz!  You peasants......

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:49am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:46am: I agree with Voltaire - and often quote the same myself.... (pats self on back).... so where are these things that men take credit for that women actually did? (shuffles through some old papers).... ummmm .. no... women didn't land on the moon.... ummm.. no.. when Apollo 13 went bust, women didn't work out all the details to save it (as a CLANSMAN of mine did - NOTE - clansman)... ummmmm.. no women didn't design the F-35...... ummmm..... lemme think now..... No. You agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who actually said it. As for the rest of you rant, Setanta, do you see what i'm talking about?

:) Sad. I believe there is a new movie Grap might want to watch. I haven't seen it myself yet but it's on my to watch list.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/15/hidden-figures-trailer-octavia-spencer-janelle-monae
http://rocket-women.com/2016/08/new-movie-highlights-pivotal-role-of-nasa-women-to-achieve-moon-landing/

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:47am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:43am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way. I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history? I must have missed the first two times. No I don't deny it, I also don't deny many other things that i disapprove of in our history, but we are living now, not in the past. Dwelling on the past is a surefire sign of victimhood. Who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply telling the stories of great women. It appears to be meeting with some resistance?    :-?

That's not true, you are trying to point out the plight of women being ripped off by men in the past. Look at us, we're victims of the patriarchal society.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:58am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:51am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:47am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:43am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 12:35am: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored. I'm just disapproving of the way you are saying what you say. I'll still defend you right to say it. You are making it a sex based thing, you would be appalled if others did so in a sex or race based way. You seem to want a quid each way. I'll ask you for a third time, do you deny that institutionalised sexism has been implemented throughout our history? I must have missed the first two times. No I don't deny it, I also don't deny many other things that i disapprove of in our history, but we are living now, not in the past. Dwelling on the past is a surefire sign of victimhood. Who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply telling the stories of great women. It appears to be meeting with some resistance?    :-? That's not true, you are trying to point out the plight of women being ripped off by men in the past. Look at us, we're victims of the patriarchal society.

Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past.

Is it not so?

Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism.

"No. You agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who actually said it."

Link?

Voltaire:-

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

SS-DD..... so .. errr... I can say something similar, and because someone else has said it before... it is MINE exclusively?

OK..... do you know how may times a philosophical point will be stated by some thinker?  And how many times it is the SAME pint as someone else has stated, or many others have stated?

Now - I'm pretty smart - but I often find myself making statements that have already been made, and so I do not accept kudos for that statement... .. I guess that shows that I am more perceptive than most.... and maybe have no axe to grind.... just an honest broker....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:03am:

"No. You agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who actually said it." Link? Voltaire:- "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." SS-DD..... so .. errr... I can say something similar, and because someone else has said it before... it is MINE exclusively? OK..... do you know how may times a philosophical point will be stated by some thinker?  And how many times it is the SAME pint as someone else has stated, or many others have stated? Now - I'm pretty smart - but I often find myself making statements that have already been made, and so I do not accept kudos for that statement... .. I guess that shows that I am more perceptive than most.... and maybe have no axe to grind.... just an honest broker....

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:35am:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored.

No axe to grind. Hilarious!

Link you say?

Look a page back.

Never mind, i know you won't. Allow me to repeat myself:



mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 12:35am:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The French philosopher Voltaire is widely credited for what may be the most celebrated quotation about freedom of speech. Bartlett's lists it under his name, calling it a paraphrase from his letter to a M. le Riche, February 6, 1770—but that attribution was based on a misreading. The quote does not appear in Voltaire's letter to François-Louis-Henri Leriche of that date, nor anywhere else in Voltaire's works. The real writer was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), English author of The Friends of Voltaire, a book she published in 1906 under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. The illustrious line is Hall's own characterization of Voltaire's attitude. Discussing a book by one of his friends, she explains that even though he had thought the work rather light, he rose to its defense when it was censored.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:00am:

Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism.

Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:07am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood.

Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"?

I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know.

I'm talking about women's history.

It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:10am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about.

No I didn't know it's "women's history month" just like all the other "women's" days I take no notice except for mother's day.

Are there Men's months and days? Why do you lot feel the need for these?

You are dwelling in the past, looking for past injustices to fuel your rage against the patriarchal society you feel victims in. Women have more power than men these days, enjoy it and stop whining.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:00am:

Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism.

So give me a list - which women landed on the moon?  And all the rest......

I once developed a series of 'Amelia Down By the River" - which covered all the things that 'Amelia' had discovered or considered, that her husband stole and patented while lasciviously indulging in the rich plantations of any woman he could come across....

It's on my old computer that crashed.....

