I’ve been thinking about this. I think if a man is yelling or abusing a woman, his political opinions are obsolete. Maybe he’s a good scientist but his opinions about people and how they should be cared for are void. You cannot have one without the other. Patriarchy is personal and political. To care for a woman is to care for humanity.
We don’t require perfection, the standard we have been held to. But we do require honesty, a willingness and vulnerability to be humble, see mistakes and be willing to change. *Empathy is the ingredient. God I miss Barack Obama.
I think the answer to your question is that it wasn’t important to the people who decided these men were heroes. We cannot deny their influence in their given fields, but most folk want their heroes to be unblemished. The women they abused on their way to fame are merely collateral damage, not important, but the uncomfortable truth is that men cannot achieve anything without women, even if it’s a nanny to look after their children.
I think male heroes need to be seen as flawed as any ordinary people are.
And, yes, please, more of the same plus the women who made history (Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale and others and who supported them. What did they sacrifice to be successful?)
Must not set the bar TOO high – after all, we know all the compassion, understanding and support that Amber Heard, Monica Lewinsky, and Christine Blasey Ford when sharing their truth and their lives are intact. 🤨🤨🤨 Boys will be Boys after all. It truly all makes so much sense - when you realize how many women were pursuing the serial killer Richard Ramirez after his conviction. How many men do that for women in prison???
Interesting observation about women in prison. I never thought about that. I have zero understanding why some women contact serial killer men. I wonder if these women grew up with abusive fathers whose behavior they normalized.
What a depressing account of so many of our so-called "heroic" men!
Your comment, Suze, led me to look into the marriages of Marie Curie and Florence Nightingale, fully expecting abusive husbands. Nightinggale, through, never married (no abusive husband there), despite many proposals, in part perhaps because her close friend Mary Clarke introduced her to the idea that women could be as accomplished and free as men, something her parents had never suggested.
Curie's life, I was delighted to learn, was that a husband, even during her lifetime (1867-1934) could be faithful (so far as we know) and supportive. She was originally reluctant to marry Pierre Curie, but when they wed, she refused to wear white but a dark blue one she could also wear in their laboratory. The 1903 Nobel Prize was to be awarded to Pierre and another man, but Pierre insisted Marie be included, and she was, as the first female winner of a Nobel Prize (she won a second in 1911). Pierre refused a cross of the French Legion of Honor because Marie was not included. Unfortunately, Pierre died from an accident at age 46 in 1906. The Curies worked together all their marriage, which seems to have been one of mutual support.
I don't subscribe to the concept of heros, but if I did, Pierre would be one, as well as Marie, of course.
That is wonderful, Neale, thank you. I knew Florence Nightingale never married and that Pierre and Marie Curie worked together, but I didn’t realise how much he supported her and refused to take credit for her work. Maybe those reasons are why we know of them?
Abuse of women and girls is endemic in all societies worldwide. Men from infancy (women as well) are trained to think of all women/girls as inferior, incompetent, disgusting, and are destined bc of genetics to b male’s personal servants in all physical matters & not worthy of male regard outside of patronization. This is institutional and is apparent in all the writings created to be used to control the minds of people, men included. A very small number of men rarely even take the time & energy to identify and examine their biases about women and their own culpability in furthering the abuse of women/girls. Fewer still actually work at being anti-misogynist. Women are so indoctrinated, their almost universal acquiescence ensured the misogynist status quo was set in stone, has continued over centuries and is still the norm. Little glimmers of the true power, competence, value and incredible contributions women provide to the world cannot change their overall plight bc men are not willing to share nor reject their prominence in our societies and their domestic, or professional, lives. Women who have rejected subservience and have de-centered men in their professional and intimate lives are dismissed as deviant, irrelevant, and, for those w effective voices, recognized as a threat to the status quo. And, so, as RBG eloquently espoused, the male boot remains on the necks of all women/girls be they cis-het or otherwise. Yes, please give us more analysis bc just the fact the chronic and accepted abuse of women by famous “leaders” in their domestic lives is the norm, as it is in most male lives, we as women must still be the ones to bring these injustices to the light of day so everyone can someday thrive outside the current patriarchal hierarchy effectively throttling us all and destroying the environment upon which everyone is dependent. Doing otherwise dooms us.
Perhaps the whole idea of heroes is our problem here. To consider someone a hero is to ignore the fact that they are a whole person. Hero worship is always damaging because it makes people think that the normal people around them are somehow less.
I teach writing to teenagers, so the question of separating the art from the artist comes up quite often. It's hard, but I try to balance on the blade of the knife: If you admire the work of a dead person who was an awful human being, as long as you don't worship that human being in full, there's nothing wrong with that. People are flawed and past humans had different cultures than ours.
