The Life of Einstein's First Wife

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

by dsr12 • 6 years ago

177 124 6 years ago

blogs.scientificamerican.com

fraencko• 6 years ago

Her name is Mileva Marić Einstein. Is there any reason to not put her name into the title?

panny• 6 years ago

please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I guess the submitter dropped the 'forgotten' as it could be considered clickbait with it.

mikelyons• 6 years ago

The easy reason is that nobody would know that name and why click on something that doesn't strike your fancy?

saagarjha• 6 years ago

I’m sure “Einstein” would help people figure it out.

zasz• 6 years ago

Oh please, it would've been extremely easy to title it "The Life of Einstein's First Wife, Mileva Marić," and thereby make it clearer she was a notable person in her own right, not for merely being Einstein's wife, to even a casual reader who didn't click through.

jacobwilliamroy• 6 years ago

Well if you leave out her name, then readers will never see her as an individual and will only think of her as a wife of an important man. People on HN and even the author too will go into denial about this and give you some bullshit about "recognizability" or "editorialization" but that is the real reason because they both hate women and are also too cowardly to admit it.

shortandsweet• 6 years ago

Sounds like an A/B solution would work here.

sooheon• 6 years ago

The very first image caption and the first sentence of the piece begin with her name.

rogerthat_au• 6 years ago

Besides being a really good insight into women in science in early 1900s I wonder whether inadvertently her upbringing and the society around her stole a female icon in science for the generations that followed.

dharma12• 6 years ago

She is portrayed quite well in the recent National Geographic series about Einstein's life, "Genius".

Well worth watching. Mileva was a talented physicist and mathematician, contributed significantly to Einstein's early success, gave him three children and Albert dumped her for his cousin.

throwaway5752• 6 years ago

Like many people, they had a relationship that became bad and they divorced. He is reported to have had numerous extramarital affairs, also. This article is 24 years old https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/06/arts/dark-side-of-einstei... - all of this is well-known.

He supported Mileva and the children from that marriage throughout his life. Everybody has flaws.

dharma12• 6 years ago

Yep, all of that is in the series too.

History has largely forgotten her, these days she would have gotten far more credit for her contributions to their scientific work.

m-watson• 6 years ago

They also based the series (mostly) off of the book Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson. It's worth a read.

irrational• 6 years ago

It makes me wonder what they could've accomplished if they had continued working on problems together.

INTPenis2• 6 years ago

Sounds like she had more technical knowledge so she could verify his equations and ensure his papers had good structure and were legible by the academic community.

But she says herself that their work will make him famous. So clearly she believed his ideas were the foundation.

mattnewton2• 6 years ago

Or she believed that she wasn’t due any credit because of the sexist society they lived in.. It’s probably impossible to tell exactly how much she contributed now.

cvbcvbcvbcvbc14• 6 years ago

How did they both fare after their breakup? Did she continue to work in physics?

globular-toast• 6 years ago

Funny isn't it? All the female Einsteins lived back then when society was sexist rather than now when more women go to university than men.

INTPenis2• 6 years ago

Yeah the thought did enter my mind but the magnitude of the discoveries made me dismiss it. She would have understood the magnitude of his ideas, which is made clear by her believing Albert will become world famous.

So given the magnitude of his ideas, if she really had helped develop them she would have also become famous. I mean, she is famous now.

And these are personal letters but apparently no mention of "our" ideas or credit due to her even in their personal correspondence. He did definitely need her to make a reputation, but the ideas were his.

ianai• 6 years ago

Definitely dims my view of Einstein the way he treated her. Doesn’t dim it completely though nor anywhere near. I know the times were very different and nothing’s perfect but it’s just a gut reaction that I’m feeling on hearing about this.

DoreenMichele15• 6 years ago

His father was denying him permission to marry her. It is likely someone else was blocking him from getting employment of the sort he wanted, possibly because of his relationship to Mileva. She had a baby out of wedlock by another man at a time when that would have been far more scandalous and shocking than it would be today and Albert married her anyway.

Let me suggest you not judge him too harshly. There is only so much one man can do to stand down the sexist, misogynistic crap of the entire world.

bluedevil2k• 6 years ago

The article doesn’t say the love baby was from another man. The Nat Geo series suggests it was Alberts child.

cvbcvbcvbcvbc14• 6 years ago

What exactly do you mean?

