What a stupid article. They mention Marie Curie, says “other are equally talented” and as an example they then present Solange Faladé – who just blatantly obviously wasn’t as talented as Marie Curie.
Not that Faladé didn’t do well for herself – she obviously did – but it’s just weird and stupid to compare her to Curie.
And honestly not fair to her? It’s sort of subtly to shit on her to randomly compare her to Curie?
Like I say “Messi was really good, but others were equally talented – like Ivica Olic!”. You’d just say that if you didn’t like Olic I guess.
> Most of the people considered famous for making a mark on France’s long, illustrious history were white men.
I stopped there. Among the three most important French people through history there is obviously Napoléon, De Gaulle and … Jeanne d’Arc.
This article doesn’t even mention her, that shows the ignorance of the writer.
Journalist doesn’t understand french universalism.
3 comments
What a stupid article. They mention Marie Curie, says “other are equally talented” and as an example they then present Solange Faladé – who just blatantly obviously wasn’t as talented as Marie Curie.
Not that Faladé didn’t do well for herself – she obviously did – but it’s just weird and stupid to compare her to Curie.
And honestly not fair to her? It’s sort of subtly to shit on her to randomly compare her to Curie?
Like I say “Messi was really good, but others were equally talented – like Ivica Olic!”. You’d just say that if you didn’t like Olic I guess.
> Most of the people considered famous for making a mark on France’s long, illustrious history were white men.
I stopped there. Among the three most important French people through history there is obviously Napoléon, De Gaulle and … Jeanne d’Arc.
This article doesn’t even mention her, that shows the ignorance of the writer.
Journalist doesn’t understand french universalism.