I thought where you were going with his was "that realized the best way to dispose of their nuclear waste was to dump it in the deep past." I’d read that novel.
This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the social web treat public figures, or even just any stranger they see on the web). We see snapshots and assemble a person in our head. We can barely do that with any degree of fidelity regarding people we personally know, much less public figures.
People do good and evil things. But a person, in virtually all cases, is not "good" or "evil". Even if Feynman was engaging in the two behaviors you are thinking of at the same time (whatever those behaviors are - I'm not commenting), it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox. It does so much damage to think like this. This false dichotomy is especially prevalent for sexual topics, because they trigger stronger emotions and push us towards our "that guy good, that guy bad" instincts.
In addition to your comment, what I find mind-boggling is how easily people swing between the two extremes of opinion: it seems every public figure must either be adored and admired, or reviled and ostracized. People (myself included, I don't exclude myself from being human!) do not want to contemplate public figures as complex individuals with dark and bright aspects. It's always all or nothing.
So Woody Allen went from being an adored auteur to someone who not only was declared guilty of a horrible crime in public opinion, but also people felt entitled to declare his cinema was never good to begin with (where were these people before Allen fell in disgrace? Nowhere. They only declared his movies trash once he fell in disgrace).
Same with Feynman. Same with Asimov. Same with Picasso. And the list goes on forever.
People cannot bear the thought that artists, scientists and public figures in general are real people, with flaws and all.
> People cannot bear the thought that artists, scientists and public figures in general are real people, with flaws and all.
Possibly related to the Fundamental Attribution Error in psychology:
"The fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or over-attribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations."
> So Woody Allen went from being an adored auteur to someone who not only was declared guilty of a horrible crime in public opinion, but also people felt entitled to declare his cinema was never good to begin with
To enjoy entertainment of anyone not a saint makes you a bad person. And I want to state emphatically for the record I am a good person. I believe in all the right things, and disbelieve all the wrong ones. When those things change next year or tomorrow, I too will change and forget that I ever believed otherwise.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you only enjoy entertainment of saints? Also, when you find out later they are not, you will change your opinion?
It feels a bit off to me. People are not good or bad. First of all what is good or bad depends on culture/geography. Second, every person has many good and bad treats according to any culture.
I think something you're failing to account for in peoples' reactions these figures is that the relationship between their moral transgressions and their work is not spurious.
Feynman was a notable scientist but he was also one of the most famous scientists, he was a great populizer of science especially later in life. Finding out he was a sex pest or womanizer or worse has tangible consequences to that role. Was he a good mentor in general, or only to women he wanted to fuck? Or only ones he didn't? Were there any women pushed out of science because of his inappropriate attention or advances? We now have to ask these questions, and their answers can retroactively change how we evaluate his later life's work as an advocate of science.
Similarly woody allen makes movies that are compelling because of their portrayal of human connection and vulnerability. As you said, what woody allen is accused of is a great crime, far far beyond routine human flaws. It does change the context and the meaning of the movie to know that this is what its creator thinks of human connection as well. You can decide not to believe the allegations, but for people who do believe them I don't think it's an error or transgression for them to evaluate his movies in light of them.
And it is certainly not true that no one criticized these figures before their "faults" were known. Orson Welles famously with woody allen, Picasso was not always revered, and I disliked feynman from reading his own memoirs. It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.
> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.
Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody cares to censor/cancel a Greek philosopher if he abused boys, it's just a footnote in their biography.
It might be different if you could go talk to the boys - with these modern folks you can often literally interview the victim(s) and I think that makes a difference for the reaction
Yes, this is a good point. Talking to victims or aggrieved parties is something ancient history denies us.
On the other hand, what if we could -- would we cancel all those Greek philosophers, or artists and scientists of antiquity? Strike them from the classroom, or focus the lesson entirely on how bad they were as people? Would mankind be better if that were the case?
Then again, plenty of times they are not declared unpersons nor treated horribly. Oftentimes just mentioning that this or that person did something bad at some points is enough for everyone to get outrage over "how dare you to say that".
> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.
I want to make clear that when someone commits a horrible crime (not a minor transgression) they should be held accountable. So rape/abuse/murder is horrible, being a bad husband/wife or an uncaring parent is bad but not "horrible", etc. Also, people are flawed, and everyone engages in bad behavior that wouldn't stand up to public criticism. Your mileage may vary, of course.
