Richard Feynman was not a sexual predator

[astro]

Feynman was a “player” in a “Mad Men” social context. It may not be right, good or proper through 2016 social lens, but he was an active 50’s-60’s poon hound and in a purely arm’s length sense he is a “sexual predator” in the non-criminal sense in that he was using his game and the tools at this disposal to get sex as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. In retrospect his bar manners and his game are not especially enlightened or especially respectful, but that was then and this is now.

He may have been a manipulative, borderline asshole in search of sex but so were a lot of guys without being social criminals. Plus this whole “predator” view puts women’s sexual agency at about a 3 year old level. Even in the 50’s and 60’s young adult women knew what men in bars were after and it was their perfect right to say “no”.

Plus there is the sense that part of his being attractive to women was that in an non-sexual or professional context he respected them conversationally and intellectually even if he wanted their bodies. This is hugely attractive to a lot women, so part of this “game” might have been that he was direct and challenging with them. Again, hugely attractive to women.

Also, don’t forget for all his self deprecation he was regarded by many as some kind of super genius. If I was young and single and had helped design the atomic bomb I can’t imagine the kind of play I could get in dating women. I mean it would almost be astronaut level action.

[raventhief]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Well, ‘sexual predator’ is putting it a bit harshly, but Surely You’re Joking makes it abundantly clear that the man had a seriously skeevy attitude towards women. Consider:

Also, after this strategy at first fails to work, and one of the ‘bitches’ gets him to buy her a sandwich without immediately reciprocating with sex, he calls her ‘worse than a whore’—where I’ll let everyone draw the obvious implication.

Just a note: She didn’t get him to buy her a sandwich without immediately reciprocating with sex. She suggested he buy them sandwiches, and they would go to her place to eat . She then ordered an extra sandwich, and casually mentioned that they wouldn’t be able to eat them together after all: she was meeting a different guy at her place (and that the third sandwich that he had purchased was for that guy). That’s when he calls her “worse than a whore.”

While i don’t believe that she was acting a *whore *in this scenario, she got him to buy food with the enticement of them going home and eating them together, and once he purchased the food, told him that he was on his own- she was taking that food to go be with another man. I probably wouldn’t have reacted well, either.

Nonetheless, I don’t think “treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen” makes him a sexual predator, even if he had continued to use this method throughout his life. Maybe a jerk, maybe sleazy - but not predatory. Throughout his memoirs, Feynman seems to treat life as a grand experiment. If I do this, what will happen? He struck me as fascinated with “what will happen?” Even after the success with the ordinary girl he says: “But no matter how effective the lesson was, i never really used it after that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way.”

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Bricker

The article to which I linked in the OP certainly invites the reader to conclude that it is per se predatory.

Well, it also invites the reader to conclude that the moon is made of green cheese in the sense that there’s nothing in it that would explicitly contradict such a view, but the argument being made is very definitely not that Feynman’s behavior is predatory merely due to the age difference.

And again, even if that were the case, your anecdote does nothing to establish that to the contrary, this behavior is fine in all cases. You can’t conclude to a general principle from a singular statement.

@Miller

Really?

Yes, really: the article indeed nowhere claims that he’s a predator due to pursuing younger women, which is the strawman Bricker is trying to knock over.

@Indistinguishable

Half Man Half Wit’s point was that, yes, the article describes Feynman as a sexual predator, but not simply for sleeping with college-age women. Rather, the article describes Feynman as a sexual predator for using deception, degradation, and humiliation to get these women to sleep with him. I am just repeating the words Half Man Half Wit wrote, but as they seem to have gone unread the first time, perhaps this is of some use.

Thank you.

@astro

He may have been a manipulative, borderline asshole in search of sex but so were a lot of guys

Again, how does this appeal to common practice justify anything? Does it make a racist less of a racist if everyone around them are racists, too? What about a murderer?

Plus this whole “predator” view puts women’s sexual agency at about a 3 year old level. Even in the 50’s and 60’s young adult women knew what men in bars were after and it was their perfect right to say “no”.

True, but there is an issue of asymmetry in the setting, which is that the man typically has more power (in whatever sense—physical, social, etc.) than the woman; leveraging that asymmetry in your favor is despicable under any circumstances.

@raventhief

Just a note: She didn’t get him to buy her a sandwich without immediately reciprocating with sex. She suggested he buy them sandwiches, and they would go to her place to eat . She then ordered an extra sandwich, and casually mentioned that they wouldn’t be able to eat them together after all: she was meeting a different guy at her place (and that the third sandwich that he had purchased was for that guy). That’s when he calls her “worse than a whore.”

And you’ll note that nowhere did she say “buy me a sandwich and we’ll fuck”. I’m not sure how this point is so hard to grasp, but: no matter what sort of ‘transaction’ has taken place before, in no case is one entitled to receiving sex as compensation. In refusing, the woman simply exercises her rights as a person; in attacking her the way he did, Feynman is refusing to recognize these rights, treating her sexuality instead as a commodity.