DoreenMichele15• 6 years ago

I strongly disagree with the conclusion:

Why did Mileva remain silent? Being reserved and self-effaced, she did not seek honors or public attention.

She was failed and denied a degree in spite of having better grades than Albert, probably solely because she was a woman. Albert was probably blocked from employment positions he wanted by the same professor that failed her, possibly because he was treating a woman like his equal.

This reads to me like they coped as best they could with a world that absolutely wouldn't accept a woman as a serious scientist and even with trying to be self effacing, etc, they both paid a high price -- such a high price, it likely destroyed their marriage.

cvbcvbcvbcvbc14• 6 years ago

Pure speculation, though.

DoreenMichele15• 6 years ago

"Pure speculation" ...by a woman who is likely the only woman to have ever spent time on the leader board of HN, who is a former full-time wife and mom, who was a top student in her graduating high school class and a National Merit Scholarship winner and ended up a homemaker anyway instead of having a "real career," who has studied social things both formally (in college) and informally (out of personal interest trying to figure out why I didn't get the two-career couple lifestyle I thought I would get)...among other things.

(edited to correct a typo)

fxtentacle4• 6 years ago

Both of them appear to be highly rational people. And I'd wager that the scientific world was already a "winner takes all" competition back then. 1 scientist ranking in the worldwide top 10 will likely earn much more than 2 scientists ranking on the top 11-20, because at the extreme, compensation tends to go up exponentially.

My understanding of the article is that they were aware and, thus, Mileva made the rational decision to boost her husband's career at the expense of her own career.

Albert: "I need my wife. She solves for me all my mathematical problems."

Mileva: "Before our departure, we finished an important scientific work which will make my husband known around the world."

To me, that sounds like a rational plan to make him famous by letting him pretend to also possess the skills that in reality his wife provides. Plus, we now know in hindsight that it worked.

And obviously, a groundbreaking work attributed to only one person seems even more impressive than if it was attributed to a team.

EDIT: It also appears to me that Mileva was smart enough to recognize the value of her assistance: "In 1919, she agreed to divorce, with a clause stating that if Albert ever received the Nobel Prize, she would get the money. When she did, she bought two small apartment buildings [..]"

DoreenMichele15• 6 years ago

Karen Blixen (17 April 1885 – 7 September 1962) published her first book under the male pen name Isak Denisen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Blixen

Colette (28 January 1873 – 3 August 1954) initially ghost wrote for her husband and when they split she ended up dirt poor because he owned all the copyrights in his name and she had no claim to any of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette

These are people from around the same time frame. Sexism was a much bigger problem at that time than it is today and it remains alive and well.

Edit: See, for example:

Homme de Plume: What I Learned Sending My Novel Out Under a Male Name

https://jezebel.com/homme-de-plume-what-i-learned-sending-my...

JumpCrisscross2• 6 years ago

Mileva made the rational decision to boost her husband's career at the expense of her own career

This is a good explanation for her actions while they were married. But it doesn’t explain why she continued to be withdrawn following their divorce. It could have simply been inertia. But there was likely an element of exhaustion from the sexism referenced elsewhere at play.

I don’t think the article’s humility argument sways me. But a combination of your hypothesis for her choice and Doreen’s sexism hypothesis for her sticking with it makes sense.

JumpCrisscross2• 6 years ago

a world that absolutely wouldn't accept a woman as a serious scientist

Wouldn’t Marie Curie’s Nobel Prize present a counterfactual to the absolutism of this claim?

part1of2• 6 years ago

It’s not as simple as that. They tried to award it just to her husband before splitting it in half and awarding both. Marie Curie’s Wikipedia page says:

“At first the committee had intended to honour only Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel, but a committee member and advocate for women scientists, Swedish mathematician Magnus Gösta Mittag-Leffler, alerted Pierre to the situation, and after his complaint, Marie's name was added to the nomination.[45] Marie Curie was the first woman to be awarded a Nobel Prize.[24”

DoreenMichele15• 6 years ago

To my mind, Marie Curie wasn't exactly met with acceptance.

It was a really huge uphill battle for her from the beginning. For example, in defiance of laws against women getting an education, she attended a secret university for women.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-secret-polish-univ...

