Just goes to show that there is usually a huge difference between what we think of historical figures and how they actually were.
It's interesting how much we want our heroes to be pure and spotless -- unlike any other humans we encounter.
I don't know if Einstein's marriage was similar to mine. Maybe he was a demanding jerk, but the possibility does exist that he was reacting to the circumstances he found himself in.
If that seems too daunting, order The Emotionally Abusive Relationship by Beverly Engel or get it out of the library. It's a good starting point and in general books written by therapists are a great complement to therapy.
http://www.amazon.com/Emotionally-Abusive-Relationship-Abuse...
If not for yourself, do this for your children, who suffer as much as you - if only because you and your wife are so important to them - but are helpless to change the situation.
You don't need to be qualified as a mental health professional to recommend psychotherapy. If a man here complained of symptoms that made it sound like he was having a heart attack, we'd all tell him to go see a doctor, and to me this is no different.
And although the wife may need a psychiatrist and medication (I assume this is what "treatment" means), I was writing to the husband here who in my non-professional opinion needs help of his own, simply by virtue of being in the relationship with her. And for this talk therapy may be enough. (Obviously patience and luck are nice.)
As someone who has some experience here (on the past kid side), results from professional help come slowly if at all, and especially if there are kids involved, drastic hard choices need to be made that we shouldn't talk about here.
The best advice I would give here is preventative: carefully evaluate the mental health of your potential partner, including their family history, you really don't want any surprises later even if you are OK with it. This is in addition to checking for lifestyle compatibility; e.g. if you are a scientist obsessed with your work, make sure your potential partner is really really OK with that. And do you require extreme order in your life to function effectively (e.g. some autism)? Ya, that is something you also need to take up with your partner.
And if the emotional issue involves, providing the domestic service will not guarantee that she will satisfy with what you did for her. She may complain about other things.
Some people, not necessary has mental issue, will never appreciate what they already have because they always desire to what they do not have right now. They never feel satisfaction.
no appreciation no satisfaction in those people's heart
Sounds familiar. I wonder if her family would rethink their position when they had to suffer her.
Just a little fact: unless you divorce soon, you'll develop some mental symptons yourself, if you hadn't already. And don't be fooled: you're not making any favor to your children staying.
If I can be of any help, my email is in my profile.
I really have no idea, but I think it's pretty unfair to make character judgements from a single note out of context. Human relationships are complex.
If you want to counter the argument, present contrary evidence.
I think the down votes are a little harsh.
She wanted him to stay for the kids and continue to provide for the family. In return, he wanted some help around the house and to ensure emotional disconnect from the relationship that was already dead by this point. I expect couples today would form similar arrangements in the same situation.
Cultivated men are still jerks today, as a general rule. It's just that we are too blind to see (just like Einstein was in his day) that. Give it until 2110 to tell you just how much.
In 1914 it was totally normal for women not to have the vote, not to have a say in the family finances and to be given consideration only after the sons in the family (but before the daughters). They were not considered capable of higher education (exceptions allowed, sometimes these dressed as men to get around the limitations) and so on.
Cultivated men made those rules and whole pile of others, and decades of erosion by activists and others have restored the balance. Partially. Einstein was - as far as I can see here - not much different than what I know about how life was back then in general. Plenty of his peers would have done much worse than this, and only an extremely small (vanishingly small maybe) portion of society would have done much better.
The fact that we have Einstein on a pedestal today does not mean that (a) he wasn't human and hence bound to make mistakes and (b) that he wasn't a product of his time.
Same with women, and we'll have to wait just as long to see it.
Extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have for this one?
My eyes.
I must have missed it.
You'll need sufficient proof for that. Not just "heard".
Looks like he was a demanding jerk as well.
Really? Asking for 3 meals a day and laundry? Maybe he's the one responsible for paying all the bills. Don't read half the story.
Also, I think their relationship is broken already, they were just keeping an "MVP" for the children.
You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.
That could also tell that the wife is not that innocent too.
Here are some quick links I turned up on the exhibit:
http://eastpdxnews.com/general-news-features/explore-space-a...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/alberteinstein/pool/tags/omsi/
The Flickr link has a bunch of photos of the documents, but I don't none of them are labelled, so it may be a bit time-consuming to search for anything specific.
It shows that people are complicated and multifaceted. While we have a tendency to either laud or vilify figures (with nothing in between), in reality, historical figures can be both "good" and "bad" in different aspects of their lives... just like the rest of us.
My favorite example of this is Helen Keller[1]. Almost nobody these days knows anything about Helen Keller beyond the age of 18 - they know that learned to communicate despite being deaf and blind, but the nearly 70 years of her life after that are almost buried in history.
Which is a shame, because Helen Keller would have been a notable figure in her own right even if it weren't for her disability[2].
But because she was a member of the official Socialist party, we can't use her story as an inspirational lesson and mention that she held political beliefs that we may or may not agree with. Instead have to make a judgement call as to whether her "good" or her "bad[3]" side is more important to teach, and then forget about the rest.
Worse, this principle is applied in reverse to dehumanize people whom history has classified as villains. The result is that our history is filled with monochromatic caricatures, and we forget that, were we to see the complete picture, our modern-day "villains" may not look so different (for better or for worse!)
[1] I believe Loewen talks about this in his excellent book Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Political_activiti...
[2] Naturally, this presumes that you either disagree with socialist politics or think that history lessons should be politically neutral, which is the predominant belief in the USA.
Now when I write that, does our welcoming of his great contributions need to make us guilty of also endorsing morals we perceive behind this "list of demands" he made of his wife?
And then with various permutations for the child being yours or a stranger and/or the people on the right being your parents and / or strangers.
We are not well equipped to make such decisions.
We just don't have a socially accepted notion of "scientific monkhood" yet I suppose.
Perhaps not monkhood, but as an eccentric removing himself from society is a common occurrence. And for sufficiently levels of ability and talent, people are willing to forgo social convention.
I forget who it was, but one of the great ones long gone was extremely uncomfortable around people. To the extent that people were told that they should casually walk up to him, and without addressing him directly, talk to the air about the problem they were facing or had come up with.
If it's my child or someone I know, save him/her.
If they are all strangers, save the greater number.
If I know both the child and one or more people among the set of 3, prioritize based on genetic or family proximity.
The point is, this can be solved algorithmically and/or game theoretically.
But it would be interesting to run the experiment in a psychology lab and see what kind of results arise.
It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that one man was recognized for something just because he was louder in self promotion (see Tesla vs Edison).
I don't claim that Mileva Marić is of Tesla caliber, but treating woman that is as educated as her husband, and who also participated and contributed highly in his early work as a mere home service says a lot about person doing it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87#Role_in_physi...
History has a way of attributing contributions to the foremost scientist of the era. For example, "Newtonian" physics implies and is often taught to have all been first discribed by Newton, when in reality it was a joint effort of him, Galileo, Kepler, Descarte, Hooke, Leibniz, and others.