Why did Darwin teach women were less 'evolved' than men?

Question

Is this a wise philosophy to follow?

Answer 1

it is very wose make sure you share you philosphy with evry girlfriend you get

that BS link you provided was

A) super increadibly biased

B) took EVERYTHING out of context

C) is publicated by radical anti-evolution evangelists

D) none of those points correclates with the last, is true, or rationalizes thinking any of that

darwin supposedly thought they were two different species yet was amazed so much difference could be within one species? did he think they were one or different species?

that statement right there invalidates any point afterwards

not to mention the circular logic, misrepresentations, and outright lies presented in there..

Answer 2

Can you please cite the source in Darwin's writings where he makes this assertion?  I do not believe that your statement is true.

Answer 3

Though his ideas were brilliant, Charles Darwin, as a man, was a product of his time.   He & most people of the time labored under the fundamental belief that women were inferior to men.  It appears as though (in reading a few of the statements in "Origin of Species") Darwin may have used his theory of natural selection to justify in his own mind what was understood at the time to be a universal truth about women.  

This does not make his ideas less scientifically valid or questionable....

Answer 4

Are you thinking of Freud?

Answer 5

You are confusing evolution with the bible story that God created Eve from a piece of rib from Adam.

Answer 6

He didn't.

Answer 7

Darwin never said that women were "less evolved" than men?  Did you just make that up?

Darwin did suffer from many of the pernicious stereotypes about men and women that were typical of Victorian thinking ... and thought that a difference in intellect was a natural secondary sexual characteristic like facial hair and broader shoulders.  He also believed that women were *superior* in traits such as selflessness, intuition, perception, and tenderness.

In other words, the universal assumptions about men and women were in place long before Darwin, and were something he tried to explain with his theory ... they were not a *consequence* of it.  Sexism did not exactly begin with Darwin!

So no, there is nothing in Darwinism that is inherrently sexist.  Only a dishonest reading of Darwinism would reach that conclusion.  (I.e. be careful what you read.)