Mileva Einstein had unprecedented support and was initially admitted to an all boys school thanks in part to family backing, but later tried repeatedly to complete her degree and was denied a degree and finally gave up.

I will suggest that Marie Curie ended up with more recognition in part because she had to go to school secretly in defiance of the law. Mileva Einstein began with a really remarkable and unusual degree of family support for her interests and aspirations and this may have left her ill-prepared for dealing effectively with an openly hostile sexist social climate.

It also possibly made her more of a target because she was performing a full frontal assault on sexism instead of quietly doing an end run around the issue. That tends to get a lot more push back.

To this day, the #MeToo movement suggests most women with serious careers pay a rather high price in terms of having to face constant sexual harassment and even sexual assault. There would have been far less support at that time than there is now and women generally tend to express the idea that there is far too little now.

In my own life, where I have persisted in the face of an uphill battle it has consistently been a situation where I felt like I had no real choice. I felt backed into a corner and like this -- whatever "this" was -- was the least-worst option available to me or the only option.

I believe that one of the things that accounts for poorer performance/outcomes (career-wise) for women is that when women have options -- like letting their husband provide for them while they raise their children and pursue their interests in a more hobby-like fashion -- they tend to take them. Taking a stand tends to come at a high price. Many people simply choose to not pay that price if they have any way out, even if it means letting their career dreams die as a consequence of trying to protect themselves.

I don't think most people breaking barriers are really people who just want to take a stand and make a statement and make a difference. I think most of them are like me: Someone who has some ability to outperform others in some metrics whose situation doesn't readily give them a way out of the confrontation with society.

I don't think anyone should be sitting in judgment of Mileva for wanting to try to support her husband's career and eschew credit for herself in some vain attempt to try to get a comfortable life that didn't really materialize.

And I think it is ugly behavior when people act like "Well, she made a choice and didn't want it badly enough" or something like that (as is all too often the way this gets framed).

It's kind of like that scene in Good Will Hunting where he talks about his abusive father laying out three things and giving him a "choice" as to which one he wants to be beaten with. In a sick system, most people are trying desperately to find some way to say "Well, I really don't want to be beaten at all." while the world looks on and says, more or less, "You chose to be beaten because you answered the abusive question as to which instrument you would like to be beaten with."

To my mind, that's the crux of a sick system and it underlies an awful lot of social ills, such as sexism, racism and homophobia.

If you are "the wrong kind of person," the world simply doesn't give you the option to have nice things. It insists that you must choose between these various ugly options and then acts like you have no right to complain about your suffering "because you made this choice."

Sometimes, people are some combination of talented and lucky and manage to quietly have a nice life anyway, in spite of being "the wrong kind of person." But that tends to not go hand-in-hand with breaking social barriers and becoming extremely prominent in your field. People who become extremely prominent in spite of being "the wrong kind of person" tend to pay a price for it beyond the usual price for success.

goto113• 6 years ago

More likely he was discriminated because he was Jewish.

staunch• 6 years ago

Mileva sat for the intermediate diploma examinations in 1899, one year later than the other students in her group. Her grade average of 5.05 (scale 1–6) placed her fifth out of the six students taking the examinations that year.[6] (Einstein had come top of the previous year's candidates with a grade average of 5.7)[8] Marić's grade in physics was 5.5 (the same as Einstein). In 1900, she failed the final teaching diploma examinations with a grade average of 4.00, having obtained only grade 2.5 in the mathematics component (theory of functions).[9] Einstein passed the exam in fourth place with a grade average of 4.91.[10]

Marić's academic career was disrupted in 1901 when she became pregnant by Einstein. When three months pregnant, she resat the diploma examination, but failed for the second time without improving her grade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87

wombatmobile4• 6 years ago

Something similar happened with Carl Sagan’s wife, Lyn Margulis, whose perseverance with endosymbiosis should see her ranked alongside Darwin as a scientist who deduced where we came from.

cvbcvbcvbcvbc14• 6 years ago

I don't know - at Darwin's time, evolution theory was a huge leap given the beliefs of the time, isn't endosymbiosis more like a detail?

wombatmobile4• 6 years ago

isn't endosymbiosis more like a detail?

It's huge. For the first 2 billion years of the history of Earth, life was unicellular. The only type of cell in existence was prokaryote. The atmosphere contained no oxygen.

