Rocket scientist figures out that a woman’s life isn’t rocket science. A truly brilliant lady worth applauding.

1 Apr


Yvonne Madelaine Claeys was born on Dec. 30, 1924, in St. Vital, a suburb of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Her parents had separately immigrated from Flanders, in Belgium. Her father was a carpenter.

After the University of Manitoba barred her from the engineering program, she studied mathematics and chemistry instead and graduated at the top of her class. Her lack of an engineering degree did not prevent her from getting a job with Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica, Calif.

“Nobody had the right degrees back then, so it didn’t matter,” she told The Star-Ledger of Newark in 2010. “I didn’t have engineering, but the engineers didn’t have the chemistry and math.”

Yvonne Brill is rare example of female genius defined in traditionally male terms, and as I’ve argued before, when women of tremendous talent and ability and intelligence are born, the culture almost always makes room for them to rise. The University of Manitoba barred Yvonne from the engineering program because there were no accommodations for women at an outdoor engineering camp. Really? What kind of accommodations would she need? A menstruation hut? Her own tent? That kind of challenge was insurmountable for engineers? How stupid.


I’m guessing there was just very deep suspicion that women could actually perform in a discipline as demanding as engineering. These are some of the smartest people on the planet, and the higher up the intelligence distribution curve you go, the greater the gender disparity.

Men outnumber women eight to one on the curve after IQ measurement reaches 145.

Eight to one!

That’s not sexism. It’s biology. But it still didn’t stop Yvonne. She was the one, up against the rightfully suspicious eight.

Engineering is out? Well then, math and chemistry are in. Easy peasy.


“You just have to be cheerful about it and not get upset when you get insulted,” she once said.

Exactly, Yvonne. Jezebel threw a spaz because Yvonne, who went on to marry and have children, planned her life around her husband and her children, and seems to have been very happy to do so. She preferred to be called Mrs. Brill, and when her children came along, she stepped out of the workforce for eight years to care for them.


Apparently, she also made a beautiful beef stroganoff.

Well shock and horror! The lovely Mrs. Brill, at home in an apron with her children, knowing that her genius wasn’t going anywhere, and that supporting her husband’s career was just as important as her own ambitions.


Mrs. Brill followed her husband around as he changed jobs, and according to her son, Matthew, she was perfectly content to do so.

“Good husbands are harder to find than good jobs.”

Amen, Yvonne.

Here’s what pisses me off about the Jezebel article, among other things: It should go without saying, but the problem with the original obituary is that a male scientist would never — NEVER — be hailed as a “the world’s best dad” before being hailed as an important scientific innovator.

First of all, although she sounds like she really was a wonderful mother, nowhere in the obituary does it say that Yvonne was the world’s greatest mother. It says she made beef stroganoff, took time off to raise her children, preferred her husband’s name and felt that a good husband was a far better investment than a good job.

Leaving that little sneering bit of contempt for mothering aside, it took me approximately two seconds to find an obituary for a male scientist that spoke of his family upbringing, what he liked to eat and the importance of his wife. Okay, he didn’t make a mean stroganoff, but apparently the rice and evaporated milk diet was important enough to mention.


Ah yeah, and he liked lizards and frogs, too.


And it took a further two seconds to find an eminent scientist who works cooking into his lectures.

michael brenner

In an article titled Ten Things You Need to Know About Stephen Hawking, the Mirror felt that four of those things should be about his upbringing, his family, his children and his hobbies.


These things are not buried in some deep, dirty, secret part of the internet that is almost impossible to access. It would have taken Jezebel ten minutes to find out that articles and obituaries that refer to male scientists are just as likely to talk about their family, their spouses, their children, their hobbies.

So what is the source of feminist bitterness about women, incredibly intelligent, accomplished, brilliant women who are capable not only of building propulsions systems that keep satellites in orbit, but ALSO of making beef stroganoff, being great moms and loving wives?


Personally, I think it’s the order of priorities that pisses feminists off. The feminist ideal is this:

More me
My cat
More me
Book club
Pissing and moaning
How much will I get if I divorce him now?
Should I fuck the new intern? He’s kind of hot.
I hope that asshole doesn’t think I’m making dinner tonight
Shit, I chipped my manicure
Should I get a venti or a grande?
My house
My kid
My husband

Women like Yvonne have an entirely different set of priorities:



In that order. You would be hard-pressed to find a lady smarter than Yvonne, and she put that intelligence to work in BOTH caring for her family and designing rocket propulsion systems. Because you see, you CAN do both. But not at the same time. The simple reality of women’s lives is that we are on a time line that has built-in constraints, and if we want children, we need to have a completely different set of priorities than men.

