Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I know of families where it's the reverse, but I think that your observation
is valid.  My guess would be that the church gives the wife a social outlet
and a feeling of importance, whereas the man typically has his "real" job
(as perceived by most of society) to which he can devote his energies.

The man's "traditional" role as "leader of the family" is mainly as a
figurehead - the woman typically runs the household and directs family life.

					Steve

    In the early stages of the Protestant movement, particularly in
    the case of the Methodists, women joined the dissenters in large
    numbers, far more than men. One reason for this was that some of
    the leaders (such as Wesley) preached that one had to become
    more spiritual and less physical. This gave women a 'God ordained
    reason' to avoid marital relations and the danger of death in
    childbirth. The meetings also provided an acceptable social outlet
    that up until then had been pretty much confined to men, i.e. a
    chance to gather in groups and talk and socialize.
    
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the preponderance of women in
    some protestant churches may well have been a feature of the
    denomination from the very beginning. 
    
    Bonnie

    Funky, funky note-way, Rather Divine. I like your p-name.
    
    I agree with the previous. I would add that women tend to be more
    religious, I think, because in our traditionally sexist society
    women's welfare was long subject to the follies of the men in their lives;
    women were kept powerless, and prayer, and mutual commiseration were 
    probably all they had.
    
    I'm getting interested in religion, personally, through reading Joseph
    Campbell, and readings in psychology, and am tending toward the belief
    that religion, mythology, and psychology are really the same thing;
    that religion/mythology are simply internal pyschological states
    projected outwards. That's my view, anyway.
    
    And, it's fun to contemplate the unknown and unknowable, and make
    guesses about it.
    
    -roger
    

    Whoops! Ray deleted his note!
    
    Where it be?
    
    
    

Probably it's because women are more spiritual.   I'm not sure
what this means, but in my life I have known more women who
received something from religion, and it wasn't just socialization.

Perhaps it's because women have souls and men don't ??

Perhaps it's because god is a woman ??

Perhaps it's because more women like to sing in the choir ??

Perhaps it's because more women are concerned with children's
education, and religous education is important also.

>    Whoops! Ray deleted his note!
>    
>    Where it be?
    
    I'll put the little suckah back in. I just got to thinking about all
    the evangelist guys I've known and got the feeling I wasn't saying
    everything I might on the subject.
    
    But I'll probably get over it.
    
    Ray

    I agree, Bubba and Bonnie.  With most all Christian sects I know of
    (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist,...), the majority of the energetically
    faithful tend to be women, even though the church leaders are men. 
    I've read that TV evangelists get most of their money from low-income
    women.
    
    In fact, various male iconoclasts through the centuries have fed their
    misogyny by equating "Woman" and "Church" (generally with "Mother"
    standing in for an equals sign).
    
    As for why this should be, particularly when it seems so
    self-destructive... From my atheistical standpoint, it seems that there
    has traditionally been little acceptable outlet for feminine energy or
    socializing other than church work. People need to do SOMETHING
    important with their lives; threats of pariahhood and pregnancy and a
    host of other Scary Things directed more women than men into
    "spiritual" and "family" values.  And of course there's a lot of
    social/emotional inertia once that trend is established.
    
    There's also the theory that women are inherently more spiritual, but I
    think that's a lot of hooey.  (Apologies to VSSCAD::MCCLURE; I've
    known too many men who received something from religion.)
    
    My blessing on you and yours,
    Rather Divine

    Although we've kept to the question as posed in the base topic, we've
    been talking about women more than the title would indicate.
    
    Anyone got any thoughts on MEN and religion?  I have real problems with
    Robert Bly, but I think Thomas Aquinas was way cool.  Why is it that
    some men DO get more involved in religion? 
    
    The born-again patriarch seems like a pretty clear case of wanting the
    infallibility power trip, but in that case why are most men are content
    with the "she dragged me here" bit?  Is it distaste for losing the
    pretense of self-sufficiency?
    
    It's not like I haven't known religious men (I had two "boy preachers"
    in my high school class and a host of born-agains as friends and
    acquaintances), but it certainly seems uncommon for the man in a het
    couple to be the more religious one.  Perhaps religious men tend to
    have stricter requirements when shopping for a wife and are less likely
    to attempt reformation of the prodigal?
    
    Ray

    My ex-mother-in-law once yelled at me for not "making" my ex-husband go
    to Mass.  This riled me no end since I coudn't understand why she
    thought *I*, who had been raised in a Protestant home, would send her
    son to Catholic Mass every week!!  (Poor, confused woman.)  I told her,
    "I got married for companionship, not to boss somebody around!"  She
    just didn't get it.  As it was, both my ex and I considered ourselves
    to be agnostics and neither of us has ever wanted anything to do with
    organized religion.  If a lot women are religious, it beats me as to
    why.
    
    Lorna
    

    I grew up in Irish Catholic neighborhoods in the Boston of the 40s, 50s
    (born in '38) and that may have an impact on my thinking.
    
    I saw women as being the primary 'perpetuators of the faith'. I now
    assume that had to do with protecting the family, protecting the home,
    protecting values... 
    
    The men were pretty primitive people in the neighborhoods I lived in.
    
    				herb

    In South America, by and large, only older people go to church. Most
    people don't avail themselves of the church as a social milieu as they
    do here. And among the older people I would say it's 90 % women.
    
    The only times (in general) when young adults go to church are: during
    Christmas, for a baptism, to get married and for funerals.
    
    Sunday school doesn't exist, Singles Meetings don't exist, Bible study
    groups don't exist.

    
    re men having souls
    
    not that I've seen. those i've seen that do are priests or
    religiomanic prostletysers..
    

A timely/interesting topic this note on "Men and religion"...

While having a somewhat eclectic knowledge base, I find myself most ignorant 
about religion and its different aspects and looking back it seems I purposely
tried to stay ignorant!  As a child I remember going to church on Sunday and 
raising hell with the rest of my church school classmates during the service.  I
looked forward to when the collection plate came around for I knew I would have
a maximum of 15 minutes until I would be out of there.  Both my older sister 
and brother were "confirmed" (Episcopal Church) but when it was my turn I chose
NOT to go through with it (my mother was very supportive of my choice - it was
my father who had been the "religious driving force" in our family and when he
passed away so went the momentum).  It looked as though I would be a heathen in
life but surprisingly my Mathematics education got me thinking about God once
again.  I started to look at the Eastern religions to find out what Truth they
had to offer, etc.  Although married in the Episcopal Church we never attended 
or felt the need to be members of a Church...  Sunday mornings were spent in bed
with the paper.  Thoughts of God continued to evolve but we just weren't into
formal religion.  

I think there comes time during one's personal evolution when you become 
completely satisfied with your concept of God (Faith?).  I don't know when/if
this happened to me.  Perhaps witnessing the birth of my two sons had something
to do with it...  I don't fear God and it really doesn't matter to me what
anyone else thinks of God...

Last fall my wife and I discussed making the commitment about going to church.
We contacted the Reverend and went down to have a talk with him.  Seemed like a
nice guy.  My family now goes to church Sunday mornings.  My wife and I really 
enjoy going...  

Last Sunday's sermon by Reverend David W. Robinson of Grace Episcopal Church 
really hit home...  Here is an excerpt:

"If I knew for certain what to say about fatherhood, this sermon would be on 
that.  The major debates in the mainline churches these days seem to be focused
on issues of feminist theology, and the theologians are busy writing in ways
that attempt to redress all of the real and some of the supposed abuses of a
Bible that has come to us from a patriarchal and male-dominated outlook.
Nevertheless, there is something to be said about the importance of the role of
fathers in a family, and we will not be better human beings when and if we
eliminate references to God as Our Father.

I think one of the major unglamorous issues in our society is the numbers of
children who are growing up without fathers.  The number of women left to raise
children without husbands is no improvement in the position of women.  In fact
a major problem of our culture may be that men are at fault, and they may be at
fault because in part the role of fatherhood has been devalued.

