History of Islam

History of Islam
Menu

Gender Relations and Gender roles

Humans are individually self-sufficient to perform all of their physiological functions except one – Reproduction.  This very biological fact necessitates members of opposite sexes to interact with each other.  It, in turn, compels humans to establish a unique social situation called ‘gender relations.’   Probably the earliest humans who recognized that man and woman are different were part of that group who first qualified to be called Homo sapiens.  Whenever man and woman interact with each other in an area which has any semblance to sex and reproduction they behave differently.  ‘Gender roles’ are as old as humans themselves. They are human universal and can be traced in all human societies, present or past.  Acceptance of gender roles at societal level reflects from difference in male and female dress that can be also be observed in all societies, present or past.

Differences between man and woman are apparent to everybody but the reasons given to explain the differences do not appeal equally to everybody.  The Evolutionary Psychology Theory of gender suggests that differing roles in reproduction places different pressure on males and females, which creates gender roles as the man being the more competitive and violent figure, while the woman being more involved in nurturing activities.  The Social Role Theory of gender suggests that gender roles are formed by psychological gender differences caused by contrasting social roles of women and men.  The Social Cognitive Theory of gender suggests that children’s gender development occurs through observation and imitation of gender behaviour.1  Since none of these theories have got irrefutable scientific evidence, public’s opinion on the issue is divided on political lines.2

Probably each of these theories has a fraction of truth.   Nature has made man and woman different to play different role in reproduction.  Such differences are present at birth.  Society in which they grow further polishes the differences to enable both of them to raise the children they produce in family environment.    Analogy to this kind of set up can be found in medical science.  Retinoblastoma, a cancer of retina, is known to be hereditary.  But its actual development needs two factors at entirely different levels.  The individual is born with a tendency to develop retinoblastoma but he doesn’t develop it until he is exposed to certain environment which gives rise to further risk factors to develop the cancer.3

How much of gender roles are genetic and how much are social is difficult to measure precisely.  Our hunter gatherer ancestors have left very little evidence of their family life, which could have been based on genetics only.  To find any clue to how their families might have functioned we have to turn to natural behaviour of species which are similar to us.  Humans had many cousins, like Neanderthal man, who are now extinct.  But some of our near relatives are still surviving.   Chimpanzee’s (Pan Troglodytes) genome was studied in 2005 and was found to be 98.8% common with Homo sapiens.4  Bonobo’s (Pan Paniscus) genome was studied a few years later in 2012 and was found to share 99.6% of their DNA with Chimpanzees and 98.7% of their DNA with humans.5  These two studies establish them as our nearest living relatives. We had a common ancestor, Ardipithecus ramidus, about 4 million years ago.  Though, both humans and Chimpanzees/bonobos have changed too much since then, we still have few things common with them. Out of the two, chimpanzee is more studied.  Multiple studies done on wild chimpanzee communities living in Tanzania have brought to light interesting facts about their family life.  Chimpanzee has a patrilineal family, where male children remain in their father’s group throughout their lives while female children disperse.6  Pusey has established that female’s association with their previous closest male associates (usually maternal siblings) drops abruptly at adolescence.  Sexual activity between maternal siblings as well as between mothers and sons is very infrequent. While males continue to live in the group of their birth, females get attracted by unfamiliar males from other groups at adolescence and leave group of their birth either temporarily or permanently to live with unfamiliar male’s group.7  As far as chimpanzee’s sexual encounters are concerned Tutin found three distinct patterns of mating among them.  One is opportunistic in which any male could mate with any receptive female without facing any competition from other males.  This accounts for 73% of 1137 couplings observed by Tutin and in this sense is main pattern of sex.  Second pattern is possessiveness in which receptive female develops a short term relationship with a male during which the male prevents any other male from mating with her.  It accounts for 25% of couplings.  This kind of relationship develops with male initiative but with female cooperation.  Third is consortship in which a male and female elope the group and actively avoid other chimpanzees.  It accounts for 2% couplings.  In the last two types of relationships it is not male’s dominant rank in the group or his aggression that helps in development of relations but it is his capacity to groom a female.  Surprisingly, opportunistic coupling doesn’t make female pregnant necessarily.  Majority of females fall pregnant as a result of restrictive relationships of last two varieties.8  Juvenile chimpanzees receive 90% of their grooming either from their mother or older siblings9 but there is evidence that father chimpanzee in wild associate and interact more with their own infants and males invest in mothers and offsprings for mating privileges.10  Fathers don’t participate in day to day care of children but they do a more important job for the group.  They protect the females and children.  Male chimpanzees form alliance and patrol the borders of their territories, sometimes launching lethal attacks on members of other communities.11  Here we can see many patterns which assumedly would have similarly happened in our hunter gatherer ancestor’s families – patrilineal family, exogamy, mother’s nurturing role etc.  Probably it was father’s role as protector which later translated into breadwinner role among humans.  Kraemer’s suggestion that fatherhood, (control or ownership of children) is a societal development and did not exist before agricultural revolution12 doesn’t stand trial of evidence.  Interestingly, male chimpanzees are attracted to female by their bodily appearance rather than by their smell, similar to humans.13  And male is more aggressive than female with level of aggressiveness proportional to his testosterone level.  High ranking males have more testosterone level than low ranking ones.14

Ever changing gender roles

Since all gender roles are not biological and some are social, gender roles continued to change throughout history. Here, one can safely assume that the gender roles which were determined biologically never changed.  The only gender roles which changed over time were produced by society to meet needs of that particular society.  Apparently, gender role is fast changing area of society.  Measurable changes in gender roles can take place in timespan of a few decades.  For example, in one study Darla R. Botkin measured change in gender roles in England from 1961 to 1996.  Darla looked at the longitudinal trend among college female students about expectations towards marriage.  Samples were taken in 1961, 1972, 1978, 1984, 1990 and 1996.  Expectations were measured on seven scales: authority, homemaking, child care, personal characteristics, social participation, education and employment.  Females changed towards egalitarian marriage (a marriage in which both partners are equally responsible for breadwinning and home duties) from 1961 to 1972.  From 1972 to 1978 females changed more on expectations of authority, homemaking and childcare towards egalitarian marriage.  But from 1978 onwards there were no further shifts in women’s expectations.  The authors conclude that the change towards egalitarian marriage has reached plateau and infer that the women have come to realization that husbands are not going to assume equal responsibility for childcare.15 Or in other words, men have reached their biological limit.