"Amelia, down by the riverbank and seated beneath her favourite yew tree, considered for a moment the next stroke of her painting.... suddenly a small boat, crewed by two of the local factory lads, came into view..... she watched them struggling with their feeble paddles, and thought again of Mr Stephenson ad his Rocket....

"Oh, Montie!" she called to her husband by negotiation, Montague, who was lolling on a sable blanket and taking the warm sun while considering the merits of the latest servant girl........

"Do you think it possible to install one of Mr Stephenson's engines in a BOAT? Perhaps that would be SO much faster than a sail ship, and could relieve the situation for our poor suffering boys in the Crimea by giving them faster supplies?"

Montie stirred, and quickly replied..

"Just stick with your tapestry and your painting, Amelia!  Leave such things to the men who understand these things... now let me doze... I'm sure some fully accredited professor will come to that conclusion... no need for you to trouble yourself!

Turning away, Montie slyly removed a small note pad from his pocket, and with an equally secreted penci wrote:-

"Fit Rocket engine to boat.... "

He stored that away against his next trip to London, when he would be visiting the patent office..... for certain....

He languorously turned over and said:-

"O, Amelia, my dear!  I MUST go down to London soon... perhaps tomorrow..."]

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:15am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about. No I didn't know it's "women's history month" just like all the other "women's" days I take no notice except for mother's day. Are there Men's months and days? Why do you lot feel the need for these? You are dwelling in the past, looking for past injustices to fuel your rage against the patriarchal society you feel victims in. Women have more power than men these days, enjoy it and stop whining.

Is there a Man's History Month?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:18am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. So give me a list - which women landed on the moon?  And all the rest...... I once developed a series of 'Amelia Down By the River" - which covered all the things that 'Amelia' had discovered or considered, that her husband stole and patented while lasciviously indulging in the rich plantations of any woman he could come across.... It's on my old computer that crashed..... "Amelia, down by the riverbank and seated beneath her favourite yew tree, considered for a moment the next stroke of her painting.... suddenly a small boat, crewed by two of the local factory lads, came into view..... she watched them struggling with their feeble paddles, and thought again of Mr Stephenson ad his Rocket.... "Oh, Montie!" she called to her husband by negotiation, Montague, who was lolling on a sable blanket and taking the warm sun while considering the merits of the latest servant girl........ "Do you think it possible to install one of Mr Stephenson's engines in a BOAT? Perhaps that would be SO much faster than a sail ship, and could relieve the situation for our poor suffering boys in the Crimea by giving them faster supplies?" Montie stirred, and quickly replied.. "Just stick with your tapestry and your painting, Amelia!  Leave such things to the men who understand these things... now let me doze... I'm sure some fully accredited professor will come to that conclusion... no need for you to trouble yourself! Turning away, Montie slyly removed a small note pad from his pocket, and with an equally secreted penci wrote:- "Fit Rocket engine to boat.... " He stored that away against his next trip to London, when he would be visiting the patent office..... for certain.... He languorously turned over and said:- "O, Amelia, my dear!  I MUST go down to London soon... perhaps tomorrow..."]

They were the mathematicians behind the scenes. Computers were in their infancy. Without them, there would have been no moon landing. Just as they were the code breakers in ww2.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:15am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about. No I didn't know it's "women's history month" just like all the other "women's" days I take no notice except for mother's day. Are there Men's months and days? Why do you lot feel the need for these? You are dwelling in the past, looking for past injustices to fuel your rage against the patriarchal society you feel victims in. Women have more power than men these days, enjoy it and stop whining.

Not "dwelling in the past". I'm celebrating women's achievements.

You need a 'Men's History Month:? ALL of history is 'Men's History'.

Not "fueling rage". What a strange thing to say? One could say, defensive.

Women have more power than en? Are you for real? On which particular planet? I've stopped well short of talking about sexism in the modern age ... don't get me started. Why would you introduce it? I'm talking about historical sexism, a point upon which we agree. Why would you not want to leave it at that?

And again you accuse me of "whining". How have i whined? I am simply highlighting women of the past who achieved greatness and were not accredited for it. I'm celebrating them.

And in doing so, i appear to be being met with tremendous resistance.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:21am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:15am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about. No I didn't know it's "women's history month" just like all the other "women's" days I take no notice except for mother's day. Are there Men's months and days? Why do you lot feel the need for these? You are dwelling in the past, looking for past injustices to fuel your rage against the patriarchal society you feel victims in. Women have more power than men these days, enjoy it and stop whining. Is there a Man's History Month?

