Not really. In western history, women were often seen as morally & intellectually inferior humans more inclined to sin & in need of control https://twitter.com/Mic1402/status/907877892972888065 …
-
-
Because Christian ideas of it was based on observation but given a theological explanation - different kinds of sins.
Show this thread -
Women's greater emotional expression & tendency to be moved to sympathy with an outsider appears a lot as a potential for falling into sin.
Show this thread -
Also, a liking for pretty things, a tendency to talk more & to express anger verbally & at length. XD
Show this thread -
Men's greater tendency to express anger physically & to argue the fine details of things that weren't to be questioned also a danger.
Show this thread -
Women were seen as in danger of getting distracted from religious righteousness by things of the world & needing to be reigned in.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
more a normal consequence of dimorphism & human control of "seen as weak" than encoding evo principles, same with 19th cent views on race.
-
Huh? Not sure what you mean. Not suggesting theologians knew abt evolution. Saying they noted same things but for wrong reasons.
-
saying that today when ppl make parallels between evPsy & culture or theology, the argument is (or seems to be) those cult/theo features are
-
the embodiment of evo principles & not an epiphenomenon that just looks like it. it's just a caution on how to argue, not to you to PopEvPsy
-
Well, yes. Observations once attributed to the will of God are now better explained by biology.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
now this I would be interested to read
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.