Why are less woman non-religious?

samb

I noticed in the 2002 census that their was about 80,000 non-religious men but only about 50,000 non-religious women. I was wondering does anyone have any theories about why this should be. A response from any atheist/agnostic women would be particularly welcome.

It seems to me that their are many staunchly catholic woman in Ireland who are much more active in their faith than their husbands. I find this particularly strange, since the Catholic church and Bible are in my opinion both very sexist.

peckerhead

samb wrote:

I find this particularly strange, since the Catholic church and Bible are in my opinion both very sexist.

The success of indoctrination, perhaps? Or are women just more 'compliant'?

Laguna

Maybe there's just as many female non believers as male, they just can't be bothered to declare themselves atheist.

Asiaprod

Ok, I take the challenge. Let me be the first to put my foot in my own mouth and get ready to be flamed for my audacity
I have always had the feeling that there is a very different spiritual aspect to women. Women seem to be able to make a much stronger spiritual commitment, than us men (Sorry guys, it is what I have seen). If we look back to most, if not all, the earlier belief systems, we find the Goddess or female figure plays a pivotal role. Some would say it has to do with motherhood, but I tent to disagree and feel that is only part of the answer. I believe that there is a hidden spiritual aspect in the psychology of women that enables them to approach the subject on a far different level. When they make a spiritual commitment they will generally stick with it through thick and thin.
I too would love to hear from some of the women out their how they view themselves from a spiritual perspective.

samb

Laguna wrote:

Maybe there's just as many female non believers as male, they just can't be bothered to declare themselves atheist.

well the category is simply ''no religion'' which would presumably include athiests, and agnostics. ''not stated'' is a different category so I don't think your that point is valid.

Rev Hellfire

I suspect included within that number are people who don't identify with any formal religion for whom their faith is a more internal matter, lapsed catholics for example who may still view themselves as christian but not part of a organised christian church.

I'm not sure you can infer from that catagory a lack of faith, surely those without it would have put down themselves down under atheist (or agnostic) ?

Although from what I remember the number of declared atheists divided on male/female males where in the majority but the actual over all number very small, as in a few hundred ( at least I was susprised ).

Dades

Between the 'No Religion', and declared 'Atheist' and 'agnostic' catagories the split is roughly 60:40 male/female - whichever way you look at it.

It's one thing to distance yourself from a religion in your head - it's another thing seal it in writing. Maybe men are less cautious in that regard to women. However I think I lean toward Asiaprods speculation that women are more "spiritual" than men in certain ways.

That said the stats aren't exactly overwhelming.

ps I just typed "atheism gender divide" into google and our stats thread popped up first...

samb

http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/vol12_entire.pdf

The Atheist wrote:

Between the 'No Religion', and declared 'Atheist' and 'agnostic' catagories the split is roughly 60:40 male/female - whichever way you look at it.

Well spotted but I think the most athiests and agnostics put themselves down as No religion. On the census you are asked which religion you are on a list. No religion is listed. If none on the list apply then you state you own religion. Since athiesm/agnostism are not religions I think it is strange people write them down ( this explains the low numbers). The no religion category is the most relevant one therefore. Only non-religous people will be included because there are plenty of other categories such as other stated religion (for very small minority religions)etc. So the statistics are not diputable, there is far more male non-religious than female.

[HTML]It's one thing to distance yourself from a religion in your head - it's another thing seal it in writing. Maybe men are less cautious in that regard to women. However I think I lean toward Asiaprods speculation that women are more "spiritual" than men in certain ways.[/HTML]

Its the census, people should be honest, it is secret. Do you think the no religion category should be bigger because people are ''cautious'':)

[HTML]That said the stats aren't exactly overwhelming.[/[/HTML]B]
82,262 males to 56,002 females ?

Those putting athiesm and agnostic as a religion are a small strange group. I ticked the no religion box and would not write down atheism as a religion.

Sleepy

Fook it, I can't resist posting it:

"How do you write women so well?"

I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

It'd certainly explain it.

Stephen

In my own personal experience, women do seem to have much stronger beliefs than men. My own mother, for example, is a bit of a roman catholic fascist type (i.e. you're one of us or you're going to burn in hell, heathen - you can imagine that my atheism goes down rather well with this), my ould fella just goes along to mass etc with her to keep her happy - he's what I would describe as a lapsed catholic. Whenever she's not around for whatever reason he'd never be seen near a church unless there was a funeral or a wedding or something.
Her mother before her is even worse, one of the old school
Conversely, my da's mother couldn't give a flying f**k at a rolling donut about it. She's (was?) a protestant of some variety but I can't remember her ever going to a church (her long dead husband was a catholic, hence my da being brought up catholic).

rubadub

I would just figure they tend to believe in more things, how many women vs men do you know who read horoscopes or do tarot cards, or visit psychics.

Stephen

Good point. I don't know any blokes that believe (or at least admit to believing) in any of that bull****.

Call irish psychics live now, we know bugger all but will chat to you for 2.99 a minute for as long as we can get you to stay on the line, you sap.

samb

Come on athiest/agnostic ladies, defend yourselves.

hairyheretic

Stephen wrote:

Good point. I don't know any blokes that believe (or at least admit to believing) in any of that bull****.

I read the futhark runes. They can be used for divination (amongst other things).

I've been called "scarily accurate" with them

Now you can say you know one bloke who does.

Dades

samb wrote:

Since athiesm/agnostism are not religions I think it is strange people write them down ( this explains the low numbers).

Well I will probably be one of these people who ticks "No Religion" and fills in the box.