When it comes to living authors, it's much harder. A lot of my students are very much on the front line of modern views of gender, so they are appalled by JK Rowling, at the same time as having grown up with her work as a deeply important part of their childhoods. Some of them intensely feel that her words are harming people, while others are willing to look past the words.
When it comes to a person who is literally harming other people, like Huberman, is it a different question? I think so. He is not an artist, he is not putting out any sort of creative work that inspires or lifts up. He is simply redigesting information that people can get elsewhere. He's selling a service. Just as I would not give any money to the estate of Michael Jackson, in life or in death, I think that it is up to the individual to decide whether to give money (in this case, their ears) to him.
Whether or not our culture will consider him a hero in the future is not in our control. Maybe we will evolve to the point of rejecting the idea of a hero. But in life, we always have the choice of rejecting the work of someone whose behavior taints their work for us.
Frankly, I hope at least that he has trouble getting dates!
I think it’s both really just inevitable to have heroes, but also really important to come to the realization that very few things are ever only good or bad. For me, there’s no *necessary* tension between admiring one’s work and deploring another aspect of their life - they’re not separable, but there’s lots of things in life I have to see both ways.
What’s weird to me is when people act like that means we shouldn’t criticize living people doing bad things? I really don’t get involved in art/artist ethics in consumption debates, but people who don’t even think we should talk about it … wild.
I realize I didn't address the question of the treatment of women in particular. There are so many ways for people who have power over others to be horrible to others. And we all have the most power over those we have an intimate relationship with.
Well said Katrhyme. The 53% of white women who voted for Trump bears your point out - women settle for being in alignment of where the power, famous, or infamous lies vs seeking their own agency within.
We keep conflating “helpful” with “heroic” to disastrous effect. The more we understand the people behind the image, I think the better we will get at ceasing to make this mistake.
E=mc(squared): true
Einstein is my hero and I should have a poster of him in my dorm room: false
Michael Jackson’s music is fantastic: true
I should model my life after his: false
Huberman’s sleep toolkit helps me manage my insomnia: true
I should listen to everything he says: false
We need to learn to stick to what is true and not project further virtue onto these people, and a good way to break that habit is to learn more about them. Education is always valuable. Especially in this age of influencers and podcasts. I can assess a mathematical equation and decide it doesn’t harm me. I can assess lyrics to a song and decide if I agree or not (it’s more work, but doable). But it’s almost impossible to listen to someone for hours on end (anyone else racking up hundreds of podcast listening hours?) and critically evaluate every they say for hidden biases that may skew my opinion away from my intrinsic values. I need all the help I can get.
By the way - the first publication of this article caused me to unsubscribe to Huberman though I’d already been getting the ick. You validated the ick and caused me to take action. Funny how reluctant I was to think poorly of him even as he rubbed me the wrong way simply because one podcast helped so much…
These were a lot of my same thoughts. There is a space to be held in being able to walk the line between recognizing the simultaneous truths and falsehoods inherent in living life. It occupies the same space as not holding ourselves and others to unrealistic (whether perfectionistic or stagnant) expectations of ability and growth. It can be an uncomfortable space to sit in as most, if not all, people are grey rather than black and white.
“It can be an uncomfortable place to sit it” oh goodness yes!!
I’m reading Harry Potter to one of my kids, and holding my love for Harry and my disgust with the author in the same place is uncomfortable. But it’s also bringing about good conversations about things like the difference between love and obsession. Seeing the grey in the author makes the grey of the work more visible and then it becomes something to be discussed instead of just accepted.
I think this is really true. The way I think about it is as parasociality - lots of people have work I admire, but they’re not my friends. But because the whole thing about admiration is that it’s a sort of role-model seeking behavior, that can be uncomfortable to acknowledge!
The United States (and many other countries and industries) was built on the back of human slavery. The success of many men is built on a type of slavery, also. Patriarchy is a system that forces women into servitude in exchange for survival.
Suze nailed it. Everyone is flawed. But for some reason we can’t talk about the bad. It’s so important to point out how bad a person can be while doing good. Also no question that patriarchy plays into washing away these egregious behaviors.
“Can we separate the art from the artist?” is a joke when you see how bad so many people are. If we can’t there is very little art. Humans are complicated and are never just one thing. Tragic how all these women were treated. Our minds do prefer easy compartments to place things in. I’m not going to condemn the contributions. But I am sure as heck going to see there’s a whole flawed person with very dark relationships.
A tiny taste of power and men behave badly. When society doesn’t hold them accountable it sure makes it seem okay. Countless examples. Power corrupts etc.
I’m not sure huberman is anything more than a snake oil salesman in the form of supplements. Change my mind.
