People are kinder to women

Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Advertisements

9 responses to this post.

  1. That doesn’t sound particularly like chivalry, as it was originally understood.

    ‘Chivalry’ has become a very lazy modern cliche for some kind of vague pre-feminist form of social interactions. Feminists are supposed to be against it and non-feminists are supposed to be for it.

    It’s not that simple….

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 1:28 am

      My recollection is that this was mostly about people valuing women over men. Although this is a common complaint in the Manosphere, it is hardly surprising, and is probably based on basic biology (and evolutionary psychology).

      Women get patronised, but they also get protected.

      Reply

      • It does seem there’d be a good evolutionary explanation for it.

        I wish we could read articles like this more often without punching the air because our side of politics gets validated, or waving our fists angrily because it affirms the position of the other side. It’s a ridiculous way to be.

      • Sacrifice understood in both biological and moral terms is quite interesting.

        I often valorise our bees when they sting me. They probably don’t know it but of course a miniscule hurt to me results in their own death – it’s not something to be taken lightly.

        But then, am I anthropomorphising them when I do this? But thinking about human sacrifice is pretty weird too; it’s not something humans do lightly or easily either.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 1:39 am

        Yes. The French apparently have a saying: to understand is to forgive.

        If people approached these things in a spirit of honest enquiry, we would all be better off, as you suggest.

        One explanation I have seen offered is that women are simply more biologically valuable, being child-bearers.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 1:45 am

        This moral question relates to the broader one of, are we just puppets of our evolutionary background even when it comes to altruism? I think I would contend that God has allowed us to evolve so that altruism is a possibility. In the same way as I would argue that we have a “religion gene” because that is how we have been providentially allowed to evolve.

        On the other hand, altruism presents some puzzles to even the most hard-nosed evolutionist. Here is something I wrote years ago on what I called The Grace Darling Effect:

        http://julianodea.blogspot.com.au/2004/04/grace-darling-effect-some-years-ago-on.html

      • Yes – I’m of the view that though certain elements of altruism and morality in general can be explained in biological/evolutionary terms not all of them can.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 4:56 am

        I am curious as to how Christianity now bends its knee to Darwin, when Darwinism has not proved its case. It is not evolution, but rather the way God designed it to be.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 4:57 am

        Well, I think it is both. I am basically a biologist, and I have always been happy with evolutionary explanations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: