Alfred001 Posted December 30, 2018 Posted December 30, 2018 I heard two science journalists say that he supposedly was. I was kind of surprised, because I remember reading something he'd written where he talked about, if I remember correctly, being in a frat where there was a dynamic of jocks helping the intellectuals with girls and the intellectuals helping the jocks with school and he was receiving help with girls. Is anything known on this important topic?
Sensei Posted December 30, 2018 Posted December 30, 2018 I thought so it is science discussion forum, not gossip portal... -1
MigL Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 If you read any of his non-science books, you get the impression that he was quite the 'ladies man'. But all of us science types are; don't you know ? 1
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 I gather he treated women pretty badly, if that is what "ladies man" means.
StringJunky Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Strange said: I gather he treated women pretty badly, if that is what "ladies man" means. Hmm, a candidate ripe for the wrath of the MeToo movement then.
John Cuthber Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 19 hours ago, Alfred001 said: Is anything known on this important topic? Important to whom? He's been dead for 30 years. It's hardly sensible to judge his actions by today's standards. Times change.
StringJunky Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 3 hours ago, John Cuthber said: Important to whom? He's been dead for 30 years. It's hardly sensible to judge his actions by today's standards. Times change. I think there was a big dollop of sarcastic humour there.
koti Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 Yep, he played the Bongo drum, was open and sincere and mentioned here and there that he likes life. I presume this would be unacceptable by some of the today's standards.
zapatos Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, John Cuthber said: Important to whom? He's been dead for 30 years. It's hardly sensible to judge his actions by today's standards. Times change. I didn't notice Alfred judging him. It is not uncommon to want to know personal details about a person you admire or are interested in. What were they like in person? Did they have a good sense of humor? Did they date a lot? I heard they liked single malt scotch with their chocolate chip cookies! Edited December 31, 2018 by zapatos
MigL Posted December 31, 2018 Posted December 31, 2018 I was under the impression 'ladies man' means he knew how to treat ( please ?) women. When did it take on such an 'ugly' connotation, Strange ? Or is that a personal viewpoint ?
swansont Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 He was, by many accounts, a womanizer and a chauvinist. Unsurprising, to my mind, given the attitudes present in society when he grew up.
MigL Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 Please cite at least one account where he mistreated women. As far as I know, none of the women in his life shared your opinion. Are you simply basing it on your perception of what society was like when he was growing up ?
MigL Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 Strange said he "treated women pretty badly". Swansont said he was a "chauvinist". I ( and Richard ) take no offense at womanizer; simply means to enjoy the company of many women.
zapatos Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 Sorry I was thinking you were only responding to Swansont. In which case I was trying to point out that being a chauvinist doesn't necessarily mean you mistreat anyone. A man believing he is better than women may treat women very well.
koti Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 6 hours ago, MigL said: I ( and Richard ) take no offense at womanizer; simply means to enjoy the company of many women. I am willing to bet that the women with whom you and Richard like/liked to spend time with, take no offence too. #NoOffenceToo. 1
swansont Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 8 hours ago, MigL said: Strange said he "treated women pretty badly". Swansont said he was a "chauvinist". "Whenever it came time for his daily bowl of soup he would look around for the nearest "girl" and ask if she would fetch it to him. It did not matter if she was the cook, an engineer, or the president of the company." http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 14 hours ago, MigL said: I was under the impression 'ladies man' means he knew how to treat ( please ?) women. When did it take on such an 'ugly' connotation, Strange ? Or is that a personal viewpoint ? I'm not sure what connotations the phrase has. I wouldn't ever use it because it sounds dated and cheesy! But, Feynman clearly had a problem with his attitudes to women. One might say that is using today's standards to judge him, but I suspect that is a rather male view; I wouldn't be surprised if many women of the time judged him in the same way. I also think it is worth being aware of these aspects of a person's character (even if it could be considered anachronistic) when they are held in high regard. People should know that, yes, he was a great scientist and a great science communicator but not every aspect of his life is to be admired to the same extent.
dimreepr Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: But, Feynman clearly had a problem with his attitudes we women. One might say that is using today's standards to judge him, but I suspect that is a rather male view; I wouldn't be surprised if many women of the time judged him in the same way. we all have a past, today's standards aren't the correct context to judge him; would you fair better? 1 hour ago, Strange said: I also think it is worth being aware of these aspects of a person's character (even if it could be considered anachronistic) when they are held in high regard. People should know that, yes, he was a great scientist and a great science communicator but not every aspect of his life is to be admired to the same extent. 1 People are People why should a hero be different? Edited January 1, 2019 by dimreepr
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 30 minutes ago, dimreepr said: we all have a past, today's standards aren't the correct context to judge him; would you fair better? What you call "today's standards" are really the "public" standards. As I say, I'm sure many women would have (silently) had the same standards then. Part of the problem is that in the past the treatment of men by women was largely judged (publicly) by men. 32 minutes ago, dimreepr said: People are People why should a hero be different? Absolutely. But people often forget that and assume that because someone was great at X, then we should consider them a role model for all things. Look at the knots people get tied up in trying to decide whether it is acceptable to admire the art of someone who has been found to be a racist, for example. -1
StringJunky Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Strange said: What you call "today's standards" are really the "public" standards. As I say, I'm sure many women would have (silently) had the same standards then. Part of the problem is that in the past the treatment of men by women was largely judged (publicly) by men. Absolutely. But people often forget that and assume that because someone was great at X, then we should consider them a role model for all things. Look at the knots people get tied up in trying to decide whether it is acceptable to admire the art of someone who has been found to be a racist, for example. We should just admire them for whatever they excelled in and leave the rest of their behaviour to the recycle bin of history; everybody's got skeletons.
dimreepr Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Strange said: What you call "today's standards" are really the "public" standards. Indeed, but out of context has little meaning.
Prometheus Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 1 minute ago, StringJunky said: We should just admire them for whatever they excelled in and leave the rest of their behaviour to the recycle bin of history; everybody's got skeletons. That was the first defence given by a member of Jimmy Savile's family (a cousin i think) when the first suggestions of inappropriate behaviour were reported (the scale was not known then, more Michael Jackson than Gary Glitter, iirc). Fortunately the police felt otherwise. To be clear i'm not trying to draw an equivalence between the Savile and Feynman situations, only that the 'past is past' is a lame excuse to ignore inappropriate behaviour. So Feynman was a great scientist and allegedly a bit of a dick when it came to his treatment of women. What's wrong with stating these facts, if proven? 1
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Indeed, but out of context has little meaning. I don't know what that means.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now