"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.
Because I do not want his charm to detract from the rest of it. (charisma > sexism) == wrong. Also, in my opinion, it is actually a bit sad that the lady says, "oh well, it's ok to be treated that way because he's a good teacher". This is exactly the kind of compromise that victims make too often.
Bill Clinton was not even being sexist and he got tasered big time. I'm not sure why Feynman should get a pass.
The point is that he was somewhat sexist in some fairly normal ways, but at the same time he was extremely unsexist in ways that no one else was.
Other people may have been more polite than Feynman in casual situations, but when it came to serious discussion he treated women (and students) as equals better than other people.
Because I do not want his charm to detract from the rest of it. (charisma > sexism) == wrong.
I'd say that the type of (charisma > sexism) is boolean -- maybe fuzzy boolean given the fuzzy quality of the operands -- not right|wrong.
In any case you're entitled to your opinion; the problem is that you did some blatantly unfair editing there. If someone says "Steve is an asshole, but I have to admit he's a great CEO", you're not supposed to quote only the first sentence, no matter how much you think being an asshole is a bad thing.
You don't get it. You are treating the original article like a Bible. In my opinion, the original article is the one which did the blatantly unfair editing; it bended over backwards to make the man look good by sandwiching the sexism carefully between the praises.
What I did could be constituted as wrong only if I was quoting Feynman and then cut off the last part, for example.
oh well, it's ok to be treated that way because he's a good teacher
Whether you think it's sad or not, I have known people who felt exactly this way. e.g., my senior year EE lab partner was a woman who couldn't stand our Theory of Communications prof, but put up with him because he was the only person who could explain the topics in a way that made sense to her.
I'm pretty sure she wasn't alone in that sentiment. Fortunately or unfortunately, we all have to make compromises.
There's a book of Feynman's letters out now, and I felt like there was a progression from the early letters -- where a certain amount of sexism was present -- to later ones where he seemed convinced that women were the peers of men in academia.
"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."