It's very cool with "my body, my choice" with creating potential threats to themselves. But when it comes to "his body, his choice" , no one really seems to care about this important concern where you are being changed without your acknowledgement.
It's like... Three women of a small ice cream factories earn less than Bill Gates. This sexism for them and according them all of Bill Gates' money should be equally distributed among them because they are women and they deserve equality.
They colour their hair with unnatural, repulsive colours and can walk on the street naked to get independency. What do you expect from them? Only propaganda. Americans would have coloured their hair with colours you've never heard the name of and should have walked naked on roads to get independence from Britain (I'm their logic), instead of fighting with brave men for independence.
These kind of people actually don't have a sense of how our civilization has proceeded and they absolutely don't think intuitively (as you can guess from their figure of speech). They are newly learning and I'm sure that they will end regretting their all useless works and in the last would follow in a "human" way.
Hmmmm.... In America (I've heard, I'm not American) that abortion is not to be completely illegalised and abortion would be available for critical cases. The abortion facility would only be available in state's capital. If any women gets raped and wants prevention of pregnancy, then take pills and don't wait for the baby to grow. If however the baby grows then I think you should not late the abortion of your unwanted child to 9months, just killing it a day before he could have been born perfectl…
It is very sad to see that the people who say they fight for equality has reached the ultimate height of hypocrisy. I 'aven't seen such "profound" hypocrisy in my life.
Yes, im talking of her. She did great work for comp math. There are different aspects to those which tend away from pure math and those which originated from pure. The aspects are different.
But it's extracted from Newton's theory. And Newton lived before Maria. Any school teacher can write a textbook of problems and representations of original theories and she did nothing special to appreciate so much( I'm not saying she dont deserves to be appreciated but I'm saying that she only wrote a textbook out of Newton's whole Principia, she can't be compared to the writer of principia itself. There's a difference. I am not eligible to be given credits and as much as fame a person would ge…
Comp math is a distant relative of pure math while, the early initiatives of applied math is close to pure math. Engineering and Physics are different. Like that the work mentioned in the book are different than of applied math(which tends away from pure math or of the middle line of pure and applied math)
The person who wrote the review was unable to understand, I guess, that there are different aspects to math. And in the aspect the book was written (cleared in the intro of the book), the aspect it contained is about pure math and close relatives of it but comp math seems to be lil distinct.
My point wasn't that. There are different aspects of math. Have you read A Mathematician's Apology by GH Hardy? I'm not saying there less important. I'm saying that you can't compare MS Dhoni and APJ Abdul Kalam.
But we know her name. There are many people those were oppressed in past but we're celebrated in future like Peter Higgs and his Higgs Boson. My point is that she ain't so great to be put next to Newton (work wise, not gender)
Yes, she doesn't. Newton did so many great works and it would be very disrespective (work wise) to put Ada next to Newton for Newton and mathematics, for both.
My point, from the beginning was this. I point was Ada and the Egyptian aren't that great to be put among such other great mathematicians. You derived that I'm saying women don't need to included. I'm not saying that. Till date, there are no women to be compared with Newton (because of his work, not gender). So, when a woman in future does great work, she must be appreciated. My point was the 2 aren't that great to be out the book of greats.
No, Einstein doesn't deserve to be in the book. Nor did other physicists. I don't remember if Newton was there or not, but he deserves as his Principia is a groundbreaking work as it opened new field of math called calculus.
Yes I admitted and I have never refused to admit. But she did great work in comp math, not in pure or general math. Her works tends towards applications. She doesn't deserve to be put with the great Mathematicians that did great work for Mathematics. Mathematics isn't only about it's application.
If great women came in future then they must be included. You can't just derive shit out of things I am saying without completely understanding my point. I'm saying, Ada and the Egyptian aren't that great to be put a book of great mathematicians.
So you accept that it is true that genetically women are physically weaker than men, in generality? She did great work in comp math, not pure math. She has done good work for math. But not that great to be put other Great Mathematicians. If she deserves to be there then Aryabhatta and Hardy do so. Why not?
Well, in the special case of soccer. Men and women play differently :D. But in case of mathematics. But in case of Ada, and the book. The book is appreciation of pure mathematicians. She tends to different field. Pure math and computer math aren't the same.
Read my original comment. Why there were no great women mathematicians when there were great women literates of English literature like Jane Austen. In my original comment I mentioned that "I'm not saying that women can't do Mathematics". But my point is, is really Ada so great to be put next to Newton? Descartes? No. I'm not saying to not to appreciate her but my point is among great "mathematicians" she ain't SO great to put her among them. Why feminism didn't rise in AD 100? Why after world w…
You misinterpreted my point. I wanted to say the thing from the very first. I was saying about the matter that women and their pronouns are appreciated but men's aren't. If a men did great work and someone write about it then what's wrong with it?
I have no problem. But the thing is the feminists are pushing propaganda everywhere. If someone is appreciating all the great works of Mathematics, by men, then what's wrong with that?
Yes, it doesn't matter, I agree. But if there are female's work appreciating books and they are heavily promoted by both genders, then why men's work appreciating books are oppressed? Gender neutrality is needed when there are description of both genders but in the book, it is only about great work done, and all done by men. So, what's wrong with having it written with "he"?
My point is ... if we can have women appreciating books in our society and they get supported by both genders then why can't these Feminazis support and appreciate Men's work books? Why we need gender neutrality when it comes to men and not when it's with women?
Why not men? Why can't we appreciate men for math? Why is it necessary to put women everywhere? Why can't they maintain the beauty of the book? We men don't complain about "great women" kind of books because we let them appreciate what they did.
The reason is to remove this review so that it won't ruin the beautiful reviews appreciating and also logically criticizing its faults. The review was only pushing propaganda. Why she didn't appreciate the men of math? Why she whined about women only? Because she is pushing propaganda.
Ran out of title space.... Let Mathematics be free off of politics. You can't compare Ada or the Egyptian to great Mathematicians like Descartes. Why does gender even matter here? Why should ET Bell promote women in his if they did nothing significant. It's a book about great Mathematicians and as per history all of them are men. Is the Egyptian comparable to Euclid? Thales? Pythagoreans? No! Women weren't oppressed because in those times of late 1800's and early 1900's or even mid 1800's there …
Mannnnn, I'm not saying that "all" men are bad at cooking, sure you can be a cook and serve great dishes. I myself cook for me and I can cook variety of dishes. I'm speaking in "GENERALITY" of why men are considered bad at cooking. Women are trained to cook that's how they cook. Anyone trained in proper manner can cook. We are trained to walk, to read and to speak. Please re-read my original reply to understand what's my point and please put emphasis on the words I used, they aren't there for fa…
Men can cook if they are trained. Anyone can. It's just that as per nature women tend towards the household works and men towards outdoors. So, women are generally better than men in cooking with expectations such as you told the great chefs are men. It's not that men can't cook. It is just that they lack practice and experience in general for cooking.
Read the second part. I confirmed it from several Google searches from several sites. Nobel committee came to Pierre offering the Nobel and on his mercy only Marie got the joint Nobel. She only assisted him and Pierre was the leader of it.
I first came to learn about it from Genius: Einstein , a NatGeo series then I did random research on Google to know the whole story. Check out the Genius and do some research.
Claps Really..... Women tell that they didn't got chances in the past but why they didn't bring the "Feminazi Revolution" back in AD 1000? Why now? Because some of stupid men inspired them with their non-sensical thinking of equality. We are different, we cannot be equal. Even two brothers are not equal, no even twins(completely). They don't understand logic and basic science. Science is truth. Neurology tells us how brains functions. And according to that men are smarter at Mathematics and Phys…
