Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. And keep in mind that we're looking at all this from almost a century later and that society has moved on quite a bit. Things that my grandparents would have considered perfectly a-ok would look ridiculous to you and me. Context is everything.
In plenty of places in the world this would be an 'amicable arrangement' even today.
Mote, beam, eye etc.
Without knowing what went on before this it is very hard to judge the list. Maybe they reached a stage of armistice and decided to live like this for the sake of their kids. Whatever it was, it spells out tragedy rather than malice.
Even in a modern context, I do not think this list makes Einstein sexist (or a jerk).
If my girlfriend did not work, I would ask her to take care of all the chores and meals (which would probably be, at most, 20 hours a week of work). Accordingly, I do not see items A[1-3] on the list as unreasonable, given his wife was not employed at this period in their life. I also happen to be very particular about my desk area, given I spend most of my sorry life in front of it. :)
Einstein wanted to stay together for the sake of his children, but had clearly fallen out of love with his wife. If you had a lot of work to do, you probably would not want to be bothered with socializing with a person you no longer loved. He gave her the best options he could - even after she left him, he paid her half his salary and gave her his Nobel Prize money (which was enough to buy three houses, among other things), even though this was not legally required.
Mostly, this just seems like a list by a man who wants to be left alone so he can work, not a bad person.
Agree with you. Otherwise, it was totally puzzling to me a simplistic, judgmental view calling him a jerk as a top comment.
Don't know how many people have been married a long time here (i.e. > 10 years). Looking at the responses, it seems to me not that many.
Thankfully, my marriage is several orders better than his was. But still I can perhaps see where the conditions are coming from.
Just to take an example - C(3) - you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.
I can see that for whatever reasons any fights between a husband (who works from home) and wife start when the husband is nicely all set to begin the day's work. It may be over a trivia discussion (perhaps because the husband has some work related frustration) or it could be the result of something building up. Now as a husband who is working from home, does not even have the choice to go to work elsewhere, in such a situation. And the argument/discussion/fight won't end until one person leaves the place. And countless hours can get lost, for a trivia thing.
Since I seem to be the target of this comment I'll respond.
Einstein was human. The purpose of using the phrases "womanizer" and "demanding jerk" was emotional -- we think of our heroes in pure terms. To associate them with negative judgmental phrases (such that we might easily use with anybody else in the world we meet) causes us distress.
And from what I understand, Einstein chased women all his life, even during his second marriage. How he and his second wife got along with this is anybody's guess.
But to focus on Einstein or his faults (or my easy judgement of him) is to miss the point. We read this list and we feel disjointed -- cognitive dissonance. How can such a great man speak like this to one who loves him? The reaction shouldn't be to start naval-gazing at our on judgment of others. The reaction should be to realize that we have only a very simple and cartoonish view of the world. People who did a lot of good in the world had some really big flaws. People who did a lot of evil in the world had redeeming qualities. If we really want to understand these folks, we need to see them in their own terms, not how mass media portrays them.
Perhaps some folks want to canonize some and demonize others. I much prefer to live in a world full of folks just like me -- human. The more I start glossing over faults? The more I'm missing out on all the good parts of history.
Look. Einstein was a womanizer. Galileo was a bit of a jerk. Newton was unhealthily obsesses with numbers. Martin Luther King Jr also chased women. Hell Nash was officially certifiable. If the only thing you get out of all my statements is that I'm judgmental, you're missing the point. Worse yet your'e missing all the good stuff, the parts of history people don't talk about. I'm not saying these men are bad; I'm saying they're just like the rest of us.
I agree re not judging. I made the mistake a very long time ago to assume that I understood someone else's relationship and gave them advice on what I thought was an obvious matter. After a decade my friend is now happily married to that same person with amazing kids and a wonderful life. It's become clear to me that there are two sides to a relationship and no one except the participants will ever understand it.
So I think the important thing to understand when reading this is that we have zero context - and perhaps worse because all we know are Einstein's works.
Without knowing what went on before this it is very hard to judge the list.
On the other hand, the list is perfect to figure out what had happened before: their home was a mess, meals were spotty, there were frequent discussions that prevented him from work and she belittled him in front of their children.
That's not to say that the situation was her fault.
As the resident Serb here I should point out a Wikipedia page on Mileva Maric who was a brilliant scientific mind in her own right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Maric
There are even some theories that she helped him early on in his career although there is no strong evidence to support that theory. As part of the divorce agreement Einstein made with Mileva, his Nobel Prize money was transferred to her and in trust for their two sons.