Oh, and we need men, too. And that’s the real burn. Fish DO need bicycles, and those bicycles aren’t free. Why should they be? It comes down to realizing that women and men are not identical, and in feminist theory, that means we are not equal. According to feminism, the only way women can be equal to men is to meet them head on, achievement for achievement, and to deny, in the face of all evidence, that there are real, measurable differences in terms of what we can accomplish.

Rather than embrace a woman’s special genius, feminism denies femininity altogether. A rocket scientist who was also a mother, wife and excellent home cook? Only one of those things is worth mentioning. By denying that even the smartest women on the planet are still women, feminism inadvertently (or perhaps consciously and deliberately) hates women.

Why would I embrace a theory that hates who I am? Why would any woman? Loving your husband, taking care of your children and making a terrific stroganoff are not things to be embarrassed about or ashamed of. Nonsense. They are the very things that make us happy.

All of us.

It’s not rocket science.

Lots of love,


47 Responses to “Rocket scientist figures out that a woman’s life isn’t rocket science. A truly brilliant lady worth applauding.”

  1. Liz April 1, 2013 at 15:15 #

    Maybe the Jezebel article is an April fool’s joke?
    April fools!

    It’s no surprise I found no articles in Jezebel for a search on Lillian Evelyn Moller Gilbreth either. The real life “cheaper by the dozen” mom.


  2. Moses April 1, 2013 at 15:18 #

    “Rather than embrace a woman’s special genius, feminism denies femininity altogether.”


    I have a couple female cousins in their early and late 20s. Zero femininity. Zero.

    What do they have to offer a man besides a vagina?


  3. Z April 1, 2013 at 16:06 #

    It would be funny if it were an April Fool’s joke, but I’ve found feminists have no sense of humor so… I wouldn’t count on it. It’s like that “ladies should fart more” article JB linked to at one point. Probably not an April Fool’s joke either.

    Sometimes I don’t know if I’m reading Jezebel or The Onion, and saying that to a feminist would result in a glazed look, rather than understanding my point.


  4. Z April 1, 2013 at 16:07 #

    They know how to buy Pop Tarts.


  5. Bob Wallace April 1, 2013 at 16:26 #

    And someday, not that far into the future, they will become experts on the care and feeding of cats.


  6. Z April 1, 2013 at 16:34 #



  7. driversuz April 1, 2013 at 16:55 #

    Every Jezebel article is a joke.


  8. judgybitch April 1, 2013 at 16:59 #

    I like reading the comments because there is more and more pushback there.

    It’s still overwhelmingly supportive, but there are enough voices of dissent to make me take notice.

    It’s interesting.


  9. LuvMyHubby April 1, 2013 at 16:59 #

    Now that you mention the cats…why do you suppose that ladies without children tend to act as if their cat/dog/guinea pig has just as many rights as a human being? I once had a woman tell me she should be able to take time off her state job to take her cats to the vet under the FMLA! WTF?


  10. sqt April 1, 2013 at 16:59 #

    There’s nothing feminism despises more than a woman who acts like a woman. Curious that an ideology that supposedly supports women wants nothing more than for us to act like the most boorish men we can emulate.


  11. Exfernal April 1, 2013 at 17:10 #

    One of probable causes why distribution of IQ among men is more flat and rich in extremes, than among women, could lie in the process called “lyonization” or “X-inactivation” – . Assuming that:
    1) more genes that possibly influence intelligence (a polygenic trait) could be present on the X chromosome than ones present on the Y (which is a reasonable assumption to make – see the start of “sex-linkage” article – );
    2) every cell (including neurons) could wind up with one of their X chromosomes as a “Barr body” ( )which is inactive (see “dosage compensation” – );
    3) the copy of X chromosome chosen for inactivation in women’ cells could be with equal probability either of maternal or paternal origin;
    then it’s easy to imagine that all of sons’ cells would have only the maternal copy active, in opposition to daughters, which should have roughly equal mix of cells with active maternal or paternal genes. So it stands to reason that some of inherited portion of daughters’ IQ (see “heritability of IQ” – ) would cause it to cluster more in the middle range than that of sons.