Then there was 1 billion years of history in which Earth's atmosphere changed. At the end of that billion years, two main differences were apparent. Firstly, the atmosphere was comprised of 21% oxygen. Secondly, life on Earth was comprised of two different types of cells - prokaryotes, and eukaryotes.

Eukaryotic cells are 100 times larger than prokaryotes. Unlike prokaryotes, they form multi-cellular organisms. Everything you see around you with your eyes, and every living thing you ever watched David Attenborough talk about on TV are comprised of Eukaryotic cells.

Endosymbiosis is the explanation of how Eukaryotic life came to exist.

QuesnayJr• 6 years ago

Evolution was proposed almost simultaneously by Wallace, so it couldn't have been that huge of a leap.

monoideism3• 6 years ago

How did I not know Lyn Margulis was Sagan's wife? I'm quite familiar with both of their work (Margulis also did groundbreaking with on our endorphin and dopamine systems, if I recall).

By the way, I don't think that's even close to the same thing. Every biologist and biochemist knows about Margulis, because of her work.

magicnubs• 6 years ago

I was surprised to learn this too!

Looks like they were only married for around 8 years (1957 to 1965), so they divorced before he was really famous. Maybe that's why it's not more widely known?

Metacelsus• 6 years ago

perseverance with endosymbiosis

Sadly, in her later years she became a bit too persistent with it, trying to apply it in cases where it clearly wasn't happening. The notorious example is this 2009 paper, now retracted: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/47/19901

wombatmobile4• 6 years ago

Do you feel the same way about Einstein's collaboration with Emil Rupp as you do about Lynn Margulis' collaboration with Donald Williamson?

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-fraud-who-worked-with-einstein-5...

mac01021• 6 years ago

What was Professor Weber's beef with Einstein?

8bitsrule• 6 years ago

Something of their relationship is found here. (The piece looks unattributed; if we can trust it...) Weber thought Einstein arrogant; Einstein began skipping his classes. http://www.openculture.com/2020/04/albert-einsteins-grades-a...

Tolexx• 6 years ago

I'm sad it didn't have to end that way.. melavia sacrificed everything for him. She also knew that the fame Einstein had achieved would get into his head and destroy things. In the end Einstein enjoyed huge career success but she didn't. She lost her family and career.

Her sacrifices and contributions should have been recognised.

TheBobinator• 6 years ago

This article hasn't been grammer checked, uses a lot of recent, sensationalist words, doesn't ask questions directly except at the end, provides no new or interesting information on Mileva, her accomplishments or her day to day, her kids and family, background, or their accomplishments. I conclude with no picture of what her life was like.

It's substance consists fully of vague diatribes about why Mileva didn't get credit for general relativity, asking vague, emotional questions that can easily be construed as accusations without providing new information or answers.

It is, by definition, trite and spin and poisons the news feed of HN. If it's a slow news day, it's a slow news day.

This reminds me of slashdot back in the early 2010's after Cowboy McNeal sold it off to I think it was Dice. Every day there was minimum 1-2 SJW Agenda pieces; initially they were recieved warmly but as the material got more and more radical over time, the community realized what was going on and turned extremely vitriolic. Then they drew an unbelievable amount of automated bot spam and even people with old accounts became hostile and left. Towards the end, they got sneakier and sneakier about the agenda pieces; you'd see one about an obvious feminist topic draw ire and a tremendous amount of vitriol, then another about "How do I help my daughter learn STEM\Electronics". Articles like the ladder became more common and people began ignoring them. Eventually the community left and all you had were a bunch of hateful people left. BizX stopped posting those pieces after buying the site a few years backl; They have a different agenda mostly inline with their financial portfolio.

I remember when the site had minimum 300-400 responses per article, many of which were tremendously useful, with some articles hitting 1000-2000 and it did that on every article. Today they're lucky to hit 100 and most of that, these days, looks like astroturf.

marketingPro• 6 years ago

I recently was interviewed by a national/international news organization, I have concerns "Fame will get to me".

Although, the big lesson I learned from this is Einstein cheated, and that caused the collapse. Solutions could be resisting urges or open relationships (although I have doubts).

Anyway, my wife has contributed or provoked ideas, editing, and real life implementation of the ideas. She didn't get interviewed.