All of history is man's history.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:24am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:15am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about. No I didn't know it's "women's history month" just like all the other "women's" days I take no notice except for mother's day. Are there Men's months and days? Why do you lot feel the need for these? You are dwelling in the past, looking for past injustices to fuel your rage against the patriarchal society you feel victims in. Women have more power than men these days, enjoy it and stop whining. Not "dwelling in the past". I'm celebrating women's achievements. You need a 'Men's History Month:? ALL of history is 'Men's History'. Not "fueling rage". What a strange thing to say? One could say, defensive. Women have more power than en? Are you for real? On which particular planet? I've stopped well short of talking about sexism in the modern age ... don't get me started. Why would you introduce it? I'm talking about historical sexism, a point upon which we agree. Why would you not want to leave it at that? And again you accuse me of "whining". How have i whined? I am simply highlighting women of the past who achieved greatness and were not accredited for it. I'm celebrating them. And in doing so, i appear to be being met with tremendous resistance.

So women need days and months because they don't accomplish as much and the few thing they accomplish are invariably stolen by men?

Yes, women have far more power in our society than men.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:10am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about.

"In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[5][6][7] Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech."

So why would she say such a thing if it was not attributable to Voltaire?  She was writing about Voltaire....

Please provide context....... WHY - in a history of Voltaire, would she reach out for such a statement and then it be considered as accruing to her?

I think you need to provide the entire passage that includes this statement before judging who it comes from at the root.... is she quoting or paraphrasing Voltaire?  If not, why include it in a history of Voltaire?

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:26am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:24am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:15am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about. No I didn't know it's "women's history month" just like all the other "women's" days I take no notice except for mother's day. Are there Men's months and days? Why do you lot feel the need for these? You are dwelling in the past, looking for past injustices to fuel your rage against the patriarchal society you feel victims in. Women have more power than men these days, enjoy it and stop whining. Not "dwelling in the past". I'm celebrating women's achievements. You need a 'Men's History Month:? ALL of history is 'Men's History'. Not "fueling rage". What a strange thing to say? One could say, defensive. Women have more power than en? Are you for real? On which particular planet? I've stopped well short of talking about sexism in the modern age ... don't get me started. Why would you introduce it? I'm talking about historical sexism, a point upon which we agree. Why would you not want to leave it at that? And again you accuse me of "whining". How have i whined? I am simply highlighting women of the past who achieved greatness and were not accredited for it. I'm celebrating them. And in doing so, i appear to be being met with tremendous resistance. So women need days and months because they don't accomplish as much and the few thing they accomplish are invariably stolen by men?

Overly defensive.

We are talking history.

Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:28am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:07am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:00am: Yes. I am highlighting women who have been ripped off by men in the past. Is it not so? Remember, you agreed we have suffered historically from institutionalised sexism. Now we are back at square one. We are not living in the past. In the past many things happened that we would not allow today, on both men and women's sides. Dwelling in the past, bringing up past injustices, is the bread and butter of victimhood. Again .. who's "dwelling in the past"? I'm simply ascribing credit where it is due. It's Women's History Month, don't you know. I'm talking about women's history. It just so happens that much of it was accredited to men. Y'know, because of that pesky institutionalised sexism we keep talking about. "In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[5][6][7] Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech." So why would she say such a thing if it was not attributable to Voltaire?  She was writing about Voltaire.... Please provide context....... WHY - in a history of Voltaire, would she reach out for such a statement and then it be considered as accruing to her? I think you need to provide the entire passage that includes this statement before judging who it comes from at the root.... is she quoting or paraphrasing Voltaire?  If not, why include it in a history of Voltaire?

How about you type into google .. "Who said I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" ... and get yourself an education?


https://media.giphy.com/media/Rhhr8D5mKSX7O/giphy.gif

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:30am:

Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it?

Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past!

History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it.

You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species?

Man==anglo-saxon person
wifeman==woman
were==male man.

I have an education - I'm asking you to give me the full context.....

FAIL...

Time for bed. Sorry to deprive you of a good argument....

Just shot down Unforgiven over his statement that the IRA killed more people than ISIS 'recruits' - if you can do better than Unforge - feel free.... just don't argue the facts and figures....

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:37am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man.

Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"?

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:39am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man. Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"?

So where is the talk about unrecognised men? You are for equality?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:37am:

I have an education - I'm asking you to give me the full context..... FAIL... Time for bed. Sorry to deprive you of a good argument....

Clearly not a particularly extensive one or you would have learned to accept new ideas.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:39am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man. Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"?

You got that right, sister!  (power salute)....

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:41am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: I have an education - I'm asking you to give me the full context..... FAIL... Time for bed. Sorry to deprive you of a good argument.... Clearly not a particularly extensive one or you would have learned to accept new ideas.

Frankly my dear, it is not I who refuses to accept 'new' ideas.. I just don't accept Bullshit.

Which of MY ideas have you accepted?  That'd be a new direction... if nothing else....

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:40am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:39am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man. Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"? So where is the talk about unrecognised men? You are for equality?

You got that right, Bro!  (power salute)....

Night - I leave the field fully validated....

