We should imagine all humans have the same rights, but not the same potential. If we all had similar potential, then we would all have the same shot at being top physicists, NBA players or chess grandmasters. But we don't.
We know that all humans don't have similar potential because there are women only sporting events. We created women's soccer and women's tennis and women's golf precisely because we acknowledge that all humans don't have similar potential.
> Of course, if you cling to the notion that women are not capable enough of doing this demanding intellectual work and should rather stick to doing menial labor
But most menial labor is done by males - especially the dangerous ones? Why are you so fixated on physics? Why aren't you demanding women go into garbage collecting, logging, steel work, etc which are some of the most dangerous and most male fields?
> surely it must be a fantastically rare statistical anomaly to have a woman win the most prestigious scientific accolade, and thus mentioning it in the title makes complete sense.
Can you please not do this? This type of feminism ( especially coming from a male ) comes off just as badly as chauvanism and extremely patronizing.
If you truly believe what you say, why aren't you out there protesting women's world cup or any women specific sporting event? All humans have the same potential right?
Also your argument would make sense if the west still discriminated against women. We haven't for quite a long time. As a matter of fact, we have had programs and scholarships specifically to encourage women to go into male dominated fields for generations. And yet, women choose not to? Should we force women to go into these fields since encouraging and giving them a choice certainly isn't working.