Marriage

Clear visualization of gender roles is in marriage.  No human society, present or past, is known to be functioning without institution of marriage.  In this sense marriage is human universal, just like gender relations.  Defining marriage, Murdock states that marriage is a human universal that unites males and females in socially-recognized reproduction units.16 While stable-breeding bonds are found in numerous texa, human marriage has wider significance beyond reproduction.  Marriage is a fundamental cornerstone of human economic, social and kinship network.17

First recorded evidence of marriage comes from Sumerian Mesopotamia around 2200 BCE.  This is a contract of marriage, which took place in the reign of Shamshu-ilu-na.  The document reads:

Rimum, son of Shamkhatum, has taken as a wife and spouse
Bashtum, the daughter of Belizunu, the priestess (?) of Shamash,

daughter of Uzibitum.  Her bridal present shall be ….. shekels
of money.  When she receives it she shall be free.  If Bashtum

to Rimum, her husband shall say, “Thou art not my husband,”
they shall strangle (?) her and cast her into the river.  If Rimum

to Bashtum, his wife, shall say, “thou art not my wife,” he shall
pay ten shekels of money as her alimony.  They swore by Shamash,

Marduk, their king Shamshu-ilu-na, and Sippar.  [the bride was
a slave, and gained her freedom by marriage, and hence penalty

imposed upon her in case she divorced her husband is greater
than that imposed on him in case he divorces her].18

It does not mean this was the first ever marriage that took place in human history. Presumably, institution of marriage is as old as gender relations. It would not have existed if humans did not need to ‘parent’ the children after they gained ability to forage.  Actually, humans have to train their children in survival skills for this competitive world.  Teaching survival skills takes many more years than teaching foraging skills.  Marriage is not about reproduction, it is about nurturing.

Whom one should marry is the most important decision of life.  Since sexes are not identical in their biological contributions to children’s survival, so they seek somewhat different attributes in a potential mate.  Men seek a young, attractive, sexually faithful bride.  Women seek a man who is older, taller, and socially dominant.  Both sexes prefer a kind, healthy, attractive and similar mate who is emotionally attached to them.19  Arranged marriages probably have an evolutionary history going back to at least 50,000 years.20  As hunter-gatherer societies are the most primitive of human societies, study of their current practice can discover earliest social trends that existed in hunter-gatherers of prehistoric times.  This technique is called phylogenetics.  In a comparative study of 190 hunter-gatherer societies, Apostolou showed that arrangement of marriage by parents or close kin is the primary mode of marriage in 85% of the sample.21 The practice continues to this date in almost all societies.  Even in societies where man and woman choose their mate independently, for example Western societies, parent – off spring conflict over choice of mate exists.22 No data is available measuring extent of arranged marriage for Muslim majority countries.    General observation is that it is predominant form of marriage there.

Romance is a passionate pleasure that one experiences by being associated with someone.  The association can be with God, with country or with member of opposite sex.  Romance between members of opposite sex doesn’t last long.  In one study it was found that the average age of gender based romance is six years.  (Though in some couples it lasts lifelong). Not surprisingly, romance fails to make a basis of stable marital relations.  It is children that promote it.   More the children, stabler the marriage.23

Economic exchanges at the time of marriage are widespread and arguably create foundation of human social organization.24  Bride price, dowry or some sort of exchange between families is found in 80% of sample representing 190 hunter-gatherer societies.25 Applying principles of phylogenetics one can assume that this practice is as old as arranged marriage itself.  Actually, there is a relation between arranged marriage and bride price.26  Muslims believe that paying Mahr to wife is a religious duty and they still practice it.27 However, in many Muslim marriages it is reduced to symbolic entity. In many others its payment is deferred and will be demanded by wife only in case of divorce.    

As marriage is need of both sons and daughters, there is evidence that some kind of arrangements for reciprocal relationships were present from the very earliest inception of marriage-like cultural institutions.28  Cousin marriage still prevalent among Muslims can be one example.

Humans have not yet devised any better way to reproduce and raise children than marriage.  This is the reason despite rise in sex outside marriage, majority of children the world over are born in wedlock.  Baker estimates prevalence of extra-pair paternity worldwide at 9%.29

Degrees of marriage

Humans cannot marry anybody whom they find attractive.  Most cultures have prescriptions (and all have proscriptions) that specify what categories of kin are appropriate (or not) for mating and marriage and have rules and preferences concerning resulting kin ties.30 It does not mean marriage between siblings has always been a taboo among all cultures.  We know some cultures in history where marriage even with maternal sibling was practiced.  Muslims strictly follow their religious tenants in this regard.  There is not a single example all over the word and all over the history where a Muslim has broken rules of degree of marriage.

Marriage outside religion

Degree of marriage is not the only restriction for Muslims.  Muslims generally restrict themselves to marriage within their own religion.  The only religion in whom Muslims will tolerate to marry outside Islam is Christianity.  Even here very few Muslims are comfortable with the idea of marrying their son to a Christian.  In case of daughter it is simple no no!   The only exception are two countries, Russia and Albania. In Albania overwhelming majority of Muslims will be comfortable marrying either son or daughter to a Christian but in Russia 52% Muslims will marry their son but only 39% will marry their daughter to a Christian.31

Sex outside marriage

By the way, marriage is not the only means of sex and has never been so.  Premarital and extramarital sex has increased tremendously in many societies of world.  It is seriously frowned upon in Muslim societies.  In a survey it was found that 67% Muslims in Southern-Eastern Europe, 66 % in Central Asia, 93 % in Southeast Asia, 64 % in South Asia, 72 % in Middle East-North Africa and 88 % in sub Saharan Africa consider sex outside marriage immoral.32 It doesn’t mean sex outside marriage is non-existent in Muslim societies.  It simply means it is not socially accepted form of sex.  Definitely, if such behaviour is considered theft, its prevalence will be low.  No large scale comprehensive studies are available to determine its extent in Muslim-majority countries.  In a small scale study performed on a representative sample of 2400 males aged from 16 to 45 living in six urban areas of Pakistan, it was found that 31% were virgin and never had any sexual experience.  Further 42% had their first sexual experience with their wives.  27% had experience of pre-marital sex.  Out of these 27% about half (53%) had sex with a woman friend.  Others had sex either with a female sex worker or a male sex worker or a gay man.  If these statistics are correct only 14% of Pakistani men had a chance of heterosexual romantic premarital sex.  No studies are available for women.33