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:40am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:39am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man. Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"? So where is the talk about unrecognised men? You are for equality?

Would you like me to start a thread on it? I'm certain the list is extensive. But were they overlooked because they were men?

The point, that you keep touching on then bizarrely overlooking, is that owing to institutionalised sexism in our past, women were not accredited by virtue of them being women.

I am merely highlighting them.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:43am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:41am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: I have an education - I'm asking you to give me the full context..... FAIL... Time for bed. Sorry to deprive you of a good argument.... Clearly not a particularly extensive one or you would have learned to accept new ideas. Frankly my dear, it is not I who refuses to accept 'new' ideas.. I just don't accept Bullshit. Which of MY ideas have you accepted?  That'd be a new direction... if nothing else....

Your ideas? What, like that there was no intitutionalised sexism in the past?

Or that woen had nothing to do with the moon landing?

Or that Voltaire said "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

Sorry Grap, but your "ideas" are all easy countered.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:46am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:39am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man. Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"? So where is the talk about unrecognised men? You are for equality? Would you like me to start a thread on it? I'm certain the list is extensive. But were they overlooked because they were men? The point, that you keep touching on then bizarrely overlooking, is that owing to institutionalised sexism in our past, women were not accredited by virtue of them being women. I am merely highlighting them.

Why were they overlooked? If we can establish that we might be getting somewhere. We may be able to take sex out of it.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:49am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:43am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:41am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: I have an education - I'm asking you to give me the full context..... FAIL... Time for bed. Sorry to deprive you of a good argument.... Clearly not a particularly extensive one or you would have learned to accept new ideas. Frankly my dear, it is not I who refuses to accept 'new' ideas.. I just don't accept Bullshit. Which of MY ideas have you accepted?  That'd be a new direction... if nothing else.... Your ideas? What, like that there was no intitutionalised sexism in the past? Or that woen had nothing to do with the moon landing? Or that Voltaire said "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Sorry Grap, but your "ideas" are all easy countered.

Oh, for /shaitan';s Sake - both men and women were accdorded 'roles' in the past.

You have yet to offer the context in which your fabulous woman Voltaire made that comment in  history of Voltaire....

Sounds to me like splitting a mickey hair - she says the gist of what Voltaire said was that he would defend your right to a view to the death....

So you want to argue that the basic premise is somehow the less because someone else stated it in different terms?

I do that all the time to clarify simple realities to those with a lesser intellect....

How many ways does a simple premise need to be stated, and who gets kudos for stating it?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/Whv12v2a50P8Q/200_s.gif

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:49am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:46am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:40am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:39am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:30am: Overly defensive. We are talking history. Why are you trying to bring the modern age into it? Not really, sick of victimhood. We were treated badly in the past! History is both men and women, Cleopatra, Helen, Margie Thatcher. You are trying to divide it. You have "women's month(lies)" for what reason? Why not celebrate mankind's achievements. Are you a different species? Man==anglo-saxon person wifeman==woman were==male man. Talking about unrecognised women is "victimhood"? So where is the talk about unrecognised men? You are for equality? Would you like me to start a thread on it? I'm certain the list is extensive. But were they overlooked because they were men? The point, that you keep touching on then bizarrely overlooking, is that owing to institutionalised sexism in our past, women were not accredited by virtue of them being women. I am merely highlighting them. Why were they overlooked? If we can establish that we might be getting somewhere.

Well, we can dismiss institutionalised sexism as a factor, can't we.

It's certainly a factor in why women have not been credited with their achievements. A point upon which, despite you calling me "whiny" and predisposed to "victimhood", we agree.

Out of interest, why, in a thread about women's achievements, must we talk about men? Is this how equality translates to you?

Anyway, i digress. I would say that most people who have gone uncredited have done so at the expense of another's pride and greed.

Women historically were, easy targets of this. Agreed?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:56am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:49am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:43am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:41am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:37am: I have an education - I'm asking you to give me the full context..... FAIL... Time for bed. Sorry to deprive you of a good argument.... Clearly not a particularly extensive one or you would have learned to accept new ideas. Frankly my dear, it is not I who refuses to accept 'new' ideas.. I just don't accept Bullshit. Which of MY ideas have you accepted?  That'd be a new direction... if nothing else.... Your ideas? What, like that there was no intitutionalised sexism in the past? Or that woen had nothing to do with the moon landing? Or that Voltaire said "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Sorry Grap, but your "ideas" are all easy countered. Oh, for /shaitan';s Sake - both men and women were accdorded 'roles' in the past. You have yet to offer the context in which your fabulous woman Voltaire made that comment in  history of Voltaire.... Sounds to me like splitting a mickey hair - she says the gist of what Voltaire said was that he would defend your right to a view to the death.... So you want to argue that the basic premise is somehow the less because someone else stated it in different terms? I do that all the time to clarify simple realities to those with a lesser intellect.... How many ways does a simple premise need to be stated, and who gets kudos for stating it? https://media3.giphy.com/media/Whv12v2a50P8Q/200_s.gif

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enAU719AU719&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=who+said+i+don't+agree+with+what+you+say&*

Never noticed my Ph.D Chemistry Professor GF being overlooked for her achievements.... she got full credit for everything she did.. and deservedly so....