Even after the success with the ordinary girl he says: “But no matter how effective the lesson was, i never really used it after that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way.”

Yes, exactly: nowhere a word about how behaving that sort of way is maybe, you know, wrong; no hint of a realization that treating another human being as a person is not optional, but mandatory, in every sort of interaction. No, he didn’t enjoy it, and that’s apparently all the enlightenment he ever had on the subject.

[astro]

[quote=“Half_Man_Half_Wit, post:63, topic:749860”]

Originally Posted by astro View Post
He may have been a manipulative, borderline asshole in search of sex but so were a lot of guys

Again, how does this appeal to common practice justify anything? Does it make a racist less of a racist if everyone around them are racists, too? What about a murderer?

If you are defining down the heavyweight term “sexual predator” to a man conversationally playing on a woman’s ego and emotions to get her to sleep with him we’re at a point that the term becomes almost meaningless.

Quote:
Plus this whole “predator” view puts women’s sexual agency at about a 3 year old level. Even in the 50’s and 60’s young adult women knew what men in bars were after and it was their perfect right to say “no”.

True, but there is an issue of asymmetry in the setting, which is that the man typically has more power (in whatever sense—physical, social, etc.) than the woman; leveraging that asymmetry in your favor is despicable under any circumstances.

This is pure hand waving gibberish to try and wave away the fact that adult women in bars, even in the 50’s and 60’s have full agency and power over their decisions to have sex or not with men (even celebrity scientists) vying for their favor. What’s most incredible here is that you posit that American men have MORE power than women in the specific context of pursuing them in bars. Unless you’re talking about the awesome asymmetrical male super power to buy them food and drink I’m not clear where “more power” comes into play in hitting on women in bars where women are usually invariably “the deciders”.

Have you ever been to a bar or nightclub where there are attractive women present? Did they appear to be in thrall to the asymmetrical social power of men in that context or were they in control of the interactions? What did you observe?

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Miller

I’m not sure how the author could have made her intent any clearer.

By the way, I’m pretty sure Matthew Francis is a he. It’s interesting that your default assumption seems to be that whoever is disturbed by Feynman’s behavior has to be a woman.

@raventhief

Throughout his memoirs, Feynman seems to treat life as a grand experiment. If I do this, what will happen? He struck me as fascinated with “what will happen?”

You say this as if it was exonerating; but this is in fact part of the problem: human beings are not lab animals to manipulate and study.

@astro

Feynman was a “player” in a “Mad Men” social context. It may not be right, good or proper through 2016 social lens, but he was an active 50’s-60’s poon hound

Another thing making this ‘he was just a product of his time’-defense implausible is that Feynman himself considered his behavior to be disrespectful to women (well, at least to nice women as opposed to ‘bar girls’); but he also seemed to have thought this disrespecting was perfectly OK in order to get sex. So he’s knowingly and purposefully degrading women in order to get some ass, rather than just doing what he thinks is proper due to his social context.

@astro

If you are defining down the heavyweight term “sexual predator” to a man conversationally playing on a woman’s ego and emotions to get her to sleep with him we’re at a point that the term becomes almost meaningless.

Note that in my very first response in this thread, I said that I didn’t believe the term applied in this case.

This is pure hand waving gibberish to try and wave away the fact that adult women in bars, even in the 50’s and 60’s have full agency and power over their decisions to have sex or not with men (even celebrity scientists) vying for their favor.

Yes, women (men too) have that agency, I’m glad we agree; however, Feynman wanted to deny them this agency. This is the problem.

What’s most incredible here is that you posit that American men have MORE power than women in the specific context of pursuing them in bars. Unless you’re talking about the awesome asymmetrical male super power to buy them food and drink I’m not clear where “more power” comes into play in hitting on women in bars where women are usually invariably “the deciders”.

The asymmetry I’m speaking of is one of consequences: men have nothing more to fear than a rejection, while women—not as a matter of course, but as one of statistical regularity—have a chance of being abused, in one way or another, due to men being generally both physically and socially in an advantageous position.

[Bricker]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

True, but there is an issue of asymmetry in the setting, which is that the man typically has more power (in whatever sense—physical, social, etc.) than the woman; leveraging that asymmetry in your favor is despicable under any circumstances.

And there it is.

There is absolutely no suggestion that Feynman “leveraged his power,” that the setting gave him, unless you are going to suggest that men inherently have more power in all settings by virtue of their awesome Y chromosome plus, you know, patriarchy!

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Bricker

And there it is.

There is absolutely no suggestion that Feynman “leveraged his power,” that the setting gave him, unless you are going to suggest that men inherently have more power in all settings by virtue of their awesome Y chromosome plus, you know, patriarchy!