I'm not famous (yet), I was a B+ student, I feel normal. But over the years strangers greeting me. IRL, or strangers being dissapointed in a personal political opinion, or the interviews make me realize it might happen.

I don't want to destroy the family I love.

eplanit• 6 years ago

Sigh. So, we're canceling Einstein now?

telesilla3• 6 years ago

Read the article, it's OK. We're just canceling patriarchy.

known• 6 years ago

I believe they had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement

disown3• 6 years ago

Did she have a name or did she go around referring to herself as "einstein's first wife"? Why not "The Life of Mileva, Einstein's First Wife?

aurizon• 6 years ago

This is the 'racism' that women have faced from the dawn of civilization. It seems to have been born from the early formation of tribal conflict. We have seen that hunter-gatherers functioned more equitably, even though women bore the children and had a higher burden. It seems that as agrarianism grew and allowed a higher population density, some degree of group impingement competition arose - which led to resource scarcity - and then to conflict. Men with their greater strength became more combative and role specialists emerged. I suspect this was the start. With a warrior class emerged the pushed around class.....the middle ages were bad, no vote at all for women in many societies, and not vote even for men with no land. By the 1600's this was solidified in many places. Gradually universal suffrage emerged after years of conflict. In Einstein's day women were severly abused in the way that Mileva was. This endures to this day, try as we do to eliminate it, these abuses persist all throughout society in many places. I agree, Mileva deserved far more credit than she got. That evil professor was one of many that infested the ranks of Academe. The ranks of higher education are still riddled with these abuses - every day we see more of them outed. Downgrading women is a HUGE burden to society and I do whatever I can to eliminate this is an my interactions.

DanielleMolloy• 6 years ago

The currently accepted view is that she was a sounding board, or had a similar role as Grossmann who also got little recognition (as detailed in the brilliant biography by Isaacson).

There are a quite a few odd facts that became quite difficult to ignore though (the article has the original quotes / sources on some of them):

* There are plenty of letters from Einstein to Minerva discussing love and physics in historical record, but all but 10 letters from Minerva to Einstein are lost. It is unknown why they are lost. Without these personal writings it is difficult to assess whether her depth of knowledge and love for physics was on a similar level.

* Their relatives and children claim they always sat at the table together in the evening, discussing physics and working.

* She gave up her authorship contribution for an engineering project before for Albert, claiming "we are one, Einstein".

* Several references to 'our work' in various letters.

* Three of the 1905 papers originally had the author Einstein-Marity, a typical double name women adopt after marriage. It is unknown why. (Maybe Einstein wanted her to get recognition though?)

* There are some differences in how mathematical notation is used in the 1905 papers, and how much detail is given for the steps.

* Her divorce agreement stated that she would get the Nobel prize money. The amount was pretty much making her rich back then, which is an excellent situation to be in for a struggling single mother who might want to stay in Switzerland and not go back to Serbia. Some more details here: https://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/nobelprizemone...

* Minerva did not work in physics after she got pregnant. (The article states how she couldn't get through the academic system.) Though, Einstein, while still a productive physicist, never had an as successful year as 1905 again.

* She had better grades, Einstein copied her maths lecture notes, and you’ve got to say that you have to have quite a bit of endurance, intelligence and a thick skin to go from Serbia to ETH to study physics as a girl at that time. Not trying to devalue Einstein here, but it definitely took quite a bit more from her than for a boy at that time.

On the other hand, Einstein seemed to respect female scientists as evident in the letter to Curie, and might not have agreed to let her trade recognition for money if her contribution was real. In their honeymoon phase he also clearly saw Minerva as an equal (not so much later on, there is an awful letter by him setting rules for her as a housewife, but their marriage clearly was in pieces at that time.)

I’ve been following this case for a while and wish we could collect all neutral evidence (letters etc.) in original (german) form, similar to what the article already did.

There is a chance that the true story is that a couple that loved physics collaborated in 1905 and revolutionized the subject. I would love this conclusion.

wdr1• 6 years ago

Einstein was a complete dick to her.

He sent her a letter with a list of demands to stay married:

http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-o...

A. You will make sure:

1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order; 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room; 3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:

1. my sitting at home with you; 2. my going out or travelling with you.