Just saying.... that was back in the 1970's.....

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2485904-0.jpg

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:58am:

Well, we can dismiss institutionalised sexism as a factor, can't we. It's certainly a factor in why women have not been credited with their achievements. A point upon which, despite you calling me "whiny" and predisposed to "victimhood", we agree. Out of interest, why, in a thread about women's achievements, must we talk about men? Is this how equality translates to you? Anyway, i digress. I would say that most people who have gone uncredited have done so at the expense of another's pride and greed. Women historically were, easy targets of this. Agreed?

What about all the other isms? Classism, racism etc?

It is victimhood to whine today about what happened in the past. As if you can change history. We was done wrong I tells ya!

Argh, aye - Manism were a terrible thing!  Thank gawd it's past.... and we can all move on ...

http://38.media.tumblr.com/b5ab4303277b6074e8edd3b97dd405a1/tumblr_nw90viuU7e1rdutw3o1_400.gif

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:01am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:58am: Well, we can dismiss institutionalised sexism as a factor, can't we. It's certainly a factor in why women have not been credited with their achievements. A point upon which, despite you calling me "whiny" and predisposed to "victimhood", we agree. Out of interest, why, in a thread about women's achievements, must we talk about men? Is this how equality translates to you? Anyway, i digress. I would say that most people who have gone uncredited have done so at the expense of another's pride and greed. Women historically were, easy targets of this. Agreed? What about all the other isms? Classism, racism etc? It is victimhood to whine today about what happened in the past. As if you can change history.

Plenty of them .. and i fight them when they come across my plate.

I strongly suspect that many people of colour have not been accredited with their achievements .. and most certainly have experienced prejudice in securing placement, funding and procuring education in the first place.

However, this thread is not about them.

Would you like e to start a thread about them?

And who is whining? ... she asks again.

Who is "dwelling in the past"? ... she asks again.

And the only "victimhood" i'm seeing is from you and Grap, heaping shite on me for daring to start a thread about women and not men who have gone uncredited.

We uppity women, eh?

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:08am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:01am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:58am: Well, we can dismiss institutionalised sexism as a factor, can't we. It's certainly a factor in why women have not been credited with their achievements. A point upon which, despite you calling me "whiny" and predisposed to "victimhood", we agree. Out of interest, why, in a thread about women's achievements, must we talk about men? Is this how equality translates to you? Anyway, i digress. I would say that most people who have gone uncredited have done so at the expense of another's pride and greed. Women historically were, easy targets of this. Agreed? What about all the other isms? Classism, racism etc? It is victimhood to whine today about what happened in the past. As if you can change history. Plenty of them .. and i fight them when they come across my plate. I strongly suspect that many people of colour have not been accredited with their achievements .. and most certainly have experienced prejudice in securing placement, funding and procuring education in the first place. However, this thread is not about them. Would you like e to start a thread about them? And who is whining? ... she asks again. Who is "dwelling in the past"? ... she asks again. And the only "victimhood" i'm seeing is from you and Grap, heaping shite on me for daring to start a thread about women and not men who have gone uncredited. Us uppity women, eh?

I don't mind uppity women, I don't mind you! ;) I just do not see the reasoning behind what you are saying. Why separate women, other races/classes etc? Have a day or week or a month for them all? One for anyone that feels aggrieved of history and wants to feel bad for what happened at some time in the past?

It's victimhood. We was hard done by and we want recognition! The Serbs killed some of us, but he Croats killed Serbs too! On and on. Stop living in the past and thriving on it.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:14am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:08am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:01am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 1:58am: Well, we can dismiss institutionalised sexism as a factor, can't we. It's certainly a factor in why women have not been credited with their achievements. A point upon which, despite you calling me "whiny" and predisposed to "victimhood", we agree. Out of interest, why, in a thread about women's achievements, must we talk about men? Is this how equality translates to you? Anyway, i digress. I would say that most people who have gone uncredited have done so at the expense of another's pride and greed. Women historically were, easy targets of this. Agreed? What about all the other isms? Classism, racism etc? It is victimhood to whine today about what happened in the past. As if you can change history. Plenty of them .. and i fight them when they come across my plate. I strongly suspect that many people of colour have not been accredited with their achievements .. and most certainly have experienced prejudice in securing placement, funding and procuring education in the first place. However, this thread is not about them. Would you like e to start a thread about them? And who is whining? ... she asks again. Who is "dwelling in the past"? ... she asks again. And the only "victimhood" i'm seeing is from you and Grap, heaping shite on me for daring to start a thread about women and not men who have gone uncredited. Us uppity women, eh? I don't mind uppity women, I don't mind you! ;) I just do not see the reasoning behind what you are saying. Why separate women, other races/classes etc? Have a day or week or a month for them all? One for anyone that feels aggrieved of history and wants to feel bad for what happened at some time in the past? It's victimhood. We was hard done by and we want recognition! The Serbs killed some of us, but he Croats killed Serbs too! On and on. Stop living in the past and thriving on it.