  12. Stingray April 1, 2013 at 19:33 #

    the only way women can be equal to men is to meet them head on, achievement for achievement

    Only beef I have is that this has changed. It started out this way, but now feminist believe that it is not necessary to meet men head on. They would rather just go with the force quotas now. 50% women and 50% men regardless of achievement.


  13. judgybitch April 1, 2013 at 19:36 #

    It’s the only way to get equality. Going head to head leaves the ladies lagging.

    Unless we’re talking about the ability to give birth.

    Then we win!


  14. judgybitch April 1, 2013 at 19:37 #

    Course we still need men to have something to birth.



  15. Stingray April 1, 2013 at 19:42 #

    Birth and the ability to lactate. My husband got a couple of people at his work with that one. The usual argument . . . “men and women are equal!!” While my husband responds, “My wife who is breast feeding my child would patently disagree with you.”

    Going head to head leaves the ladies lagging

    It does and instead of finding something that they won’t lag in, force must be used. It’s embarrassing, really. I wonder when it will come out that 50/50 is simply not good enough and it must be 75/25 because women are still feeling oppressed. Or better yet, our company now, shockingly!!! is failing and it must be the stupid men’s fault so we must have more women!

    Your ability to read Jezebel and the like . . . . wow. Good for you. My eyes glaze over and I tend to drool all over everything and then just have a huge mess to clean up. I can’t do it.


  16. Stingray April 1, 2013 at 19:43 #

    Thank God!


  17. Sherlock April 1, 2013 at 21:01 #

    There are numerous examples of this in Sweden. Organisations with 60-70% women in leadership positions are lauded as best at equality. Newspapers with policies of interviewing women in 70% of the cases to compensate for historical oppression etc.

    JB, what I would love to see here is a thorough examination o fthe scientific evidence for gneder differences and the counterarguments.


  18. Ter April 1, 2013 at 21:36 #

    There is an excellent Norwegian documentary video (subtitled) about gender differences here: (approx 38 minutes). I highly recommend it.

    I don’t know what would exactly quality as ‘scientific evidence for gender differences’ (as this sounds like an absolute); however, this video contains fascinating interviews with professors, researchers and others.


  19. Z April 2, 2013 at 00:51 #

    Interesting. I think backlash is starting to happen. Women (and men) are just getting sick of all the nonsense.

    I think for awhile most people just kept their mouth shut because they didnt’ want to look like they were trying to hold a woman back or telling her she COULDN’T do something when maybe she could…but this idea that women can compete toe to toe with men in most things at the top levels is just nonsense and it’s also embarrassing to watch all these feminists making fools of themselves for something that’s the intellectual equivalent of a flat earth.


  20. Z April 2, 2013 at 00:55 #

    I think it’s because the fatal mistake feminists made is using men as “the yardstick” of what is worthy and of value. They really do have penis envy. Obviously if you measure by what men do you will come up lagging if you are a woman. But if we measured greatness by childbirth and lactation and nurturing… well… we’d win. It’s the parameters that have been set as what is “superior” in general to humanity. And that’s just silly because both genders contribute worthwhile things. As JB says… women make PEOPLE. Not all of us… but as a gender, yeah… 80% of women have reproduced and only 40% of men. That’s pretty high success.


  21. Marlo Rocci April 2, 2013 at 02:41 #

    I have the same Kitchenaid mixer and make a mean cocoa brownie with it. I also make an awesome beef stew based on a Tony Bourdain recipe. Oh, and yes, I work in tech. Oddly enough, cooking and tech aren’t that far apart.


  22. Kitsunegari April 2, 2013 at 03:05 #

    I’ll have to taste the stroganoff in question before I can determine whether this is evidence of rampant patriarchy sexism.


  23. Mark April 2, 2013 at 04:02 #

    Well they may be able to fix that someday by creating sperm cells with bone marrow stem cells. Now if only someone could teach a syringe to mine coal and lay brick…


  24. Clover April 2, 2013 at 08:59 #

    Wait, does that mean on average, the 40% of men who father children have them by two women? I can’t see how the stats work otherwise.