C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:

1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way; 2. you will stop talking to me if I request it; 3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.

jelliclesfarm7• 6 years ago

I think women from cultures where the fairer sex are considered historically ‘submissive’ would have dealt with this entirely differently. In other words..they wouldn’t have gotten mad, they’d have gotten even.

I suspect Mileva was probably on the spectrum and/or didn’t have had a high social IQ. One needs high survival skills to be female. She wasn’t designed fo it.

Women who are not surrounded/supported by their ‘sisterhood’ or female ‘tribe’ often get exploited by men. Female input and advice will save a lot of loss and damage. Because. Experience. Other women know. They share. They talk. They gossip. Guidance. There is an evolutionary advantage to gossip and chat. That’s how female wisdom goes viral. It worked in the pre social media era. I am always suspicious of men who try to isolate their girl from female company. That’s a warning sign. I have never been wrong w/this assessment.

Children are a burden. Women should be taught not to have children without a supportive man who cannot be a father for life. Because it’s a responsibility for life.

Single parenthood is not a badge of honor. We should not celebrate it as a society. Or rather, we should not glorify single parenthood. I suppose there is obviously something to celebrate about children. But the experience of creating something is different from the value of the creation. Would be parents should understand the gravity of the task and responsibility in front of them.

Raising children is the most difficult thing to do .. even in partnerships never mind as a single parent. I honestly don’t understand why people are eager to have children. Sometimes more than they can afford wrt time and money and effort. It’s not for everyone. There is no shame or guilt in living and enjoying life as an individual.

Had Mileva Einstein not had the parenting responsibility and burden, she would have blossomed as the scientist she was obviously meant to be...the female uterus is severely undervalued. As is the value of progeny.. by men.. it is the vessel for half their genetic material and their only way to leave a meaningful biological legacy. So until we can grow little humans in pods, women must make men pay their due for carrying their genetic material and delivering it as viable life forms or deny them the opportunity to leave behind a genetic legacy.

disown3• 6 years ago

I think women from cultures where the fairer sex are considered historically ‘submissive’ would have dealt with this entirely differently.

It's pretty much all human culture. It's probably a trait inherited from our pre-human ancestors. After all, our closest primate, the chimps, also have male dominant social order.

Women who are not surrounded/supported by their ‘sisterhood’ or female ‘tribe’ often get exploited by men.

Oh boy here we go again. Sure there are exploitation by men, but the vast majority of exploitation of women are by other women. There is no magical "sisterhood".

Experience. Other women know. They share. They talk. They gossip. Guidance.

Or gossip, exclusion, rumors, destroying reputations, bullying, etc. Eating disorder, self-image issues, cutting, self-harm, etc are mostly female on female violence.

I am always suspicious of men who try to isolate their girl from female company.

Female company? No. You should be suspicious of men or women who try to isolate a girl or a boy from their parents/siblings/friends. Most women recruited for prostitution, cults, MLMs, etc are by "female company".

Children are a burden.

They are a responsibility.

the female uterus is severely undervalued.

As opposed to the male uterus?

As is the value of progeny.. by men.. it is the vessel for half their genetic material and their only way to leave a meaningful biological legacy.

Seems more like you are devaluing the value of men?

So until we can grow little humans in pods, women must make men pay their due for carrying their genetic material and delivering it as viable life forms or deny them the opportunity to leave behind a genetic legacy.

You are essentially saying women's only value is procreation. So if we can grow little humans in a pod, wouldn't women have no value then?

Also, men protect the women, provide shelter, food, etc. You make it seem like women do all the work. Stop basing your reality off of silly netflix series.

Honestly, what's the difference between people like you and white supremacists. Just change race with gender and I don't see a difference. Of course this kind of flamewar and disinformation nonsense is welcomed all over social media.

JoeDaDude• 6 years ago

Old joke: A reporter once asked the aging Einstein if he though inventing the Cosmological Constant [1] was his biggest mistake. "No" he replied, "that was my second biggest mistake. The first biggest mistake was marrying my first wife."

[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

jelliclesfarm7• 6 years ago

Pregnancy and post partum, women’s IQ falls. There is some neural plasticity tho’ and it’s easy to retrain mental skills to reawaken full span of intellectual capability. It’s not politically correct to say this but biologically, we have evolved to pay more attention to dangers to the baby than traits like memory retention/pattern matching/comprehension etc. The mother’s brain is primed to be on mama bear mode all the time.