It's not "victimhood".

It's celebrating the women of the past who have gone uncredited through the institutionalised sexism both you and i agree has shaped history.

I'm not separating anything at all. I am simply giving credit where credit is due. And i have been all kinds of names for it.

Are you seriously suggesting that every time i mention an injustice i am obliged to mention all injustices as a disclaimer against being called "whiny" or perpetrating "victimhood"?

Are you saying these women should not be talked about?

Are you suggesting we don't mention why these women are not talked about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:22am:

It's not "victimhood". It's celebrating the women of the past who have gone uncredited through the institutionalised sexism both you and i agree has shaped history. I'm not separating anything at all. I am simply giving credit where credit is due. And i have been all kinds of names for it. Are you seriously suggesting that every time i mention an injustice i am obliged to mention all injustices as a disclaimer against being called "whiny" or perpetrating "victimhood"? Are you saying these women should not be talked about? Are you suggesting we don't mention why these women are not talked about?

It is victimhood.

I'm not suggesting you mention anything, I'm questioning your reasoning. I may bring up other similarities to make my point but you are free to mention anything you like, as am I.

To hold onto past grievances is whiny. The Irish and Scot parts of myself punch the English Norman part of myself every night, it's only right.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:28am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:22am: It's not "victimhood". It's celebrating the women of the past who have gone uncredited through the institutionalised sexism both you and i agree has shaped history. I'm not separating anything at all. I am simply giving credit where credit is due. And i have been all kinds of names for it. Are you seriously suggesting that every time i mention an injustice i am obliged to mention all injustices as a disclaimer against being called "whiny" or perpetrating "victimhood"? Are you saying these women should not be talked about? Are you suggesting we don't mention why these women are not talked about? It is victimhood. I'm not suggesting you mention anything, I'm questioning your reasoning. I may bring up other similarities to make my point but you are free to mention anything you like, as am I. To hold onto past grievances is whiny. The Irish and Scot parts of myself punch the English Norman part of myself every night, it's only right.

Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap.

"Why aren't men included, wah!"

And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history.

Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny".

It is simply a statement of fact.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:34am:

Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap. "Why aren't men included, wah!" And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history. Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny". It is simply a statement of fact.

Not just sexism but racism, classism and religionism. Why separate them. The past wasn't today, why feel aggrieved? Shyte happened, that's the way it was, you can't change it.

Not only that I want land rights! http://brundish.suffolk.cloud/

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:38am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:34am: Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap. "Why aren't men included, wah!" And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history. Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny". It is simply a statement of fact. Not just sexism but racism, classism and religionism. Why separate them. The past wasn't today, why feel aggrieved? Shyte happened, that's the way it was, you can't change it. Not only that I want land rights! http://brundish.suffolk.cloud/

Would you like me to start a thread on all of them at once?

Why can i not talk about great women of history who have gone uncredited due to institutionalised sexism, which we both agree was the norm, without mentioning every. single. victim. that. ever. was.?

And who said i felt aggrieved? Why do you feel compelled to keep diminishing me to negative associations? So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it.

All for tying to bring attention to women who were overlooked by a sexist history.

I think these women are worthy of attention. The reason they have been overlooked is, indeed, noteworthy. It is history.

I really shouldn't have to fight so hard to get their names out there.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 2:56am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:38am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:34am: Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap. "Why aren't men included, wah!" And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history. Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny". It is simply a statement of fact. Not just sexism but racism, classism and religionism. Why separate them. The past wasn't today, why feel aggrieved? Shyte happened, that's the way it was, you can't change it. Not only that I want land rights! http://brundish.suffolk.cloud/ Would you like me to start a thread on all of them at once? Why can i not talk about great women of history who have gone uncredited due to institutionalised sexism, which we both agree was the norm, without mentioning every. single. victim. that. ever. was.? And who said i felt aggrieved? Why do you feel compelled to keep diminishing me to negative associations? So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. All for tying to bring attention to women who were overlooked by a sexist history. I think these women are worthy of attention. The reason they have been overlooked is, indeed, noteworthy. It is history. I really shouldn't have to fight so hard to get their names out there.

