Why are less woman non-religious?

simu

ixnay on the stereotyping there

How about some "rationality" in this discussion instead of sub-Cosmo bluster?

The Free Man

simu wrote:

ixnay on the stereotyping there

How about some "rationality" in this discussion instead of sub-Cosmo bluster?

sorry, maybe i should have exaggerated the GENERALLY there :rolleyes:

simu

Ah - all sins are forgiven if you chuck that word in, is it?

Stephen

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

The Free Man

simu wrote:

Ah - all sins are forgiven if you chuck that word in, is it?

hey, im only human. everybody has to be a little stereotypical from time to time!

by the way, are you saying that the statement i said is not true? or are you just trying to argue about a stupid point??

lazydaisy

It would be weird if women were more spiritual and yet excluded from so many positions of religious authority [Islam, Catholicism, Judaism].

Could it be that a different moral framework is placed around women, especially mothers, and so they feel more pressure to follow a religion? Especially if they have kids, you know passing on traditions and all that.

Is it that women are more vulnerable to guilt and thereby need a method to seek absolution? Or maybe the less power you have the more you feel you need to get down on your knees and pray?

robindch

lazydaisy -

> It would be weird if women were more spiritual and yet excluded from
> so many positions of religious authority [Islam, Catholicism, Judaism].

I think you're getting close to the root cause here.

Women pay a huge biological cost for reproducing, in the form of being pregnant, breastfeeding etc, while men can reproduce without much cost past the initial jiggery-pokery (ie, none at all).

Women, quite reasonably, look for support to share the costs of reproduction, and -- looking to our hierarchical alpha-male-based primate past -- you can see why women tend towards high-status males who can provide more protection and food than low-status males.

Meanwhile, males, coming from the same evolutionary past, are interested in having sex with as many women as possible, for which they need to seem high-status to women, so men create numerous hierarchical systems (religion, politics, armies) into which they can slot themselves.

Now to answer your question -- women are generally excluded from religious (and political, and military, etc) hierarchies because they simply don't fit into them from the biological point of view. These institutions are created by men, and *for* men.

On the "spirituality" side, well, imagine that a god would be painted (by the scribes, who were men, in the service of male priests) as a high-status male, with a flowing high-status white beard, infinite degrees of commitment (love), protection and power and is it any surprise that the image of god is believed in more by females, than by males for whom such an alpha-male god is a vague threat?

[I hasten to add that the above is a short summary of a large and complex topic and I've dropped many causal details, as well as interesting conclusions, but I think you can get the general drift...]

BTW, if BrianCalgary is watching, the following CBC documentary which I watched a couple of nights ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/polygamy.html

...is a wonderful, if rather frightening, example of religion in direct service of sex. I have a downloadable AVI file of this if anybody's interested.

simu

The Free Man wrote:

hey, im only human. everybody has to be a little stereotypical from time to time!

by the way, are you saying that the statement i said is not true? or are you just trying to argue about a stupid point??

Well, tbh, you're not going to get an answer to the question if all you do is repeat stereotypes about women. It makes more sense to observe their roles in religious institutions and how they deal with their faith and so on. This thread seemed to be turning into a women-are-gullible-irrational-eejits thing there for a bit.

robindch wrote:

Meanwhile, males, coming from the same evolutionary past, are interested in having sex with as many women as possible, for which they need to seem high-status to women, so men create numerous hierarchical systems (religion, politics, armies) into which they can slot themselves.

Interesting idea but I'm not sure if it works. There's a far more obvious reasons why these hierarchical systems were created - they allow division of labour in urban populations and so on (you have a certain number of people looking after defense etc). Any benefit for a man in terms of being attractive to women would seem to be a secondary one, at the most.

samb

simu wrote:

Interesting idea but I'm not sure if it works. There's a far more obvious reasons why these hierarchical systems were created - they allow division of labour in urban populations and so on (you have a certain number of people looking after defense etc). Any benefit for a man in terms of being attractive to women would seem to be a secondary one, at the most.

I think robin's theory does work, what you have pointed out above is correct but does not invalidate his overall view.