Maybe it would be easy to work in an office environment but sitting exams is a whole diff ball game post partum.

novia• 6 years ago

It's politically incorrect to say AND it's incorrect.

The reduction in memory after birth you refer to could easily be caused by the sleep deprivation that comes with a newborn child. Take a look at the studies that claim otherwise and you'll see that they did not compare the women against themselves before birth, but instead compared their IQ to the general population. They also did not have a control group of women who put the baby up for adoption after giving birth.

[1] showed that baby brain is a myth, except for very late pregnancies. Even then, there was only a reduction in one out of the four cognitive capabilities they tested.

The study which found changes in women's brains after giving birth also did not find a reduction in IQ. [2]

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27991897/#fft

jelliclesfarm7• 6 years ago

Cognition is different from neural plasticity that reduces gray matter zones in pregnant women and new mothers.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-causes-...

[..] A study published Monday in Nature Neuroscience reveals that during pregnancy women undergo significant brain remodeling that persists for at least two years after birth. The study also offers preliminary evidence that this remodeling may play a role in helping women transition into motherhood.[..]

[..] The researchers found that the new mothers experienced gray matter reductions that lasted for at least two years after birth. This loss, however, is not necessarily a bad thing (according to Hoekzema, “the localization was quite remarkable”); it occurred in brain regions involved in social cognition, particularly in the network dedicated to theory of mind, which helps us think about what is going on in someone else’s mind—regions that had the strongest response when mothers looked at photos of their infants. These brain changes could also be used to predict how mothers scored on the attachment scale. In fact, researchers were able to use a computer algorithm to identify which women were new mothers based solely on their patterns of gray matter loss. Gray matter loss was not seen in new fathers or nonparents. It is not entirely clear why women lose gray matter during pregnancy, but Hoekzema thinks it may be because their brains are becoming more specialized in ways that will help them adapt to motherhood and respond to the needs of their babies. The study offers some preliminary evidence to support this idea. Whereas the present study focuses primarily on documenting brain changes during pregnancy, she expects follow-up work to tackle more applied questions such as how brain changes relate to postpartum depression or attachment difficulties between mother and child.[..]

Trying to prove that post partum neurological changes don’t occur in women is NOT helpful to mothers and women in general. Or to our species. The insane pressures of ‘being all that’ is so damaging to women that I fear that the social damage we have caused will take decades to fix without creating further damage.(yes, I mentioned it thrice)

Women are not inferior to men. Just so, women are not equal to men in every way either. It’s just daft to imagine that motherhood doesn’t change women physically, emotionally, instinctively and intellectually.

Without doubt, you are looking at a superbly evolved creature and it doesn’t take much to be ‘equal to men’. Such a low standard, if you ask me. The greatest lie perpetuated by feminists is that women can and should be equal to men.

From puberty to motherhood to post menopausal stage in life, women keep evolving. Why? Because hormones. All life starts as female. Female is default. One of the mutations ended up as the male of the species.

At no time was ‘work’ or brawn or muscles or physical strength or ability to code or amass is wealth considered the pinnacle of human achievement. In fact, men have all this sharpened SO they can facilitate the well being of the female of the species in order to perpetuate the species.

Virus and bacteria are better than us when it comes to survival rate. One meteor can wipe us out. True evolution is our adaptation to survival. To deny the gifts women possess purely by virtue of their hormones is the tragedy of it all. The species survival doesn’t not depend on one gender or one group of people or any one skill set but the evolution of the species to naturally select survival and to thrive.

ETA: 100 years ago, the way to make a living was..say..coal mining. As opposed to coding now. Would women still claim equal opportunity to work if the way to make a living was ‘Menhir Tossing’(I made that up) in the future?

Every time the world shifts, women find themselves ‘being left behind’. But evolution doesn’t happen at the same periodicity as technological changes or climate change or whatever pressure pushes human beings to alter their ways of life and resource collecting.

The way we live is all about resource and resource collection and scarcity. When the definition of ‘work’ changes and gender equality is tied to ‘work’, then gender equality will always be a moving target. That ..’that’ being economic equality or work place equality’ , even though those are temporal irritants too...is a highly irrational way to deal with the real problem of sexism.

dang• 6 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24974273.

The Life of Einstein's First Wife

Related Stories