This was illuminating Celeste. I didn’t know about the Huberman article, but it makes sense. To me, however smart he may be, he is a major part of manosphere culture that excuses his anti-social behavior with a fancy degree. I don’t find him particularly humble on his show. He is always competing with his guests. He uses narcissistic manipulation to sound empathetic but is always a little bit condescending. I would be curious to know the stats on how his female listenership fell versus male. Maybe not at all. But the Reddit quote you gave is indicative of a larger manosphere phenomenon that if you are successful and powerful, your behavior excuses that of anyone who worships at your altar. It’s innocence by association, and Trump 101. The opposite of positive male role modeling. It is the nature of our time. It feels like it is becoming an American standard among younger generations of men.
While the rest of your story shows how this behavior is not new among revered men in history, and in academia in particular, women do not have to tolerate it as before. Great story. Thanks.
Yes, more on Huberman and his audience! What are the factors contributing to his popularity amongst both men and women, and what are some of the ideas he promotes ON the pod that are harmful?
Can you imagine how reviled these men would be if every woman in these stories was a dog or a cat? If every beating of a woman was the beating or torture of a dog or a cat. If every abandonment of a woman was the abandonment of a dog or a cat. If every demand that a woman devote herself only to meeting others’ demands was the permanent chaining or caging of a cat or dog. The outcry would be huge - and yes, I know, Kristi Noem, but I wonder what people really think of her… and whether women aren’t less important than animals.
I make this comparison with porn all the time. If a man got off to someone doing the same things to a man or an animal as are done to women in porn, we would view him as a complete monster. But because the victim is a woman or girl, that's just male sexuality so accept it or go be with your cats. It's outrageous.
Huberman is a raging narcissist who decided to become a podcaster instead of a cult leader. To me, he exudes all the hallmarks of narcissism and is a master of control tactics. Brilliantly smart? Yes. The way narcissistic, abusive partners who coerce, control, and traumatize you are, the way effective cult leaders are. Brilliant to his own ends. All smoke and mirrors. I can't fucking stand him.
As for whether or not the way he treats women matters, I say Yes. 100%. This is a man who carefully crafts a down-to-earth, trustworthy, "willing to learn," macho hunter/gatherer, thoughtful, and gimlet-eyed persona: "the 'good,' supportive, and manly no-bullshit health guy." And yet in his personal life he betrays people who trust him intimately, and harms their emotional health by screaming at them and controlling them, knowingly puts them at risk of STIs (which could harm them physically and psychologically and worse), and is a reckless maniac just caroming from one betrayed partner to another. I was taught to critically analyze authors, scholars, historians, psychologists, "experts," and other influential public figures to determine whether they have reasonable authority to speak, write, and lead on their chosen topics, within their fields, etc. A man who is this incredibly unhealthy psychologically and emotionally in his personal life (and is so clearly performing the role of healthy and strong!) has very little authority to speak on personal health, being a decent person, or anything like it. The fact that he's being defended as "human like everyone else" without any regard for the fact that his personal actions undermine his "expertise" (his schtick) shows how deeply his tendrils have wrapped around his listeners' gray matter and how powerfully alive patriarchy remains.
Added thought: if he can keep his "good guy" persona despite how he treats women, then it reinforces the belief that how a man treats a woman not only doesn't ever matter, but worse: mistreating women is something "good men" do.
It's like there is a disconnect between "he treats people badly" and "he treats women badly." So many don't view women as full people, so it's no big deal if men don't treat them well; they can be abusive to *women* and still treat *people* (read: men) well.
Brilliant writing, thank you. I hope times are changing for women but I fear it’s still the Dark Ages. We need to keep talking about DV and bringing awareness to the plight of many women, whether they’re married to ‘heroes’ or not. We do care about how women are treated and it’s important we continue to care. Economic power to more women helps, provides more choices and independence. Respect for women and self-respect play a significant role in healthy relationships. Please keep going on this theme!
History going back 3,000 years does not support men liking women and changing. Inanna, the most powerful Sumerian God(ess) slowly written out of history (of course this includes Ishtar, Astarte, and her other avatars); Asherah written out and Asherah Poles destroyed by King Josiah and other ancient Jews afraid of women. Mary Magdelin gets labeled a prostitute and now American men looking overseas and at conservative religions for obedient wives. I could go on for hours.
Strange, but i have always liked strong women as partners in a relationship of equals.
I have been noticing and mentally recording the number of women throughout history with great brilliance but history only talks about the men associated with them that gets all the credit. From Socrates to Einstein their successes had help of women. I believe in equality and often wonder how much more advanced humanity would be if half the population wasn’t being suppressed.
However, knowing things like over 50% of white women voted for Trump, I do not put women—or men—on a pedestal but I honor those of either sex that I find deserving.
As you should. Women can be just as misogynistic and self-destructive as men. We all must keep promoting equality and good character regardless of gender.