What I object to is canceling a person's work because of alleged crimes. People confuse "I don't like what it's alleged this person did in their personal life" with "this is not relevant art/science, I wish cinemas/schools/museums didn't mention this person anymore".
Saying he did X is not the same as cancelation. Also, if actual art piece is related to the real world acts, it is entirely fair to talk about it. Just like when we talk about political purposes of art.
There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder. Or just, putting contemporary complains about historical character into context. The "do not mention this person" is quite rare, actually. What people object about regarding cancelation is adding shade of grade to the person story or refusal to celebrate them.
Cinema students are literally asking teachers not to include Woody Allen in their syllabus. I don't know if everywhere, but I'm telling you of a second hand account of someone I know who witnessed this. And it's not the only example.
> There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder.
This brings us back to the initial comment I posted in this thread: why celebrate a public figure as a hero or moral founder? People seem to want to do this. Everyone must be either a hero or a villain; and a hero who falls from grace and turns into a villain in the public eye is doubly reviled!
It's fascinating but also irritating how we are so eager to create gods and then destroy them.
Asimov made many women uncomfortable with his behavior, yes. He was also an all-around friendly and approachable guy, a bright mind, one of the giants of sci-fi, and also a great science communicator.
He had this flaw. It's on us to deal with it, and not let it mar his otherwise great memory. (It's not like he raped women either, however bad his behavior was. Not all sins are equal).
I'm not condoning his behavior, I'm saying it didn't define him or his impact on literature, science or science fiction; therefore it's not particularly sad.
The majority of humans -- or even the subset of most of his readers, women or men -- never even met him personally and so this personality flaw never affected them. I acknowledge it was however a very uncomfortable experience for young women who got to meet him face to face (or hand to butt, I suppose), which is unfortunate. I also see how his behavior would have discouraged women who wanted to write and would have sought his mentorship; that is truly unfortunate.
I wish he hadn't behaved like this, but this doesn't define Asimov. His contributions far exceed this personality flaw, and therefore I don't feel particularly sad.
> "It is in this correspondence that we can find how the conrunners of the time treated Asimov’s harassing behavior. To be explicit, Asimov was well known for pinching the asses of women who were unlucky–or unwarned–enough to get on an elevator with him alone."
The topic here specifically is his love life. If a person I personally knew was accused of half of what Feynman has been, I'd have second thoughts about inviting them over for dinner.
If you're going to argue for a gradient of perspective while assessing the character of a person there are better examples than Feynman.
The degree of the subject's immorality has no bearing on my point. In fact, it's arguably better to use a "worse" example, by your definition, since it actually challenges the reader to consider the point more carefully. If the subject's crimes are petty, the reader might accidentally ignore my point, instead just jumping to the easy and fallacious thought, "yeah I agree, that person didn't do anything terrible", and moving on.
That said, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on where Feynman's indiscretions fall on the spectrum. I don't know the details beyond womanizing/objectifying/going after women in relationships. Again, I'd make the same comment regardless of the answer.
Just a correction: I am not making a gradient argument. The word brings to mind a one-dimensional scale. That is a measly one-step-up from black-and-white. The implication of a "gradient" is that there is "good" on one side and "evil" on the other, and everybody falls somewhere on the gradient. This is not strictly false in all senses, but it is almost always a gross oversimplification and, effectively, a useless measure. A core part of my point is multi-dimensionality.
How about we do away with speculating on the personal lives of public figures unless it is pertinent to some issue? So much judgement and pedestal-making.
But people will keep lopsidedly downvoting when someone veers towards the judgement-side. As if putting people on pedestals is any better.
When you take their actions and consider them as a whole, it clearly paints some as good or evil. Sure, no one is movie villain evil or saint-level good, but when a preponderance of their actions have outcomes that are bad for others, then I think it's pretty clear who they are.
Fine, but I explicitly refrained from defending Feynman. The point I made is that it is a sign of a horrible social sickness that we can be confused that it's possible for a person to commit some sexual sin and also for that same person to love somebody.
To further clarify, note this sentence in my comment:
>it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox
I did not say, e.g.
>it still doesn't make him, on par, more bad than good
I find the best antidote for this unfortunate way of thinking is imagining the individual passing gas. It's impossible to not see someone as human when they are farting.
