Darwin: "man has ultimately become superior to woman"


#1

Darwin, Charles. 1871, 1874. The Descent of Man
Chapter 19 – Secondary Sexual Characters of Man
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-19.html
What was underlined while reading the Darwin section “Difference in the Mental Powers of the two Sexes” is herein:

 Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, 
 and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into 
 selfishness.  These latter qualities seem to be his natural 
 and unfortunate birthright.  It is generally admitted that 
 with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, 
 and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than 
 in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are 
 characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past 
 and lower state of civilisation.

 The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two 
 sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, 
 in whatever he takes up, than can woman-- whether 
 requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely 
 the use of the senses and hands.  If two lists were made 
 of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, 
 sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and 
 performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-

 a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would 
 not bear comparison.  We may also infer, from the law of 
 the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. 
 Galton, in his work on _Hereditary Genius_, that if men 
 are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in 
 many subjects, the average of mental power in man must 
 be above that of woman.

 Amongst the half-human progenitors of man, and 
 amongst savages, there have been struggles between 
 the males during many generations for the possession of 
 the females.  But mere bodily strength and size would do 
 little for victory, unless associated with courage, 
 perseverance, and determined energy.
 ==
 the older males have to retain their females by renewed 
 battles.
 ==
 the higher mental faculties, namely, observation, reason, 
 invention, or imagination.  These various faculties will 
 thus have been continually put to the test and selected 
 during manhood; they will, moreover, have been 
 strengthened by use during this same period of life.  
 Consequently in accordance with the principle often 
 alluded to, we might expect that they would at least tend 
 to be transmitted chiefly to the male offspring at the 
 corresponding period of manhood.
 ==
 sexual selection,-- that is, through the contest of rival 
 males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from 
 success in the general struggle for life; and as in both 
 cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the 
 characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to 
 the male than to the female offspring.  It accords in a 
 striking manner with this view of the modification and re-
 inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual 

 selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a 
 considerable change at puberty,*(2) and, secondly, that 
 eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same 
 qualities.  Thus, man has ultimately become superior to 
 woman.  It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal 
 transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with 
 mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have 
 become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as 
 the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
 ==
 "The things in which man most excels woman are those 
 which require most plodding, and long hammering at 
 single thoughts."  What is this but energy and 
 perseverance?
 ==
 the present inequality in mental power between the sexes

#2

part 2 of 2 of the Darwin

==
In order that woman should reach the same standard as
man, she ought, when nearly adult, to be trained to
energy and perseverance, and to have her reason and
imagination exercised to the highest point; and then she
would probably transmit these qualities chiefly to her
adult daughters. All women, however, could not be thus
raised, unless
==
men do not now fight for their wives, and this form of
selection has passed away, yet during manhood, they
generally undergo a severe struggle in order to maintain
themselves and their families; and this will tend to keep
up or even increase their mental powers, and, as a
consequence, the present inequality between the sexes.*
==
* An observation by Vogt bears on this subject: he says,
"It is a remarkable circumstance, that the difference
between the sexes, as regards the cranial cavity,
increases with the development of the race, so that the
male European excels much more the female, than the
negro the negress.


#3

Do you agree with what Darwin said? If so, why? If not, why?

Do you have an argument to present? If so, what is it? If not, why did you create this thread?


#4

Man has man’s role, woman has woman’s role, without either society will clapse. which one is superior?

It’s obvious Darwin is pushing for Social Darwinism here


#5

It’s interesting how radical materialists demand, demand that the truth be presented, **starkly and without critical comment **in government schools and yet the mere quotation of Darwin himself, without qualifying or rhetorical comment on this forum is obviously troubling to our affable resident atheist. It causes one to wonder whether it’s really free reign of science that modern liberalism is after.

Recently, the President of Harvard said in a speech that women might have less science aptitude than men; and all those great minds, those professors at Harvard demanded retraction and censure for his merely stating a scientific hypothesis.

Make no mistake: radical materialists aren’t on a crusade for the rule of science - they’re on a crusade for the rule of radical leftism, and science is merely a useful tool for their end.


#6

[quote=GodnCountry]Man has man’s role, woman has woman’s role, without either society will clapse. which one is superior?

It’s obvious Darwin is pushing for Social Darwinism here
[/quote]

He could’ve preached it, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference as to the validity of evolution or his scientific findings.


#7

[quote=Ianjo99]He could’ve preached it, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference as to the validity of evolution or his scientific findings.
[/quote]

He simply has an agenda behind his hypothesis.