This makes him sound like a jerk, but man was life tough for couples who stopped getting along back when men did all the income earning and women did all the child care and housework. This actually seems like an OK arrangement when you think about it in that context, they were both holding up their ends of the bargain. It just makes me glad that both men and women are more independent these days.
Differently from most other comments, I didn't see this as Einstein being a jerk. I more feel compassion for him since, to me, this list is like an admission of his solitude.
It must be quite lonely being so unique as Einstein. Most people have a hard enough time finding someone who they can relate to. When you're as publicly distinguished as he was I imagine finding someone to relate to must've felt entirely hopeless. Particularly since she was a bright woman, and 'on paper' should've been a good match and now it wasn't working out.
Einstein's second marriage was with his cousin which could be seen as more evidence of his desire to be able to relate to someone. Having family history probably helped them feel close, and he probably gave up on someone being able to relate to his intellectual pursuits by that time.
Unfortunately I don't have any hard evidence to point to support my ideas. I have been thinking of this since Steve Jobs died and have been wondering how such unique people like him, Einstein, and others dealt with not being able to feel true connection with another human being.
Now way off topic, but I don't think Steve Jobs is comparable to Einstein in the same way. Einstein needed long months of solitude to come up with his formulas, which must have been brutal on his family and friend relationships. Steve Jobs had other people execute his vision.
As a sole breadwinner,married to a woman who belittles me in front of our children, who, despite having full-time domestic help, grudgingly provides me with meals, who swings between extreme emotional neediness and rejection for weeks at a time and who occasionally physically attacks me in rages (she was diagnosed with a psychological disorder, but treatment is blocked by her family), I wish I could produce a list like that.
I don't know if Einstein's marriage was similar to mine. Maybe he was a demanding jerk, but the possibility does exist that he was reacting to the circumstances he found himself in.
Why do you automatically assume he is a jerk? Do you know more about his personal life than what was mentioned here? How do we know she wasn't a horrible person and this is actually a gracious response?
I really have no idea, but I think it's pretty unfair to make character judgements from a single note out of context. Human relationships are complex.
I have to say, I didn't really come away with the "demanding jerk" impression at all.
She wanted him to stay for the kids and continue to provide for the family. In return, he wanted some help around the house and to ensure emotional disconnect from the relationship that was already dead by this point. I expect couples today would form similar arrangements in the same situation.
Keep in mind that this was in 1919, when the accepted roles of men and women in marriages were very different. It's important, when reading historical documents, not to judge those discussed within by modern standards.
Well this was also a different time. You can hardly expect the early 1900s relationships between men and women to be on the same ground as the early 2000s ones. The world has (culturally) changed a lot since then. Do not judge people from the past with today's eyes.
> Just goes to show that there is usually a huge difference between what we think of historical figures and how they actually were.
It shows that people are complicated and multifaceted. While we have a tendency to either laud or vilify figures (with nothing in between), in reality, historical figures can be both "good" and "bad" in different aspects of their lives... just like the rest of us.
My favorite example of this is Helen Keller[1]. Almost nobody these days knows anything about Helen Keller beyond the age of 18 - they know that learned to communicate despite being deaf and blind, but the nearly 70 years of her life after that are almost buried in history.
Which is a shame, because Helen Keller would have been a notable figure in her own right even if it weren't for her disability[2].
But because she was a member of the official Socialist party, we can't use her story as an inspirational lesson and mention that she held political beliefs that we may or may not agree with. Instead have to make a judgement call as to whether her "good" or her "bad[3]" side is more important to teach, and then forget about the rest.
Worse, this principle is applied in reverse to dehumanize people whom history has classified as villains. The result is that our history is filled with monochromatic caricatures, and we forget that, were we to see the complete picture, our modern-day "villains" may not look so different (for better or for worse!)
[2] Naturally, this presumes that you either disagree with socialist politics or think that history lessons should be politically neutral, which is the predominant belief in the USA.
The man was highly intelligent. Often intelligence and social skills seesaw (obviously not always.) What he did was wrong by what we know now, but I don't think it came from malice.
I agree that this isn't enough to judge Einsteins morality, but it is interesting the tendency to want our heroes to be noble people. James Thurber wrote a wonderful short story about this -- The Greatest Man in the World.
I see lots of people commenting how Einstein was a jerk, etc. But somehow, I think that list (if it's real) just shows that he wanted order (and control?) in everything he did, which doesn't resonate as bad to me. We have no idea what kind of relationship he had with his wife, so I think it is unfair to judge him like that solely based on that list, more so, because his wife accepted it!
