It’s a numbers game. In the US there is a 5:1 ratio of male atheists to female atheists. That ratio is not as skewed when you compare the ratio of “not religious” men and women, 1.4:1.
In Australia the gender ratio is close to 1:1 and the ratio of “not religious” is similar for both genders, so gender itself is probably not the cause of the disparity in the US (other first world countries vary from 1.5-2:1). The reasons you gave above might be relevant to cultural expectations of gender within the US and not so much in Australia.
Would they want to watch a movie with such overt religious messages?
The secular humanist club at my school got together at the campus bar, drank Guinness and played chess. My theism notwithstanding, that sounds like a chill way to spend a Thursday night in my books!
I like that link, thanks for posting it. Following up on what you said in your post, it does look like maybe there’s a correlation between overall theism in a country and the gender difference. It’s not perfect, of course. According to this data, for example Ethiopia has a small percent of total population atheist and a small gender variation.
My impression was that women were more likely to be religious and do things like encourage family church attendance despite male indifference (see “The Simpsons” – I’m sure there’s a lot of other shows that have the same trope but I’m not thinking of any right now). Looks like that’s only true some places.
Some of the previous posts chalk it all up to social considerations-- wouldn’t those considerations be present in countries with a smaller gender variation, like say, Australia? Seems like a simplistic conclusion to me.
That was the thesis of the article, that countries with lower levels of religiousness had less disparity by gender; however, as you said, there is quite a bit of noise in the data.
I’ve seen similar variations between countries for things like gender disparity in math skills, where in some countries females actually test as well or even better than males, yet in the US there is a significant gap. So I wasn’t surprised that there were differences between Australia and other first world countries and the US here. Religion itself is a social consideration or a cultural affect, so I don’t think you can dismiss that as a factor.
I doubt it. I think there is likely to be a critical mass issue.
Say the social negatives for a particular activity or mindset are in particular, firstly, lack of social acceptability and, secondly, lack of sufficient other people engaged in that activity or mindset to provide a sufficient level of social interaction.
When only a very small percentage of a population identify with an activity or mindset, these social negatives arise. However, the percentage only has to reach a certain (less than complete) level before the negatives massively recede. It’s not a linear thing.
An activity practiced by say 1% might be widely viewed as weird, but it might only take say 10-20% involvement before it becomes viewed as normal, if not mainstream. Similarly, if it is positively rare to meet anyone who shares your worldview that might severely limit your social interaction. But as long as you can find (say) 10 or 20 people who share your mindset, it might not bother you at all that the other 80 or 90 people in your life do not share your mindset.
Or to put it in short, it may be that in Australia atheism has reached sufficient critical mass as to be essentially 100% socially acceptable, while in the US it hasn’t.
Based on personal experience I’d say that is not only possible but true.
Yeah, you’re right. I mean, I’m sure some are. I was just thinking that if people often leave religion in young adulthood, you may have a significant number of women only becoming atheists shortly before or during childbearing years, when the additional responsibilities then make it harder to gather with other nonbelievers. Not really base on evidence, just speculation based on general trends.
I do agree about young women probably being skeeved by the atmosphere at the average meeting. And not only does it only take one or two skeevy guys to drive women away, I think it’s a lot more threatening and alienating to have one skeevy guy hit on you in a room where you’re the only woman, versus having a group of women there. So that’s another way that critical mass makes a difference. Once lots of women go to meetings, lots of women will be comfortable at meetings. Bit of a bootstrapping problem.
Though there may not be much to appeal to women in that scenario. Some, sure, but proportionally, women are less likely to play chess, drink Guinness or hang in a campus bar.
If I start an atheism group (not likely, I’m a Deist, but still), and my idea of a meeting was tea and chocolate goodies over movies starring Hugh Grant and activities that involved yarn, I bet we can skew the gender numbers for the meetings. We might, with a big enough movement, even start to move the numbers of women who self identify over time.
That doesn’t solve the identification gap, but there is a lot of baggage in the U.S. in identifying as atheist. Women don’t choose that baggage, but - by Implict’s link, they seem pretty content to label themselves as “non-religious.”
Right. At the time the “atheist” label in US culture carries with it antagonistic connotations that many women (and a good number of men as well) do not feel like embracing.
On the first point: yeah, as a woman you have to be careful in general. If you’re nerdy/skeptical/and so on, there are gonna be way more men than women and that’s cause for concern. As much as I prefer male friends, men in groups are different and elements of machismo (10x funnier/sadder among the nerdy set) come out.
On the second point, I find few female skeptical friends were ever alone in their beliefs; they’ve always surrounded themselves with people who aren’t into religion nor defend the belief system they grew up in. Similarly, we’d never dismiss cultural beliefs or practices.
I’m amazed that there even are such things as atheist groups. What possible function do they serve? What do you do there? Discuss all the various gods in which you lack belief? Sounds boring, in addition to being a sausagefest.
An example pulled at random: “Meet other local freethinkers to socialize and discuss philosophy, politics, ethics, current events and anything else that interests you.” (http://www.meetup.com/atheists-463/)
It’s kinda difficult to have philosophical discussions with the theists whose response is goddidit, so the opportunity to hash out those topics with other atheists would be appealing. It would also be an opportunity to socialize with other atheists who are few and far between. Seeking other people who share your values is pretty boring, indeed.
Yeah, I have a hard time figuring out why anybody would want to go to atheist gatherings other than as an alternative to a Christmas party or whatever. I wouldn’t be interested in a “not a cook” or “not a Republican” meeting unless people were planning a protest to a restrictive policy or something.
Edited: To Implicit, maybe it’s because I’m not very interested in talking about philosophy.
Do you define ‘athiest’ as someone without religion or belief in God, or do you define ‘athiest’ as someone who is aggressive and vocal about their unbelief?
Because I suspect the gender divide is pretty close for the first group, but the second group is way skewed male (like almost any category that includes ‘aggressive’ in the description).
Or, to put it shorter: Plenty of women don’t believe in God, they just don’t act like a dick about it.
I know more theists than I do atheists, and “God did it” is their answer to surprisingly few questions. YMM, of course, V but I have to go along with the idea that absent protest of a restrictive policy or similar, I don’t see a motivation to attend a group where the main thing we share is that we are not something.
If you’re an atheist in a place like Texas, you might be concerned about all the nonsense laws the Christians try to pass. And if you’re an atheist in the military, you might be concerned about the prevalence of evangelical Christians in the upper ranks.
We’d LIKE to leave religion alone, but it won’t leave us alone.
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Quakers, Mennonites, Unitarians and many Catholics (among others) would share your concerns on these issues. What would be gained by excluding them, if your reason for gathering is to work towards change?
Some of them, specifically the Catholics, want to impose their own religious values in secular law.
It’s also incredibly refreshing to be able to discuss what a complete and utter shithead some prominent religious leaders are. And even some prominent atheists. The thing is, I’m always uneasy criticizing atheists in front of believers.