Any society which will have low rate of sex outside marriage will have high marriage rate.  Look at the table below showing crude marriage rate in select countries.  [Marriages and crude marriage rates, by urban/rural residence: 2007 – 2011.34

Country                       2007                2008                2009                2010                2011

Egypt                            8.3                   8.8                   9.9                   11.0

Azerbaijan                   9.4                   9.0                   8.7

Jordan                         10.6                 10.4                 10.6                 10.2

Kazakhstan                 9.5                   8.6

Kuwait                         5.5                   5.9                   5.6                   5.2

Kyrgyzstan                  8.8                   8.7                   9.3                   9.7

Palestine                      8.8                   9.4                   9.7                   9.2

Qatar                            2.6                    2.2                  1.9                   1.7                   3.3

Tajikistan                    13.7                 14.6                 13.5

Turkey                         9.1                   9.0                   8.2                   8.0                   8.0

Austria                        4.3                   4.2                   4.2                   4.5                   4.3

Belgium                      4.3                   4.3                   4.0                   3.9                   4.1

Check Republic         5.5                   5.0                   4.6                   4.4                   4.3

France                         4.3                   4.2                   3.9                   3.9                   3.7

Germany                     4.5                   4.6                   4.6                   4.7                   4.6

Iceland;                       5.5                   5.1                   4.6                   4.9                   4.7

Italy                             4.2                   4.1                   3.8                   3.6

Canada                        4.6                   4.4

USA                              7.3                   7.1                   6.8

Mexico                         5.6                   5.5                   5.2

Argentina                    3.5                   3.3                   3.1                   3.0

Chile                            3.5                   3.3                   3.3

Peru                             3.2                   3.3                   3.0                   2.8

China                           7.5                   8.3                    9.1                  9.3

Japan                           5.7                   5.8                   5.5                   5.5

 

Glance at the table clarifies that crude marriage rate in Muslim-majority countries is the highest in the world.  Even in deeply Catholic Latin American and South American countries crude marriage rate is lower than Muslim-majority countries.

We have noted above that incidence of childbirth outside marriage is about 9% in whole human population.  But we know that there is wide variation among societies about extra-pair paternity.35  There are absolutely no studies about childbirth outside marriage in Muslim-majority countries.  Due to very low sex rate outside marriage and due to high marriage rate, childbirth outside marriage is anecdotal in these countries and cannot be studied.  Almost all extra marital childbirths the world over come from non-Muslim majority countries.  For example 36.8% of children born in the USA in 2007 were out of wedlock.36 

In line with their views on extra marital sex, Muslims consider prostitution immoral.  In a pew survey  a median of 90% Muslims in Southern-Eastern Europe, 89 % in Central Asia, 94 % in Southeast Asia, 84 % in South Asia, 95 % in Middle East-North Africa and 91 % in sub Saharan Africa expressed this view.37 Again, it doesn’t mean prostitution doesn’t exist in Muslim-majority countries.  Every sinful, every unethical, every illegal phenomenon has a natural rate.  It cannot drop below that.  In Mir‘s study, mentioned above, about 9% Pakistani urban males aged 16 to 45 had patronized sex workers.38

Polygamy (polygyny)

Polygamy is probably as ancient as marriage.  In a comparative study of 190 hunter-gatherer societies, Apostolou showed that about 20% of men are married polygynously in 87% of the sample.39  Islam is one of the religions that allow polygyny. It is not, and has never been, main form of marriage among Muslims.

Muslims opinion on morality of polygamy varies according to the region where they live and practice their religion.  In Southern and Eastern Europe a median of 68% Muslims consider it immoral, similar opinion is in central Asia at 62 %.  But In the Middle east & North Africa region it ranges from 6% disapproval in Jordan to 67% disapproval in Tunisia.  In sub Saharan Africa its disapproval ranges from 5% in Niger to 59% in Mozambique.<40  It appears it is more approved in countries where it is being practiced.

There are no statistics available to know extent of the practice among present day Muslims.  Anecdotal incidences, however, give an impression that it is rare and is restricted to elite and very poor.  A clue comes from India.   The last time India census asked such question was in 1960.  That time it was revealed that 5.7 % Muslims were living in polygamous marriages.  At the same time number of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Adivasis living in polygamous marriages was 5.8%, 7.9%, 6.7% and 15.25% respectively.   Mallika B Mistry of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics in Pune in 1993 concluded that there is no evidence that the percentage of polygamous marriage (among Muslims) is larger than for Hindus.  According to the Third National Family Health Survey carried out in 2006, 2% of women in India reported that their husbands had more than one wife.  More than religion of the parties involved, determinant reasons were not having a child or male child from the first wife, education and the age of first wife.  The survey found that a polygamous Hindu was likely to have 1.77 wives, a polygamous Muslim 2.55, Christian 2.35 and Buddhist 3.41.

Polygyny is quiet common in Western Africa and Sub Saharan Africa and is not limited to Muslims only.41

Anyhow, Muslim men reserve a right to polygyny and it is legally allowed in all Muslim-majority countries except Turkey and Tunisia.

Promiscuity

Promiscuity is frequent casual sex with multiple partners.  Generally, it is more frequent in men.  Behaviour of men towards sex is quite different from women’s and probably it has got genetic basis.  Bateman suggested that generally males have millions of sperms while women have few eggs.  Male’s reproductive success increases by mating as many females as possible.  Female’s reproductive success does not increase by mating with more males.  Hence, male is naturally promiscuous and female is naturally selective.42 In an American experiment performed from 1978 to 1982 majority of males were willing to have sex with unknown woman of average attraction who proposes.  In this experimental study not a single woman wanted to have sex with unknown male of average attraction who proposed.  Moreover, men were comfortable with being proposed even if they were not willing to perform sex.  Women responded to proposition with shock and disgust.43  This kind of gender based sexual difference is not restricted to the USA, rather it is human universal.  It is evident from sex market which exists in almost every country.  Here buyer is predominantly male.