Long and short answer…because men write the history books and control the narrative. That’s why we don’t know. Because they don’t want us to know. I’ve learned more in the last year about women’s contributions in history via Substack than I ever did in school, and that includes university. And I’m 46.
I just want to push back on the "every rapper" comment, I feel what you're going for but you didn't feel the need to mention "every bluegrass singer" or "every classical composer" despite those also being socially influential musical generas dominated by men.
Rapper is a pretty socially racialized term and I feel like saying every rapper can play in to the racialized stereotypes of black men being specifically sexually aggressive, and potentially dismisses rap as just being a vehicle for misogyny. I'm sure that's not at all what you meant, but I just wanted to share my perspective on the phrasing!
(also, if you want an example of a rapper who for all we know is not that, with all the para-social caveats in place, "Lowkey" is great)
Urghhh I didn’t know about Sagan or Einstein. It’s so disappointing isn’t it? I think the more someone is valorised the harder it is to complicate that narrative. There are still so many denialists in the face of blatant child abuse from Michael Jackson that it’s not entirely surprising that figures further back in history are not tainted by their abuse of women. And yet you would think that contemporary figures like Huberman would face some consequences. But no. Clementine Ford has written about this extensively. As I recall, the last chapter of Boys Will Be Boys has a list of famous men who have been found to have abused women and have had no long term consequences for their actions. I haven’t been following her work closely for a while (algorithms! It’s made me aware that I am out of the loop in thinking about this) I think the questions you raise are important and we need to keep asking them. I do think people are generally tired of cancel culture but besides Epstein and Weinstein have there been any real consequences for famous men who use violence on women? It’s the lack of remorse or even acknowledgement that continues this cycle. If there were just a few men who really did the work and were public about it, and god could we ever really know and trust them, then maybe, mayyyyybe we might be able to move beyond this. Interested to know what you think.
Over the past 20 years or so, I have discovered so many examples of great work by women who were not given the credit. For example using Sagan and Einstein, is there a Sagan without Henrietta Swan Leavitt and Leavitt’s law. Without Emmy Noether there is no theory of general relativity, nor much of modern day physics.
Instead of grumbling about morally deficient men—and there is much to grumble about—I find I feel somewhat better about mankind—womankind?— when learning about great women. Were you familiar with Noether and Levitt?
Would there be a Socrates without Aspasia?
Would we be nearly as advanced in computers without the first person who recognized their true potential and who wrote the first computer code, Ida Lovelace?
Where would genetics be without Francis Franklin?
Who turned Russia into a powerful country?
Who turned Great Britain into the start of a world dominating empire?
Would any of the three Abrahamic religions exist without Asherah?
Wasn’t the greatest god in the Sumerian pantheon a woman?
Could this acceptance be the reason humankind and the planet are in so much trouble?
This is just an scatter shot of my thoughts over my many years of being on the losing end of relationships with MANkind and watching reading of the many, very many women that were and are on the losing end. I also expect you all to switch the pronouns and really FEEL the difference in your reactions to the original article and my response.
I think these "men" could have been much better people of they were chastised by their friends or aquaintisis and society. Why not?
Women and their friends are often told to be "nice" by their families. We know "nice" has a different meaning for women and girls. Why isn't there a similar expectation for men... It's because this world was shaped by patriarchy and THAT must stop! Women and girls are still expected to be shy and retiring and not expect attention.
Is this why human civilization hasn't evolved since men instituted patriarchy. Is this why society still is a culture of greed and desire to dominate?
I believe women and society and the world have to demand more, much more from all men no matter their stature, status or whatever. These are often found to be stolen from the women in their lives, so many times it is later found out people have been admiring it worshipping the wrong person. That's deceit and nothing is good about deceit. The applecart has to be upset to get the good apples on top. How can we expect evolution of we discard the true geniuses or ignore the true nature of the people because the media only wants men at the top, want to maintain patriarchy?
Its disgusting to think we are doing the world a favor by not denoucing crappy, despicable behavior. No wonder the behavioral evelutionists are baffled by humankind's static or ongoing barbaric behaviors.
I’ve been thinking about this. I think if a man is yelling or abusing a woman, his political opinions are obsolete. Maybe he’s a good scientist but his opinions about people and how they should be cared for are void. You cannot have one without the other. Patriarchy is personal and political. To care for a woman is to care for humanity.
We don’t require perfection, the standard we have been held to. But we do require honesty, a willingness and vulnerability to be humble, see mistakes and be willing to change. *Empathy is the ingredient. God I miss Barack Obama.
yes but very few actual scientists will resort to this weakness. Patriarchy is a cover for the incompetent...😎
I think the answer to your question is that it wasn’t important to the people who decided these men were heroes. We cannot deny their influence in their given fields, but most folk want their heroes to be unblemished. The women they abused on their way to fame are merely collateral damage, not important, but the uncomfortable truth is that men cannot achieve anything without women, even if it’s a nanny to look after their children.