That people cope with emotional abuse in different ways does not justify emotional abuse. As plenty of people mentioned in the thread, this was a different time when women had less possibilities and support systems for themselves.
Oh yeah there are a lot of children accepting labour conditions in the East of Asia with which we get scandalized and the. this is ok: she accepted! come on....
Most of these demands relate in some way to staving off a meaningful emotional connection, keeping things "all-business" etc. There's significant evidence that Einstein had a form of high-functioning autism (likely Asperger's). A signature symptom of Asperger's syndrome is discomfort with emotional intimacy and a lesser capacity for empathy.
I can't say if that's true or not, but if you combine these symptoms with the state of women's' rights at the time, this really isn't surprising at all - and in any case, there are far more explicit examples of sexism from this period.
This reads exactly like an employer/employee relationship. [1]
-- Whether ironically or obviously ... is harder to tell.
________
[1] eg, no sexual expectations of a colleague (ie, harassment), no disturbing a colleague's work/space, no insulting in public manner (of a colleague in front of clients, etc).
Also, the only way she would give him a divorce is by him offering her the Nobel Prize money he knew he would one day win for his work in physics. She took a gamble and gave him the divorce.
I had same reaction. It looks unerringly similar to Sheldon Cooper's relationship agreement. May be writers of Big Bang Theory might have referred to this letter to draft that.
What's to reconcile? You will find character flaws and chronic bad judgement in the most successful/accomplished people–it will just be in some other area than what they're known for.
John Calvin had a man burned at the stake. Henry Ford was an anti-semite. 8 of the first 10 US presidents owned slaves. And, no, I don't think it's a matter of shifting standards. Look at Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, etc.
i mean, i don't see what's wrong with it, even by today's standards. she probably didn't work, so it's practically just a relaxed maid contract. i mean, hiring a woman you shared kids with solely as your maid would be weird by today's standards, but bigoted? don't see it.
Maybe I am missing something but since when was Einstein considered as a "popular folk hero" ? I have never heard of him portrayed as anything but a renowned scientist (with controversial political views).
Without making this about judging a specific person in a certain context, what are the implications today?
(Some) folks seem to suggest that since Einstein was working on something as significance as GR, the solitude prioritized over family made sense. If Einstein's work had not succeeded, would the justifications still hold?
Actually... the question on my mind is: every person trying to do something on their own believes in their heart that it is the most important thing, something that will change the world. How far should one take that conviction/belief as justification to forego responsibilities of being a spouse or parent?
Doesn't a person have the right to demand solitude either way? He presented his conditions for getting on with the marriage. The alternative is to simply get a divorce. If what he needs is solitude, what is he supposed to do? I mean I don't see where the guilt comes from?
People are naturally manipulative, especially in relationships, and people naturally play mind-games without necessarily knowing they are.
A quarrel ending in a door-slam can have damaging effects on the psyche, as a common example that most of you have experienced. It can make it difficult to concentrate.
This just seems to me to be a typical negotiation tool during a relationship gone wrong, trying to prevent further emotional distress. Nothing to see here.
F × S = k. The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. To gain more freedom of thought and/or action, you must give up some security, and vice versa. These remarks apply to individuals, nations, and civilizations. Notice that the constant k is different for every civilization and different for every individual.
You know after reading the comments on here I was expecting something really horrific. It was pretty short and not all that ludicrous when the time period is taken into account.
His goal was to create a sustainable relationship with her, and therefore he proposed a new set of expectations of her in consideration of his household cash flow. She consented to them; she wasn't forced to. This resembles a typical "live-in servant" relationship. The only strange part is that this falls out of a prior arrangement/agreement that was considered a "marriage" relationship. It's obviously no longer marriage in spirit, so why all the judgment of it that way?
[+] [-] jacquesm|13 years ago|reply
Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. And keep in mind that we're looking at all this from almost a century later and that society has moved on quite a bit. Things that my grandparents would have considered perfectly a-ok would look ridiculous to you and me. Context is everything.
In plenty of places in the world this would be an 'amicable arrangement' even today.
Mote, beam, eye etc.
Without knowing what went on before this it is very hard to judge the list. Maybe they reached a stage of armistice and decided to live like this for the sake of their kids. Whatever it was, it spells out tragedy rather than malice.