Although not a religion per se, I would like to see a more detailed breakdown than just "No Religion", and the only way this will happen given the choices on the form is to fill in the box. I reckon this is how they came to include atheist, agnostic, pantheists etc on the census results.

Of course they will remain inaccurate as most people who tick the "No Religion" box will not elaborate.

samb wrote:

Its the census, people should be honest, it is secret. Do you think the no religion category should be bigger because people are ''cautious'':)

I think the catagory could be bigger, but that's only to satisfy my interest in the area. When I mentioned people being "cautious" it was a reference to the idea that God might be watching what box you tick.

Dades

hairyheretic wrote:

Now you can say you know one bloke who does.

But how do we know you're a bloke?

Or that you weren't made say that? :eek:

1huge1

might of been said already but maybe they dont want other people to think there atheist and ticked catholic
and dont say people wouldnt do it because they do

Julesie

I am an atheist female and would definitely identify myself as such on the census.

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 think a more interesting breakdown in the census's religion section would be to specify whether you are active or passive in your religion. A very high percentage of "irish catholics" haven't attended a church service in years outside the odd marraige, funeral or christening. how many of these passive catholics are really just agnostics/atheists who haven't taken the plunge.

simu

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.

Possibly. You certainly see more bunkum of this type in magazines for women rather than ones for men. Any ideas why? Is it because women, on average, received very little scientific education a few generations back? (My own mother received none afaik).

samb

1huge1 wrote:

might of been said already but maybe they dont want other people to think there atheist and ticked catholic
and dont say people wouldnt do it because they do

Yes I agree with you here, people might not want to put athiest down if they are with people like parents in the same household. Also parents often fill out the census and do not consult the children(who may even be in their twenties or thirties).

This would not result in less women than men however.

Sleepy

simu wrote:

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

An interesting point but from personal experience, the trend for women to be more likely to place their faith in a religion has continued into our generation where this doesn't hold true. Sociologically, it has been shown many times that children will usually aspire to be like the parent of their own sex, so maybe the fact that more men of previous generations were non-believers has contributed to this. I know that in my own family, all the men are agnostic while my sister and mother both consider themselves Christians (i.e. raised Catholic but disagree with the running of the Church). My mother also wastes a small fortune (no pun intended) on tarot readers etc.

I don't think this could be the full reason though. Perhaps there's also an element of males being reared to be "stronger" than women and renouncing their faith seeing it as a form of weakness (a view I personally subscribe to).

Or maybe women are generally just more illogical then men and thus more predisposed to believing illogical things? Anecdotal evidence (as unreliable as it is) would seem to correlate to this fact...

Julesie

simu wrote:

Possibly. You certainly see more bunkum of this type in magazines for women rather than ones for men. Any ideas why? Is it because women, on average, received very little scientific education a few generations back? (My own mother received none afaik).

I'd wager that a certain amount of it is "hereditary" but then again my mother would entertain that kind of rubbish where as i certainly do not, so it has obviously skipped my generation.

Its easy to make sweeping generalisations in a thread like this but perhaps large numbers of women just dont take the time to really think about topics like religion at a high enough level. In a way a belief (or lack there of) in a religion is something innate that doesnt require much thought but in another way it does take a deliberate change of direction to distance yourself from the religion in which you were raised.

hairyheretic

The Atheist wrote:

But how do we know you're a bloke?

I'm sure my wife could give fairly definate proof

Or failing that, there are at least a handfull of folks on here that know me IRL .. I'm sure they'd back my claim.

The goatee tends to be a bit of a giveaway too.

The Atheist wrote:

Or that you weren't made say that? :eek:

*chuckles* Ask anyone who knows me how easy it is to make me do anything.

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

I read the futhark runes. They can be used for divination (amongst other things).

I go with the I Ching, which can be used for just about everything.

hairyheretic

Asiaprod wrote:

I go with the I Ching, which can be used for just about everything.

I know of the I Ching for divination, but I've not heard of other uses for it. Would you care to expand on that? We might want to take that discussion to the spirituality / buddhism forum though.

simu

Another thought: religion seems to have a strong social side for many women, in the countyside especially. So, they might be unwilling to give that up by stating their doubts openly.

samb

hairyheretic wrote:

I know of the I Ching for divination, but I've not heard of other uses for it. Would you care to expand on that? We might want to take that discussion to the spirituality / buddhism forum though.

please do:p

hairyheretic

Would one of the mods mind moving Asiaprods post over somewhere more suitable? I'd like to continue the discussion, but this obviously isn't the right section for it.

Dades

hairyheretic wrote:

Would one of the mods mind moving Asiaprods post over somewhere more suitable? I'd like to continue the discussion, but this obviously isn't the right section for it.

I've (tentatively) moved it to the Spirituality forum - which I hope is cool.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054865906
Asiaprod - I know you won't take it personally...

Just the excuse I needed to exercise some power!


Back to topic...

Dades

Just thinking about this -

I'm wondering if the leaning to towards "no religion" by men is in any way related to that "fear of commitment" we're so often labelled with.

And on the flip side women have a need for commitment or "security"?

Thin ice, I know...

The Free Man

heres my view..
women generally tend to use their intuitave mind more, and experience life as holistic and spiritual.
wheras men generally tend to use their rational mind more, and experience life as mechanistic and heirarchal(sp?).

so, if catholicism is the main option for religion in this country, and has been tought for generations, i can see how women would take this option.
i'm not saying that catholicism is the way foreward, but i belive that EVERYBODY should use their intuitive mind more.
the times are changing for the better of humankind.
read this book for more info..The Turning Point



off topic maybe, but hey..

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

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.