In terms of behavioral indicators of religiousness, 22% of women and 18% of men were deeply engaged in religious practices; — Emptyheady

That's a non-significant difference - 22% vs 18%.

Similar to the differences on the religious measures, women scored higher than men did on dimensions related to spirituality, spiritual quest, and self-rated spiritual/religious growth; — Emptyheady

Probably.

An outward extension of their inner spiritual sensitivities, women also tended to be more involved in charitable activities, concerned with social activism, and more likely than men to perceive themselves as compassionate individuals; — Emptyheady

Yes.

Why are women more spiritual than men? — Emptyheady

Because there are biological, physical and spiritual differences between the sexes. So women are generally more attuned to their bodies, more at peace with themselves, focused on compassion, love and care, whereas men are more competitive and conflictual and focused on the mind. But these are generalities, you can always find exceptions. Why it's like this? Because men and women have played different roles historically, and each has become adapted to play their specific role better than the other. Men will generally for example be physically stronger - they usually had to fight, to defend, to hunt. Women on the other hand will be emotionally attuned, focused on others' well-being and comfort, focused on conflict resolution and unity. Both are required, for example, in a successful family. If it's just the man, then the family is like a military, there is no love and compassion, or care between the members beyond mere utility. If it's just the woman then the family has no direction, no strength and no vigour.

But the modern day feminazis want to erase all the differences because somehow, the fact that women are attuned to deal better with a different set of matters than men, that to them means that women are oppressed and inferior (because despite what they profess to think, they really act as if women were inferior - as if, somehow, being able to deal with the situations they are able to deal somehow makes them "inferior").

But the modern day feminazis want to erase all the differences because somehow, the fact that women are attuned to deal better with a different set of matters than men, that to them means that women are oppressed and inferior (because despite what they profess to think, they really act as if women were inferior - as if, somehow, being able to deal with the situations they are able to deal somehow makes them "inferior"). — Agustino

I'm pretty sure that feminists are trying to combat the actual unfair treatment of women, not whatever the above is supposed to mean.

I'm pretty sure that feminists are trying to combat the actual unfair treatment of women, not whatever the above is supposed to mean. — Michael

Are you sure that you're not living 1-2 centuries ago? :D

Yeah, if there was a small difference among 3600 college students, that must reflect a general biological or gender-oriented difference.

That's a non-significant difference - 22% vs 18%. — Agustino

Click on the links, there are more and larger points.

more at peace with themselves — Agustino

Women 'more at peace with themselves'. lol.

The rest of your post is mostly accurate, I think. I get what you mean by "feminazis," although I call them lesbians.

Jokes aside.

I am not messing about, spirituality is a sincerely studied psychological phenomenon and often also chosen as a personalty trait. It varies among groups and it seems to be more dominant among women. It has some heritability (going by my memory of some readings).

An important phenomenon is perhaps that men live a riskier life (evolutionarily speaking) where they have greater chances of dying and have measurably lower life expectancies than women. Men tend to be also more autistic than women, which is almost synonymous with 'mind-blindness'. Women are perhaps more socially aware (of other minds/beings/agents) and this is being expressed in spiritual activities. This is my short take on it.

I have read the guardian comments, but none of them are explanation, instead they just push back the explanation by one step. You can continue the question of "why" that is the case. I am essentially looking for an evolutionary basis for this phenomenon.

Women 'more at peace with themselves'. lol. — Emptyheady

That so called insecurity is merely a trick they use to get attention.

I will look at the links soon, I'm a bit busy atm.

It seems to me that in the Western religious tradition, by which I mean the Abrahamic tradition (Christian and Muslim) women are either the vessels or tools of Satan or--very rarely but more in certain times than others--saints or nearly godly themselves, e.g. Mary. I wonder if the idea that they are more spiritual has its basis in what often seems to be our weirdly excessive regard or disregard of them.

But I like to view women as angels, that's why I hate those who aren't ;)

But I like to view women as angels, that's why I hate those who aren't ;) — Agustino

As Professor Loretta Lynn notes,

It wasn't god who made honky tonk angels
As you wrote in the words of you're song
Too many times married men think they're still single
That has caused many good girls to go wrong.

It's a shame that all the blame is on us women
It's not true that only you men feel the same
From the start most every heart that's ever been broken
Was because there always was a man to blame.

What's happened, did you get triggered? >:O

It wasn't god who made honky tonk angels
As you wrote in the words of you're song
Too many times married men think they're still single
That has caused many good girls to go wrong.