The institutions may have been a natural consequence of division of labour as you say. But the reason that men have come to dominate them is because men ''need to seem high-status to women''.

robindch

> Interesting idea but I'm not sure if it works. There's a far more
> obvious reasons why these hierarchical systems were created -
> they allow division of labour in urban populations and so on

Yes, that was one of the details I said I've left out -- well spotted. The problem with the topic of the evolution of culture and society is that it can easily fill books -- try, for exampe, Jared Diamond's excellent Guns, Germs and Steel for a much fuller description of what seems to have happened.

> Any benefit for a man in terms of being attractive to women
> would seem to be a secondary one, at the most.

Within the general population, that's of course, quite true, because there are only a limited number of top positions to go around. But this isn't true at the top of the heap, where you have the groups I mentioned before -- the royalty/politicians, the military and the priesthood, which are respectively, the groups which *are* the top dogs, the people who provide inerrant justification for the top dogs (ie, they're descended from gods), and the people who will mete out any violence to anybody who disagrees with either of the first two groups. It's interesting to note that each of these three groups are also exclusivist, where the rules of each institution, royalty, military and priesthood almost invariably prohibit its members from being an equvalently powerful member of any other royalty, military or priesthood. This exclusivity is not common in other cultural institutions.

Again, think about who's going to gain most from this system? The males at the bottom of the heap who do all the work (providing food and shelter to the higher-status males), or the males at the top who get to do what they want?

samb

simu wrote:

Well, tbh, you're not going to get an answer to the question if all you do is repeat stereotypes about women. It makes more sense to observe their roles in religious institutions and how they deal with their faith and so on. This thread seemed to be turning into a women-are-gullible-irrational-eejits thing there for a bit.
.

We are taking about a generalisation about woman here. It shouldn't be misenterpreted as sexist, there are plenty of very negative stereotypes we could correctly apply to men. Why are men more violent? could have been a valid topic for discussion ( maybe not for this forum).

I agree however that restating womens tendancies to indulge in horescopes etc is not very productive towards answering 'the why?'. Robin has come close, I believe,, to answering this.

robindch

> Why are men more violent?

Let's answer it anyway

Because they are competing for access to limited reproductive resources with other men, unlike women, who can have as many men as they like.

Two interesting observations about this: (a) hierarchies tend to have strict rules of progression from one place to the next, which limits physical agression amongst males (this is to the benefit of all, longterm) and (b) with exclusivist organizations around, you won't have inter-organizational conflict (unless you introduce a second one into a population -- so, what would this theory suggest would happen when you put two religions, two political parties, or two militaries into the same place? hmmm...!)

In comparison to other species, human males tend to be relatively non-violent on account of their longevity + rule-based hierarchies (except in populations where hierarchies are rare, such as hunter-gatherer populations, where male murder is much more common than it is in developed societies). For example, the seal's reproductive cycle, where male breeding rights are almost exclusive for top males amongst a female population, agression is more common than in human males, which is what you'd expect in a far more competitive reproductive 'market'.

If you're interested in some of the advances made in the application of evolution to biology in general, here are a few good books:

Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
William Hamilton, Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 1: Evolution of Social Behaviour
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
Jared Diamond's, Guns, Germs and Steel.

I need hardly add that all of this recent research which suggests that religions are the product of human evolution, is violently opposed by many religions themselves, presumably worried that what seems to be their dark secret will get out. Ironically, opposition is most vociferous from the most rapidly evolving religions -- the fundamentalists in the USA and elsewhere.

Dades

simu wrote:

Well, tbh, you're not going to get an answer to the question if all you do is repeat stereotypes about women. It makes more sense to observe their roles in religious institutions and how they deal with their faith and so on. This thread seemed to be turning into a women-are-gullible-irrational-eejits thing there for a bit.

Seriously, what gives? This is a discussion where we are suggesting theories as to the causes behind a statistic. The statistic by it's nature is a generalisation. I'm thinking here there is no suggestion that is likely to appeal to you - and that the fact there is a statistical anomaly in the first place probably grates on you.

Rightly or wrongly atheists/agnostics by their nature probably consider themselves more-rational-than average thinkers. Because one group is possibly more rational it is not implied that the alternative group is irrational. There is no right or wrong way to answer a question - only different approaches.

Rather than just shooting down a theory as a defensive reaction why not suggest an alternative one.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant but my Christmas party was last night. :v:...

samb wrote:

I agree however that restating womens tendancies to indulge in horescopes etc is not very productive towards answering 'the why?'.