  25. Ter April 2, 2013 at 11:53 #

    Well, according to one of our (Australian) evolutionary scientists, men are heading for extinction (in ~5 million years).

    “THE poorly designed Y chromosome that makes men is degrading rapidly…” … “It is a lovely example of what I call dumb design”

    It’s currently front page on one of the major news sites, and I guess it’s just part the typical daily mix of news (ie. men are defective, dangerous, etc). Business as usual I guess.


  26. Marlo Rocci April 2, 2013 at 12:40 #

    Give science 20 more years, and that function will be replaced by a machine.


  27. Marlo Rocci April 2, 2013 at 12:43 #

    I thought we were already replaced by some medical devices and a petrie dish?


  28. Exfernal April 2, 2013 at 13:13 #

    …not yet, but a man is in the process of making that true:


  29. Hard Right April 2, 2013 at 13:39 #

    Jezebel hasn’t banned your IP yet?

    I mean, the men who run their system haven’t banned it yet?


  30. Erudite Knight April 2, 2013 at 15:52 #

    Of course feminists have to deny feminie qualities…they are too lazy to cultivate them themselves. Or are utterly unskilled at them.

    Btw, JB can we finally share blog rolls?


  31. judgybitch April 2, 2013 at 16:03 #


    That’s her department, Knight.


  32. Rmaxd April 2, 2013 at 16:27 #

    Off topic … crosspost from thespearhead

    Heres some Interesting Things womens want you to talk about …

    Dont rape, thinking about women is rape

    Dont rape, rape porn isnt a million dollar industry created by women’s insatiable need for rape porn literature

    Women dont enjoy reading about or relating to women getting raped in womens literature .. reading about rape doesnt turn women on …

    Not helping women with their shopping bags, is abuse

    Helping women with their shopping bags, is abuse

    Dont rape

    Rape culture is bad, but GREAT in womens literature & plays about 10 year old girls getting raped by ugly fat lesbian women

    Simulated Rape is good, in literature for women … protecting men against false rape accusations … not so good & potentially no funding for womens fake movements …

    Women dont rape, only men do, even though women create entire million dollar industries on reading about women getting raped …

    WHY are there entire million dollar industries selling rape to women … even though statistically women live in a sick police state surrounded by white knights …


  33. TempestTcup April 2, 2013 at 16:31 #

    “Every Jezebel article is a joke.”

    I quit reading Jezebel way back when it was nothing but 5000 cutters & girls announcing where & when their abortions were going to be performed.

    At first, when it first started, it wasn’t too bad, but then it slid into the extremely damaged girls, and now it is all screechy feminists all the time.

    Still, occasionally I will click on a link from an article & end up there. It amazes and horrifies me.


  34. Rmaxd April 2, 2013 at 16:37 #


    Jesus typical women cant do maths …

    It means 80% of the women are sluts … who have sex with only 40% of the men …

    It also proves most men arent sex crazed sex addicts

    Women are the sex addicts … 80% proves it

    A perfect example of how feminists screw over & bend science to cover up the fact, most women are sluts

    Not the snowflake virgin, most women lie through their teeth about


  35. princesspixiepointless April 2, 2013 at 17:13 #

    Hey knight, email me links to your stuff.
    As you may have noticed, we don’t have a blog roll yet.


  36. Erudite Knight April 2, 2013 at 22:59 #

    Where is your email? Don’t see a link on your gravatar.


  37. Z April 3, 2013 at 01:15 #

    I meant… in the history of humanity that’s the average that some number cruncher/bean counter has come up with. Sorry. I may not have been clear there. The reality was that most women were sleeping with and producing children from the same small minority of alpha-type males.


  38. Z April 3, 2013 at 01:17 #

    It wouldn’t mean 80% of women were sluts. That 80% for the most part were sleeping with a SMALL number men. It was the men who were sluts, since such a small percentage produced most of the human beings on the planet over the span of history.

    Nice try, though. Now who can’t do math?


  39. princesspixiepointless April 3, 2013 at 07:34 #

    it’s my name at gmail


  40. Nergal April 3, 2013 at 12:01 #

    “The University of Manitoba barred Yvonne from the engineering program because there were no accommodations for women at an outdoor engineering camp. Really? What kind of accommodations would she need? A menstruation hut? Her own tent? That kind of challenge was insurmountable for engineers? How stupid.”

