"My one life regret is in that I was not allowed to provide my scientific contribution to the full extent of my capacities......... That so few should have affected the decisions of so many...... Because it was not I who lost, as a consequence, it was the community. Perhaps my books on the subject of discrimination
will help all those who were unfortunate enough to be born talented and yet not within the portion of the population whose members are permitted to place their talent to the service of the community."
CLAUDIA GASPARRINI-ETHERIDGE WROTE:
They say that men and women show different interests even during their very early stages of life, and that therefore their capacity to appreciate and absorb the various fields of knowledge is not necessarily the same. It is possible, and I am prepared to believe, that many women lack particularly strong tendencies towards certain subjects such as mathematics or even those related to all the scientific fields. I am even prepared to admit myself that perhaps the average talented woman is just not meant to be a scientist. But what about the few, the rare women who do understand and who are interested in those subjects? The women who have the gift to excel in those subjects. Do they need to be condemned and pushed aside, only because they happen to belong in a group the majority of whose members lack the same gift? This makes very little sense in view of the fact that exceptionally talented Caucasian males are equally rare, yet - at least in a certain number of instances - they are allowed, in fact they are encouraged, to actualize their potential. Why does the man receive all the support and then all the rewards, while the woman is considered an oddity and, as such, is first used and discarded, eventually altogether eliminated from the community? What is it that really matters? The contribution that the exceptionally gifted person - man or woman - is capable of providing, or the person responsible for it? (From
continued on