No society in whole world approves promiscuity on moral grounds, though attitude towards male and female could be different.  In some studies, for example, Marks and Michael, men and women both are judged equally harshly for promiscuity.44  In some other studies, for example Erin, women are judged more harshly for promiscuity.45

Despite disapproval from society, promiscuity is widespread in ‘the West’ and its main pacesetter is male.  In one US study only 20% US heterosexual males had only one partner ever.  55% had 2 to 20 partners and 25% had more than 20 partners.46  On the other hand, no married heterosexual woman was promiscuous in the same study and all unmarried heterosexual women had a stable partner for the last 3 months.47  How can we explain such a vast gender gap in this area? Probably men feel proud of their promiscuous behaviour and are apt to admit it and women feel victim of such behaviour and are reluctant to admit?  Or probably, women are reluctant to admit as society judges them more harshly?  Actually in one American study women were found slightly less faithful then men.  Atwood and Schwartz found 45 – 55% married women to have some kind of sexual relation with somebody other than husband.  In this study percent of men who had such behaviour with a woman other than wife was 50 – 60%.48

No studies are available from Muslim-majority countries on the subject.  It is assumed that promiscuity is rare and anecdotal there.  What is more common, especially in the Middle East and Africa region, is multiple time limited marriages.

Divorce

We don’t know when divorce started.  As it is a safety valve if everything doesn’t go well in marriage, assumedly it started side by side marriage.  Look at the earliest preserved divorce settlement from 21st century BCE:

Lu-Utu, the son of Nig-Baba, has divorced Geme-Enlil.

Dugidu, an off icer and official, took oath that Geme-Enlil

had taken her stand [and] said, “By the King! Give me 10

Shekels of silver [and] I will not enter claim against you,”

[and] that she made him forfeit 10 shekels of silver.  Ur-

…. [was] the deputy; Ur-Lama [was] the governor.

The year Harshi and Humurti were sacked.49

Divorce has severe emotional toll.  Emotional stress it gives to any adult (both male and female) is only second to death of a spouse on Holmes and Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale and is fourth after death of a parent, unplanned pregnancy and getting married for a child.50  As unplanned pregnancy and getting married are events that may happen when a child has already assumed adult role, divorce of parents can be considered second most stressful event for any child only second to death of a parent.

Islam is one of the religions that allow its adherents to divorce, man can give divorce and woman can ask for it (khula’).  But it is never considered to be auspicious thing by Muslims.  There are no comprehensive studies done in Muslim majority countries to ascertain the problem accurately.  Even the rudimentary data available is derived from the census reports developed by governments.  Such demographic data doesn’t have power to calculate odds of getting divorced in a newly married couple during next twenty years.  Generally it is known that divorce rate in Muslim countries is less than that in Western Countries but is higher than that of deeply Catholic Latin American countries.  Glance at Crude divorce rate of 2008 in a few selected countries makes it clear:  Indonesia 0.3; Iran 1.5;  Kyghyzistan 1.5;  Palastenian territory 1.3;  Qatar 0.6;  Tajikistan 0.7;  Turkey 1.4; France 2.1; Germany 2.3;  Iceland 1.7;  Austria 2.4; Czech Republic 3.0; Mexico 0.8; Chile 0.1.51 Certain countries like Jordan at crude divorce rate at 2.2 in 2008, Kazakhstan at 2.3 and   Kuwait at 2.0 reach in comparable proportions to Western countries.  These are regional variations and probably reflect some marriages where its dissolution was part of marriage package. Generally speaking chances that a new marriage will survive 20 years in a Western country, for example USA, are fifty fifty.52

Why people divorce?  Weisfeld and Weisfeld assert when one of the spouses fail to maintain sufficiently high mate value in eyes of other spouse marriage is vulnerable to divorce.  Infertility and sexual dissatisfaction predict divorce, as does death of a child.  Cross-cultural data suggests that cruel or subdominant men (e.g. poor providers) and unfaithful women are prone to divorce.  Marriages in which the wife dominates the husband in economic contributions, nonverbal behaviour or decision making tend to be less satisfying.  In societies in which wives are economically independent of husbands, divorce rate are high.  Other factors also affect marital dynamics, such as state subsidies to families, the sex ratio, and influence of couple’s parents.53  Family is a social organization.  We don’t know any social organization, present or past, which has worked successfully for long term without a leader.  Hence, family needs a leader.  Traditionally man was predetermined leader of the family and it worked very successfully.  Divorce rate – the rate of premature demise of family – was low all over and was natural.  (Rate of any social measurement, be it unemployment, marriage, suicide etc. cannot be zero.  There are always a few odds who do not go with the rest.  If rate of any social measurement is very low and cannot be reduced below that, it is called natural rate).

As marriage is more popular and stable in Muslim-majority countries so is leadership of man in marriage.  93% Muslims (including both men and women) of Southeast Asia, 88% of South Asia, and 87% in the Middle East and North Africa say a wife should always obey her husband.  Even Central Asian Muslims, who differ from the rest on many social issues, don’t differ much here.  70% of them say wife should always obey her husband.  The only world’s region where majority of Muslims doesn’t say so is Southern And Eastern Europe, where median is 43%.53

Decline in marriage and increase in divorce rate in ‘the West’ is associated with decline in man’s leadership in marriage.

Certain politically motivated circles are emphasizing that woman should have a right to give divorce otherwise society doesn’t work smoothly.  Such ideas have diffused into many Muslim societies.  Worst affected is Southern and Eastern Europe where a median of 86% Muslims think women should have a right to divorce.  This number decreases to 70% in Central Asia.  It further decreases to 44% in South Asia.  Middle East at 33% and South East Asia at 32 % are decisively against this idea.54  Basically, in countries where Muslims support this idea women already have a right to divorce.  On ground level it doesn’t matter much who has a right to divorce.  If a woman doesn’t want to live in a marriage, no power on earth can save that marriage.

