"Women are stupid"

It is the popular narrative though.

The popular narrative is that she was doing some pretty pictures and was too dim to understand what they meant

The popular narrative is bullshit, it's comparable with the famous Daily Mail headline "Oxford housewife wins Nobel" when Dorothy Hodgkin won the prize. It's funny how nonscientists know more about Franklin than Hodgkin though. We all like a tragic romance.

Franklin was a more conscientious scientist than Watson (crystallographers tend to be) and she would have got there. Lots of people were chasing the prize; Pauling published a triple helix predicted structure but he'd not taken into account Chargaff's work on the bases.

And as Lass said, I'm not a man. I am however a biochemist so know more about this than Sakura who didn't even know Franklin's name. So even if I was a man it wouldn't be mansplaining because that would require me to know less about the matter being discussed than the person I was explaining it to.

They totally stole her work.

Of course they did.

The popular narrative is that she was doing some pretty pictures and was too dim to understand what they meant, luckily a passing clever man was able to make good use of them.

You mean explaining it. CountFosco is a woman and even if she weren't, it still wasn't "mansplaining".

As for women being told they are stupid I might remind the OP that the "feminist" blog she posted about so approvingly on the antinatalist thread said women who have children are stupid.

Most men's jobs literally exist off the back breaking work of women's low paid labour. Women are taxed, for example, just like men, and a lot of government jobs are given to men. The military is funded by taxes. Prostitutes are taxed by the government

What a random selection of non sequiturs.

Decormad38 For much of the 20th century medical schools had a cap on the number of women who could study medicine, so very similar.

sakura184 Wilkins took Watson into Franklin's office and showed him Photo 51, Watson immediately realised the cross pattern suggested DNA was a helix, a conclusion neither Wilkins or Franklin had completely made yet. He used this, along with lots of other data from other sources to work out the double helix structure. They did not 'steal' her work, nor did they take credit, Franklin's paper with Photo 51 was published in the same edition of Nature as the Double Helix paper by Crick and Watson, they are right next to each other, the link is clear.

Women who are childless and single may well outearn men.
But women in professional jobs with a professional partner have a bind that men in professional jobs don't. Because men are the ones who are allowed to relocate for work etc. Even without children men don't follow their wives' work.

Yes well the 11 plus was weighted so that more boys passed than girls. So when I hear men bragging that they got into grammar school blah blah I think yeah right! This has been going on a long time.

I agree, Goosefoot.

Men are also most often the people at the bottom as well as the top. Suicide is the biggest cause of death of men under 50. Strange considering how perfect their lives supposedly are.

And it's not easy for a man to marry into a comfortable life like a woman can.

There are some very weird comments on here. Capitalism exploits the labour of all workers, that's the heart of the whole structure. It doesn't care if you are a man or a woman as long as you can work for pay. Lots f men are exploited ni their labour, do people not know anything about the history of the labour movement?!!

I am actually really shocked.

I've never understood the idea that someone should be able to be a CEO and do the work of raising children. It's like saying someone should be able to be CEO and an electrician or a CEO and a philosophy professor. Some people switch careers of course but the time spent doing something else makes a difference. People who want jobs like that generally have to have a spouse or nanny to do the bulk of the child-rearing.

I don't understand the idea that there are fewer women's contributions because they are so often killed for being women. As already pointed out it's not a common type of death anyway, but it's also the case that men are the most common victims of men's violence, and they are also the ones who are typically killed in great numbers in wars. Whatever the reason for the difference it's not that.

I have never, ever felt or been led to believe that I , or any other women, are stupid. Certainly anyone who spent more than 10 seconds in my company would realise I’m most definitely not! Again from a family of strong women and a dad who thought me and my sis were the bees knees

I grew up in the 90s and don't recall ever thinking that women weren't as smart as men.

I remember vividly many men/boys thinking that they were smarter than women/girls.

We can't fit women like a square peg into a round hole designed by, and for the benefit of, men.

I feel this needs stressing.

@Meniak most mothers are too tired to be angry. To be fair loads of women don't see inequality until either they have children, or they become a SAHM and their spouse divorces them.

@sakura yes exactly. It's the same in western societies. When you're home with babies (without any time off even to sleep through the night) people call it "taking time off" from work, or a lifestyle choice, and you don't get paid. Even though pregnancy is inevitable for most women. That is the structural inequality. What i don't understand is where's the anger?

Some men don't like their jobs (but they still get paid heaps). They are the patriarchy's true victims. Now I feel bad for talking about women's rights and neglecting them.