I read this book https://www.wbg.org.uk/article/who-cooked-adam-smiths-dinner-a-review/
I think male heroes need to be seen as flawed as any ordinary people are.
And, yes, please, more of the same plus the women who made history (Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale and others and who supported them. What did they sacrifice to be successful?)
Yes!!!
Must not set the bar TOO high – after all, we know all the compassion, understanding and support that Amber Heard, Monica Lewinsky, and Christine Blasey Ford when sharing their truth and their lives are intact. 🤨🤨🤨 Boys will be Boys after all. It truly all makes so much sense - when you realize how many women were pursuing the serial killer Richard Ramirez after his conviction. How many men do that for women in prison???
Interesting observation about women in prison. I never thought about that. I have zero understanding why some women contact serial killer men. I wonder if these women grew up with abusive fathers whose behavior they normalized.
The mind is strange thing in many ways.
What a depressing account of so many of our so-called "heroic" men!
Your comment, Suze, led me to look into the marriages of Marie Curie and Florence Nightingale, fully expecting abusive husbands. Nightinggale, through, never married (no abusive husband there), despite many proposals, in part perhaps because her close friend Mary Clarke introduced her to the idea that women could be as accomplished and free as men, something her parents had never suggested.
Curie's life, I was delighted to learn, was that a husband, even during her lifetime (1867-1934) could be faithful (so far as we know) and supportive. She was originally reluctant to marry Pierre Curie, but when they wed, she refused to wear white but a dark blue one she could also wear in their laboratory. The 1903 Nobel Prize was to be awarded to Pierre and another man, but Pierre insisted Marie be included, and she was, as the first female winner of a Nobel Prize (she won a second in 1911). Pierre refused a cross of the French Legion of Honor because Marie was not included. Unfortunately, Pierre died from an accident at age 46 in 1906. The Curies worked together all their marriage, which seems to have been one of mutual support.
I don't subscribe to the concept of heros, but if I did, Pierre would be one, as well as Marie, of course.
That is wonderful, Neale, thank you. I knew Florence Nightingale never married and that Pierre and Marie Curie worked together, but I didn’t realise how much he supported her and refused to take credit for her work. Maybe those reasons are why we know of them?
Thank you again.
Yes please write every one of the essays you mentioned.
This one was jaw dropping. Wow.
PLS I need to read and so does the rest of the world
Please write them! We will share them!
Abuse of women and girls is endemic in all societies worldwide. Men from infancy (women as well) are trained to think of all women/girls as inferior, incompetent, disgusting, and are destined bc of genetics to b male’s personal servants in all physical matters & not worthy of male regard outside of patronization. This is institutional and is apparent in all the writings created to be used to control the minds of people, men included. A very small number of men rarely even take the time & energy to identify and examine their biases about women and their own culpability in furthering the abuse of women/girls. Fewer still actually work at being anti-misogynist. Women are so indoctrinated, their almost universal acquiescence ensured the misogynist status quo was set in stone, has continued over centuries and is still the norm. Little glimmers of the true power, competence, value and incredible contributions women provide to the world cannot change their overall plight bc men are not willing to share nor reject their prominence in our societies and their domestic, or professional, lives. Women who have rejected subservience and have de-centered men in their professional and intimate lives are dismissed as deviant, irrelevant, and, for those w effective voices, recognized as a threat to the status quo. And, so, as RBG eloquently espoused, the male boot remains on the necks of all women/girls be they cis-het or otherwise. Yes, please give us more analysis bc just the fact the chronic and accepted abuse of women by famous “leaders” in their domestic lives is the norm, as it is in most male lives, we as women must still be the ones to bring these injustices to the light of day so everyone can someday thrive outside the current patriarchal hierarchy effectively throttling us all and destroying the environment upon which everyone is dependent. Doing otherwise dooms us.
Perhaps the whole idea of heroes is our problem here. To consider someone a hero is to ignore the fact that they are a whole person. Hero worship is always damaging because it makes people think that the normal people around them are somehow less.
I teach writing to teenagers, so the question of separating the art from the artist comes up quite often. It's hard, but I try to balance on the blade of the knife: If you admire the work of a dead person who was an awful human being, as long as you don't worship that human being in full, there's nothing wrong with that. People are flawed and past humans had different cultures than ours.
When it comes to living authors, it's much harder. A lot of my students are very much on the front line of modern views of gender, so they are appalled by JK Rowling, at the same time as having grown up with her work as a deeply important part of their childhoods. Some of them intensely feel that her words are harming people, while others are willing to look past the words.