It's a shame that all the blame is on us women
It's not true that only you men feel the same
From the start most every heart that's ever been broken
Was because there always was a man to blame. — Bitter Crank

Is this Professor a feminazi? :P The curious thing BC, is that women actually treat us men like beasts of the field who can't control themselves - at least that's the attitude I've encountered. So if a man were to cheat, very often the woman won't be as mad at the man (unless he persists in it, or when confronted refuses to do anything about it) but she will be fucking mad at the other woman, and will go after her >:O This underlies the common thought (which is I have to admit, for many men) quite often true: men are often unable to control their sexual impulses and can be very easily seduced. But for us men, if our wife or girlfriend cheats - then we don't go after the other guy, we have a problem with her as well - because we assume, just like she would assume about the woman we cheated with, that she seduced the guy, who just couldn't control himself. So it's interesting - by receiving the blame, women are actually playing a game in which they are superior, they are the ones who can control themselves, unlike men who are weak and fall for every little bit of skin they can see.

Oh no, disaster! How does nonexistance feel like? Is it lonely, do you want to be born again? >:O

Since we are an evolved species like all other species and not one created by divine fiat, I suppose one can imagine an evolutionary basis for just about everything. There being an evolutionary basis, and we being able to precisely identify it, does not necessarily go together.

Could it be that women are "more religiously [or spiritually] oriented because it fits their material/maternal circumstances?

Women specialized in weaving early on because it was compatible with their reproductive role of bearing and raising children. Chopping, digging, hunting, hauling, butchering, and so on (male tasks) were much more dangerous to children than weaving, and a woman would have difficulty looking after children and cutting down trees at the same time.

Moving up to more recent times, perhaps possible could be women got interested in religion more than men because it was available for exploitation for their wants and needs. In other words, maybe it's not an inherent interest. Maybe it's constructed by circumstances. Why are so many gay men hairdressers (if that is even the case)? Because gay men are inherently interested in women's hair? No, because it was a niche that could be safely occupied.

When computerization became a major thing (back in the 60s-70s) a lot of gay men seemed to have gone into that area--not because gay men are inherently digitally oriented, but because a) they're guys and b) data processing was a niche that could be safely occupied. I've met more gay computer guys than gay hair guys.

In any case, men dominated the field of religion (as "men are naturally wont to do". Here, Miss, let us manage the church -- keep praying, just stay out of the important meetings. And don't get any big ideas either.

I feel strangely more authentic and whole than being in the humanities, hummmmm.

>:O It's not the humanities as such - only postmodernism that annoys you ;)

I've never understood how a phaser blast (to the chest, in this case) can propagate throughout the body, causing disintegration. You would think the target would just collapse with a charred hole in the thoracic cavity.

Do you understand the physics of this?

Stay out of the humanities, for sure. They are currently a swamp infested by malevolent spirits of female nonsensicalness. (Not that every English major of ages past was a hard-headed realist.)

Could it be that women are "more religiously [or spiritually] oriented because it fits their material/maternal circumstances? — Bitter Crank

I agree entirely to this.

In any case, men dominated the field of religion (as "men are naturally wont to do". Here, Miss, let us manage the church -- keep praying, just stay out of the important meetings. And don't get any big ideas either. — Bitter Crank

I disagree that men were superior to women through history. Now that's just revisionism and it's just false. You say that, and it kinda assumes that men kept women by design in those positions. That men were in charge, and they allocated the woman the position they should have, and they allocated themselves the position they should have. But this is precisely false. The positions were allocated by the biological and natural differences that exist between the sexes in combination with the material circumstances.

You are culturally oppressing me with your opinion, please refrain, sir.

You are culturally oppressing me with your opinion, please refrain, sir. — Heister Eggcart

If I go have a sex change, can I not refrain then? Will I be permitted and indulged? ;)

Absolutely, because then you'll be sterile.

Absolutely, because then you'll be sterile. — Heister Eggcart

Okay Hitler >:O

Who says I'm forcing you, though? You forget, Agustino, that I still believe in the powar of luv, brah.

Mostly women attend the meditation and prayer service at the building I upkeep.

There were a lot more women than men in the Holy Hell cult, if I recall.

Isn't football a religious/spiritual activity though?

Humans and their dumb intellectual classifications.

Who says I'm forcing you, though? You forget, Agustino, that I still believe in the powar of luv, brah. — Heister Eggcart

Okay bruv, you'll fuck me till I love you I get it man

Spirituality is an intrinsically inward understanding, so the idea that we can figure out which sex or gender is more spiritual based on the perception of who looks to be more spiritual is pretty stupid.

Have you even met a black person before, Agu?

Have you even met a black person before, Agu? — Heister Eggcart

Oh yes, I even have many black friends/acquaintances. You forget I've lived and worked in the West for quite some time.

Being an immigrant isn't very conservative, Agu.

Yeah I was thinking about it. I'm an immigrant and I'm supporting the folks who want to kick my ass out - at least I'm doing something original.

And what's with this Agu?? Do you think I'm like this guy: