I find it interesting that more women than men consider religion important to them, when religion is partially to blame for them being marginalized in society.
On the whole, I just look at those figures and feel a deep amount of shame for my country (US). We'll catch up, but I think part of the reason for these figures is that the US is relatively rural.
I am consistently amazed by the profound contempt which modern liberalism holds for the traditional role of the wife and mother. In traditional societies, motherhood is not looked down upon or held in contempt, but mothers are honored. As the managers of families and the people that consistently invest the most in the next generation, they are the backbone of society. Every successful person today owes his success to a chain of hundreds of successful mothers, stretching back into pre-history.
It is only as our planning horizon has shrunk from a thousand years to six months that we begin to look on motherhood as a form of slavery. Females are told that they must do anything but a traditional female role to have value in society. We cajole women to act like men. In a way, liberalism is ironically misogynist.
It is little surprise then that Western liberals no longer breed above replacement rates. Denigrating motherhood is not the way for a people to last the aeons of time. I believe the future of the West is profoundly more conservative than the present, because Darwin. Liberalism is a suicidal ideology.
It sometimes can be obvious, the small flock of little old ladies attending Wednesday evening mass for example.
If you can manage, check out the crowd shots in a modern televangelist audience. Lots of men, but many many more women: sometimes a shot will show 1 or 2 men, and 8-12 women.
I'm sure it's some strange human expression having to do with who has which reproductive organs, but it's always seemed to me such a strange, interesting and repeatable pattern.
> On the whole, I just look at those figures and feel a deep amount of shame for my country (US).
I feel a deep shame for your comment. I can respect someone for believing in a socialist approach, why are you unable to do the same for those who believe in a laissez faire approach?
Get over it. As an American living in Western Europe, there are plenty of things to be ashamed about everywhere. And there is a lot of good stuff in the US, too. Forget about this so quickly?
The important thing is to try and identify things that your country doesn't do so well, and try and import the good stuff from elsewhere. This is a long and slow process that requires lots of hard work. And it's also complicated, because sometimes the good things are mixed up with the bad things.
In my experience, religious women are unlikely to agree with the assertion that religion marginalizes them. Instead, they are likely to claim that religion shows them the importance of womanhood (often motherhood in particular).
On the differing-demographics question, it would be interesting to have some finer-grained data to look at some of those confounding issues. I can believe that Americans and Western Europeans differ on some values, but they also differ considerably amongst themselves: the values of Brooklyn and suburban Houston are fairly different.
Even just regional data could be useful to be a more accurate view.
What is there to feel shame about? Opinions are just that - opinions. You shouldn't feel ashamed for people that have different opinions than yourself. That seems overly judgmental and elitist, especially the "relatively rural" nonsense.
I for one am glad that we don't share the same views on the whole as Western Europe, especially the self-reliance and choose-your-own-adventure. It's the over-reliance on the government that has Western Europe in the terrible economic shape that it is.
While we have gone a bit overboard in letting corporations dictate so much of our rules and regulations, all in all, the capitalist system we have gives people more opportunities than our European counterparts. Our culture may not be superior (how could it be when we've only been around for ~250 years), but our economics most certainly are.
I think the Europeans' smugness and looking down their noses at the "upstarts" in the colonies has gotten to you.
I bet the lack of a national curriculum - that banishes religion from everything except religious classes has something to do with the US results.
Here in the UK we are slowly degenerating by allowing schools to have more freedom, so religious groups are having increased influence on standard state schools.
Not really - 82.4% of the US population lives in urban areas, which is a bit higher than the UK (79.6%) and quite a bit higher than Germany (73.9%), Italy (68.4%) or Ireland (62.2%):
I know a musliam woman that dislike the fashion tastes of Saudi Arabian women.
In Saudi Arabia, women must use black clothing covering almost everything. And the reason for that, is that they want to, there are no laws that say that, no religious rule that say that, and men don't enforce that, when a muslim visitor of another country wear muslim clothes but not black for example, Saudi women that will nag you to go change to something black. (or if a woman wear muslim clothing that does not cover the same things, they also get nagged by other women).
That said, I disagree with your statement that religion marginalize women. Maybe, because I am religious myself.
In local news media where I live (Oslo, Norway), there have been stories about the "muslem morality police". These are people who use social control to make sure girls dress properly and don't have too much contact with outsiders.
Although a family may be relatively liberal, they feel pressured by neighbors to control their daughters. In some cases they even are shamed by neighbors calling their more conservative families back home.
The interesting fact is that this "morality police" is driven by more women than men.
Women have usually been more strongly religious then men. Religion is historically a major part of family life, and women are historically the ones charged with socializing children and giving structure to families.
As an aside, I find your reaction amusing. Why should anyone be ashamed that Americans think it's necessary to use force to preserve order in the world, or that Americans believe our culture to be superior? We are coming off a 60 year run in which:
1) The U.S. subsidized the military defense of Europe through NATO against the Soviet Union;
2) America dominated nearly every major field of technological development;
3) Europe, after economic dysfunction in the 1970's and 1980s, took pages out of the American playbook and enjoyed resurgent economies in the 1990's and 2000's as a result of economic liberalization and deregulation.
Over the last 60 years, America has given the world: peace, the transistor, computers, the cell phone, and the internet. People in France watch American media (Hollywood) on an American platform (Youtube), then talk about it all on an American website (Facebook). America has reshaped world culture and technology to a degree that only a few countries can claim: Great Britain and Rome. There is nothing to be ashamed of in taking a little credit for that.
A couple years back I have heard an idea in a psychology class that this has to do with risk assessment. If women are less likely to take risks, they are less likely to "take their chances" in an afterlife.
I look at those answers and find a deep amount of shame for my country, the UK. Especially on the role of the state and the fact that many people feel their life is outside of their control. It's no wonder that the U.S. is a more successful country.
Although we haven't yet achieved the slow rate of economic growth and high rate of unemployment that Europe currently enjoys, don't worry, the current administration is working hard to get us there. And if you're too impatient to wait for the whole country to reach an acceptable level of dysfunction, you can always move to Detroit and get ahead of the curve.
I know that you are all about equality but I think you missed the idea. All people are treated differently because drum roll... They are different. Men, women, musicians, mathematicians, authors, doctors.
Humans are not evil because when people are different, they tend to group them all together. This is human nature. This affects everyone's decision making (including yours). If you were in a game of deadly roulette where you had to pick the outcome of certain peoples lives, how certain people would react to certain challenges or situations, how well certain people would do in certain jobs - you would go with the numbers too. You would not treat these people equally. Therefore you yourself are sexist, bigoted, and stereotype people just as those you criticize.
Just knowing this this fact means that these probabilities do have an affect on you.
I am not condoning the mistreatment of anyone - I am merely saying that blindly ignoring peoples strengths and weaknesses is foolishness. Also, giving resources or opportunity which was not earned or deserved to someone will not usually result in a better outcome. Negative side effects create more problems to this scenario than the original solution was meant to solve (and it too fails).
A lot of the questions are misleading -- placed with an American bias as to what they meant. Eg the first table measures whether people value:
(a) "freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference."
vs
(b) "State guarantees nobody is in need".
The formulation shows an American understanding/bias on the issue. For a lot of Europeans (a) is not about real freedom, because it translates to big corporations and private interests shaping your life and be given free pass to exploit people.
That is, we don't see "state" as an enemy that restricts us, but as the (imperfect of course) embodiment of our collective will, as stated through democracy, that helps set the stage for our personal freedom.
So those same questions are also read as:
(a) Do you want to forgo a lot of democratic procedures, and have society be a jungle where you are supposedly "free" but in practice the "big fish" can crush you at will, or have you starve to work for them cheaper?
vs
(b) You want people to vote and use the state power to restrict exploitation and need in the interests of the majority, and thus be able to enjoy your individual freedom better.
So it's not really about valuing "freedom" vs "state", it's about how different peoples see how freedom works and what state does.
What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert power over other human beings.
The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and assertion of power. So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most optimal? Do you prefer option (a), which admits at most a haphazard and ad hoc system of institutional control - one which can, with some effort, be evaded - or option (b), which establishes a universal and de jure system of institutional control, evading which requires resources inaccessible to most?
I've always found it odd that so many think the solution to the concentration of power in the hands of a plurality organized institutions is to concentrate all power in the hands of a single organized institution.
> About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.
The French only say that because they disagree with the "our culture is not perfect" bit.
There's an unstated assumption that could be clarified:
- our culture is superior to some others
- our culture is superior to most others
- our culture is superior to all others
My answer would change depending on which of these I thought the question was asking. Would a native French speaker make a different assumption from a native English speaker? Would linguistic differences make all three equally possible in Spanish but only one possible in German? In other words, is it possible that language difference is significantly distorting our ability to spot attitude difference on this question?
