Was Feynman sexist? A quick googling finds nothing.
In the same way, and probably much less, that any male was in a totally different era of the 60s and 70s...
Depending on his workplace, things could become physical :D
Feynman was clearly a bit of a prick. It also appears that he behaved rudely toward women [0]. In my opinion, the fact that there were some (significant) negative aspects of his personality doesn't take anything away from what he accomplished, or from the (significant) positive aspects of his personality.
[0] http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine...
http://mathematigal.com/home/2014/7/14/feynman-is-not-my-her...
Nah, I'd rather have the truth, yet work to nonetheless have people be good. Many heroes are flawed; let's emulate their positive qualities, and avoid their negative ones, without failing to acknowledge them or outright covering them up.
Not to mention that being sexist is not evil, just bad manners (or that there's no such thing as "evil", it's a theological concept).
Depends on the discrimination. Costing them a job opportunity is wrong. Telling them "hey, make me some tea" is bad manners -- same as if you asked a lower ranking male employee whose job is not it, that.
>"It's not wrong because nothing is truly wrong" is surely an excuse of last resort.
It's also an excuse nobody made. Wrong != evil. People are not cartoonish figures who are either holy or evil.
>I don't see anyone on here bringing that point up when people are complaining about NSA surveillance or some other hacker cause célèbre.
I'm not sure of the relevance. NSA surveillance is totalitarian. Asking female colleagues to "make you coffee" is impolite.
No, treating your women colleagues as if they are inferior merely because they are women is wrong. It is not merely bad manners, any more than racism or xenophobia are merely bad manners.
>It's also an excuse nobody made.
Are you just referring to the fact that I used the word 'wrong' instead of the word 'evil'? If so, just substitute 'evil' for 'wrong' in my previous comment.
Here's the thing: asking them to make him a coffee doesn't mean he thinks they are inferior. At worst, it assumes that this is something that they'll gladly do -- which is more about the era, than about himself. Many others would do the same without anybody thinking twice about it, we just magnify this anecdote from the 50s and 60s because he's famous. Heck, in the same time they had different seats and toilets for blacks and whites and people were OK with that, it was the law even...
>It is not merely bad manners, any more than racism or xenophobia are merely bad manners
Racism alone is not even bad manners -- it's just BS thinking (finding differences in races). Lots of old white elders for example can be racist but otherwise good people (and kind even to people with different skins they're thinking in racist ways about). It will have to translate in some actual harm to become actually (instead of merely potentially) bad.
In other words: people can think whatever they like, as long as they are not putting it in action that hurts others. The same thing, that is, that one might grant to artists with violent tendencies and visions that put that in their art. Some prudes might complaint, but as long as they don't actively hurt real people, what's the problem?
If there were only some sort of diagram to describe this many worlds idea
Also, I seem to remember reading that similar claims were routinely made at the time in order for the divorce to be approved by the court. I.e. nobody was trying to make claims of abuse, they were simply trying to ensure the divorce was approved, and both parties agreed to make whatever exaggerated or false claims that could be seen as reasonable grounds for divorce.
Anyway, that’s what I remember. I could of course be wrong about this particular case.
It's unfair to be hard on a man for simply living in a different age.
Unfortunately this how most current day news, trends and discussions are shaping out to be. Pretty much a lot of things considered bad now, were once perfectly acceptable.
Another annoying things these days are people who pick up some kind of negative thing about a famous personality and use that to discredit their whole life's work. Like talking something negative about Gandhi, and then use that ruse to make it look like his whole life was a waste.
In a way its dangerous to not bring up their flaws; say MLK jr. defended the rights of people of color but was against gay rights. It is wrong to idolize him utterly, because then his views can legitimize views we think are wrong now.
I don't think any reasonable person tries to tear down great men and women by bringing up their flaws. I think they are just trying to recognize the real person, rather than the ideal. Their life does not reduce to one mistake just because we talk about it happening.