Usually wouldn't do this, but I'm dying to see another perspective:
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/einstein-was-a-genius-at-mistreating-his-wives
>Einstein, trying to save his marriage to a wife whom he severely disliked for the sake of his kids, offered terms that basically suggested his wife become his caretaker and have no intimate relations with him whatsoever
>Einstein, after discovering his son had severe enough schizophrenia to be institutionalized during the early 20th century, never saw him again
>Einstein was unfaithful to both of his wives.
So does that mean he was a misogynist? Maybe I'm just looking too far into this, but no one would make the equivocation if some female scholar made a request of her husband to tend to her so that she could focus solely on her academics (if she already disliked him), and she also cheated, that she was a man-hater in general. So, this seems like such a double standard.
On top of that, they knew relatively nothing about severe mental illnesses in that day and the stigmatization was incredibly hysteric, is it far to say he was probably rather shocked by this discovery and felt that his son had a fatal ailment?
I got into some shit-flinging argument with this LGBTQA studies kid about this and there was pretty much no answer. I just feel like it's really faulty to take the standards of today and judge an individual by them, when at the time no such standards existed. Granted, yes, it's harsh, but if you were trying to learn something wouldn't you look at the laws and varying social factors that lead to general mentalities, it's not like Einstein was some kind of provocateur for spousal abuse, and a lot of geniuses have marital issues.
Martin Luther King Jr. slept around but I'm pretty sure no one is going to use that to discredit his work, why should this have any bearing on the work he did.
Geniuses always make shit husbands.
>"I had always thought of woman," says Mr. Tesla, "as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.
>"But all this was in the past. Now the soft-voiced gentle woman of my reverent worship has all but vanished. In her place has come the woman who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much as possible like man--in dress, voice and actions, in sports and achievements of every kind."
>>355636
I foretell some dramatic spin along the lines of "He was just a misogynist.
>>355689
That's what Hoover and the FBI tried to say, it didn't really pan out.
The true test of character is to see what a man does with out concern if standards
>>355648
Literally nothing wrong with this. Maybe it's not trendy or politically correct, but there's literally nothing wrong with liking femenine woman.
I mean, he is not saying that woman can't be masculine, just that he doesn't find it attractive.
>>355648
Everything Tesla just said is 100% correct.
Modern women are doing nothing but turning themselves into inferior men.
Could you please put a pastebin of the article? It is unethical to give Vice clicks.
That having been said, "misogyny" is a buzzword meant to denote the impiety of a person that you disagree with. It has about as much meaning as "asshole".
Trying to be the best father possible, hurt your wife as less as possible, and making sure your son has adequate mental health care does not mean you hate women.
>So does that mean he was a misogynist? Maybe I'm just looking too far into this, but no one would make the equivocation if some female scholar made a request of her husband to tend to her so that she could focus solely on her academics (if she already disliked him), and she also cheated, that she was a man-hater in general. So, this seems like such a double standard.
of course some people would say just that.
>So does that mean he was a misogynist? Maybe I'm just looking too far into this, but no one would make the equivocation if some female scholar made a request of her husband to tend to her so that she could focus solely on her academics (if she already disliked him), and she also cheated, that she was a man-hater in general. So, this seems like such a double standard.
Yes they would
>misogynist
that implies he advocates discriminating against women because they are women or discriminating for men because they are not women.
not liking his wife isn't misogyny unless he would have liked her more if she were a man.
cheating on his wife isn't misogyny unless he would have remained faithful if she were a man.
if he did abandon his son as the article implies then he may be an asshole I'm not sure what that has to do with misogyny however.
>>355868
poster here
I'm not sure why I responded to the same quote twice.