One possible reason for the British response in the Religious vs National Identity question is that British identity can be a very fractious thing.
The UK is made up of constituent kingdoms, but not all of these are on the island of Great Britain. Thus you can be technically British (i.e. of the UK) without being British (i.e. of the island of Great Britain). This most notably manifests itself amongst the Northern Irish, some of whom see themselves as Irish (ethnicity, or wanting to be of a united Irish state) or British (of the United Kingdom, but of island of Ireland).
To confuse things further, there's a debate going on over whether or not Scotland should stay part of the United Kingdom or become a separate country. Scottish nationalism is a very strange creature. Thus some people may identify with being Scottish first, or solely as Scottish. This occurs to a lesser extent in Wales and in England (being Welsh and English, not Scottish, that would just be silly).
Additionally there are many people who are first or second generation British with foreign parents or grandparents, particularly from former colonial territories. I have friends who identify with being both British and Indian, despite being born and raised on the island of Great Britain.
It all makes for a big, typically British mess. Finally, my wife was born in Turkey, moved to England and became a British citizen, but she can never become English because there's no English citizenship status.
Interesting that the US believes they shape their own destiny or that they are the product of their own work, yet the 'cultural superiority' question seems to indicate that they don't necessarily value what they have produced.
I find it interesting that Americans have so little trust in their democratic government, yet have so much faith in authoritarian phenomenon of religion.
This 'study' reaks of bias and hand waved conclusions...the list would be so long, perhaps the extensive use of 'Americans' as a short hand for US citizens in an international opinion survey is the most blatant give away ?
It comes from the Pew Reasearch Center, an US think tank chaired by former Bill Clinton's secretary of States, funded by a very wealthy conservative entity, and scanning the other surveys I get the same feeling of being very transparent on the methodology while strongly aiming for a given output. Like this one the NSA for instance: http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
PS: even for a selected target, what does questions like 'Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others' point to ? They surveyed that short of half of the Christinans think themself as Christian first and citizen of a country second. For these people, what does 'our culture' even point to ?
The age difference in the cultural superiority question is really eye opening. It went from 60% of 50+ Americans saying 'yes', to 37% for 18-29 -- second lowest after France.
Glad to know that my generation has a sprinkling of modesty.
"Western Europe" is an odd and outdated term as it is the EU that is acquiring political and economic powers and which some seek to federate. Leaving out the most religious EU countries like Malta, Cyprus, Romania, Poland and Italy you will get a very skewed picture if you are mentally equating Western Europe with the European Union (which is a term often conflated itself with the ambiguous "Europe"). Large portions of legislation in "Western Europe" are decided upon by Southern European politicians in the European Council and the European Parliament where representation is weighted by population in various ways (QMV and MEP caps).
Some "North Eastern America" with a selection of blue states would give you pretty different results to the USA mean as well. The question people would ask though is: what justification do you have for putting that geographical constraint on your study?
[+] [-] bluthru|12 years ago|reply
On the whole, I just look at those figures and feel a deep amount of shame for my country (US). We'll catch up, but I think part of the reason for these figures is that the US is relatively rural.
[+] [-] newnewnew|12 years ago|reply
It is only as our planning horizon has shrunk from a thousand years to six months that we begin to look on motherhood as a form of slavery. Females are told that they must do anything but a traditional female role to have value in society. We cajole women to act like men. In a way, liberalism is ironically misogynist.
It is little surprise then that Western liberals no longer breed above replacement rates. Denigrating motherhood is not the way for a people to last the aeons of time. I believe the future of the West is profoundly more conservative than the present, because Darwin. Liberalism is a suicidal ideology.
[+] [-] bane|12 years ago|reply
If you can manage, check out the crowd shots in a modern televangelist audience. Lots of men, but many many more women: sometimes a shot will show 1 or 2 men, and 8-12 women.
Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMP2lEUP1E
It's not terribly surprising that women often assume a very conservative role in society, viewing themselves as keepers of tradition.
For example, the man in a western suit and woman in traditional clothes is very common all over the world, while you rarely see the opposite:
http://www.squarehe.com/images/0611/korean-wedding.jpg
http://www.ajewelrystyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/indi...
http://www.lassiwithlavina.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ad...
http://hindtoday.com/blogs/images/USA/DEVENDRA_MAKKAR_Family...
http://www.lightfootfilms.org/Peruvian-Family_c.jpg
http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/media/edu/EN/upload...