I have to disagree here. I think it's a very relevant fact to take into account. Possibly the problem again may be that the statistic itself is seen as a slur.

simu

The Atheist wrote:

Seriously, what gives? This is a discussion where we are suggesting theories as to the causes behind a statistic. The statistic by it's nature is a generalisation. I'm thinking here there is no suggestion that is likely to appeal to you - and that the fact there is a statistical anomaly in the first place probably grates on you.

Tbh I don't care what beliefs people, male or female, hold.

The stat is a generalisation, of course, but that doesn't mean that any theory no matter how airy-fairy can be used to explain it. There's quite a difference between examining the structure of organised religion as robindch is doing and spewing pop-psychology clichés as some others have done. Why is everyone getting so offended by my demands of a bit of rigour? Without that, the discussion will only go around in circles imo.

I have suggested a few ideas but they were ignored.

Dades

simu wrote:

The stat is a generalisation, of course, but that doesn't mean that any theory no matter how airy-fairy can be used to explain it.

It's up to you to choose whatever theory you like - these are all individual suggestions. Differences of opinion are possibly better solved by a google-fight. He (or she) with the most links to back up their theory wins.

simu wrote:

I have suggested a few ideas but they were ignored.

Aye you did - I see that now. *acknowleges with a bow*

simu

The Atheist wrote:

Differences of opinion are possibly better solved by a google-fight. He (or she) with the most links to back up their theory wins.

Google fight - our only source of reassurance in a cold and indifferent universe.

Dades

simu wrote:

Google fight - our only source of reassurance in a cold and indifferent universe.

You said it...

Happy Chrimbo

coffee_cake

I wouldn't really call myself atheist/agnostic since I'm still out there on that one, but I'm certainly not part of any religion, unless you count my interest in and attempts to study buddhism.
Does spiritual/religious here really mean either a militant catholic or gullible horoscope reading idiot? I'd consider myself big into...spirituality, if not religion, and I'm neither. But that seems to be the general impression of the posters here.

As for a census, the closest that I've filled out that mentions religion was my college reg form a few years ago...I insisted I wanted "no religion" put down and there was a bit of a fuss about it...

And as for stereotypes, I think there certainly is a difference in how both genders approach religion, but I couldn't say more than that...

stevenmu

I think myself, and this is slightly stereotyping but I hope not unfairly so, that girls tend to be more indoctrinated by their parents (mothers in particular) whereas guys are left to come to their own conclusions more. I don't think this is limited to religious/moral matters, in my own family my mother has shown my sister how to cook, whereas I had to learn from cookbooks, trial and error and work (was a chef for a while), she has shown her how to wash clothes without the colours running (altough without any knowledge of washing it's only happened to me once, and thankfully being a guy if a white shirt comes out of the wash blue, then f*** it, I'll just wear a blue shirt ), and all kinds of other 'girly' stuff. All my Dad ever thought me was to never hit a girl, if I did have to hit a guy to make sure it was worthwhile, and to always think for myself, which were very important lessons to be sure, but not as detailed as what my sister would have learnt. I think a girls behaviour and beliefs are influenced to a much greater degree by her parents than a guy's are by his, the stereotype of a girl who strongly disagrees with everything her mother says, before turning into a carbon copy of her mother exists for a reason. I hope I'm not being sexist by saying this, I'm just pointing out that girls are raised differently from guys.

Julesie wrote:

I would agree that in general women tend to be more spritual (read: gullible) than men. The percentage of women who actively read horoscopes, go to fortune tellers, have tarot cards read.. has to be much higher than in men.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that spiritual=gullible but if you are than that isn't nessecarily so. It's true that many people become part of a particular religion simply because they've been told that it's the right thing, and for some reason women do so seem more susectible to the various phone lines than men (altough I've no idea why, I don't believe women in general are less nitelligent than men) but some people do turn to spirituality for reasons other than gullibility.

rsynnott

Could it possibly be the case that more women are concerned about what the family think? Families tend to be very keen on church weddings, funerals, baptism and so on; those aren't available (or desirable) to declared atheists. It could just be a case of doing the Keeping Up Appearances thing.