As a male, it seems to me the role of motherhood is nearly universally and
naturally understood.  It is supported by culture, by law, by religion and by
the common inner knowledge the each of us has a mother.  Fatherhood is a little
different.

I am not speaking in favor of a return to the attitude that men are kings and
women are their property.  Nor am I blind to the dominance and sometimes abusive
dominance of men in business, professions and politics.  My concern, however, is
what I believe is a major absence and abdication by men of their important role
in too many families.

The solution to the family problems of the world, is not to refuse to speak of
fatherhood, but rather to emphasize the importance and nobility of the 
responsibility and privilege of fathers."

    Perhaps like the Waltons, he didn't believe in the logic of religion. 
    Perhaps he even dismissed it as sort of silly, but he loved her and
    rather than argue about it, he played church with her.

    Perhaps religion plays more of a role on women and their emotions.  I
    read an interesting article once about how emotional and insecure
    people, as well as uneducated people, tend to be prime candidates for
    religion.  Take it a bit further... like in the deep south, where
    ignorant people practice snake handling.  Not much smarts there, eh?
    Out of fear, people grasp for a god, and choose the god and religion
    that best suits their likes.  There are so many different kind, that
    its like going to the supermarket.  But thats another topic.

    Re. .14
    Interesting letter. So the study of Math got you back into God? I went
    all the way to Calculus of Variations and Optimization Theory without
    getting pangs of mysticism. Where did you get the connection?
    
    The sermon you quoted was very valuable, although I noted some
    PC-driven B.S. in it too. Women are by and large not being "left to
    raise children without husbands"... They are doing the leaving.
    Statistics will tell you that the number of women filing for divorce is
    several times greater than the number of men who file. Most of the
    cases I know personally involve unrealistic expectations on the part of
    the women.
    
    Also it is not the fault of men that the role of fatherhood has been
    devalued. The feminist press and other media have been insulting men
    for the last twenty years, what do you expect ? It was probably
    accurate criticism at times but I am sure that the main reason was that
    it sold to a very large audience.
    
    The so called "abdication" of the role of men in the families is
    another unfair charge by your reverend. In many cases it is caused by
    the incredible power that the mother, the custodial parent, wields over
    the "visiting" parent. Abuses in this area are not hampered by any law
    that I know about.

    Hey, there's plenty of blame to go around for "the decline and fall of
    the family," which has been bemoaned for generations now but still
    seems to be hanging in there. There have been men who, for one reason
    or another, *did* abdicate their fatherhood roles to spend more time on
    their careers; many of them may have done it because of pressure from
    their wives to earn more, but many may also have done it because it was
    easier, or more exciting, or any combination of things. And it wasn't
    the feminist press that made "getting to the top" and "climbing the
    executive ladder" seem like admirable goals (for men, that is; some of
    it does try to make 'em admirable goals for women, which I consider
    something of a step backwards...). To give a brief nod to the topic, I
    wouldn't be surprised to find that "being a success" took the place of
    religion for many people; at least, lots of them seem to act as if
    that's their only hope of heaven...
    
    I've never seen much use in trying to apportion blame in this way,
    though. It never maps directly to individual cases, and any "solution"
    that is aimed at one perceived problem will fail to address - and may
    exacerbate - others.
    
    As for men and religion, my experience is generally positive; most of
    the ministers I knew were good people who wanted to improve their
    congregation's lives, and were generally good-humored about their own
    and others' failings. And my father, who became a born-again/
    charismatic/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it Christian some twenty years
    ago, is a fine example of the best of such beliefs (my opinion, but
    I'll stand by it): his capacity to love, to give, and to forgive, have
    increased markedly, and he hasn't lost any of his sense of humor or his
    appreciation of and interest in things scientific or historical. I've
    never gotten the feeling that his faith cost him any of the good things
    in this life, and while I'm not at a point where I'm ready to accept it
    myself (I was once, but backslid...), I have complete admiration and
    respect for his beliefs.
    
    Televangelists, now, are something else. Whatever religion most of 'em
    follow, I think it has more to do with The Sainted Dollar than with
    the faith they profess...
    
