[brindlejim]

It's just pure sexism, an exercise in performative feminism. More absurdly, these people appear to have no idea how the dead researchers they feature actually thought. No archival references or citations to work in the original language. It's really just a marketing funnel that ends with a CTA to join their community. You too can pay for further brainwashing.

[Slow_Hand]

If this list were of all men - which is not that far-fetched of a possibility - would you be equally vocal and consider it sexist? If not, why?

Who cares if they’re all women? What difference does it make? All that matters is whether the content is useful to the reader.

Reducing this website to “performative sexism” feels reductive and pointless.

[brindlejim]

> Who cares if they’re all women? What difference does it make?

One of my main beefs is the mismatch between the headline "Brilliant Thinkers ..." and the contents of the page. If they had labeled their page accurately "Brilliant Female Thinkers..." I would be less annoyed, but they sneaking their biased filter in under a headline likely to attract more readers than the page's content would if accurately described.

> All that matters is whether the content is useful to the reader.

I find it remarkably useless, especially considering the shallow exploration of the scientists' processes.

> Reducing this website to “performative sexism” feels reductive and pointless.

I was talking about the web page, not the site. And if a page is biased, or employs false advertising to attract clicks, it is right to call that out.

[kylecazar]

It's women's history month. So I assume that's why we are reading a list highlighting pioneering women.