Why are women more religious than men?

Post Reply New Topic

Very interesting. So it seems that there is a bit more polarization between conservative religionists vs. irreligionists in men, whereas women are more likely to form the centre, "moderate" or "liberal" religionist stretch?

Correct. In much the same way women can be observed to be more "consistent", if you will, whereas men are more dichotomous as a sex.
Kind of odd, in my view, that in this thread (I believe) it hasn't been mentioned that the vast majority of the world's theologians, religious leaders and members of upper-echelon religious hierarchies are MEN.

I do think this goes back to much of the "polarization" of the male sex. For instance, the mention in this thread that among the most accomplished and field-defining mathematicians and scientists, men dominate, with the convenient omission of the fact that along with more geniuses (whatever the hell intelligence means this week) men also have far more incidence of learning disabilities and retardation.


I usually find myself noting left and right (the most recent, for instance, being the incidence of different hair color by sex) this pattern,
and can't help but remember that even going back so far as the circumstances surrounding conception, X-carrying sperm are far larger and robust, but slower, whereas Y-carrying sperm are tiny, very fast, but very often deformed.

Nifty stuff, fo sho!

Ruveyn was the "men are more logical/abstract thinkers on average" guy, but Awesomelyglorious pointed out that mean intellect was the same for both genders, yet variability was different - entailing more geniuses, but also more morons.

I'm interested in that as well. Why were early suffragists radical in Europe yet fairly classist in North America, but today women voters in North America are more liberal than males while women voters in Western Europe are more conservative?

One of the thinnest books on earth is the compendium of world class female theoretical mathematicians and theoretical physicists. Check it out. Look at the list of Nobel Prize winners for example. How many are female? Look at the Fields Medal Laureates. How many are female. Look at the people publishing papers in mathematics and physics in the leading journals. How many are female. The true measure of how logical a person is, is how well he does theoretical abstract mathematics.

Robert A. Heinlein once observed: Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.
--Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love", (Robert A. Heinlein)

It depends on what you mean by "classist", but my instinctual answer would be that early American suffragists were "classist" for the same reason American revolutionaries were- they WERE the radicals of their day, meaning except for their cause, there WASN'T even a vocal fringe or group advocating a totally classless society.

Such is why the American revolutionaries owned slaves, many early suffragists opposed abolitionism, most of the supporters of the black civil rights movement were homophobic, or even those concerned with human rights care not a stitch if other species are mistreated or tortured.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 21 May 2011, 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

That completely fails to address my qualification (which, ironically, indicates some deficiency in verbal logical reasoning or at least verbal comprehension) that the mean intellect isn't affected, the variability is. All those awards, while you may regard them as indicative of "humanity", actually measure exceptionality in a field and hence are biased towards those at an upper end of the intelligence scale. A meaningful comparison would also have to include measures of the profoundly intellectually disabled as well.

Needless to say, LKL also posted quite a few potential sociocultural explanations for female underrepresentation in these fields.

Cutting all the bullsh!t,
I would imagine men might have significantly fewer accomplishments, theorems, inventions, etc credited to them
had they been sold back and forth between women like so many goats for thousands of years,
denied educations and even recognition as a rational being,
and upon marriage been employed for free as a birthing heifer and 24/7 nursemaid to care for a woman's home and children.

Yes, I understand. The fact that you put opinion made it pretty clear it was an opinion, but opinions usually have a basis, and I was wondering what yours was. Maybe it would be interesting to me.



Ah, I understand.

Mmmm

I think men are interested in meaning (what is science, math, philosophy after all?) Seems to come from a desire to understand a meaning of sorts.

women are naturally obsessive? *evil grin*



(j/k!)

No kidding. ruveyn has proven himself to be bigoted on many levels.