It’s not destroying Einstein. It proves he was human, he screwed up. And offers the possibility to those who look to him: you might not be able to be as smart as Einstein, you might not be able to change the world like he did, but you can be a better human being. You can learn from someone’s positive AND negative examples.
No seeing feet of clay let kids see their own potential. When we paint people as perfect the imperfect child can’t hope to compete, and gives up. When we paint people as REAL, the real child can see the negative and positive examples, the parts they can hope to follow and the parts they prove better than.
How many children grow into lackluster adults because they never thought they could measure up so why even try? That’s always been the problem with the Great Man theory of history, it’s discouraging and dis-empowering, we present people without flaws to kids with flaws and wonder why a generation thinks they can’t do that so never mind. Much better to focus on the great achievements of flawed people, that’s what sends the message that actually you can do that, why not give it a shot.
And in the end it boils down to the people. It’s not the network’s fault that Einstein was a skirt chasing sleaze. He did that. It is reality, it is the truth. And nothing is ever gained hiding the truth.
We can at the end agree to disagree. Part of it is motives. I think the networks’ motives are not the ones you are advancing. They are not trying to give imperfect children encouragement.
The networks are trying for ratings, sex sells. They don’t really care who they damage in the pursuit of ratings; we see that by the ghoulish questioning of the newly bereaved. The networks are also politically correct so geniuses must be brought down, devalued, as must white males. That’s especially good for boys who have the ability to pursue STEM careers to be exposed to /sarc. It is despicable to sensationalize someone’s life after their death for personal gain.
If you feel that Einstein’s sex life gives any depth or dimension to his achievements I disagree. The fact that he had affairs does not mean that his discoveries are eclipsed or make it easier for an average person to grasp them let alone engender them.
I think your “great man” discouragement of kids is an excuse to enshrine mediocrity. I totally reject it. Children are not ready to see the nuances of “real” in any case. It is self indulgence to think that you can enlighten them in that way. You enjoy pontificating but they just give lip service. Just like taking a child of 4 to Les Mis. Some of it they get & love and some goes so far over their heads there isn’t a ripple. That’s the way its supposed to be. Nuance comes in its own time.
The shame of it is that your theory is what creates lack luster kids. Moral relativity and no clear and invigorating embodiment of virtues.