Why are less woman non-religious?

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:

samb

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

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

I think you have misread the double negative. Woman are more religious (cso) as you thought.

Trouble

The Atheist wrote:

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?

neither or both depending on how you wish to look at it. The fact is that the area that seperates the 'left' brain and the 'right' brain is larger in women and so follows smaller in men. Sceintists have worked out how information travels through the brain, by neurons firing paths from area to area. The fact that women have a larger corpus callosum means more paths can be made between the left and right of the female brain. meaning women can 'multi-task' better and can express feeling though language (these functions are situated on either side of the brain). Men tend to excell when one side is needed and not the other, they can focus on the task at hand better and lets face it excell in fields like logic, mathamatics and stuff like that. I'm not saying that men or women are better, or that men can't express feeling, or that women are crap at maths, I'm just trying to point out how brain function plays a part in the abillity of women to feel more spiritual or religious or whatever you want to call it and pose a possible answer to the question.
To my mind in this day in age it becomes more apparant that this is the case because previously (be it 30 years ago or 3 centuries ago) people did not have the knowledge available that we have today. And people tended to believe the bible as fact. These days people see religion as a sense of 'spirituallity'.

Tar.Aldarion

samb wrote:

I think you have misread the double negative. Woman are more religious (cso) as you thought.

Ooops, my bad. Gotta lay off the coffee.

ronbyrne2005

just thought women seem to be more into psychics past lives fairies guardian angels etc maybe they are naturally more spiritual than men or more gullible!

legspin

Another question

Why, in societies that are quite openly hostile to women (fundamentalist religions of all stripes mainly), are women then some of the most vociferous defenders of that regime?

I have noticed it in several incidences, from islam as practiced is Saudia Arabia, to the bible belt of the mid west.

I have my own crackpot theories but would like some elucidation.:)

simu

legspin wrote:

Another question

Why, in societies that are quite openly hostile to women (fundamentalist religions of all stripes mainly), are women then some of the most vociferous defenders of that regime?

I have noticed it in several incidences, from islam as practiced is Saudia Arabia, to the bible belt of the mid west.

I have my own crackpot theories but would like some elucidation.:)

Because they're not feminists? People will put up with a hell of a lot if they believe it's God's ordained role for them and that they will be rewarded in a later life. And, if they're not in positions of power, women will probably want to keep on the good side of those who are. Obedient women would not sympathise with women who were severely punished by moral codes but would classify them as immoral or deserving of thier punishment. Sure, it was the case with unmarried women who became pregnant until recently in Ireland. You'd think married women who had gone through pregnancy would sympathise about how hard it must be but it didn't happen in most cases.