Ironically, divorce rate is already on increase in almost all Muslim-majority countries.  It is evident from the following table showing crude divorce rate in select Muslim-majority countries.55

Country           2007                2008                2009                2010                2011

Egypt                 1.1                1.1                   1.8                   1.9

Azarbaijan          1.0                0.9                   0.9                   1.0                   1.2

Indonesia            0.0               0.3                   0.4                   0.5

Iran                     1.4                1.5                   1.7

Jordan                 2.1               2.2                   2.6                   2.6

Kazakhstan         2.3               2.3

Kuwait                2.1               2.0                   2.6                   2.6

Kyghyzistan        1.5               1.5                   1.4                   1.6

Palestine             1.1                1.3                   1.5                   1.5

Qatar                   0.8               0.6                   0.7                   0.7                   1.1

Tajikistan            0.7                0.7                   0.8

Turkey                 1.3               1.4                   1.6                   1.6                   1.6

Causes of increasing divorce rate in Muslim countries are not yet researched.  Presumably they have the same root cause as in ‘the West’ – decline in leadership of man in marriage.  Part of this decline could be result of cultural change under influence of Western and Bollywood media whereby parents of woman don’t encourage her to follow her husband as her mother used to do.  Increase in woman’s education rate is not a cause of increasing divorce rate.  Increase in woman’s educational level has been associated with stable marriage. For example, 78% marriages of woman with bachelor’s degree survive 20 years mark in the USA56 whereas this figure is only 50% for general population.

Homosexuality

Muslims consider homosexually being immoral.  83 % in Southern-Eastern Europe, 85 % in Central Asia, 95 % in Southeast Asia, 80 % in South Asia, 82 % in Middle East-North Africa and 89 % in sub Saharan Africa are decisively convinced that it is immoral.57

Again, it doesn’t mean it is never practiced in Muslim-majority countries.  In Mir’s sample about 9 % Pakistani urban males were involved in homosexuality.58

Abortion

There is not a single country of world where majority of Muslims consider abortion to be a moral thing.  In one sample 71 % Muslims living in Southern-Eastern Europe, 61 % in Central Asia, 93 % in Southeast Asia, 64 % in South Asia, 72 % in Middle East-North Africa and 88 % in sub Saharan Africa denounced it as immoral.59

Law in Muslim-majority countries reflects public opinion.  Pew analysed 196 countries of world.  96% of them allow women to terminate pregnancy when their own lives are in danger.  50 countries (26%) only allow abortion when woman’s life is endangered.  Additional 82 nations (42%) allow when woman’s life is endangered but also allow for at least one more reason i.e. to preserve woman’s physical or mental health, pregnancy result of rape or incest, foetal impairment, social or economic reasons etc.  58 countries (30%) allow abortion on demand, although many don’t allow it after certain point (for example 20 weeks).  Six countries that do not allow abortion in any case are Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vatican City and Malta.  Muslim countries that allow abortion on demand are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Tunisia.  All Muslim countries allow abortion to save mother’s life.60

Honour killing

Woman is the most respectful person in life of any Muslim man.  She is respected in form of mother, sister, daughter and wife. Not only this, they also respect women in general, just as woman gender.  However, respect is a sentiment and it cannot be prescribed by law, religious canons or ethics.  There is always a certain trait in a person which is respected.  Basis of respect for women among Muslims is her chastity.  Since basis of respect for women is different among Muslims as compared to ‘the West’ both consider each other disrespectful of women.  Only 44 % Muslims surveyed in seven Muslim countries namely Indonesia, Pakistan, turkey, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon considered westerners to be respectful towards women.  On the other hand, only 22% Westerners surveyed in five Western countries (Muslim population in those countries was excluded) living in US, France, Germany, Spain, Britain and Russia considered Muslims respectful to women.61

In majority of Muslim societies it becomes great social issue for a family when a woman commits sex outside marriage and it becomes publically known.  Muslims have developed coping mechanisms to deal with the situation, like denial, moving out of the community where it is publically known etc.  However, one practice is honour killing.  Honour killing is neither supported by religion nor law.   It is a custom, which might be present in non-Muslim societies as well. Generally, Muslims do not support honour killing except in isolated pockets in South Asia and Middle East.  In 14 of the 23 countries that were surveyed majority do not justify honour killing as a punishment for pre- or extra-marital sex when woman stands accused and in 15 out of 23 countries majority does not support honour killing as a punishment if a man stands accused.  Countries where people who think honour killing is never justifiable if woman stands accused fail to make majority are Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Labanon, and Palestinian territories (8).  Countries where people who consider honour killing unjustifiable when man stands accused fail to make majority are Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Palestinian territories (8).62 Only in some countries Muslims put onus of protecting honour on woman. It is indirectly evident from the data of the same survey.   For example in Russia, Azarbaijan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt Lebanon and Tunisia more people think that honour killing is not justified when man stands accused than when woman stands accused.  In other countries the onus is equally shared where there is no gender gap for non-justification of honour killing: Albania, Bosnia-Herzagonia, Kosovo, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Afghanistan, Palestinian territories, Moroco.  Uzbekistan stands out conspicuously where onus of protecting honour is on man and more people think that honour killing of woman is not justified than honour killing of man.  According to the researchers support for honour killing is not linked with religiosity.

Inheritance

Islam gives half share of inheritance to a daughter than what son gets.  Probably, that is the reason son is expected to look after old parents.  It contributes to family stability in many Muslim countries.  Law in Muslim-majority regions of Southern and Eastern Europe and Central Asia gives daughters share in inheritance equal to sons.  Majority of Muslims living in those countries support it.  For example, 69 % of Southern and Eastern Europe Muslims and 60 % of Central Asian Muslims support it.  The idea of equal inheritance is not popular in countries where it is not practiced.  For example only 46% in South Asia and 25% in Middle East and North Africa support it.  Support for it in South East Asia is 61 %.63

There is a gender gap in some countries on opinion on equal share in inheritance.  In Lebanon percentage of woman who wish it is 26 point high compared to the men who wish it.  In Albania this number is 23, in Pakistan 21, in Tajikistan 20, in Russia 14, in Bangladesh 14, in Tunisia 14, and in Kazakhstan 9.  In some other countries difference is present but is not statistically significant.  It is 8 in Kosovo, 8 in Iran, 7 in Palestinian territories, 7 in Kyrgyzstan, 6 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 6 in Afghanistan, 6 in Indonesia, 6 in Azerbaijan, 5 in Thailand , 4 in Egypt and 1 in Turkey.  In some countries there is opposite gap.  For example in Morocco women who want equal share in inheritance are 1 % point less than men who want it, in Jordan 3 % point less women want it, in Uzbekistan 8% less women want it.64