When it comes to a person who is literally harming other people, like Huberman, is it a different question? I think so. He is not an artist, he is not putting out any sort of creative work that inspires or lifts up. He is simply redigesting information that people can get elsewhere. He's selling a service. Just as I would not give any money to the estate of Michael Jackson, in life or in death, I think that it is up to the individual to decide whether to give money (in this case, their ears) to him.
Whether or not our culture will consider him a hero in the future is not in our control. Maybe we will evolve to the point of rejecting the idea of a hero. But in life, we always have the choice of rejecting the work of someone whose behavior taints their work for us.
Frankly, I hope at least that he has trouble getting dates!
I think it’s both really just inevitable to have heroes, but also really important to come to the realization that very few things are ever only good or bad. For me, there’s no *necessary* tension between admiring one’s work and deploring another aspect of their life - they’re not separable, but there’s lots of things in life I have to see both ways.
What’s weird to me is when people act like that means we shouldn’t criticize living people doing bad things? I really don’t get involved in art/artist ethics in consumption debates, but people who don’t even think we should talk about it … wild.
I realize I didn't address the question of the treatment of women in particular. There are so many ways for people who have power over others to be horrible to others. And we all have the most power over those we have an intimate relationship with.
I agree. Fortunately, the few male friends I have respect women and treat them as equals. If they didn’t they would soon be ex-friend.
We love to see men holding each other accountable 👏🏼
Well said Katrhyme. The 53% of white women who voted for Trump bears your point out - women settle for being in alignment of where the power, famous, or infamous lies vs seeking their own agency within.
We don’t need another hero.
We need more pieces like this.
We keep conflating “helpful” with “heroic” to disastrous effect. The more we understand the people behind the image, I think the better we will get at ceasing to make this mistake.
E=mc(squared): true
Einstein is my hero and I should have a poster of him in my dorm room: false
Michael Jackson’s music is fantastic: true
I should model my life after his: false
Huberman’s sleep toolkit helps me manage my insomnia: true
I should listen to everything he says: false
We need to learn to stick to what is true and not project further virtue onto these people, and a good way to break that habit is to learn more about them. Education is always valuable. Especially in this age of influencers and podcasts. I can assess a mathematical equation and decide it doesn’t harm me. I can assess lyrics to a song and decide if I agree or not (it’s more work, but doable). But it’s almost impossible to listen to someone for hours on end (anyone else racking up hundreds of podcast listening hours?) and critically evaluate every they say for hidden biases that may skew my opinion away from my intrinsic values. I need all the help I can get.
By the way - the first publication of this article caused me to unsubscribe to Huberman though I’d already been getting the ick. You validated the ick and caused me to take action. Funny how reluctant I was to think poorly of him even as he rubbed me the wrong way simply because one podcast helped so much…
Ha I did in fact have a poster of Einstein in my dorm room 🙃
But yes thanks for those delineations between helpful and heroic- such a great point.
These were a lot of my same thoughts. There is a space to be held in being able to walk the line between recognizing the simultaneous truths and falsehoods inherent in living life. It occupies the same space as not holding ourselves and others to unrealistic (whether perfectionistic or stagnant) expectations of ability and growth. It can be an uncomfortable space to sit in as most, if not all, people are grey rather than black and white.
“It can be an uncomfortable place to sit it” oh goodness yes!!
I’m reading Harry Potter to one of my kids, and holding my love for Harry and my disgust with the author in the same place is uncomfortable. But it’s also bringing about good conversations about things like the difference between love and obsession. Seeing the grey in the author makes the grey of the work more visible and then it becomes something to be discussed instead of just accepted.
Rowling stands up for women.
I think this is really true. The way I think about it is as parasociality - lots of people have work I admire, but they’re not my friends. But because the whole thing about admiration is that it’s a sort of role-model seeking behavior, that can be uncomfortable to acknowledge!
The United States (and many other countries and industries) was built on the back of human slavery. The success of many men is built on a type of slavery, also. Patriarchy is a system that forces women into servitude in exchange for survival.
Suze nailed it. Everyone is flawed. But for some reason we can’t talk about the bad. It’s so important to point out how bad a person can be while doing good. Also no question that patriarchy plays into washing away these egregious behaviors.
“Can we separate the art from the artist?” is a joke when you see how bad so many people are. If we can’t there is very little art. Humans are complicated and are never just one thing. Tragic how all these women were treated. Our minds do prefer easy compartments to place things in. I’m not going to condemn the contributions. But I am sure as heck going to see there’s a whole flawed person with very dark relationships.
A tiny taste of power and men behave badly. When society doesn’t hold them accountable it sure makes it seem okay. Countless examples. Power corrupts etc.
