Skip to main content

Women Who Have Made the World Better - A List You Won't Find in Mainstream Media

"I am those 66 million girls who are deprived of education." Malala Yousafzai. Nobel Lecture, 2014 Peace Prize

Malala Yousafzai 2014 Peace Prize 
Optimism of Petals

Svetlana Alexievich 2015 Literature
Youyou Tu 2015 Physiology or Medicine
May-Britt Moser 2014 Physiology or Medicine
Alice Munro 2013 Literature
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf 2011 Peace
Laymah Gbowee 2011 Peace
Tawakkol Karman 2011 Peace
Elinor Ostrom 2009 Economic Sciences
Herta Muller Literature 2009
Elizabeth Blackburn 2009 Physiology or Medicine
Carol Greider 2009 Physiology or Medicine
Ada Yonath 2009 Chemistry
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi 2008 Physiology or Medicine
Doris Lessing Literature 2007
Wangari Maathai 2004 Peace
Linda Buck 2004 Physiology or Medicine
Elfriede Jelinek 2004 Literature
Shirin Ebadi 2003 Peace
Jody Williams 1997 Peace
Wislawa Szymborska 1996 Literature
Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard 1995 Physiology or Medicine
Toni Morrison 1993 Literature
Rigoberta Menchú Tum 1992 Peace
Nadine Gordimer 1991 Literature
Aung San Suu Kyi 1991 Peace
Gertrude B. Elion 1988 Physiology or Medicine
Rita Levi-Montalcini 1986 Physiology or Medicine
Barbara McClintock 1983 Physiology or Medicine
Alva Myrdal 1982 Peace
Mother Teresa 1979 Peace
Rosalyn Yalow 1977 Physiology or Medicine
Betty Williams 1976 Peace
Mairead Corrigan 1976 Peace
Nelly Sachs 1966 Literature
Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin 1964 Chemistry
Maria Goeppert Mayer 1963 Physics
Gerty Cori 1947 Physiology or Medicine
Emily Greene Balch 1946 Peace
Gabriela Mistral 1945 Literature
Pearl Buck 1938 Literature
Irène Joliot-Curie 1935 Chemistry
Jane Addams 1931 Peace
Sigrid Undset 1928 Literature
Grazia Deledda 1926 Literature
Selma Lagerlöf 1909 Literature
Bertha von Suttner 1905 Peace
Marie Curie 1903 Physics, 1911 Chemistry


See the whole list here http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/other/womens-day-2016.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.


In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…