Gender gap in religion

Women are generally more religious then men across all societies, cultures and faiths.65  This fact is known to sociologists for at least hundred years and is re-confirmed by data on religious beliefs and practices form surveys on general populations of 84 countries gathered between 2008 to 2015.66  Beit-Hallahmi asserts “the greater religiosity of women, demonstrated in consistent research findings over the past hundred years, is one of the most important facts about religion.”67 Pattern of women being more religious than men, actually, borders upon human universal.68 A few sociologists have theorized that the gender gap in religion is biological in nature, possibly stemming from higher levels of testosterone in men or other physical and genetic differences between the sexes.69  Miller and Stark argue that difference between men and women in risk preference explains the religious gender gap.  They propose greater risk-taking among men has a physiological or hormonal basis, such as testosterone.70

This gender gap in religious commitment is present in Christians and un-affiliated – two major religious groups in world.  Survey of 54 Christian dominated countries suggest that Christian Women are more religious than Christian men.71  Similarly, among un-affiliated, which is opposite to religion, men are more numerous (27%) than women (19%) in the USA.  Moreover, unaffiliated women report higher levels of engagement with religion than unaffiliated men across several indicators, including weekly attendance at religious services, (5% vs. 3%), daily prayer (26% vs. 15%) and saying religion is very important to them (15% vs. 12%).72

And now comes the odd one. Survey of 40 predominantly Muslim countries discloses that there is no gender gap on religious commitment among Muslims.73  Women and men are equally religious.

Why are Muslims different from others in this regard? Nobody knows.  Probably Muslim men are more devout then men belonging to other religions, resulting in closure of the gap.

It is known that many more Muslim men (70%) attend weekly religious service then women (42%) in a sample collected from 39 countries.74  According to researchers, it is not an indication that Muslim women are less religious than men, but it is because men are expected to attend Friday prayer more than women.

Muslim Women in workforce

There has never been a time when women were not part of work force.  But their participation has historically been less than that of men.   Women’s full-fledged participation in work is more of a modern Western phenomenon.  In 1930 women’s share in total US labour force was 29.6%.  It grew to 46.8% in 2015.75  Graph of growth of women in the US work force, after rising sharply from 1950 to 1990s has already almost plateaued.  Bureau of Labor Statistics of USA project that share of women will peak at 47.1% in 2025 before tapering off.76  They have already reached their biological limit.  Now they are looking forward to gender based quotas to earn more money.77  Despite existent quotas, woman could earn only 83% of what men could earn in 2015 in the USA.78    Women workers remain overrepresented in low risk and hence low paid jobs.  In 2017 women make only 19% of the US Congress and about a quarter of state Legislatures; some 8% US governors and only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women.79  Greater participation of women in workforce has come at a cost to society.  First, participation of men in work force has decreased.  If woman is at work, somebody has to look after children.  Economists Stefania Albanesi and Ayṣegūl Ṣahin of Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 80% of men used to work in 1970 in the USA.  In 2012 only 70.2% men worked.  Moreover women’s participation in work has plateaued while men’s participation is still decreasing.80  Second, this phenomenon has exerted such a bad effect on parenting that it is obvious to all and sundry.  74% Americans believed in 2013 that increasing number of women working for pay has made it harder for parents to raise their children.81 Third, it has affected stability of marriage adversely.  Scholars have started seeing a relationship between women’s economic independence and increased divorce rate.82  Even 50% of American public can see this relationship with their own eyes.83  It has resulted in drastic decrease in popularity of marriage.  In 1950 70% of adult American population was married.  (100% adult population of a country can never be married because some younger adults are busy attaining skills and not ready for marriage, some older ones are already widowed or divorced and some will never choose to marry).  In 2015 this number dropped to 50%.84  Distrust between genders has increased and growing number of people have started cohabitation instead of marrying as it involves lesser commitment than marriage.  Cohabitation has increased by 29% between 2007 and 201685 and in 2016 7% of Americans were cohabiting.86 People who had courage to commit to each other for whole life have, consequently decreased.  72% people in the US 18 and above in 1960 were married.87 In 2015 this number has decreased to 50% only88 and 14% of American adults who are unmarried (2015) do not intend to marry ever.89  Not only this, a marriage where both partners are working full time has failed to satisfy everybody in the society.  Only 62% Americans prefer dual income marriage over single income marriage.90

This phenomenon of woman participating in work at large scale and deterioration of family values is not that profound in Muslim majority countries.  According to data provided by World Bank in 2017, though woman make sizable portion of workforce in Southern and Eastern European Muslim-majority countries and some of South East Asian countries, their participation is low elsewhere.  For example, if we look at Eastern Europe, women make 38.7% of labour force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In Central Asian Muslim-majority countries number is almost same as in ‘the West.’  In Azerbaijan woman make 48.8% of labour force, in Kazakhstan 48.5%, in Kyrgyz republic 40%, in Uzbekistan 41.6%, in Turkmenistan 41.9% and in Turkey 32.2%.  In Middle East and North Africa women’s participation in work force is low.  In Bahrain women make 21.0 % of workforce. For Iran this number is 19.0%, for Iraq 20.1%, for Jordan 17.7%, for Kuwait 28.2%, for Qatar 14.1%, for Saudi Arabia 16.2%, for UAE 12.4%, for Yemen 7.9%, for Oman 12.9%, and for Egypt 23.1%.  Situation is similar in South Asia.  Only 17.3 % of workforce in Afghanistan is female, 29.1% in Bangladesh and 22.4% in Pakistan.  Picture of South East Asia is similar to Eastern Europe where, for example in Malaysia, 38.1% workforce consists of women.91  As woman’s participation in work force in increasing in Muslim majority countries so is divorce rate.