I'm sure it's some strange human expression having to do with who has which reproductive organs, but it's always seemed to me such a strange, interesting and repeatable pattern.
[+] [-] maratd|12 years ago|reply
I feel a deep shame for your comment. I can respect someone for believing in a socialist approach, why are you unable to do the same for those who believe in a laissez faire approach?
[+] [-] davidw|12 years ago|reply
Get over it. As an American living in Western Europe, there are plenty of things to be ashamed about everywhere. And there is a lot of good stuff in the US, too. Forget about this so quickly?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html
The important thing is to try and identify things that your country doesn't do so well, and try and import the good stuff from elsewhere. This is a long and slow process that requires lots of hard work. And it's also complicated, because sometimes the good things are mixed up with the bad things.
[+] [-] lotharbot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|12 years ago|reply
Even just regional data could be useful to be a more accurate view.
[+] [-] pionar|12 years ago|reply
I for one am glad that we don't share the same views on the whole as Western Europe, especially the self-reliance and choose-your-own-adventure. It's the over-reliance on the government that has Western Europe in the terrible economic shape that it is.
While we have gone a bit overboard in letting corporations dictate so much of our rules and regulations, all in all, the capitalist system we have gives people more opportunities than our European counterparts. Our culture may not be superior (how could it be when we've only been around for ~250 years), but our economics most certainly are.
I think the Europeans' smugness and looking down their noses at the "upstarts" in the colonies has gotten to you.
[+] [-] toble|12 years ago|reply
Here in the UK we are slowly degenerating by allowing schools to have more freedom, so religious groups are having increased influence on standard state schools.
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
Not really - 82.4% of the US population lives in urban areas, which is a bit higher than the UK (79.6%) and quite a bit higher than Germany (73.9%), Italy (68.4%) or Ireland (62.2%):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country
[NB France, Sweden and Finland are even more urban that the US]
[+] [-] Tloewald|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigkill|12 years ago|reply
Abused/brainwashed is pretty much similar, except one might have physical traces.
[+] [-] speeder|12 years ago|reply
In Saudi Arabia, women must use black clothing covering almost everything. And the reason for that, is that they want to, there are no laws that say that, no religious rule that say that, and men don't enforce that, when a muslim visitor of another country wear muslim clothes but not black for example, Saudi women that will nag you to go change to something black. (or if a woman wear muslim clothing that does not cover the same things, they also get nagged by other women).
That said, I disagree with your statement that religion marginalize women. Maybe, because I am religious myself.
[+] [-] qw|12 years ago|reply
Although a family may be relatively liberal, they feel pressured by neighbors to control their daughters. In some cases they even are shamed by neighbors calling their more conservative families back home.
The interesting fact is that this "morality police" is driven by more women than men.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
As an aside, I find your reaction amusing. Why should anyone be ashamed that Americans think it's necessary to use force to preserve order in the world, or that Americans believe our culture to be superior? We are coming off a 60 year run in which:
1) The U.S. subsidized the military defense of Europe through NATO against the Soviet Union;
2) America dominated nearly every major field of technological development;
3) Europe, after economic dysfunction in the 1970's and 1980s, took pages out of the American playbook and enjoyed resurgent economies in the 1990's and 2000's as a result of economic liberalization and deregulation.
Over the last 60 years, America has given the world: peace, the transistor, computers, the cell phone, and the internet. People in France watch American media (Hollywood) on an American platform (Youtube), then talk about it all on an American website (Facebook). America has reshaped world culture and technology to a degree that only a few countries can claim: Great Britain and Rome. There is nothing to be ashamed of in taking a little credit for that.
[+] [-] agilebyte|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] test-it|12 years ago|reply
Completely not true. It's the nature of work and power in human societies since the Neolithic revolution, that put man in control.
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sharlin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iterative|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goggles99|12 years ago|reply
Humans are not evil because when people are different, they tend to group them all together. This is human nature. This affects everyone's decision making (including yours). If you were in a game of deadly roulette where you had to pick the outcome of certain peoples lives, how certain people would react to certain challenges or situations, how well certain people would do in certain jobs - you would go with the numbers too. You would not treat these people equally. Therefore you yourself are sexist, bigoted, and stereotype people just as those you criticize.
Just knowing this this fact means that these probabilities do have an affect on you.
