Today a majority of medical students, law students and mba students are women; in addition to the humanities. But in the ’sexist past’ all these subjects were equally dominated by men. You apparently claim that scientists are more sexist than doctors and lawyers – but is it not reasoable to consider other possibilities: men are simply more interested in science, or more realistically biases against men and boys (that’s right) in other areas with artificial entry barriers makes them go into other areas.

Incidentally MBA’s, medical doctors, and lawyers all earn far more money than scientists – maybe that is the reason for the lack of women in science!

How many of you knew Feynman? How many of you know someone that knew Feynman? I would wager that none of the outspoken posters in this thread have any real experience of what Feynman was like – you can’t tell what a person is like from reading books and articles.

Feynman was a human being, OK? Albeit a very smart one. He was not always perfect in all respects. Are any of us?

[As for The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), also mentioned above, please don't forget that Feynman was not their sole author - Matthew Sands and Robert Leighton were also authors of FLP. In fact the whole project was Matt Sands' idea, and Feynman did none of the actual writing. If you ever listen to the (commercially available) tapes of the lectures on which the books are based and compare them to what is written in the books you will see that they are by _no means_ merely a transcription. Feynman was incredibly brilliant but sometimes not completely clear - sometimes far from clear - as is the case for most people speaking extemporaneously. Leighton's and Sands' great contribution to FLP was to "translate 'Feynmanese' into English" (as Leighton jokingly puts it in his Oral History at the Caltech Archives), and they did a great job, though they are rarely recognized for it.]

Michael A. Gottlieb
Physics Department
California Institute of Technology

#53, Your post is equally valid if one were to interchange the words “men” and “women” throughout. I would also suggest that neither is less common than the other.

#50, as people grow older, their outlook on life changes as do the qualities they look for in a partner

Having worked at two large, but good, public universities I’ve seen more than my share of talented young women diverted from working in the science by…..other women (this is apparently a large issue in mathematics and was pointed out to me by a woman mathematics professor who was despairing of the situation).

There are also talented individuals of both sexes that go onto great careers with or without hostile/encouraging environments/mentors etc.

As for Feynman, he can no longer defend himself or give a rationale for his behavior. My suspicion, on having read a large chunk of his writings, is that he was continually pushing the limits to see what he could get away with, or as others have pointed out here, to see exactly how cherished these beliefs of others really are – but maybe I’ve been watching too much House and Boston Legal.

So, I would respectfully suggest that people treat others with respect (if it is deserved) and just grow up!

Kordan said:
“It’s funny how women always claim they want a nice,
sensitive, and understanding guy – but the younger
ones especially (such as in college) almost always
seem to go for the big macho jerks.

Then they whine and cry about how cruel and insensitive
all men are – go figure.”

Of course no one can ever rely solely on an individuals spoken claims; actions speak louder then words. I can dig the study up for you if you’d like, but I remember a psychology paper that tested womens actual preferences (using speed dating, it’s weak but it’s the best we have) and sure enough it supported the nice guy stereotype! The women ended up liking more men that scored low on agreeableness, which I think would roughly correlate with niceness.

To teadrinker (#51): yeah, I saw that, and I agree; that is so warped.

Give this Feynman thing a rest: the man was a genius, let it be. Isn’t there a Motorhead song that says something like ‘don’t expect the best if you can’t take the least’?

Female fundamentalist Muslims are fighting for the
right to be suicide bombers, too, just like their
male counterparts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/31/world/main4142514.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4142514

Sadly, they only get half as many virgins as the men
do upon a successful detonation – even the afterlife is
just so unfair.

The whole species is just plain warped!

Then they whine and cry about how cruel and insensitive
all men are – go figure.

Personally I think both genders are two separate
species that happen to have the genetic ability to
mate.

As for the unfairness of judging him by today’s standards, I don’t go in for that moral relativist bullshit. The hunter-gathers who practice(d) infanticide and child abuse as normative behaviours can only be judged as psychopaths and psychotics…

… which, perhaps, they were. Recondite cavemen aside, I’m wondering why your moral relativism trumps mine?

A simple thought experiment: do you think that you, had you grown up in early 20-th century America, would have been in a position to criticize Feynman (who would then have been your contemporary)? Think of all the borderline behaviour your present contemporaries engage in… in a generation or two they may be seen as swinish pigs from a bygone era. What would you say if someone from the future popped into your life judging you for not standing up to them…?