    I think,speaking from a man’s perspective, that what they were saying is that they weren’t interested in endlessly accommodating a woman, not that some special womanly accommodations would be required for her to do the job. I believe that isn’t the case, and most men believe that isn’t the case, but most WOMEN who actually get these jobs DO insist on men endlessly accommodating them to a tune of millions of lost MANhours and dollars.You know this to be true.

    Women engineers would NOT need special woman bathrooms and such in order to do their job. They don’t NEED anything beyond what the men do, but they nevertheless DEMAND special women-only bathrooms,breakrooms,lunchrooms, cafeteria menus, speech codes to prevent them from ever being upset, “diversity-training seminars” “sensitivity-training seminars”, ad nauseum and that is a sad, and were I a woman, embarrassing fact.


  41. Nergal April 3, 2013 at 12:06 #

    They’ve been saying this since the 70’s. The “science” has been debunked repeatedly.Men aren’t going anywhere.


  42. judgybitch April 3, 2013 at 12:07 #

    Having spent a night recently with a group of engineers experiencing a techncial problem, I can appreciate that you would need hours upon hours of diversity training to get those fuckers speaking anything that even approached lady-polite language.

    Luckily, I have a bit of a mouth on me to begin with, so I wasn’t offended.

    But I understand your point completely, and yes, it is an embarassment. Donglegate was nothing more than a single woman in a male-deminated field seeking special considerations.

    No dick jokes!

    I can understand why the first instinct is to say “fuck off”.


  43. MaMu1977 April 6, 2013 at 05:55 #

    Actually, the percentages were derived from researching X-chromosome/Y-chromosome spread, not from measuring copulatory ratios.

    Or, to be clear, they’re (the percents) an indication of which sex was more likely to
    A. Be allowed/expected to procreate
    B. Live long enough to procreate

    Between childhood mortality rates (which are and have always been tilted toward the male), warfare, misadventure and the advent of bureaucracy in all of its forms (from religious to governmental), the most common figure given to the percent of boys who were winnowed out of the mating game is close to 40%.

    Think about it. Between animal attacks, lethal or disfiguring diseases, stupid behaviour and the call of career advancement/education (with the common sacrifice of reproductive ability), it could be argued that the actual numberis an overstatement. If 100 young unmarried men in a town are drafted to go to war, but less than 30 come home (a common refrain from **WWII**, with most pre-Renaissance wars having single digit numbers of returning soldiers from 5-digit armies), the gene ratios will be skewed by default. If girls are kept safe in the house and boys are “allowed” (read as “mandated”) to go outdoors, boys will be far more likely to be exposed to predators, disease and injuries. A healthy young woman, regardless of looks, is a far more attractive potential mate than a boy whose nickname has been “Stumpy” or “Toothless Joe” since the time he tried to juggle axes. If Peter McTouchkids is looking for new targets to rape and kill, he’ll have a better shot with a ten year old boy (who’s allowed to travel miles away from home unsupervised) than an eight year old girl (who doesn’t go anywhere without an older relative).

    And, lest we forget, an older man who loses his wife would have been expected to replace her with a young(er) substitute, not a menopausal widow or “career girl”. With post-natal mortality rates averaging out to about 20% (until the Nineteenth century, regardless of culture), there were always a bunch of widowers around to snatch up any available teens for matrimony (especially after a village-decimating battle). If Vinnie Veteran loses his wife before she turns 40, he would replace her with a suitable mate and not a fellow widow. Right there, you have a case of one man impregnating two women, without a question or concern for cuckoldry or sluttishness.



  1. Gender bias in how a scientist’s work is evaluated? Yep. It comes mostly from women. | judgybitch - April 8, 2013

    […]… […]


  2. Lightning Round – 2013/04/10 | Free Northerner - April 10, 2013

    […] hate the feminine as much as they hate the masculine. Related: This one’s great just for the feminist ideal list. Related: Why do feminists denigrate domestic […]


  3. Of course you can judge a book by its cover. That’s what covers are for! | judgybitch - May 11, 2013

    […]… […]


  4. It’s not advanced math and rigorous training that keeps women out of STEM. It’s sexist shirts. Watch feminists break the stupid meter. | judgybitch - November 14, 2014

    […] Rose, women are welcome in the tech community and always have been. But you […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: