> 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 But it doesn’t explain why she continued to be withdrawn following their divorce.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.
Children. She had a sick child who needed constant medical care and had expenses.
Being poor might also be a reason for said ‘inertia’. One has to run faster to stay in the same place..chasing someone to retrieve what was stolen from you is unlikely.
[..] Mileva moved back to Zurich with her two sons on 29 July 1914. 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 and lived poorly from their income. Her son, Eduard stayed frequently in a sanatorium. He later developed schizophrenia and was eventually internalised. Due to these medical expenses, Mileva struggled financially all her life and eventually lost both buildings. She survived by giving private lessons and on the alimony Albert sent, albeit irregularly.[..]
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 But it doesn’t explain why she continued to be withdrawn following their divorce.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.