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|13 years ago|reply
If my girlfriend did not work, I would ask her to take care of all the chores and meals (which would probably be, at most, 20 hours a week of work). Accordingly, I do not see items A[1-3] on the list as unreasonable, given his wife was not employed at this period in their life. I also happen to be very particular about my desk area, given I spend most of my sorry life in front of it. :)
Einstein wanted to stay together for the sake of his children, but had clearly fallen out of love with his wife. If you had a lot of work to do, you probably would not want to be bothered with socializing with a person you no longer loved. He gave her the best options he could - even after she left him, he paid her half his salary and gave her his Nobel Prize money (which was enough to buy three houses, among other things), even though this was not legally required.
Mostly, this just seems like a list by a man who wants to be left alone so he can work, not a bad person.
[+] [-] rehack|13 years ago|reply
Don't know how many people have been married a long time here (i.e. > 10 years). Looking at the responses, it seems to me not that many.
Thankfully, my marriage is several orders better than his was. But still I can perhaps see where the conditions are coming from.
Just to take an example - C(3) - you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.
I can see that for whatever reasons any fights between a husband (who works from home) and wife start when the husband is nicely all set to begin the day's work. It may be over a trivia discussion (perhaps because the husband has some work related frustration) or it could be the result of something building up. Now as a husband who is working from home, does not even have the choice to go to work elsewhere, in such a situation. And the argument/discussion/fight won't end until one person leaves the place. And countless hours can get lost, for a trivia thing.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|13 years ago|reply
Einstein was human. The purpose of using the phrases "womanizer" and "demanding jerk" was emotional -- we think of our heroes in pure terms. To associate them with negative judgmental phrases (such that we might easily use with anybody else in the world we meet) causes us distress.
And from what I understand, Einstein chased women all his life, even during his second marriage. How he and his second wife got along with this is anybody's guess.
But to focus on Einstein or his faults (or my easy judgement of him) is to miss the point. We read this list and we feel disjointed -- cognitive dissonance. How can such a great man speak like this to one who loves him? The reaction shouldn't be to start naval-gazing at our on judgment of others. The reaction should be to realize that we have only a very simple and cartoonish view of the world. People who did a lot of good in the world had some really big flaws. People who did a lot of evil in the world had redeeming qualities. If we really want to understand these folks, we need to see them in their own terms, not how mass media portrays them.
Perhaps some folks want to canonize some and demonize others. I much prefer to live in a world full of folks just like me -- human. The more I start glossing over faults? The more I'm missing out on all the good parts of history.
Look. Einstein was a womanizer. Galileo was a bit of a jerk. Newton was unhealthily obsesses with numbers. Martin Luther King Jr also chased women. Hell Nash was officially certifiable. If the only thing you get out of all my statements is that I'm judgmental, you're missing the point. Worse yet your'e missing all the good stuff, the parts of history people don't talk about. I'm not saying these men are bad; I'm saying they're just like the rest of us.
[+] [-] mmaunder|13 years ago|reply
So I think the important thing to understand when reading this is that we have zero context - and perhaps worse because all we know are Einstein's works.
[+] [-] narag|13 years ago|reply
On the other hand, the list is perfect to figure out what had happened before: their home was a mess, meals were spotty, there were frequent discussions that prevented him from work and she belittled him in front of their children.
That's not to say that the situation was her fault.
[+] [-] olavk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mladenkovacevic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klepra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarah2079|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zoba|13 years ago|reply
It must be quite lonely being so unique as Einstein. Most people have a hard enough time finding someone who they can relate to. When you're as publicly distinguished as he was I imagine finding someone to relate to must've felt entirely hopeless. Particularly since she was a bright woman, and 'on paper' should've been a good match and now it wasn't working out.
Einstein's second marriage was with his cousin which could be seen as more evidence of his desire to be able to relate to someone. Having family history probably helped them feel close, and he probably gave up on someone being able to relate to his intellectual pursuits by that time.
Unfortunately I don't have any hard evidence to point to support my ideas. I have been thinking of this since Steve Jobs died and have been wondering how such unique people like him, Einstein, and others dealt with not being able to feel true connection with another human being.
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unreal37|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|13 years ago|reply
Just goes to show that there is usually a huge difference between what we think of historical figures and how they actually were.
It's interesting how much we want our heroes to be pure and spotless -- unlike any other humans we encounter.
[+] [-] hgnb|13 years ago|reply
I don't know if Einstein's marriage was similar to mine. Maybe he was a demanding jerk, but the possibility does exist that he was reacting to the circumstances he found himself in.
[+] [-] stickfigure|13 years ago|reply
I really have no idea, but I think it's pretty unfair to make character judgements from a single note out of context. Human relationships are complex.