I don't think this term is appropriate for anyone who is less than an attempted rapist.
There are many existing words to describe Feynman's behavior. Pervert, philanderer womanizer, consummate cheater.... Let's use existing words that lead to the correct assumptions by those unfamiliar with his sexual behaviors.
A sexual predator evokes Harvey Weinstein. AFAIK, Feynman sounds more like an 80s rock-star, and all the positive + negative behaviors associated with that stereotype.
I dunno, a lot of those 80s rock stars slept with their underage groupies. Harvey Weinstein used his power to pressure young Hollywood actresses, am I supposed to believe that a professor sleeping with his students is a completely different beast?
I still think Harvey Weinstein is worse, like you say, but I think it's disingenuous to pretend like they're completely different types of people.
There is actual difference between threatening people livelihood and actually destroying peoples careers forever and actually using violence. Which afaik, Feynman is not accused of. He did misrepresented who he was in some of those relationships - by pretending he is undergraduate. That is exact opposite of using power, it is pretending you do not have it.
Those are completely different types of people. It is not that professors should sleep with students, it is that Weinstein went far far beyond that. Suggesting it is the same is minimizing what Weinstein did.
As I recall, they married quite young and the womanizing didn’t come until he was older. The optimist in me wants to believe that if Arline had not died, the womanizing wouldn’t have happened. Feynman was a brilliant man but it was clear that losing his wife shook him. Perhaps the womanizing was a consequence of that.
It certainly doesn’t excuse any behavior of his, but perhaps it explains it.
> Feynman was a brilliant man but it was clear that losing his wife shook him. Perhaps the womanizing was a consequence of that.
I'm having a hard time imagining how the cause you posited could conceivably lead to the effect in question. Let's also remember that when a guy "plays the field", it doesn't always have a deep story behind it! :)
It’s certainly possible there was no cause. I’m just imagining that falling deeply in love with someone and marrying them, only to lose them a short time later could cause one to lose faith in the idea of committing to a single person.
I have zero evidence to back this up, it’s just how I felt after reading his books, and the biography by Gleick.
It’s been easily 15 years since I read Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman by by James Gleick, and probably 25 or so since I read Feynman’s own books of stories about himself. I remember lots of stories about flirtation, and very probably promiscuity, but I don’t recall sexual predation. That’s not to say it didn’t happen. I haven’t read everything there is about Feynman’s life, and I don’t remember all that I actually have read. But I do not remember predation.
He used to go to strip clubs with his sketch pad and draw the strippers. It was an effective ice breaker and relationships with the strippers outside the club are inferred.
Feynman was a successful, charismatic man with insatiable curiosities about many things. He may have caused women to do things they later regretted, but it's unlikely he forced anyone against their will.
What stories about sexual predation? That is a pretty serious accusation that most of the other people in here haven’t heard, can you please explain?
The rumors and stories from himself suggest he was very successful at dating a lot of women, who were all consensual adults. Are you talking about something else?
Right, because my wife home schools and has chosen to forgo a professional career to care for our disabled daughter, depriving us of a substantial income, and I don’t think the tax dollars I do pay should subsidize the public schools we can’t even use due to our child’s medical needs? Mind you, I live in an area with middle class incomes, so the families can definitely afford the school lunches.
Interesting that you framed this not about how perhaps you and your daughter ought be eligible for some subsidies, but rather about what subsidies you feel should be taken away from others, as if their needs have no merit.
The only thing that gets taken away here is a part of your income by the government. The rest is arguing over how this taken money should be doled out. Something that was not yours to begin with cannot be “taken away”.
You’re certainly an uncaring person. You already struggle to care for your own child, and now you take that bitterness out on everyone else. Why should other parents not be provided free public school, regulated by the government, where they can send their children during the day while they work to support their family? How heartless to deny others that.
Public education is free for everyone. We all pay for it because it is in our best interest collectively. What makes you think you deserve access to other public programs and assistance, given that you’re not willing to extend others the same courtesy?
Those events are perfectly compatible with each other. Also, what you call sexual predation afaik was to large extend engagement in consensual casual sex. Unless there are some stories I do not know about.
Anything sounds bad if you take sentences out of context. Read the rest of chapter and pages leading up to this part.
He talks about how he struggled getting back into dating after his wife died and initially he tried dating very chivalrously, being kind and buying drinks for ladies. He found that most women would take his free drinks and ditch him.