I am not condoning the mistreatment of anyone - I am merely saying that blindly ignoring peoples strengths and weaknesses is foolishness. Also, giving resources or opportunity which was not earned or deserved to someone will not usually result in a better outcome. Negative side effects create more problems to this scenario than the original solution was meant to solve (and it too fails).
[+] [-] coldtea|12 years ago|reply
(a) "freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference."
vs
(b) "State guarantees nobody is in need".
The formulation shows an American understanding/bias on the issue. For a lot of Europeans (a) is not about real freedom, because it translates to big corporations and private interests shaping your life and be given free pass to exploit people.
That is, we don't see "state" as an enemy that restricts us, but as the (imperfect of course) embodiment of our collective will, as stated through democracy, that helps set the stage for our personal freedom.
So those same questions are also read as:
(a) Do you want to forgo a lot of democratic procedures, and have society be a jungle where you are supposedly "free" but in practice the "big fish" can crush you at will, or have you starve to work for them cheaper?
vs
(b) You want people to vote and use the state power to restrict exploitation and need in the interests of the majority, and thus be able to enjoy your individual freedom better.
So it's not really about valuing "freedom" vs "state", it's about how different peoples see how freedom works and what state does.
[+] [-] Gormo|12 years ago|reply
The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and assertion of power. So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most optimal? Do you prefer option (a), which admits at most a haphazard and ad hoc system of institutional control - one which can, with some effort, be evaded - or option (b), which establishes a universal and de jure system of institutional control, evading which requires resources inaccessible to most?
I've always found it odd that so many think the solution to the concentration of power in the hands of a plurality organized institutions is to concentrate all power in the hands of a single organized institution.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
The French only say that because they disagree with the "our culture is not perfect" bit.
[+] [-] lotharbot|12 years ago|reply
- our culture is superior to some others
- our culture is superior to most others
- our culture is superior to all others
My answer would change depending on which of these I thought the question was asking. Would a native French speaker make a different assumption from a native English speaker? Would linguistic differences make all three equally possible in Spanish but only one possible in German? In other words, is it possible that language difference is significantly distorting our ability to spot attitude difference on this question?
[+] [-] _b8r0|12 years ago|reply
The UK is made up of constituent kingdoms, but not all of these are on the island of Great Britain. Thus you can be technically British (i.e. of the UK) without being British (i.e. of the island of Great Britain). This most notably manifests itself amongst the Northern Irish, some of whom see themselves as Irish (ethnicity, or wanting to be of a united Irish state) or British (of the United Kingdom, but of island of Ireland).
To confuse things further, there's a debate going on over whether or not Scotland should stay part of the United Kingdom or become a separate country. Scottish nationalism is a very strange creature. Thus some people may identify with being Scottish first, or solely as Scottish. This occurs to a lesser extent in Wales and in England (being Welsh and English, not Scottish, that would just be silly).
Additionally there are many people who are first or second generation British with foreign parents or grandparents, particularly from former colonial territories. I have friends who identify with being both British and Indian, despite being born and raised on the island of Great Britain.
It all makes for a big, typically British mess. Finally, my wife was born in Turkey, moved to England and became a British citizen, but she can never become English because there's no English citizenship status.
[+] [-] tomhschmidt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perfunctory|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hrktb|12 years ago|reply
It comes from the Pew Reasearch Center, an US think tank chaired by former Bill Clinton's secretary of States, funded by a very wealthy conservative entity, and scanning the other surveys I get the same feeling of being very transparent on the methodology while strongly aiming for a given output. Like this one the NSA for instance: http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
PS: even for a selected target, what does questions like 'Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others' point to ? They surveyed that short of half of the Christinans think themself as Christian first and citizen of a country second. For these people, what does 'our culture' even point to ?
[+] [-] mmanfrin|12 years ago|reply
Glad to know that my generation has a sprinkling of modesty.
[+] [-] sillysaurus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkldotio|12 years ago|reply
Some "North Eastern America" with a selection of blue states would give you pretty different results to the USA mean as well. The question people would ask though is: what justification do you have for putting that geographical constraint on your study?
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|12 years ago|reply
The three axes are: - Civilization/barbarism - Oppressor/oppressed - Freedom/coercion
The idea is that people will have different attitudes on issues and that these attitudes can be "plotted" on these three axes.
It is only a model, but I think it is a good one.
[+] [-] copx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archildress|12 years ago|reply