I’m not sure huberman is anything more than a snake oil salesman in the form of supplements. Change my mind.
This was illuminating Celeste. I didn’t know about the Huberman article, but it makes sense. To me, however smart he may be, he is a major part of manosphere culture that excuses his anti-social behavior with a fancy degree. I don’t find him particularly humble on his show. He is always competing with his guests. He uses narcissistic manipulation to sound empathetic but is always a little bit condescending. I would be curious to know the stats on how his female listenership fell versus male. Maybe not at all. But the Reddit quote you gave is indicative of a larger manosphere phenomenon that if you are successful and powerful, your behavior excuses that of anyone who worships at your altar. It’s innocence by association, and Trump 101. The opposite of positive male role modeling. It is the nature of our time. It feels like it is becoming an American standard among younger generations of men.
While the rest of your story shows how this behavior is not new among revered men in history, and in academia in particular, women do not have to tolerate it as before. Great story. Thanks.
TY !! I caught his sycophantic with other men too and thought WTH? Of course he is not the only one by any means.
Yes, more on Huberman and his audience! What are the factors contributing to his popularity amongst both men and women, and what are some of the ideas he promotes ON the pod that are harmful?
Can you imagine how reviled these men would be if every woman in these stories was a dog or a cat? If every beating of a woman was the beating or torture of a dog or a cat. If every abandonment of a woman was the abandonment of a dog or a cat. If every demand that a woman devote herself only to meeting others’ demands was the permanent chaining or caging of a cat or dog. The outcry would be huge - and yes, I know, Kristi Noem, but I wonder what people really think of her… and whether women aren’t less important than animals.
Wow 😳
I make this comparison with porn all the time. If a man got off to someone doing the same things to a man or an animal as are done to women in porn, we would view him as a complete monster. But because the victim is a woman or girl, that's just male sexuality so accept it or go be with your cats. It's outrageous.
Huberman is a raging narcissist who decided to become a podcaster instead of a cult leader. To me, he exudes all the hallmarks of narcissism and is a master of control tactics. Brilliantly smart? Yes. The way narcissistic, abusive partners who coerce, control, and traumatize you are, the way effective cult leaders are. Brilliant to his own ends. All smoke and mirrors. I can't fucking stand him.
As for whether or not the way he treats women matters, I say Yes. 100%. This is a man who carefully crafts a down-to-earth, trustworthy, "willing to learn," macho hunter/gatherer, thoughtful, and gimlet-eyed persona: "the 'good,' supportive, and manly no-bullshit health guy." And yet in his personal life he betrays people who trust him intimately, and harms their emotional health by screaming at them and controlling them, knowingly puts them at risk of STIs (which could harm them physically and psychologically and worse), and is a reckless maniac just caroming from one betrayed partner to another. I was taught to critically analyze authors, scholars, historians, psychologists, "experts," and other influential public figures to determine whether they have reasonable authority to speak, write, and lead on their chosen topics, within their fields, etc. A man who is this incredibly unhealthy psychologically and emotionally in his personal life (and is so clearly performing the role of healthy and strong!) has very little authority to speak on personal health, being a decent person, or anything like it. The fact that he's being defended as "human like everyone else" without any regard for the fact that his personal actions undermine his "expertise" (his schtick) shows how deeply his tendrils have wrapped around his listeners' gray matter and how powerfully alive patriarchy remains.
Added thought: if he can keep his "good guy" persona despite how he treats women, then it reinforces the belief that how a man treats a woman not only doesn't ever matter, but worse: mistreating women is something "good men" do.
It's like there is a disconnect between "he treats people badly" and "he treats women badly." So many don't view women as full people, so it's no big deal if men don't treat them well; they can be abusive to *women* and still treat *people* (read: men) well.
Superbly expressed
I just love this response so much. 👏. Yes, narcissist who decided to become a podcaster instead of a cult leader… you nailed it.
A crushing piece - wow.
Brilliant writing, thank you. I hope times are changing for women but I fear it’s still the Dark Ages. We need to keep talking about DV and bringing awareness to the plight of many women, whether they’re married to ‘heroes’ or not. We do care about how women are treated and it’s important we continue to care. Economic power to more women helps, provides more choices and independence. Respect for women and self-respect play a significant role in healthy relationships. Please keep going on this theme!
History going back 3,000 years does not support men liking women and changing. Inanna, the most powerful Sumerian God(ess) slowly written out of history (of course this includes Ishtar, Astarte, and her other avatars); Asherah written out and Asherah Poles destroyed by King Josiah and other ancient Jews afraid of women. Mary Magdelin gets labeled a prostitute and now American men looking overseas and at conservative religions for obedient wives. I could go on for hours.
Strange, but i have always liked strong women as partners in a relationship of equals.