Asiaprod

rsynnott wrote:

It could just be a case of doing the Keeping Up Appearances thing.

Thats a valid point to consider. How much pressure are women under in their local to uphold appearences?

simu

Asiaprod wrote:

Thats a valid point to consider. How much pressure are women under in their local to uphold appearences?

Well, the census is anonymous so you wouldn't think it would be an issue there.

magpie

They're more optimistic?

Dades

simu wrote:

Well, the census is anonymous so you wouldn't think it would be an issue there.

True, but as may have been aluded to before - the "head" of the household very often fills in the census for those living there (and often for some that technically don't). And wouldn't most catholic parents put down their offspring as same? I never even saw a census until some years after I had moved out.

magpie wrote:

They're more optimistic?

Perhaps there's an element of optimism involved. (And I can't help thinking that had that comment had been made about men - there'd be a melee.)

EamonnKeane

Is it because women, on average, received very little scientific education a few generations back?

I have to pick up on this point, because a few centuries back, 99% of men got virtually no education. They worked from dawn to dusk in a field or down a mine or as a servant or, if they were lucky, in a trade, and they hoped to scrape together enough money to one day be able to have a wife and family. Scientific eduacation? That's a laugh.

There's a far more obvious reasons why these hierarchical systems were created - they allow division of labour in urban populations and so on (you have a certain number of people looking after defense etc). Any benefit for a man in terms of being attractive to women would seem to be a secondary one, at the most.

Hierarchical systems exist among men even in primitive hunter-gatherer societies: the elders advise and teach the men, who advise and teach the young men, who advise and teach the boys, and utmost respect is expected to be shown to those further up than you.

Being attractive to women is always a primary concern - it is, after all, the goal of every animal to propagate his/her genes. Those who were wealthy and high-status could have more wives, younger wives, better-looking (i.e. more fertile) wives, and thus passed on their genes more than the poor, low-status men.

girls tend to be more indoctrinated by their parents (mothers in particular) whereas guys are left to come to their own conclusions more.

A person doesn't need to be told to think independently - that defeats the purpose.

simu

EamonnKeane wrote:

I have to pick up on this point, because a few centuries back, 99% of men got virtually no education. They worked from dawn to dusk in a field or down a mine or as a servant or, if they were lucky, in a trade, and they hoped to scrape together enough money to one day be able to have a wife and family. Scientific eduacation? That's a laugh.

Meant into the twentieth century. People who were educated in the 40s, 50s and 60s, not the middle ages or whatever tbh.

Trouble

Seems to me (being a female athiest) that there is a very simple and scientific answer to the question posed.

The male and female brain operate differenty and are constructed differently.
In females the corpus callosum (the area connecting the left brain to the right brain) is much larger, allowing more neural connections and therfore more information to be transfered from left to right.

It is this wider chanel of information passing from right to left that allowes the female brain to connect the logic with the creative in ways that men just don't. Women can better express emotion and talk about 'how they feel' because of this.

Religion is to my mind something that people tend to feel they have or they don't, men being the logic analytical creatures they are don't have the same responsivness to religion and more men stopped being religious about the same time their mothers stopped forcing then to!!!

simu

^^^

But if it were a question of brain differences, would this divide between men and women not have been apparent for all of the existence of modern humans?

It's only in the past few centuries, since the enlightenment in Europe, that a less-spiritual view has taken hold of people, unless people can think of other examples.

Dades

simu wrote:

But if it were a question of brain differences, would this divide between men and women not have been apparent for all of the existence of modern humans?

I'm thinking it's not even all that apparant now. We have some 21st century stats that show less of a leaning toward "no religion" for women, but who's to know whether this was the case in the past?

It's not as if women throughout history have been encouraged to think independantly and speak their minds. It's only now in democratic countries where we have a level of "equality" that statistical trends can become apparant.

trouble wrote:

It is this wider chanel of information passing from right to left that allowes the female brain to connect the logic with the creative in ways that men just don't. Women can better express emotion and talk about 'how they feel' because of this.

So which way do we look at this, trouble, do women have a 'leakage' from one side of their brains to the other - or do men have a 'blockage' between them?

Tar.Aldarion

Personally I have always found women to be more religious but...if they are not...it may just mean they are smarter. :v: