Adria wrote:
Sure, but do you think the women who pour into church think about how mysogynist the religion is?
Im not sure about the fact that woman are more religious then men but I can think of a reason why. In the past woman had limited roles for leadership. But in the church woman can have great leadership roles, as long as the men agree. <my own dig> But woman can have run of the education of the children, raise funds and use them in the woman’s group without much input from the men “How much can they raise selling those little cakes and pies let 'em do what they want it keeps them happy”. This of course doesn’t apply so much anymore since woman do have more opportunities but then at the last church I checked out 95% of the woman were over 50 so this trend may fade.
Keep smiling it makes 'em wonder what you’ve been up to.
I would tend to believe that it has to do with women operating more on an emotional level, while men operate on a more rational level. (I believe this is a commonly accepted generalization) Religion does not fit into rational thought, because in most religions we are asked to accept, or believe things that we cannot see, touch, or in any other way substantiate.
Off Topic (but needs to be addressed)
OtherMother: As the Mom of one by birth and one by adoption, I can assure you that bonding is different, but certainly not inferior when you don’t go through a childbirth experience. When I was only a mom-by-adoption, and and expecting-mom-by-birth, I wondered if I could ever love my birth child after she put me through the agony of pregnancy and labor like I loved by child of adoption (who didn’t put me through that physical fire). The answer - moms and dads bond - exactly how is inconsequential. The beliefs of certain people (and I’m not implying you, I don’t know you) that non-childbirth bonds are inferior (or that you must breastfeed or bond with your child within ten minutes of birth to get a proper bond) are offensive to Dads and adoptive parents - and from experience, simply untrue.
However, pregnancy and childbirth do make you loony!!! Its the hormones.
I will make the attempt to get you some hard numbers. The church I attend approaches 200 in attendance. That probably includes 50 children. But as a caveat, our church is a college-oriented church and spring break starts Friday … so I don’t know what I’ll come up with. I sent an request to my pastor WRT last Sunday’s attendance. I’ll let you know.
BTW, I don’t feel attacked. 
As to why agnostics may observe this phenomena: it may because of the types of churches that agnostics visit. I would guess that if you visit a church out of pure curiosity, you visit a typical “main-line” church (obviously, a lot less threatening than a church that bills itself as “Independent, Fundamental, etc”, for example). My observation is that in such churches, religion is a cultural phenomena. It may that since church is no longer the center of society, men can accomplish their networking needs on the golf course, for example, better than in the church. Women, it has been remarked, feel a stronger need to maintain cultural consistency.
The churches I attend (typically, independent of denominational affiliation) expect its attendees to make christianity a full-time commitment. I can’t say why this would attract numbers in even proportions. I suspect the answer is more in the previous paragraph: a mere cultural religion lacks immediacy. Maybe men lack the long view on cultural significance. shrug
Caveat: I recognize that the above are generalizations and don’t apply to every instance of any denomination, mainline or otherwise.
Tinker
My pastor sent methis link.
It basically corroborates the premise of the OP. This link doesn’t seem to distinguish between mainline and non-mainline churches, so my previous posts are neither de-bunked nor supported. Oh, well. If this thread is still alive in a couple of weeks, I’ll count at my church.
Tinker
Thanks to you and to your pastor for the good research work, Tinker.
Now for my theory on this phenomenon:
I think that the difference basically represents and evolutionary holdover from our more primitive past. Women bear children. During the later stages of pregnancy, and during the infancy of their children, they are in a vulnerable position, and in a primitive society, would be almost entirely dependent on their social group to provide them with sustenance and defense.
Therefore, it makes sense, intuitively, that women might have a genetic imperative to seek out the comfort and stability provided by a group, preferably one with a strong leader.
Men, on the other hand, might enjoy the comfort and security provided by such settings, but they would not feel the more urgent (if not conscious) need for it that women do (since men don’t have to deal with pregnancy).
Seems to me that religion provides both the social setting and the strong leadership (God) that women may instinctively seek out.
Of course, my speculations may be just so much pseudo-scientific hooey, but there has to be some explanation for the phenomenon.
Incidentally, for the female agnostics and atheists following this thread, and who are looking for a man, your humble correspondent is available! [Looking for a smiley that waggles its eyebrows suggestively…]
Missy2U wrote:
Ah, I know the type. Women who enjoy hanging out with guys and who feel more comfortable around men than around other women. I have known a lot of women like this and I love 'em. I guess because they tend to understand, better than most women, how we guys think.
Curious that Missy2U, C3, and Dangerosa all think this way and are all among the few female agnostics/atheists I have encountered. There seems to be a correlation. If my half-assed evolutionary analysis above is correct, maybe that means you have broken free of your primitive pasts and represent the next evolutionary step! 
Well, just to toss a few coals on the fire…
You could argue that religions arose partly as a way of controlling (or at least directing) antisocial impulses in people. Women’s reproductive capacity has often been seen as such an impulse. So it’s more important for churches to direct their efforts toward recruiting and keeping women adhering to their precepts than it is for them to keep men.
(Another female atheist here, BTW, but I like women just fine and I’m married.)
Could be … but I like hanging out with gals, usually feel more comfortable around other women, and haven’t a clue how guys think. OTOH, very few people know I’m an atheist (this may be the first time I’ve offered this information in almost 600 posts). I tend to keep my beliefs to myself IRL, too, unless I know there’s absolutely no chance of offending the people I’m with.
May I offer an alternate theory:
Some women are primarily female-socialized and some are male-socialized. Female-socialized women have been trained to avoid conflict and make others feel comfortable. They also expect that other people will remember what they say and judge them on it, so they’re careful about what impression they give. Male-socialized women (and Lord, I wish I were one of them) don’t mind arguments and don’t usually give a damn what people think. Therefore, a female-socialized atheist will keep her mouth shut about her beliefs (or even lie about them) where a male-socialized atheist would stand up and be counted.
(Aarrgh, what a load of jargon. But I have enough anecdotal evidence to suspect this is very often true.)
cher3 wrote:
By whom is women’s reproductive capacity seen as an anti-social impulse. Surely you wouldn’t argue that `The Patriarchy’ wants to keep women from getting pregnant. In fact, a common feminist view holds that women’s reproductive roles are used to control them. But you believe the converse, that controling women is used to keep them from reproducing?
OK, I’m going to confuse the hell out of all of you. I’m a woman, believing Catholic. I drive my (male) catechist nuts. (why I’m in catechism at this point is a subject for another post)
C3 said
Although I am interested in the emotional aspects of my faith, as all religious people should be, I tend to place more emphasis on the intelletual theology. My catechist, who is not terribly intellectual, gets on me a lot because of this. “I want it from your heart, not from your head,” he tells me. I envy him because he has waaaayyyyy more heart than I do. By the way, C3, I don’t think what you said is a big pack of overgeneralizations. I seem to be in the minority, here.
Yeah, me too.
Also, I’m another one of those “male socialized” women who generally gets along with men than with other women.
Will do, spoke. It shouldn’t be too hard, my church has a small congregation.
Now, Dangerosa…
I’m a great questioner of authority. I have submitted myself to the authority of the Catholic Church by CHOICE. I was baptized as in infant but not raised in the Church. Both parents were lapsed Catholics who didn’t believe in the church’s teachings, and never attended Mass. My mom’s into Eck, which is a whole 'nother thread. But again, I think statistics are on your side. Once again, I’m in the minority.
sqweels-
I would tend to agree with you in the case of married women who are being abused by their husbands. This is especially true in the case of a certain stripe of fundamentalist Protestants, who believe that a woman should be unconditionally submissive to her husband, even if she is being physically abused. The bitter irony is that the church the woman is going to as her source of strength demands that she subject herself to her husband’s abuse. BTW, in the Catholic Church, a woman can get ecclasiastical permission to separate from an abusive husband. Not so with the fundies.
Libertarian-
Neither would I. There a lot of politicians out there who don’t seem to have any particular religious or moral convictions who have found it expedient to play to the Religious Right. It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to think that a nonbeliever might place himself (or herself, for that matter) withing a religious organization with the thought that if he, at some point, were to run for office, by being perceived as a “good Christian” he would have a pretty good-sized ready-made voting bloc behind him. Not to mention the perks that being a religious leader comes with…
Johnny Angel-
I think you’re right on both counts.
I don’t play poker, mostly because I work in a casino, and don’t really care to gamble in my off time. I’ve cut way back on the dirty talk (I’m trying to eliminate it altogether). I do drink and smoke cigars. And I’m from Indiana.
I’m not going to go into the possible sociobiological reasons why women are generally more religiously inclined than the male of the species, this post is getting too long already. But I do think there is some validity to the biological arguments.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
Missy2u
Missy, you stated this well. I have to agree, will add that I am the same way. Especially on this subject!
BTW, religious people usually the very first to be judgemental, have you noticed?
Well, here’s one more female atheist, so maybe you’d better rethink the OP—are women indeed more religious? None of my female friends are, but I do know a number of religious guys.
(Just for the record, I get along equally well with men and women—I guess I’m bi-affectional)
Eve wrote:
Well, let me be more clear. I am not saying there are no female atheists. Obviously there are. I am only saying that they are far less common than male atheists. That is based upon my own observations, but the statistics in the link provided by Tinker Grey (above) seem to back that up.
Until I see some stats to the contrary, I am standing by my original proposition.
I think its a direct result of women being more romantic in general than men are. I mean romantic in the classical sense, not the more modern one which somehow just means candles and flowers.
Some women (and some men, but I believe fewer) hold lots of romantic beliefs about the world that are untrue, such as: their husband does not think about sex with other women, true love will last forever, people are basically good, god exists etc.
As far as why women more are romantic than men…I don’t know. I think many of the fairy tells fed to little girls are romantic in a different sort of way than those fed to little boys - perhaps this has something to do with it.
Ok, I checked. I didn’t actually count heads, but yes, there were a few more women than men at the liturgy Sunday. Not an overwhelming majority, but there it is. Here’s the kicker. There are far more unescorted women than men at the church. Whether single, or married but left the spouse at home, very few men without a woman with them, but a lot of women without a man. (Incidentally, my church seems to have a higher than average percentage of unattatched males, and there are still more women than men in attendence.)
Of course, my church is Byzantine Catholic, and there are some folks whose spouses think the Byzantine liturgy is a bit strange and go to Latin Rite churches, but I don’t think there’s enough of that to account for the difference.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
Caveat: Spring Break brought our numbers to only about 50. Next Sunday will be affected as well.
FTR: Men 40%, Women 60%.
Tinker
Caveat: Spring Break brought our numbers down to about 50. Next Sunday will be affected too.
FTR: Men - 40%, Women - 60%.
Tinker
agisofia and Tinker-
Thanks for doing the head counts. They seem to support my own admittedly anecdotal evidence.
I would also posit that if you polled women and men who do not attend church regularly, the women would be considerably more likely than the men to express a belief in a divine being. Again, this is based on my own observations.
Hmmm. If true, that might actually undercut my argument for a biological basis. A woman who simply believes in God without attending church doesn’t get the benefit of a the social network available to church goers.
Wish we had more empirical evidence to throw out for debate.