Educating women

Pew performed a public opinion survey on 45000 people in 47 nations both rich and poor.  It found that out of 10 surveyed 7 people from around the globe believe that educating boys as well as girls is equally important.92 This believe is being practiced across religions.  Gender gap in education is already small.  Globally men study 1.1 years more than women. There is no gender gap in education among Jews.  In Christians men study 0.4 years more than women.   In unaffiliated men study 1.1 years more than women.  In Budhists men study 1.5 more years than women.  In Muslims men study 2.5 more years than women and in Hindus men study 2.7 years more than women.  Generally gender gap is decreasing among all religions.93

As far as graduate training is concerned, actually, women are doing better than men all over.  More women are getting post graduate training than men in Jews, Christians and non-affiliated among generation born between 1976 to 1985.  More men are still getting post graduate training among Budhists, Muslims and Hindus but the gap between women and men is decreasing.94

Everything comes at a cost.  In all communities where women have done well in post graduate training they are facing challenges in marriage.  Number of post graduate trained men in marriage market is less than such women.   Women don’t want to marry less educated man and on the other hand less educated men are afraid of marrying higher educated woman.

End Notes:

  1. Bertjan Doosje, Krystyna Rojahn and Agneta Fischer, “Partner Preferences as a Function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education,” Sex Roles 40, no. 1/2 (1999): 45 – 60
  2. “On Gender Differences, No Consensus on Nature vs. Nurture,” Pew Research Center Accessed 22 Jan. 2019, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/12/05/on-gender-differences-no-nature-vs-nurture/.
  3. A. G. Khudson Jr., “Mutation and Cancer: Statistical Study of Retinoblastoma,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 68, no. 4 (1971): 820 – 23
  4. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” Nature 437 (01 September 2005): 69 – 87.
  5. Kay Prufer et. al., “The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes,” Nature 486 (28 June 2012): 527 – 531.
  6. Emily Elizabeth Wroblewski, “paternity and father offspring relationships in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii,” PhD thesis. (University of Minnesota, https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/61991)
  7. Anne Elizabeth Pusey, “Inbreeding avoidance in Chimpanzees,” Animal Behaviour 28, no. 2 (May 1980): 543 – 552.
  8. Caroline E. G. Tutin, “Mating patterns and reproductive strategies in a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii),” Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 6, no. 1 (November 1979): 29 – 38.
  9. Anne Elizabeth Pusey, “Behavioural Changes at Adolescence in Chimpanzees,” Behaviour, 115, no. 3/4 (Dec. 1990): 203 – 246.
  10. Carson M. Murray, Margaret A. Stanton, Elizabeth V. Lonsdorf, Emily E. Wroblewski and Anne E. Pusey, “Chimpanzee fathers bias their behaviour towards their offspring,” Royal Society Open Science 3 (9 November 2016): DOI: 10.1098/rsos. 160441. rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/160441. Accessed 7 Mar. 2018.
  11. Goodal et al., “Intercommunity interactions in the chimpanzee population of the Gombe National Park,” in The Great Apes, eds. D. Hamburg and E. McCown. Menlo Park, CA :Benjamin Cummings, 1979. See also: T. Nishida, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa T Hasegawa and Y Takahata, Group extinction and female transfer in wild chimpanzees in the Mahale Mountains National Park, Tanzania,” Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 67 (1985): 281 – 301. AND: C. Boesch and H. Boesch-Achermann. The Chimpanzees of the Tai Forest. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2000. AND: D. Watts and J Mitani, “Boundary Patrols and Intergroup Encounters in Wild Chimpanzees,” Behaviour 138 (2001): 299 – 327.
  12. Sebastian Kraemer, “The Origins of Fatherhood: An Ancient Family Process,” Family Process 30 no. 4 (December 1991): 377 – 392
  13. Marin N Muller and Richard W Wrangham, “Dominance, aggression and testosterone in wild chimpanzees: a test of the ‘challenge hypothesis,” Animal Behaviour 67 no. 1 (January 2004): 113 – 123.
  14. Marin N Muller and Richard W Wrangham, “Dominance, aggression and testosterone in wild chimpanzees: a test of the ‘challenge hypothesis,” Animal Behaviour 67 no. 1 (January 2004): 113 – 123.
  15. Darla R Botkin, Jeanette E Morris, and M. O’Neal Weeks, “Changing Marriage Role Expectations: 1961 – 1996,” sex roles, 42, no. 9/10 (May 2000): 933 – 942
  16. Murdock G. P. Social structure. New York: Free Press. 1949.
  17. Chapais B. Primeval Kinship: How pair-bonding gave birth to human society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. See also: Tylar E. B., “On a method of investigating the development of institutions: Applied to laws of marriage and decent,” The journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 18 (1989): 245 – 272.
  18. George Aaron Barton, “Contracts,” in Assyrian and Babylonian Literature: Selected Translations, ed. Robert Francis Harper, (New York: D. Appelton & Company, 1901), 269.
  19. Glen E. Weisfeld and Carol C.Weisfeld, “Marriage: An Evolutionary Perspective,” Neuroendocrinology Letters 23, Suppl. 4 (Dec 2002):47 – 54
  20. Robert S. Walker, Kim R. Hill, Mark V. Flinn and Ryan M. Ellsworth, “Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices,” PLoS ONE 6, no 4, (2011): e19066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019066
  21. M. Apostolou, “Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of parents in the evolution of human mating,” Evolution and Human Behaviour 28 (2007) 403 – 409.
  22. M. Apostolou, “Parent-offspring Conflict over mating; The case of mating age,” Evolutionary psychology 8 no 3 (July 2010): 365 – 75. See also: S. L. Dubbs and A. P. Buunk, “Parents just don’t understand: Parent Offspring Conflict over Mate Choice,” Evolutionary psychology 8 no. 4 (Oct. 2010): 586 – 98.
  23. Glen E. Weisfeld and Carol C.Weisfeld, “Marriage: An Evolutionary Perspective,” Neuroendocrinology Letters 23, Suppl. 4 (Dec 2002):47 – 54
  24. B Chapais. Primeval Kinship: How pair-bonding gave birth to human society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 2008.
  25. M. Apostolou, “Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of parents in the evolution of human mating,” Evolution and Human Behaviour 28 (2007) 403 – 409.
  26. Robert S. Walker, Kim R. Hill, Mark V. Flinn and Ryan M. Ellsworth, “Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices,” PLoS ONE 6, no 4, (2011): e19066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019066
  27. R. Mehdi, “Danish law and the practice of mahr among Muslim Pakistanis in Denmark,” International Journal of the Sociology of law 31, no. 2 (2014): 115 – 129.
  28. Robert S. Walker, Kim R. Hill, Mark V. Flinn and Ryan M. Ellsworth, “Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices,” PLoS ONE 6, no 4, (2011): e19066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019066
  29. R. R. Baker and M. A. Bellis. Human sperm competition. London: Chapman & Hill, 1995.
  30. G. P. Murdock, “The ethnographic atlas: A summary,” Ethnology 6 (1967): 109-236