And if you re-read that bit for comprehension, you might note that I was reacting to astro’s general assertion that there’s no matter of sexual predation in such a setting, since the women can just say ‘no’, and not talking about what Feynman did or didn’t do.

Not that one couldn’t make an argument to the effect that yes, Feynman—via degrading women, thus putting them below himself—did exploit such an asymmetry of power; but it’s not an argument I had made up to now.

[puzzlegal]

Having read this thread (but none of the links, and only having read Feynman’s book decades ago) i see plenty of evidence that he could be a sexist jerk, but none that he was a sexual predator. Does anyone in this thread really disagree with either of those?

[Randolph]

Guys, go easy. Half Man Half Wit is a product of his time.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Am I missing something? Feynman liked sex, and had a lot of it with willing participants, and might have lied occasionally to get it? That’s it?

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Am I missing something? Feynman liked sex, and had a lot of it with willing participants, and might have lied occasionally to get it? That’s it?

Not quite. Feynman considered himself entitled to receive sex upon buying drinks for women, and actively and purposefully degraded and humiliated them in order to get them to make good on the deal.

But other than that, I guess that’s it, yeah.

[Miller]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

By the way, I’m pretty sure Matthew Francis is a he. It’s interesting that your default assumption seems to be that whoever is disturbed by Feynman’s behavior has to be a woman.

Not really. I remembered the name “Francis” as the author, just forgot it was his last name, not the first.

Interesting that you jumped right to implying sexism because someone argued with you, though.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Miller

Interesting that you jumped right to implying sexism because someone argued with you, though.

Not a terribly far leap in a thread where people go out of their way to defend blatant misogyny.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

(Not to mention that “Francis” is a male name, AFAIK.)

[Miller]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Not a terribly far leap in a thread where people go out of their way to defend blatant misogyny.

Have I defended anyone here? All I did was point out that you were factually incorrect when you claimed that the article didn’t accuse Feynman of being a sexual predator.

Funny that your response to that was, “Well, Bricker’s making a strawman!” and not, “You’re right, that’s exactly what the article says. I have no idea how I missed that.” An interesting decision, one might even say.

[Eonwe]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

And you’ll note that nowhere did she say “buy me a sandwich and we’ll fuck”. I’m not sure how this point is so hard to grasp, but: no matter what sort of ‘transaction’ has taken place before, in no case is one entitled to receiving sex as compensation. In refusing, the woman simply exercises her rights as a person; in attacking her the way he did, Feynman is refusing to recognize these rights, treating her sexuality instead as a commodity.

How does he “not recognize her rights”? By calling her names?

Surely he was a jerk, but inflating his behavior into an abrogation of women’s rights is ridiculous.

Maybe this all gets into a game of semantics and connotation, but it’s this kind of exaggerated language that has turned this thread (and dare I say it, the blogosphere and society in general) into one giant argument between people who would probably agree about most things if they could get over their need to demonize someone.

“Sexual predator.” What does that even mean? Surely by some definition this metaphorical appellation could be applied to Feynman. But to insist upon it intentionally blurs the line between his actions and much more heinous actions.

It conflates fairly common though not by necessarily laudable human behavior (actively trying to get women to have sex in an assertive manner) with the sorts of things that you can get arrested for. If we’re using the same words to describe Feynman and the subjects of ‘To Catch A Predator,’ well, I’d suggest that even if we find Feynman’s actions odious, predator is too strong a word.

[Snarky_Kong]

@Miller

Have I defended anyone here? All I did was point out that you were factually incorrect when you claimed that the article didn’t accuse Feynman of being a sexual predator.

Funny that your response to that was, “Well, Bricker’s making a strawman!” and not, “You’re right, that’s exactly what the article says. I have no idea how I missed that.” An interesting decision, one might even say.

That quote did not say he was a predator because he went after younger women.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Miller

Have I defended anyone here? All I did was point out that you were factually incorrect when you claimed that the article didn’t accuse Feynman of being a sexual predator.

Funny that your response to that was, “Well, Bricker’s making a strawman!”

No, my response was to try and point out to you that I hadn’t claimed that the article didn’t call him a predator, but that my claim was, and still is, that it didn’t do so because of his seeking out younger women, as Bricker alleged. But apparently, both mine and **Indistinguishable **'s efforts to that end were in vain.

@Eonwe

How does he “not recognize her rights”? By calling her names?

No, by refusing to recognize her right not to sleep with him even after he bought her sandwiches.

[Miller]

Ah, I get your point now. Fair enough.

[Eonwe]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

No, by refusing to recognize her right not to sleep with him even after he bought her sandwiches.

What do you mean “refusing to recognize her right”? Did he drug her? Rape her? I am missing where she had a right that he did not recognize.

Just because I call a person nasty names for not doing what I want doesn’t mean I don’t recognize their right to make their choice.