    -b

               <<< Note 717.15 by IMTDEV::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>


    Perhaps religion plays more of a role on women and their emotions.  I
    read an interesting article once about how emotional and insecure
    people, as well as uneducated people, tend to be prime candidates for
    religion.  Take it a bit further... like in the deep south, where
    ignorant people practice snake handling.  Not much smarts there, eh?
==========================================================================

    Couple of comments here.....

    I think both men and women attend and enjoy church for a variety of 
reasons; stability in their lives in an uncertain world, traditional family 
values, social appearances, and a host of other reasons. Not all of them 
bad or self serving, the reasons are important to themselves.

    I believe the % of woman to men in the Methodist Church a few years ago 
was 53% women membership, not a big number spread. Both my wife and I 
attend regularly, hold various positions there, and enjoy it for a varieity 
of reasons. Neither of us, not most of the church going people I know, are 
candidates for your description above. I think 100 people could look at any 
church congregation and come away with nearly as many opinions of who 
attends and who does not and where they fit in your range of educated, 
insecure, etc.

    As far as snake handling, I highly recommend the book Foxfire 7(?). It 
deals with religion in the hills of appalachia and hasa long section on 
snake handling. To keep it short, they handle snakes because one obscure 
reference in the Bible (Matthew, I think, but I couldn't find it just now) 
has Jesus telling his disciples they could handle poisonous serpents and 
would not be harmed if they believed in Him. The students who wrote the 
section attended several services where snakes were handled and no one was 
bitten. The church leaders told them they had handled snakes for years and 
could only remember one bite and that was when two people had a 
disagreement before the service. The snakes are not brought out until the 
service has reached a rather fever pitch of singing and prayer and praise. 
They are easily handled by everyone who wishes to handle them, but are 
forced on no one. Definately NOT MY CUP OF TEA, but they do it for 
affirming their religeous beliefs, not for show or for some public display 
of spirituality. In fact, the students had to wait for the congregation to 
invite them to visit, otherwise they couldn't have attended.

    The people in these churches are not rocket scientists, but they are 
honest people who work hard for a living and are not ignorant. They have a 
different knowledge base than we do and get by living a difficult life in a 
hard area as farmers, miners, and other country jobs. I know many people 
in the Appalachians and regret your choice of words to describe them. 

    Vic H

RE:  Note 717.18  SENIOR::HAMBURGER 

>As far as snake handling, I highly recommend the book Foxfire 7(?).

Thanks, but I'm not that interested.  I did happen see a documentary on the
subject.

>To keep it short, they handle snakes because one obscure  reference in the
>Bible (Matthew, I think, but I couldn't find it just now)  has Jesus telling
>his disciples they could handle poisonous serpents and  would not be harmed if
>they believed in Him. 

And some people read "an eye for an eye" and kill those that they feel wronged
them.  Don't know the exact quote, but you get the point.

>The students who wrote the  section attended several services where snakes were
>handled and no one was  bitten. 

The documentary I saw showed several people getting bitten.  What type of
person would tell another that he doesn't believe in God because a snake bit
him?  Why do I think of Jim Jones when I think of the snake handlers?  He
wasn't so different.  "Sleep with me and God will purify your soul."

>The snakes are not brought out until the  service has reached a rather fever
>pitch of singing and prayer and praise. 

Of course not.  Get these pitiful souls worked up first, then bring out the
snakes.  Its showtime!  From the show I saw... many people feared the snakes,
but would handle them as they felt pressured to show their "faith."  As for not
all snakes biting... handled enough, the snakes get used to it... but still... 
bites occur.

>I know many people  in the Appalachians and regret your choice of words to
>describe them. 

Okay.  Let me put in like this... the show that I saw, revealed that the people
had little to no education.  A fact.  Many weren't far from being like the
hills people in the movie, "Deliverance".

        Generally the involvement of men with religion is affected by two
        factors.  The status of religion in society and the status of men
        in society.    In  societies  were the status of religion is high
        more men are  involved.  In a society were the status of religion
        is lower than there are fewer men involved. 
        
        If you look in Moslem countries where the law of the land is the
        Koran you will see that any man who is or hopes to be someone of
        influence is involved in  religion.    He will pray 5 times a day
        and be at Mosque at the right times. His knowledge of the Koran
        will be high and he will study it regularly. In much of the US
        the status of religion is not very high. Though if you look at
        parts of the country where  religion  has  more  status,  the  so
        called  Bible  Belt,  you  will find  a  higher  degree  of  male
        participation.
        
        In  some  religions  there  is a seperation  between  public  and
        private worship. There you will see the men taking the higher 
        visability  public  worship  while  women  will  handle the  more
        private worship in the home. Note that sometimes the day to day
        private worship is concidered more important religiously but
        men do seem to go after form and publicity more than substance
        and quiet. Why I'm not sure.

        One other factor is that where men have a higher status than
        woman and religion has lower status men will often delegate
        the religious stuff to women. On the other hand there were
        early societies where religion was of high importance and women
        were delegated the "making of a living" so that men could
        spend their time on religious stuff.

        In my family growing up religion was concidered very important.
        It still is. Also the status of woman was always concidered to
        be as high as that of men. So the involvement of men and woman
        was and is pretty equal. Both my father and step mother are
        ordained clergy for example. Both my wife and I have had some
        leadership roles in churches at various times as well. This is
        the case throuhout my family.
        
                        Alfred
               
        
                

I agree with the previous notes that talked about men being less religious
because they have less need to control a group of people (because they
generally are in the job world).  I think this is the biggest contributor.


One thing that has not been brought up in this string...

There are several books out now about mathematical illiteracy and its 
relationship to religious belief.  The theory goes something like...
without a good grasp of statistics and other mathematical applications,
people are more inclined to believe in the supernatural.

How many times have you heard someone say, "I prayed for X and X happened.
It's a miracle from God" and thought to yourself well, it was probably a 
coincidence, really.

Learning about sine waves make sound less of a mystery, trying to comprehend
the scale of the universe makes it easier to accept that there are some
things that just can't be explained yet, due to our insignificance.
Therefore, less need for a "God" to explain things we dont understand.

That said....

Since men are more generally more educated mathematically, this would 
lead to a lower percentage of them being religious.

RE: Religion and its impact on men and the family

I think one of Christianity's bad effects on the family is that it forces 
the "patriarch" model, usually interpreted to mean the husband cannot be
the homemaker, with the wife the breadwinner.  Even if this would be better
for the family.


Roseanne   

    re .21, that business about math and religion isn't always true because
    I've never had a good grasp of mathematical applications, and I'm not
    the least bit religious.  Just because I can't understand the reason
    for something doesn't mean I attribute it to God or some kind of magic. 
    It just means I don't understand it.  (Or, I may attribute some things
    to coincidence.  That I could compare to Math since I always felt that
    it was a coincidence whenever I had a correct answer.)
    
    Lorna
      
    
    

    rea .22, et al.
    
    I read somewhere (Heinlein?) that "magic" is a function of perspective.
    The fact that something can be understood does not, in itself,
    demonstrate that there is no God.  By definition, a God would be the
    supreme mathematician, scientist, economist, sociologist, etc.  
    
    To my mind, the purpose of religion is to provide a way to deal with
    the unknown _until_ one can understand.  Of course, it helps if there
    weren't a lot of folks promoting one brand of religion or another, in a
    manner supportive of the notion that they have control over the
    "magic."
    
    The previous paragraph shouldn't be taken to mean i don't believe that
    individuals can "tap into" the same sources of eternal power that the
    Creator(s) may have used to organize this part of the universe. 
    Rather, i object to the idea that certain individuals have an exclusive
    access to such, which the rest of us cannot aspire to.  
    
    Forgive me if i seem to wander, in attempting to address several
    issues.  I'm just trying to give examples to support my contention that
    neither an affinity for one of the scientific disciplines, nor a lack
    of such, has any real bearing on whether or not one can accept the
    existence of a deity as a viable notion.  
    
    In my own case, i don't believe in magic, and i don't think The Creator
    does, either.
    [dale]