4 ms·

The fuck? Sexual harassment is as much part of his legacy as his novels. It drives out people from your field if your leaders are lauded despite being terrible

The fuck? Sexual harassment is as much part of his legacy as his novels. It drives out people from your field if your leaders are lauded despite being terrible to others.

coldtea 7y ago
No field has any shortage of leaders / people being "terrible to others" in this and other ways. People could take issue in how their leaders, and people they interact with are today. If, on the other hand, they take issue for past leaders being lauded for their "within-the-field achievements" despite their personal behavior (as if that has any bearing on the field), especially after 50+ odd years, then those people "driven out" weren't that driven to be in the field in the first place. Would anybody go off of physics because Einstein was sexist (and worse), and still (rightly so) lauded as the greatest physicist (perhaps after Newton)? Not sure when people forgot how to compartmentalise...
- watwut 7y ago
  > Would anybody go off of physics because Einstein was sexist (and worse), and still (rightly so) lauded as the greatest physicist (perhaps after Newton)? It affected his wife I think (she was actually good in math). I think Einstein behavior was more personal through. He was never in "public figure groping women while everybody knows about it and culture adjusts to accept and enable" category. And like, it is ok to talk about Einstein flaws too, why do we need to pretend that past figures were better then they actually were? > they take issue for past leaders being lauded for their "within-the-field achievements" despite their personal behavior Asimov was not successful despite his personal behavior. His personal behavior happened because of his success and escalated with success. It is the way people in power accepted the acts that they would not accept from somebody else. The lauding of great people is often based on lie - either by omission or direct. The exactly same impulse of "must not criticize him" is what make people enable his behavior and would make people enable next successful person. > then those people "driven out" weren't that driven to be in the field in the first place. I think this is nonsense. Of course people take rational decisions about which field they can be reasonably successful in and where they can will be treated badly. It is like with companies - most capable employees tend to leave faster when faced with toxic management.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    > Would anybody go off of physics because Einstein was sexist (and worse), and still (rightly so) lauded as the greatest physicist (perhaps after Newton)? >It affected his wife I think (she was actually good in math) Yes, I'm talking about today. Would anybody go off of physics today, because Einstein is still very much lauded (and will probably forever be)? >Asimov was not successful despite his personal behavior. His personal behavior happened because of his success and escalated with success. Yes, but I'm dividing the two as the stuff remaining and actually accessible/relevant to people today (the actual work), and stuff where someone to be affected had to be there and present in his private life at the time. So whether the success drove his personal behavior, the point remains, the public output we have today is the books. We don't care if Marlowe knifed a couple of people when enjoying his plays (in fact, come to think of it, J. S. Bach did too). > The lauding of great people is often based on lie After they are dead, the lauding is based on "what's in for us". If there are artifacts from which the future generations benefit, then the "at the time" dealings are not really relevant. >I think this is nonsense. Of course people take rational decisions about which field they can be reasonably successful in and where they can will be treated badly. Yes, but not based on what someone dead 30 years ago did 50+ years ago.
    - watwut 7y ago
      If people dropped out a while ago, then it matters for history of genre and past gender imbalance. It matters for the dispute on whether culture inside genre could have influenced gender ratio - or whether girls simply can't appreciate sci-fi due to their nature. It matters because it influenced what people in gendre think about what is cool and what is wrong. It matters for us to understand how past culture really functioned, because past is used as argument today. It matters because it shows how much of 1950 nostalgia is pure bullshit. The full Bachs biography and Marlowe biographies are interesting too. At least for those of us interested in history beyond "cool stories".
- DagAgren 7y ago
  "This problem is actually really big, so we should not care about it."

The fuck? Sexual harassment is as much part of his legacy as his novels. It drives out people from your field if your leaders are lauded despite being terrible to others.

coldtea 7y ago

No field has any shortage of leaders / people being "terrible to others" in this and other ways. People could take issue in how their leaders, and people they interact with are today. If, on the other hand, they take issue for past leaders being lauded for their "within-the-field achievements" despite their personal behavior (as if that has any bearing on the field), especially after 50+ odd years, then those people "driven out" weren't that driven to be in the field in the first place. Would anybody go off of physics because Einstein was sexist (and worse), and still (rightly so) lauded as the greatest physicist (perhaps after Newton)? Not sure when people forgot how to compartmentalise...

watwut 7y ago
> Would anybody go off of physics because Einstein was sexist (and worse), and still (rightly so) lauded as the greatest physicist (perhaps after Newton)? It affected his wife I think (she was actually good in math). I think Einstein behavior was more personal through. He was never in "public figure groping women while everybody knows about it and culture adjusts to accept and enable" category. And like, it is ok to talk about Einstein flaws too, why do we need to pretend that past figures were better then they actually were? > they take issue for past leaders being lauded for their "within-the-field achievements" despite their personal behavior Asimov was not successful despite his personal behavior. His personal behavior happened because of his success and escalated with success. It is the way people in power accepted the acts that they would not accept from somebody else. The lauding of great people is often based on lie - either by omission or direct. The exactly same impulse of "must not criticize him" is what make people enable his behavior and would make people enable next successful person. > then those people "driven out" weren't that driven to be in the field in the first place. I think this is nonsense. Of course people take rational decisions about which field they can be reasonably successful in and where they can will be treated badly. It is like with companies - most capable employees tend to leave faster when faced with toxic management.
- coldtea 7y ago
  > Would anybody go off of physics because Einstein was sexist (and worse), and still (rightly so) lauded as the greatest physicist (perhaps after Newton)? >It affected his wife I think (she was actually good in math) Yes, I'm talking about today. Would anybody go off of physics today, because Einstein is still very much lauded (and will probably forever be)? >Asimov was not successful despite his personal behavior. His personal behavior happened because of his success and escalated with success. Yes, but I'm dividing the two as the stuff remaining and actually accessible/relevant to people today (the actual work), and stuff where someone to be affected had to be there and present in his private life at the time. So whether the success drove his personal behavior, the point remains, the public output we have today is the books. We don't care if Marlowe knifed a couple of people when enjoying his plays (in fact, come to think of it, J. S. Bach did too). > The lauding of great people is often based on lie After they are dead, the lauding is based on "what's in for us". If there are artifacts from which the future generations benefit, then the "at the time" dealings are not really relevant. >I think this is nonsense. Of course people take rational decisions about which field they can be reasonably successful in and where they can will be treated badly. Yes, but not based on what someone dead 30 years ago did 50+ years ago.
  - watwut 7y ago
    If people dropped out a while ago, then it matters for history of genre and past gender imbalance. It matters for the dispute on whether culture inside genre could have influenced gender ratio - or whether girls simply can't appreciate sci-fi due to their nature. It matters because it influenced what people in gendre think about what is cool and what is wrong. It matters for us to understand how past culture really functioned, because past is used as argument today. It matters because it shows how much of 1950 nostalgia is pure bullshit. The full Bachs biography and Marlowe biographies are interesting too. At least for those of us interested in history beyond "cool stories".
DagAgren 7y ago
"This problem is actually really big, so we should not care about it."