As they say, men of quality don't fear equality.
I have been noticing and mentally recording the number of women throughout history with great brilliance but history only talks about the men associated with them that gets all the credit. From Socrates to Einstein their successes had help of women. I believe in equality and often wonder how much more advanced humanity would be if half the population wasn’t being suppressed.
However, knowing things like over 50% of white women voted for Trump, I do not put women—or men—on a pedestal but I honor those of either sex that I find deserving.
As you should. Women can be just as misogynistic and self-destructive as men. We all must keep promoting equality and good character regardless of gender.
Agree completely. Thank you for your responses.
Long and short answer…because men write the history books and control the narrative. That’s why we don’t know. Because they don’t want us to know. I’ve learned more in the last year about women’s contributions in history via Substack than I ever did in school, and that includes university. And I’m 46.
🖕 the patriarchy.
I just want to push back on the "every rapper" comment, I feel what you're going for but you didn't feel the need to mention "every bluegrass singer" or "every classical composer" despite those also being socially influential musical generas dominated by men.
Rapper is a pretty socially racialized term and I feel like saying every rapper can play in to the racialized stereotypes of black men being specifically sexually aggressive, and potentially dismisses rap as just being a vehicle for misogyny. I'm sure that's not at all what you meant, but I just wanted to share my perspective on the phrasing!
(also, if you want an example of a rapper who for all we know is not that, with all the para-social caveats in place, "Lowkey" is great)
Good point. I took it out. Thanks for bringing this up.
Urghhh I didn’t know about Sagan or Einstein. It’s so disappointing isn’t it? I think the more someone is valorised the harder it is to complicate that narrative. There are still so many denialists in the face of blatant child abuse from Michael Jackson that it’s not entirely surprising that figures further back in history are not tainted by their abuse of women. And yet you would think that contemporary figures like Huberman would face some consequences. But no. Clementine Ford has written about this extensively. As I recall, the last chapter of Boys Will Be Boys has a list of famous men who have been found to have abused women and have had no long term consequences for their actions. I haven’t been following her work closely for a while (algorithms! It’s made me aware that I am out of the loop in thinking about this) I think the questions you raise are important and we need to keep asking them. I do think people are generally tired of cancel culture but besides Epstein and Weinstein have there been any real consequences for famous men who use violence on women? It’s the lack of remorse or even acknowledgement that continues this cycle. If there were just a few men who really did the work and were public about it, and god could we ever really know and trust them, then maybe, mayyyyybe we might be able to move beyond this. Interested to know what you think.
Over the past 20 years or so, I have discovered so many examples of great work by women who were not given the credit. For example using Sagan and Einstein, is there a Sagan without Henrietta Swan Leavitt and Leavitt’s law. Without Emmy Noether there is no theory of general relativity, nor much of modern day physics.
Instead of grumbling about morally deficient men—and there is much to grumble about—I find I feel somewhat better about mankind—womankind?— when learning about great women. Were you familiar with Noether and Levitt?
Would there be a Socrates without Aspasia?
Would we be nearly as advanced in computers without the first person who recognized their true potential and who wrote the first computer code, Ida Lovelace?
Where would genetics be without Francis Franklin?
Who turned Russia into a powerful country?
Who turned Great Britain into the start of a world dominating empire?
Would any of the three Abrahamic religions exist without Asherah?
Wasn’t the greatest god in the Sumerian pantheon a woman?
Could this acceptance be the reason humankind and the planet are in so much trouble?
This is just an scatter shot of my thoughts over my many years of being on the losing end of relationships with MANkind and watching reading of the many, very many women that were and are on the losing end. I also expect you all to switch the pronouns and really FEEL the difference in your reactions to the original article and my response.
I think these "men" could have been much better people of they were chastised by their friends or aquaintisis and society. Why not?
Women and their friends are often told to be "nice" by their families. We know "nice" has a different meaning for women and girls. Why isn't there a similar expectation for men... It's because this world was shaped by patriarchy and THAT must stop! Women and girls are still expected to be shy and retiring and not expect attention.
Is this why human civilization hasn't evolved since men instituted patriarchy. Is this why society still is a culture of greed and desire to dominate?
I believe women and society and the world have to demand more, much more from all men no matter their stature, status or whatever. These are often found to be stolen from the women in their lives, so many times it is later found out people have been admiring it worshipping the wrong person. That's deceit and nothing is good about deceit. The applecart has to be upset to get the good apples on top. How can we expect evolution of we discard the true geniuses or ignore the true nature of the people because the media only wants men at the top, want to maintain patriarchy?
Its disgusting to think we are doing the world a favor by not denoucing crappy, despicable behavior. No wonder the behavioral evelutionists are baffled by humankind's static or ongoing barbaric behaviors.