by Deputy Dog 12 Replies latest jw friends
I don't know, I don't care he is a stupid jerk anyway
What is the liste he is talking about (woman are only allowed to do something else than being housewife since less than a century for real - and most of the time because of wars, so women are able to replace man when the time is very hard and it's not the time for painting or whatever looks like cultural - is that talking enough to this Jerk). you're talking about being aware of what's going on.
LOL, well I guess so! After all, when the law of the land will not allow a girl to learn how to read or write, of course girls will not grow up to become philosophers. Also, between being beaten and belittled to nothing more than dirt, even when the law does allow girls to go to school, it would have some sort of ill effect on someone's sense of self-esteem. Even if you did manage to beat all odds and be great at something, no one would ever take a baby-making-slave seriously.
On the other hand, when your genitals have been worshiped for thousands of years and you are told that you are the smartest and the greatest, only to be served hand and foot, you should have no excuse not to excel in all you do.
The amount of women in history who have taken a stand and done something with themselves had to beat insane adversity to get there. That dude took a cheap shot. His peepee must have been itsy witsy.
Are we going to get a confirmation on who this was?
charles darwin actually contributed much to science. if he hadn't, someone else would have. evolution was bound to be eludicated eventually.
the quote itself shows how men viewed women back then. sad, but true. white european men also called indians and africans "barbarians" back then.
the quote is from the volume in which he describes his second, and lesser known theory: sexual selection. natural selection was his other theory.
sexual selection says (among other things) that human mates choose traits in their sexual partners, and that those traits in term get passed on in a pregnancy. strong chin, nice ass, milky skin, blue eyes, nice teeth, intelliegence. he points out that traditionally women chose many traits in men, including intelliegence. this is because men had been the bread winners, and the security detail in times past. intelliegence was an asset. unfortunately, men did not always choose women for their intelliegence. and so it would stand to reason that intelliegence is better represented in men than in women.
that was his hypothesis. i am not sure if i agree with him though. it would seem that intelliegence is passed onto both male and female children (nature), and that females were under represented in education (nurture). intelligence levels, and education levels are two different things.
the point is that science will take the things about theories that work in reality, and discard the things that don't work well.
natural selection has been shown to work well. sexual selection has some good points, but also some lame ones, imo.
charles darwin was not the creator of evolution. evolution exists outside of darwin. he simply discovered it. thousands of biologists have refined and expanded it since. no one ever said darwin was a God. he would have been the first to remind us of this actually.
am i excusing sexist behaviour? not in the least, i disagree with such an "observation" by darwin. i am explaining the conext of the quote. something that DD left out.
if anyone is angered by this quote, and wants to lynch darwin for it, go right ahead. you won't upset any of the "evolutionists". it's not about *who* believes what. it's about the thing itself. well, in science anyways.
tetra