Is it right or wrong when the snake said

No, you shall not die the death.
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

This is much less controversial than evolution. every sentence is proven correct. but no one should listen because it has a heinous aganda behind


#8

[quote=GodnCountry]He simply has an agenda behind his hypothesis.

Is it right or wrong when the snake said

This is much less controversial than evolution. every sentence is proven correct. but no one should listen because it has a heinous aganda behind
[/quote]

And if he did have an agenda, what scientific difference does that make?

So by your logic I should close my eyes to the truth in order to protect myself against “Satan”? God is Truth.

And a glaring mistake in your argument is that evolution must be true in order for your statement to hold up. You’re basically saying that evolution is correct, but because Satan told us this, we shouldn’t understand it to be true.


#9

[quote=Ianjo99]And if he did have an agenda, what scientific difference does that make?

[/quote]

He could twist the hypothesis to suit his agenda.

Evolution isn’t proven by any infallible means. thus can’t be considered truth.
Sometimes you should close eyes to things appearing as truth. like in Eden Garden. it’s better to live naked in Eden than we’re here now, right?

no, evolution is even less correct than snakes’ words. it’s a much worse attempt than the one in Eden.
Satan can tell you outright lies, half truth-half lies but never full truth. the final conclusion from the words in the Garden —one should eat the fruit, though not directly spoken by the snake but definiately his agenda is wrong.


#10

[quote=GodnCountry]He could twist the hypothesis to suit his agenda.

Evolution isn’t proven by any infallible means. thus can’t be considered truth.
Sometimes you should close eyes to things appearing as truth. like in Eden Garden. it’s better to live naked in Eden than we’re here now, right?

no, evolution is even less correct than snakes’ words. it’s a much worse attempt than the one in Eden.
Satan can tell you outright lies, half truth-half lies but never full truth. the final conclusion from the words in the Garden —one should eat the fruit, though not directly spoken by the snake but definiately his agenda is wrong.
[/quote]

Evolutionary Theory doesn’t rest on Darwin at all. He is but one of many who have found evidence pointing to ET. He could be a card carrying member of Satanism, ET wouldn’t fall as a result. Therefore, pointing out his personal beliefs or critizing his other viewpoints has no purpose.


#11

[quote=Ianjo99]Evolutionary Theory doesn’t rest on Darwin at all. He is but one of many who have found evidence pointing to ET. He could be a card carrying member of Satanism, ET wouldn’t fall as a result. Therefore, pointing out his personal beliefs or critizing his other viewpoints has no purpose.
[/quote]

Evolution with Darwin is as Protestantism’s with Luther.


#12

[quote=GodnCountry]Evolution with Darwin is as Protestantism’s with Luther.
[/quote]

There is not a scientist in the world who appeals to Darwin’s authority. He was not a prophet revealing received wisdom. That is, no scientist thinks evolution is true because Darwin said so. Instead, they believe evolution is true because of the evidence in favor of it. In a vein similar to lanjo’s: Imagine that Einstein proposed relativity because he thought a fairy told him to. Pointing that out would be no argument against relativity.


#13

No Protestant church regard Luther as a prophet.


#14

Boy, did he miss the mark.

God’s greatest creation was a woman… or rather THE Woman (Mary our Mother).

I’d like to agree with Chesterton on this one and say that woman is greater than man.


#15

Various persons:

Do you agree with what Darwin said?

No.

If so, why? If not, why?

I haven’t seen any strong grounds for accepting “what Darwin said.”

Do you have an argument to present?

Yes.

If so, what is it?

Darwin is a sexist pig.

Man has man’s role, woman has woman’s role,
without either society will clapse.

Makes sense.

It’s obvious Darwin is pushing for Social
Darwinism here

Indeed.

He could’ve preached it, it wouldn’t make a bit of
difference as to the validity of evolution or his
scientific findings.

Meaning of “evolution”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

What are some of “his scientific findings”?

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
“Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.”

surrounding material in
groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com

Evolutionary Theory doesn’t rest on Darwin at all.
He is but one of many who have found evidence
pointing to ET. He could be a card carrying
member of Satanism, ET wouldn’t fall as a result.

What are 2 lines of “evidence pointing to ET”?

There is not a scientist in the world who appeals to
Darwin’s authority.

1979 Gould & Lewontin on Darwin’s sainthood
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135620622.450174.274380%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

He was not a prophet revealing
received wisdom.

Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net

That is, no scientist thinks
evolution is true because Darwin said so. Instead,
they believe evolution is true because of the
evidence in favor of it.

Meaning of “evolution”?

legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

In a vein similar to lanjo’s:
Imagine that Einstein proposed relativity because
he thought a fairy told him to. Pointing that out
would be no argument against relativity.

Feynman, in
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on ad hominems
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.