Posted on 12/22/2002 4:52:42 PM PST by freeforall
Why men don't like church: testosterone Skipping services typical of engaging in 'short-sighted' risks
Emanuella Grinberg The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, December 22, 2002
The risk-taking impulse that makes more men than women commit crimes is also the reason men are more likely not to be religious, says a sociologist.
"It seems that not being religious is a form of risk-taking, consistent with other patterns of short-sighted behaviour in men," said Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, whose study will be published in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
"Every minister knows it's harder to get the guys to church than the women," he said. "We ought to be asking why this is."
Biological differences between men and women mean that men are more likely to have an "underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses," he said. "Especially those involving immediately gratification and thrills."
Mr. Stark based his conclusions on World Values Surveys, a poll of residents in 57 countries, with about 1,000 respondents in each country, which included the U.S., most European countries, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Turkey, China and India. The results showed that there were sex differences everywhere, even in religions that are very male-centred, such as Orthodox Judaism.
Mr. Stark and fellow sociologist Alan Miller published another paper based on whether gender socialization or differences in social power played a role in religiousness. Studies have shown that career women are just as religious as housewives, he said.
Mr. Stark isn't satisfied with the notion that women are socialized to be more nurturing and have more time for worship than men. For him, it is a matter of gender that makes men less religious, but not a matter of the socialization of genders, said Mr. Stark.
"It used to be said that women were socialized to raise the kids and take care of the home, but when you compare a career woman to a housewife, you see that both are still a heck of a lot more religious than any man."
He says that if not a product of socialization, low rates of male religiousness can be attributed to physiology, much like higher instances of crime among men compared with women.
"There are big gender differences among Christians, Orthodox Jews and Muslims, but in each case, more women are going to more services and saying they adhere to religious mores than men. If it were a matter of socialization, it would show up in the results," he said.
Mr. Stark also said his findings are consistent with the beliefs of criminologists across North America who find aggression more prevalent in men than women.
"High testosterone levels have been proven to make men more likely to commit crimes. The tendency in men toward risky behaviour keeps turning up even where socialization is different, and so does crime and delinquency."
© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen
Bwahaha... Nice turn o' words there, FRiend... I dig. BUMP for a good post.
You're absolutely right in so many ways. Your words make me realize how fortunate I am to be in my church, which doesn't mention fundraising, budgets, or politics at all, ever, and simply tells people clearly how to draw closer to God. What a rare blessing it is. And maybe this also explains why so many men, married and single, go there.
First of all, it is the position of some of your fellow religionists that that is the case. I don't believe in either heaven or hell, so it certainly isn't any position of mine.
Secondly, they make a good case. The Bible pretty plainly states that the way to heaven is through a belief in Jesus -- the only way, in fact. Those religionists who believe that other religions have no chance (including their children) of making it to heaven (and thus the alternative is hell) have a strong documentary case -- despite your latter day interpretations.
I ain't worried when I get there, I used to be married to the
head guy's sister.. I'll have a staff job.
Nonsense. Most women couldn't resist a slice of chocolate cake to save their lives......especially if they're on a diet.
Actually, thank our lucky stars for latter day interpretations. I'm all for it. They tend to be more enlightend -- the elimination of women as property, the more recent elimination of justification for slavery, segregation, etc. A more or less elimination of warring between western religious factions. And a general reduction in western religions for lust for the power of the state.
These are all to the good, keep them coming.
Nevertheless, there are indeed "strict constructionists" who even harken to the horrors of the Old Testament as still applicable law. These people are scary, and many of them post on this forum.
Perfect opportunity to, manfully, offer up these sufferings for the sake of the poor souls in purgatory. (At least that's my latest attempt to negotiate through these travasties...)
Again, I can only direct you to Romans Ch 1 & 2. Written circa 55 C.E. (or A.D. if you prefer, I know I do). Hardly a latter day interpretation. You have also been directed to Matthew's Gospel, and some how pulled out an interpretation that I have never heard expressed in any church. But Christ's meaning was pretty clear: "The Kingdom of Heaven is for such as these". These kids had not made a statement of faith, tithed, or worshipped in a church. Notice too, in the first book of the "Left Behind" books, that as part of the story line, every child in the world disappeared at the same time the Christians did. No serious christian theologian tore into the authors for that; they were criticized for other things in those books. We can take a discussion of the concept of the "Age of Accountability" to a private venue if you wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.