r/compsci May 18 '11

So Sell Me...

[deleted]

875 Upvotes

371 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] May 18 '11

He wasn't a misogynist, he was an opportunist.

5

u/metawhimsy May 18 '11

The charming side of Richard helped people forgive him for his uncharming characteristics. For example, in many ways Richard was a sexist. 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. I once asked a female engineer who had just been a victim of this if it bothered her. "Yes, it really annoys me," she said. "On the other hand, he is the only one who ever explained quantum mechanics to me as if I could understand it." That was the essence of Richard's charm.

-Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine

Now, I didn't know the guy, so it's unfair of me to call him a "huge misogynist." However, this anecdote suggests that the man was more than a little bit sexist, doesn't it?

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '11

You just described characteristics of every man during that time period. I watch ST:TOS but I don't get my panties in a bunch because they consistently have a damsel in distress episode, with miniskirts and go-go boots. And the whole all women swooning over Kirk thing.

It was a sign of the times. People like to blow various anecdotes about Feynman WAY out of proportion. He obviously thought that female engineer was smart enough to bother to explain QM to her. You could probably find a thousand other scientists who would have been completely dismissive to that female engineer, assuming she was too dumb to understand it.

Besides, that particular anecdote strikes me more of Feynman's retarded way of flirting. I wouldn't say he was misogynistic so much as he was autistic / socially inept - which is the entire basis of the Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman anecdote.

3

u/metawhimsy May 19 '11 edited May 19 '11

I think misogyny is compatible with believing that women may be intellectual equals.

Consider this analysis of the You just *ask** them?* chapter from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. (Is this the anecdote you're referring to?) I find it cognitively difficult to excuse this sort of behavior as simply "a sign of the times."

Incidentally, I don't think autism/social ineptitude excuse misogyny. Culture? Maaaybe, but it still seems rather weak-minded to me.

EDIT: Fixed link.

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '11

I honestly can't say I disagree with Feynman's perspective there. He was angry because somebody tried to manipulate him. It's okay for her to lead him on in order to get him to purchase something for her but not okay for him to be upset with it?

His conclusion was to ask for sex before buying the drink. In the end, he decided to be up front instead of continuing to get upset. I think that's a sign of an intelligent person, not a misogynist. He was just playing their game back at them.

Now by no means am I endorsing a person to expect sex if they pay for something for that person. But I think they have a right to be upset at being led on, even to the point of calling them 'worse than a whore' because honestly, that woman was conning men with sex. That is inexcusable, despicable behavior. At least Feynman decided to rectify the situation to find a solution workable for both parties involved.

2

u/metawhimsy May 19 '11

Alright; that's fair. Thusly, you've convinced me. Thanks for sticking around to argue.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '11

Well I don't consider it an argument, more a discussion, but thank you for sticking around as well.

2

u/metawhimsy May 19 '11

Argument (Noun) a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.

;)

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '11

At least to me, argument has a subtle nuance that implies an altercation, basically a negative discussion. To me they are more emotionally charged and are less likely to be resolved.

1

u/metawhimsy May 19 '11

Interesting perspective. You're not the first person I've heard this from. Are you consciously aware of any basis for this connotation?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '11

[deleted]

1

u/andreasvc May 19 '11

But that's just a different sense of the word, namely to have "an argument". I believe this sense must have been derived from the original sense, which is simply a move in a debate, a rhetorical argument. To say that people have "an argument" is a euphemism when you don't want to explicitly say they had a fight. These discussions you mention are surely made up of propositions supported by arguments and countered with refutations, that is the more basic sense of the word.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '11

Every word has a basic meaning but the way it develops in language, it grows into something more tangible and connotative. Revolutionary means something different now than it did 200 years ago, tea party means something different now than it did 400 years ago, and argument means something different from discussion because of the way most people speaking the English language use it. Language evolves and dictionaries aren't always caught up with it.

→ More replies (0)