By : Misunderstanding of anisogamy and anti-men bigotry in evolutionary psychology support the devaluation of men’s lives relative to women’s lives. The psychology of devaluing men’s lives doesn’t depend on failures in modern evolutionary thought. The medieval evolutionary analysis also devalued men.
Consider a widely disseminated medieval story of a king and his wife. They discovered under the wall of their castle two snakes, one female and one male. The king interrogated his wise men about the significance of those snakes. The wise men declared that if the male snake were killed, a man would die. If the female snake were killed, a woman would die. The king then displayed his false consciousness about men’s subordinate class status:
If another man were named king, children that the king’s widow had with another man probably wouldn’t have a good claim to the throne. If on the other hand, the king’s wife died, the king could just remarry. Sons that the king had with another wife would be heirs to the throne. The king’s decision and reason reflect the rule and rationalization of gynocentrism.
From reporting on the Costa Concordia’s sinking to the United Nations’ biased index of gender equality in expected lifespans, men’s lives are devalued relative to women’s lives. Efforts over the past four decades to promote gender equality have largely promoted lies and anti-men gender bigotry. Let’s get serious about valuing equally women’s and men’s lives.
The above quote is from Gesta Romanorum, Tale 92, from Latin trans. Swan & Hooper (1876) p. 165. The tale’s application explains:
Reference:
Swan, Charles, and Wynnard Hooper, trans. 1876. Gesta romanorum: entertaining moral stories. New York: Dover Publications Inc. (reprint edition of 1969).
Article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Douglas Galbi is an economist, and holds a BSE in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He is an amateur historian and editor of the blog Purple Motes: a journal of whimsy and hope.
Source
Consider a widely disseminated medieval story of a king and his wife. They discovered under the wall of their castle two snakes, one female and one male. The king interrogated his wise men about the significance of those snakes. The wise men declared that if the male snake were killed, a man would die. If the female snake were killed, a woman would die. The king then displayed his false consciousness about men’s subordinate class status:“If this is so,” said the king, “kill the male snake, and let the female snake live. A man ought to be more willing to die himself than to permit the death of his wife.” He gave the reason for this: “If my wife lives, she may bring forth many sons who may succeed to my throne. But if she should die, the kingdom would lack an heir.”That’s faulty reasoning. If the king died, a new ruler would be promptly selected. That wouldn’t necessarily be the king’s widow.
If another man were named king, children that the king’s widow had with another man probably wouldn’t have a good claim to the throne. If on the other hand, the king’s wife died, the king could just remarry. Sons that the king had with another wife would be heirs to the throne. The king’s decision and reason reflect the rule and rationalization of gynocentrism.
From reporting on the Costa Concordia’s sinking to the United Nations’ biased index of gender equality in expected lifespans, men’s lives are devalued relative to women’s lives. Efforts over the past four decades to promote gender equality have largely promoted lies and anti-men gender bigotry. Let’s get serious about valuing equally women’s and men’s lives.
* * * * *
Notes:The above quote is from Gesta Romanorum, Tale 92, from Latin trans. Swan & Hooper (1876) p. 165. The tale’s application explains:
My beloved, the King is Christ, and the wife, our human nature, for which He gave himself to death.That application summarizes one-half of Ephesians 5:22-9.
Reference:
Swan, Charles, and Wynnard Hooper, trans. 1876. Gesta romanorum: entertaining moral stories. New York: Dover Publications Inc. (reprint edition of 1969).
Article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
About Douglas Galbi
Douglas Galbi is an economist, and holds a BSE in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He is an amateur historian and editor of the blog Purple Motes: a journal of whimsy and hope.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment