RSS

Presentation: Gender, Sexuality and Faith

11 May

These are the slides for a presentation I did today.

A summary of the basic points of the article.

Observation:

Heterosexual Males and Homosexual Females are prone to risky behaviour

Homosexual Males and Heterosexual Females are prone to risk avoidance

Homosexual Males and Heterosexual Females are prone to religious behaviour

Heterosexual Males and Homosexual Females are prone to church avoidance

Premise:

Rejection of an angry, vengeful God = high risk behaviour

Rejection of an indifferent God = risk neutral

Conclusion:

Heterosexual men and homosexual women are more likely to leave the church and reject the Christian God than homosexual men and heterosexual women because of their gender/sexual attraction to risk taking.

The perfect man.

Some foundational problems with the study.

Problems:

1. A meta-analysis of 150 studies in risk taking behaviour shows no correlation between gender and risk taking (Byrnes 1999, p78). So while men may be more prone to certain kinds of risk taking, the overall difference in risk taking is not significant.

2. This study compares only two religions in its American population study. So it is not really a comparison of risk differences but Christian and Jewish doctrinal/social differences. Assuming that denying Allah could also be considered risky behaviour, one would expect similarly high ratio of female Muslims, this is not the case however. Only 38-39% of Muslims in America are female (Robinson 2009, np).  Perhaps the issue is more complex than mere risk avoidance.

3.The people sampled were not asked if their believed that God exists. That would seem to be an important question to ask when deciding if their behaviour is risk based.

4. The groups that tended to avoid church also tended not to believe in an afterlife. So where is the risk in not going to church? Playing soccer on the highway is perfectly safe if there is no such thing as cars, trucks and busses.

I propose we need a new theory…

Because all truth is Jamin's truth.

In a case of two equally unfounded theories, the prize goes to the one with the prettiest diagrams.

Jamin’s Ultimate Theory of Masculine/Feminine Faith Disparity

1)Genderality is a continuum between purely masculine and purely feminine. Men tend to gather around the telly on one end and women tend to gossip in the kitchen at the other, but there are no guarantees. Sexuality tends to fall somewhere on that continuum too, often nearby one’s genderality but that’s really more of a guideline than a rule.

2)There are a number of masculine and feminine traits which will be expressed in a person depending on where they fit on the spectrum.

3)All conscious beings are also on a developmental moral continuum, somewhere between Egocentric, Ethnocentric and Worldcentric. The gendered traits find expression through whatever developmental stage we happen to be on.

4)There are several masculine traits which, when expressed at certain levels, could easily cause a person to feel that church simply isn’t the right place for them to be. Likewise, there are several feminine traits which, when expressed at certain levels, will cause a feminine person to feel that their church is exactly where they need to be.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 11, 2010 in Practical, Religious

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: