3 ms·

James Gleick's biography of Feynman, Genius, is a good read and complements the books Feynman wrote himself. > first time I've seen his...extremely ugly sexist

James Gleick's biography of Feynman, Genius, is a good read and complements the books Feynman wrote himself. > first time I've seen his...extremely ugly sexist behaviour displayed Not to excuse it, but he was the product of a different time.

yesenadam 8y ago
Well, why say that? Of course it's an attempt at excusing it. I almost included a sentence saying "Yes, he was a product of an earlier time, but (civilized) people didn't go around treating women like that then any more than they do nowadays, i.e. not at all."
- mywittyname 8y ago
  We look up to historical figures who owned slaves. There were people who were morally opposed to slavery back then as well. The fact is, people who accomplished great things also engaged in morally questionable stuff as well. If we try to erase all of these figures from our history books, they'll end up empty. We have to accept that social mores fluctuate over the generations and read history with the appropriate perspective.
  - JKCalhoun 8y ago
    Don't erase them then, but present their flaws as well.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Tell me about it, I'm vegan/non-animal-product-using. It's not just the distant past that's "morally questionable" for me. So the problem you are fixing is that I haven't "accepted that social mores fluctuate over the generations"? And am "trying to erase" Feynman from the history books? Uh no. It sounds like you copied those bland clichés all out from your high school notes. I don't disagree with any one sentence, but put together, I wonder who benefits from hearing that speech. I'm no SJW or general hater of dead white males, don't worry. Maybe it's the standard reply to them. Sorry if this all sounds condescending - what you wrote comes over as super-condescending also. It's difficult when we have no idea who we're talking to!
- andyjohnson0 8y ago
  > > Not to excuse it, but he was the product of a different time. > Well, why say that? Of course it's an attempt at excusing it. No it isn't. Because there's a difference between excusing something and explaining it. As my post was a recommendation for a book about Feynman's life, I felt was doing the latter not the former. Just to be clear, then. Sexist behaviour was just as wrong during Feynman's lifetime as it is today. Unfortunately it's a fact that such attitudes were also more prevalent then than they are now. And Feynman's genius didn't, and still doesn't, excuse his sexist behaviour.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Ok sure, I hear you. People who say "I don't mean to be racist, but.." almost always immediately say something racist, and never feel like it is racist. That seems exactly like "Not to excuse it, but.." - "Not to excuse it" comes out because your brain feels the need to say that, in the same way. Also I guess it's hard talking with people we don't know - assessing what to take for granted or not. Maybe you really did mean "not to excuse it"! Sorry. I wonder what 'attitude' Feynman actually had. I've never heard of anyone actually doing what he does in that story, have you? It's not much detail to go on, but it sounds like he thought it was funny? Or enjoyed the humiliation, was turned on. He can't have thought it was appropriate. Can he? I mean, people never did that, even thousands of years ago. Just seems like an extremely gauche 'joke'...demeaning, insulting. So does that book shed any light? Was everyone like that then? (I don't think so) [Disclosure: Besides his reminiscences, which I read as a kid, I've watched a load of his lectures, interviews and talks, (and introduced them to other people), as well as worked through as much of the 3 volumes of the Lectures on Physics as I could understand, a couple of times. He's one of my scientific heroes.]
    - andyjohnson0 8y ago
      > "Not to excuse it" comes out because your brain feels the need to say that, in the same way. No. Its not the same thing. People who say "I'm not racist but ..." are attempting a pre-emptive distraction from their own breaking of a social norm. I wasn't doing that. And you have no idea know what my "brain feels the need to say". I don't even know why you'd think you do. I could have written "I think he was the product of the different times he lived through. That doesn't excuse his behaviour, but I think it explains it." But I was short of time: that's all. And I'm going to leave it at that.

yesenadam 8y ago

Well, why say that? Of course it's an attempt at excusing it. I almost included a sentence saying "Yes, he was a product of an earlier time, but (civilized) people didn't go around treating women like that then any more than they do nowadays, i.e. not at all."

mywittyname 8y ago
We look up to historical figures who owned slaves. There were people who were morally opposed to slavery back then as well. The fact is, people who accomplished great things also engaged in morally questionable stuff as well. If we try to erase all of these figures from our history books, they'll end up empty. We have to accept that social mores fluctuate over the generations and read history with the appropriate perspective.
- JKCalhoun 8y ago
  Don't erase them then, but present their flaws as well.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Tell me about it, I'm vegan/non-animal-product-using. It's not just the distant past that's "morally questionable" for me. So the problem you are fixing is that I haven't "accepted that social mores fluctuate over the generations"? And am "trying to erase" Feynman from the history books? Uh no. It sounds like you copied those bland clichés all out from your high school notes. I don't disagree with any one sentence, but put together, I wonder who benefits from hearing that speech. I'm no SJW or general hater of dead white males, don't worry. Maybe it's the standard reply to them. Sorry if this all sounds condescending - what you wrote comes over as super-condescending also. It's difficult when we have no idea who we're talking to!
andyjohnson0 8y ago
> > Not to excuse it, but he was the product of a different time. > Well, why say that? Of course it's an attempt at excusing it. No it isn't. Because there's a difference between excusing something and explaining it. As my post was a recommendation for a book about Feynman's life, I felt was doing the latter not the former. Just to be clear, then. Sexist behaviour was just as wrong during Feynman's lifetime as it is today. Unfortunately it's a fact that such attitudes were also more prevalent then than they are now. And Feynman's genius didn't, and still doesn't, excuse his sexist behaviour.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Ok sure, I hear you. People who say "I don't mean to be racist, but.." almost always immediately say something racist, and never feel like it is racist. That seems exactly like "Not to excuse it, but.." - "Not to excuse it" comes out because your brain feels the need to say that, in the same way. Also I guess it's hard talking with people we don't know - assessing what to take for granted or not. Maybe you really did mean "not to excuse it"! Sorry. I wonder what 'attitude' Feynman actually had. I've never heard of anyone actually doing what he does in that story, have you? It's not much detail to go on, but it sounds like he thought it was funny? Or enjoyed the humiliation, was turned on. He can't have thought it was appropriate. Can he? I mean, people never did that, even thousands of years ago. Just seems like an extremely gauche 'joke'...demeaning, insulting. So does that book shed any light? Was everyone like that then? (I don't think so) [Disclosure: Besides his reminiscences, which I read as a kid, I've watched a load of his lectures, interviews and talks, (and introduced them to other people), as well as worked through as much of the 3 volumes of the Lectures on Physics as I could understand, a couple of times. He's one of my scientific heroes.]
  - andyjohnson0 8y ago
    > "Not to excuse it" comes out because your brain feels the need to say that, in the same way. No. Its not the same thing. People who say "I'm not racist but ..." are attempting a pre-emptive distraction from their own breaking of a social norm. I wasn't doing that. And you have no idea know what my "brain feels the need to say". I don't even know why you'd think you do. I could have written "I think he was the product of the different times he lived through. That doesn't excuse his behaviour, but I think it explains it." But I was short of time: that's all. And I'm going to leave it at that.