[+] [-] randomdata|13 years ago|reply
She wanted him to stay for the kids and continue to provide for the family. In return, he wanted some help around the house and to ensure emotional disconnect from the relationship that was already dead by this point. I expect couples today would form similar arrangements in the same situation.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|13 years ago|reply
You'll need sufficient proof for that. Not just "heard".
Looks like he was a demanding jerk as well.
Really? Asking for 3 meals a day and laundry? Maybe he's the one responsible for paying all the bills. Don't read half the story.
Also, I think their relationship is broken already, they were just keeping an "MVP" for the children.
You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.
That could also tell that the wife is not that innocent too.
[+] [-] ekianjo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|13 years ago|reply
It shows that people are complicated and multifaceted. While we have a tendency to either laud or vilify figures (with nothing in between), in reality, historical figures can be both "good" and "bad" in different aspects of their lives... just like the rest of us.
My favorite example of this is Helen Keller[1]. Almost nobody these days knows anything about Helen Keller beyond the age of 18 - they know that learned to communicate despite being deaf and blind, but the nearly 70 years of her life after that are almost buried in history.
Which is a shame, because Helen Keller would have been a notable figure in her own right even if it weren't for her disability[2].
But because she was a member of the official Socialist party, we can't use her story as an inspirational lesson and mention that she held political beliefs that we may or may not agree with. Instead have to make a judgement call as to whether her "good" or her "bad[3]" side is more important to teach, and then forget about the rest.
Worse, this principle is applied in reverse to dehumanize people whom history has classified as villains. The result is that our history is filled with monochromatic caricatures, and we forget that, were we to see the complete picture, our modern-day "villains" may not look so different (for better or for worse!)
[1] I believe Loewen talks about this in his excellent book Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Political_activiti...
[2] Naturally, this presumes that you either disagree with socialist politics or think that history lessons should be politically neutral, which is the predominant belief in the USA.
[+] [-] zachinglis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wellpast|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saheel1511|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] illuminate|13 years ago|reply
That people cope with emotional abuse in different ways does not justify emotional abuse. As plenty of people mentioned in the thread, this was a different time when women had less possibilities and support systems for themselves.
[+] [-] pfortuny|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macey|13 years ago|reply
I can't say if that's true or not, but if you combine these symptoms with the state of women's' rights at the time, this really isn't surprising at all - and in any case, there are far more explicit examples of sexism from this period.
[+] [-] 001sky|13 years ago|reply
-- Whether ironically or obviously ... is harder to tell.
________
[1] eg, no sexual expectations of a colleague (ie, harassment), no disturbing a colleague's work/space, no insulting in public manner (of a colleague in front of clients, etc).
[+] [-] pav3l|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nthitz|13 years ago|reply
Surprise surprise...
[+] [-] leak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidenn0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kasra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm8|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davesmylie|13 years ago|reply
I suspect a lot of this may come from us not being in a position to judge people from almost 100 years by the standards of today.
[+] [-] callmeed|13 years ago|reply
John Calvin had a man burned at the stake. Henry Ford was an anti-semite. 8 of the first 10 US presidents owned slaves. And, no, I don't think it's a matter of shifting standards. Look at Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, etc.
[+] [-] scarmig|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] romnempire|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smadaan|13 years ago|reply
(Some) folks seem to suggest that since Einstein was working on something as significance as GR, the solitude prioritized over family made sense. If Einstein's work had not succeeded, would the justifications still hold?
Actually... the question on my mind is: every person trying to do something on their own believes in their heart that it is the most important thing, something that will change the world. How far should one take that conviction/belief as justification to forego responsibilities of being a spouse or parent?
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frendiversity|13 years ago|reply
A quarrel ending in a door-slam can have damaging effects on the psyche, as a common example that most of you have experienced. It can make it difficult to concentrate.
This just seems to me to be a typical negotiation tool during a relationship gone wrong, trying to prevent further emotional distress. Nothing to see here.
[+] [-] sethbannon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
F × S = k. The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. To gain more freedom of thought and/or action, you must give up some security, and vice versa. These remarks apply to individuals, nations, and civilizations. Notice that the constant k is different for every civilization and different for every individual.
[+] [-] prawn|13 years ago|reply
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/08/14/darwin-lis...
[+] [-] dyeje|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcgwiz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maked00|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattacular|13 years ago|reply
Also since when does staying together in a terrible relationship benefit the children? That is a specious argument at best.
[+] [-] CletusTSJY|13 years ago|reply
Just kidding, this list is ridiculous and he should have never married if this is what he was expecting.