You can talk about them, as you have, I can call whiny women on it, as I have. All is good. Surely you would defend my right to say so? ;)

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:02am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:56am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:38am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:34am: Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap. "Why aren't men included, wah!" And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history. Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny". It is simply a statement of fact. Not just sexism but racism, classism and religionism. Why separate them. The past wasn't today, why feel aggrieved? Shyte happened, that's the way it was, you can't change it. Not only that I want land rights! http://brundish.suffolk.cloud/ Would you like me to start a thread on all of them at once? Why can i not talk about great women of history who have gone uncredited due to institutionalised sexism, which we both agree was the norm, without mentioning every. single. victim. that. ever. was.? And who said i felt aggrieved? Why do you feel compelled to keep diminishing me to negative associations? So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. All for tying to bring attention to women who were overlooked by a sexist history. I think these women are worthy of attention. The reason they have been overlooked is, indeed, noteworthy. It is history. I really shouldn't have to fight so hard to get their names out there. You can talk about them, as you have, I can call whiny women on it, as I have. All is good. Surely you would defend my right to say so? ;)

All is not good. You're accusation of "whiny" is offensive and uncalled for.

The only single substantiation you have given towards using that word has been effectively countered.

At this point, it is nothing more than an ad hominem.

In fact, it could well be argued that the only people "whining" in this thread have been you and Grap.

Tell me Setanta, if i started a thread about racism towards Somali immigrants, would you accuse me of not including the injustices perpetrated against all other demographics?

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:10am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:02am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:56am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:38am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:34am: Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap. "Why aren't men included, wah!" And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history. Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny". It is simply a statement of fact. Not just sexism but racism, classism and religionism. Why separate them. The past wasn't today, why feel aggrieved? Shyte happened, that's the way it was, you can't change it. Not only that I want land rights! http://brundish.suffolk.cloud/ Would you like me to start a thread on all of them at once? Why can i not talk about great women of history who have gone uncredited due to institutionalised sexism, which we both agree was the norm, without mentioning every. single. victim. that. ever. was.? And who said i felt aggrieved? Why do you feel compelled to keep diminishing me to negative associations? So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. All for tying to bring attention to women who were overlooked by a sexist history. I think these women are worthy of attention. The reason they have been overlooked is, indeed, noteworthy. It is history. I really shouldn't have to fight so hard to get their names out there. You can talk about them, as you have, I can call whiny women on it, as I have. All is good. Surely you would defend my right to say so? ;) All is not good. You're accusation of "whiny" is offensive and uncalled for. The only single substantiation you have given towards using that word has been effectively countered. At this point, it is nothing more than an ad hominem. In fact, it could well be argued that the only people "whining" in this thread have been you and Grap. Tell me Setanta, if i started a thread about racism towards Somali immigrants, would you accuse me of not including the injustices perpetrated against all other demographics?

If you take offence, that is your choice, none was meant, I'm putting it as I see it. Surely you would defend to the death my right to state my opinion.

Start a thread on Somali immigrants as you advised me and we'll see.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:13am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:10am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:02am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:56am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:38am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 2:34am: Again, the only victimhood evidenced in this thread has come from you and Grap. "Why aren't men included, wah!" And who, again, is holding onto past grievances? You yourself conceded that institutionalised sexism has shaped history. Simply telling these women's stories and recognising the reason why they were not credited is not "holding onto past grievances". Nor is it being "whiny". It is simply a statement of fact. Not just sexism but racism, classism and religionism. Why separate them. The past wasn't today, why feel aggrieved? Shyte happened, that's the way it was, you can't change it. Not only that I want land rights! http://brundish.suffolk.cloud/ Would you like me to start a thread on all of them at once? Why can i not talk about great women of history who have gone uncredited due to institutionalised sexism, which we both agree was the norm, without mentioning every. single. victim. that. ever. was.? And who said i felt aggrieved? Why do you feel compelled to keep diminishing me to negative associations? So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. All for tying to bring attention to women who were overlooked by a sexist history. I think these women are worthy of attention. The reason they have been overlooked is, indeed, noteworthy. It is history. I really shouldn't have to fight so hard to get their names out there. You can talk about them, as you have, I can call whiny women on it, as I have. All is good. Surely you would defend my right to say so? ;) All is not good. You're accusation of "whiny" is offensive and uncalled for. The only single substantiation you have given towards using that word has been effectively countered. At this point, it is nothing more than an ad hominem. In fact, it could well be argued that the only people "whining" in this thread have been you and Grap. Tell me Setanta, if i started a thread about racism towards Somali immigrants, would you accuse me of not including the injustices perpetrated against all other demographics? If you take offence, that is your choice, none was meant, I'm putting it as I see it. Surely you would defend to the death my right to state my opinion. Start a thread on Somali immigrants as you advised me and we'll see.

