I will give you the same answer I gave allemotion,RickLewis wrote:mickthinks thinks you won't accept any of the names the rest of us could easily put forward. However, for you to justify your rejection of them you would first have to clarify what you mean by "notable". Could you do that now, please?
If a woman claims to be a philosopher, then she should debate regularly on a philosophy forum, and win such debates resoundly, against men.
If a woman claims equality to men, then she must compete against men and dominate them in any competition.
If she is beaten, physically, cries, and whimpers like a bitch, then she is a woman, not a man, not equal to men, and must resign her fate to mediocrity and inferiority.
If a woman faces true challenges and mental feats worth mentioning to any history book, then she must prove herself against men of the "same" caliber.
Simone de Beauvoir is the only female close to philosopher status, that I've ever heard or accepted, and not because she participated in philosophy, but because she shared a bed with a philosopher. Perhaps then, this may be as close to philosophy as the female specie can ever hope for?RickLewis wrote:If we take your question as a straightforward request for information, then it seems to me like a completely appropriate question to ask in this section. If there really had been no notable philosophers, mathematicians or scientists in history then that would certainly be a fact worth discussing. In fact, despite the practical disadvantages and social discouragement faced by female scholars in most eras, there have been quite a few of 'em.
The earliest important female mathematician we still remember was Hypatia. She lived in Alexandria in the 4th-5th century AD, was head of the Platonist school there and was murdered by a Christian mob. Doesn't the fact that her name has continued to be known among scholars throughout the 16 centuries since then, that she has been the subject of commentaries and other writings, and that she is still well known today, mean that she was "notable"? I'd have thought it was a good indicator, at least - but if you mean something else by 'notable' do please say so, and tell us exactly how notability should be measured.
No, I did not say that, they just haven't had the opportunities men have had. Who was the greatest British monarch? Probably Elizabeth the First. According to your 'logic' women should all have the IQ of a jellyfish. Odd that they evolved an equal intelligence to men. Your assertions about the inferiority of women are just not backed up by science. In other words, you talk a load of crap.