The lines you quoted from his book are about his mental shift, and after he started doing that it actually worked! He was successful with that tactic, women wanted to sleep with him after he started thinking and acting like that.
He didn't break any laws, force anyone to do anything against their will, or hurt anyone. If that's the case, and the women actually responded to it, then what's wrong with it?
That's why I think everyone is being puritanical about it. Yes our cultural sensibilities don't like it, but nobody was hurt and he's being honest about something that actually worked, why is that bad?
You actually have zero idea who or how people were hurt because this is one side from Feynman. It's bad for the same reason that a goal of making lots of new friends and then backstabbing them is bad. Sure, it can be highly successful to making new friends. Not so long term beneficial, friendly, or moral though...
> He found that most women would take his free drinks and ditch him.
If the option to ditch him wasn't there then the drinks weren't really free, were they? It sounds more like him buying someone a drink came with expectations attached.
He specifically says in the paragraph OP is quoting from that he would ask them outright for verbal agreement that they would sleep with him later before he bought them drinks. If he got consent before anyone drank anything, what exactly is the problem?
And you actually believe that (1) this one sided story is the truth and that (2) even if it is that verbal agreement is enough in a case like this? I'd expect the vast majority of the people that you made such an offer to to treat it as a joke and if it wasn't to teach you an object lesson in what is and what isn't a binding offer. To treat this as a study in contract law is weirding me out on multiple levels at once, Feynman's, and those that think this is a normal interaction between people. Revolting, really.
It's really disappointing to see such a blatant attempt to drag someone's name through the mud. I have seen over and over again people derive pleasure from undermining respected figures, perhaps in a bid to appear more sophisticated or informed. Shame on you.
It's almost always straight white males slated for personal destruction.
The funniest was probably Marilyn Manson. These women really didn't know that he was a disgusting pervert just from seeing him, then dated him for years, complaining a decade later? Manson is an awful person and makes no attempts to hide it. No one could say to the accusers, "you really had no idea this guy was a horrible person from second one?"
If Manson can be attacked and canceled any man can be.
It's been many years since I read his memoirs but I remember feeling that he came off as a barely-sympathetic womanizer in them. He had more or less absolute control over his own portrayal of himself so I assume the truth was significantly worse.
I'd read that as 'the whole truth' rather than a suggestion that the Surely You're Joking series contained outright lies. The books (obviously) don't go into all the details of Feynman's personal and sexual relations, so there is surely much that is omitted. They also don't exactly convey a sense of extreme veracity, being structured as collections of amusing anecdotes.
Collections of amusing anecdotes is exactly what they are. Feynman didn’t write the Surely You’re Joking series. They’re stories he told that Ralph Leighton wrote down and collected into books.
It taints the whole “woman he loved” routine as he openly acknowledged his misogyny and objectification of women throughout his life. He can’t love women so how can he love this woman?
I’m only suggesting that the great mind is flawed and contradictory. He is a man of his time, of course, but just perhaps a bit too quick to settle into the advantages of being a man of significant influence.
People change and perhaps I’m being harsh. I just thought the paradox was interesting.
Men are fully capable to love one woman and see others just as sex. Men are fully capable to write romantic letters and mean them in the moment and seek casual sex two hours later.
The seeming frequency in this thread with which people seem unable to distinguish between love and lust (or how one can lead to the other, and their otherwise complex interworking) is evidence many have yet to experience one or the other. The 'other' being rather self evident. And that's quite sad.
One of the few times I'm reminded how much time I spend posting in an online text forum, and oh boy what a bubble we enjoy conversing in.
It is perfectly possible to love one person and have lust to another. Which is what original poster deemed shocking. The complain here is "how it is possible for him to be in love with one woman while also being womanizer in completely different relationship".
These stories surround virtually all successful straight men. Even Garrison Keillor, as mild mannered as they come, got taken down for it.
We are simultaneously told that women are equal to men, and yet we also are told there are male predators and womanizers who women need special protection against.
This dismisses women's sexual agency. Specifically that women may choose, consciously, to exploit their sexual attractiveness to get something from a man.
If women don't have agency, i.e. men can manipulate them into damaging sexual relationships which they are helpless to avoid, this posits women as less than equals to men, as men are expected to stand up for themselves when someone attempts to manipulate them.