None was meant? Sure, it's a term of endearment.  ::)

And of course i defend your right to an opinion ... but you have littered your opinion with ad homs designed to diminish me and my opinions.

I have not done that to you.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:18am:

None was meant? Sure, it's a term of endearment.  ::) And of course i defend your right to an opinion ... but you have littered your opinion with ad homs designed to diminish me and my opinions. I have not done that to you.

Where are the ad homs? I've not pointed anything at you personally. If you take generalisations of whiny women's days/weeks/months as ad homs you need to take things a little less personally. I'm diminishing the perpetual victimhood that some feel. I'm offended by your offense!


  You have you know. I'm a man. We thieve women's accomplishments.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:23am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:18am: None was meant? Sure, it's a term of endearment.  ::) And of course i defend your right to an opinion ... but you have littered your opinion with ad homs designed to diminish me and my opinions. I have not done that to you. Where are the ad homs? I've not pointed anything at you personally. If you take generalisations of whiny women's days/weeks/months as ad homs you need to take things a little less personally. I'm diminishing the perpetual victimhood that some feel. I'm offended at your offense!

I repeat:

So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", of "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it.

Are you seriously saying none of this was intended to diminish me?

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:28am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:23am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:18am: None was meant? Sure, it's a term of endearment.  ::) And of course i defend your right to an opinion ... but you have littered your opinion with ad homs designed to diminish me and my opinions. I have not done that to you. Where are the ad homs? I've not pointed anything at you personally. If you take generalisations of whiny women's days/weeks/months as ad homs you need to take things a little less personally. I'm diminishing the perpetual victimhood that some feel. I'm offended at your offense! I repeat: So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", of "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. Are you seriously saying none of this was intended to diminish me?

No, I've said that people that take up these little crusades are. If you take that to mean you I can't help that. I have pointed nothing at you personally, just as you saying men thieve women's accomplishments does not single me out, unless I choose to take it that way.

Setanta wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:31am:

mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:28am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:23am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:18am: None was meant? Sure, it's a term of endearment.  ::) And of course i defend your right to an opinion ... but you have littered your opinion with ad homs designed to diminish me and my opinions. I have not done that to you. Where are the ad homs? I've not pointed anything at you personally. If you take generalisations of whiny women's days/weeks/months as ad homs you need to take things a little less personally. I'm diminishing the perpetual victimhood that some feel. I'm offended at your offense! I repeat: So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", of "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. Are you seriously saying none of this was intended to diminish me? No, I've said that people that take up these little crusades are. If you take that to mean you I can't help that. I have pointed nothing at you personally, just as you saying men thieve women's accomplishments does not single me out, unless I choose to take it that way.

An interesting rewrite.

You have leveled each one of those accusations at me directly. Personally.

I suggest you reread the thread for clarification.

mothra wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:35am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:31am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:28am: Setanta wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:23am: mothra wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 3:18am: None was meant? Sure, it's a term of endearment.  ::) And of course i defend your right to an opinion ... but you have littered your opinion with ad homs designed to diminish me and my opinions. I have not done that to you. Where are the ad homs? I've not pointed anything at you personally. If you take generalisations of whiny women's days/weeks/months as ad homs you need to take things a little less personally. I'm diminishing the perpetual victimhood that some feel. I'm offended at your offense! I repeat: So far in this thread you've called me whiny, accused me of "fueling my rage", accused me of sexism, accused me of wallowing in "victimhood", of "dwelling in the past" ... and no doubt more if i could be bothered going back through it. Are you seriously saying none of this was intended to diminish me? No, I've said that people that take up these little crusades are. If you take that to mean you I can't help that. I have pointed nothing at you personally, just as you saying men thieve women's accomplishments does not single me out, unless I choose to take it that way. An interesting rewrite. You have leveled each one of those accusations at me directly. Personally. I suggest you reread the thread for clarification.

OK, I will, tomorrow(later today I suppose), and I apologise if I have, that was not my intent. It's 4:30 and it's time for bed. Have a good night Mothra.

Goodnight Setanta, sleep well ...  :)

mothra wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 25th, 2017 at 11:28pm: Should we name a million things men did? Bet they got the credit for it though, eh?

my wife always gets the credit for my work. Such is life.

What about Linda Lovelace?

Her contribution to the cinema is legend

What about Linda Lovelace?

Her contribution to the cinema is legend

Apparently her dentist said she had the best set of teeth he had ever come across.

miketrees wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 11:13am:

What about Linda Lovelace? Her contribution to the cinema is legend Apparently her dentist said she had the best set of teeth he had ever come across.

And could breath through her ears.