  31. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  32. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  33. A. M. Mir, A. Wajid, S. Pearson, M. Khan and I. Masood, “Exploring urban male non-marital sexual behaviour in Pakistan,” Reproductive Health 10 no. 22 (2013): 10 – 22.
  34. “Demographic Yearbook 2011,” United Nations Statistics Division. Accessed 15 Oct. 2018, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2011/table23.pdf.
  35. K. G. Anderson, “How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates,” Current Anthropology 47 (2006): 513 – 520.
  36. “As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned about Social Impact,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 23 Jan. 2019, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2007/07/01/as-marriage-and-parenthood-drift-apart-public-is-concerned-about-social-impact/.
  37. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  38. A. M. Mir, A. Wajid, S. Pearson, M. Khan and I. Masood, “Exploring urban male non-marital sexual behaviour in Pakistan,” Reproductive Health 10 no. 22 (2013): 10 – 22.
  39. M. Apostolou, “Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of parents in the evolution of human mating,” Evolution and Human Behaviour 28 (2007) 403 – 409.
  40. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  41. Natascha Wagner and Matthias Rieger, “Polygyny and Child Growth: Evidence From Twenty-Six African Countries,” Feminist Economics 21, no. 2 (2014): 105 – 130
  42. A. J. Bateman, “Intra-sexual selection in Drosophilia,” Heridity 2 (pt. 3) (1948): 349 – 368
  43. Russell D. Clark and Elaine Hatfield, “Gender differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers,” Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 2, no. 1 (1989): 30 – 55
  44. Michael Marks and R. Fraley, “The sexual double standard: fact or fiction?” Sex Roles 52, no. 3-4 (2005): 175 – 186
  45. Erin A. Vogel, “Attachment Theory and the Sexual double standard,” Honors Projects. Paper 156: Illinois Wesleyan University, 2012.
  46. S. N. Seidman and R. O. Reider, “A review of Sexual behaviour in the United States,” American Journal of Psychiatry 151 (1994): 330 – 341
  47. S. N. Seidman and R. O. Reider, “A review of Sexual behaviour in the United States,” American Journal of Psychiatry 151 (1994): 330 – 341. For general sexual behaviours in current American society see: Richard C Friedman and Jennifer I Downey, “homosexuality,” New England Journal of Medicine 331, no. 14 (1994): 923 – 930:
  48. Joan D Atwood and Limor Schwartz, “Cyber-sex. The New Affair Treatment Considerations,” Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 1, no. 3 (2002): 37 – 56
  49. Theophile J. Meek, “Mesopotamian Legal Documents,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Ritchard, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 217. See also: Francois Thureau-Dangin. Recueil de tablettes chaldeennes (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1903) No 289. AND C. J. Gadd. A Sumerian Reading-Book (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1924) P 173, No. XXVI.
  50. T. H. Holmes and R. H. Rahe, “The Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11, no. 2 (1967): 213 – 8.
  51. “Demographic Yearbook 2011,” United Nations Statistics Division. Accessed 15 Oct. 2018, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2011/table25.pdf.
  52. “The link between a college education and a lasting marriage,” Pew Research Center, Wendy Wang. Accessed 24 Feb. 2018, www.pewsearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/.
  53. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  54. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  55. “Demographic Yearbook 2011,” United Nations Statistics Division. Accessed 15 Oct. 2018, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2011/table25.pdf.
  56. “The link between a college education and a lasting marriage,” Pew Research Center, Wendy Wang. Accessed 24 Feb. 2018, www.pewsearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/.
  57. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  58. A. M. Mir, A. Wajid, S. Pearson, M. Khan and I. Masood, “Exploring urban male non-marital sexual behaviour in Pakistan,” Reproductive Health 10 no. 22 (2013): 10 – 22.
  59. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  60. “How abortion is regulated around the world,” Pew Research Center, Angelina E. Theodorou and Aleksandra Sandstorm. Accessed 17 Oct. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/06/how-abortion-is-regulated-around-the-world/.
  61. “Muslim Western Tensions Persist,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 23 Feb. 2018, www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/.
  62. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  63. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  64. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, politics, society overview,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
  65. Michael Argyle and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. The Social Psychology of Religion. London: Routledge, 1975.
  66. “The gender gap in religion around the world,” Pew Research Center, David McClendon. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2016/03/22/the-gender-gap-in-religion-around-the-world/.
  67. Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. Psychological Perspectives on religion and Religiosity. East Suxxex: Routledge, 2015.
  68. Rodney Stark, “Physiology and Faith: Addressing the ‘Universal’ Gender Difference in Religious commitment,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41, no. 3 (2002): 495 – 507
  69. Alan S Miller and Rodney Stark, “Gender and Religiousness: Can Socialization Explanation Be Saved?” American Journal of Sociology 107 no. 6 (2002): 1399 – 1423
  70. The idea that women are universally more religious than men was prominently challaenged by Sullins. Yet Sullins conceded the possibility of some universal gender differences, writing, “it appears that the thesis of a universal gender difference should be stated more narrowly: it may apply to affective (interior), but not to active (external), religiousness.” (D. Paul Sullins, “Gender and Religion: Deconstructing Universality, Constructing Complexity,” American Journal of Sociology 112, no. 3 (Nov. 2006): 838 – 880).
  71. “Religious gender gap for Christians but not for Muslims,” Pew Research Center, Caryle Murphy. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/24/a-religious-gender-gap-for-christians-but-not-for-muslims/.
  72. “The gender gap in religion around the world,” Pew Research Center, David McClendon. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2016/03/22/the-gender-gap-in-religion-around-the-world/.
  73. “Religious gender gap for Christians but not for Muslims,” Pew Research Center, Caryle Murphy. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/24/a-religious-gender-gap-for-christians-but-not-for-muslims/.
  74. “Religious gender gap for Christians but not for Muslims,” Pew Research Center, Caryle Murphy. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/24/a-religious-gender-gap-for-christians-but-not-for-muslims/.
  75. “Demographic trends shaping the US and the world in 2017,” Pew Research Center, Anthony Cilluffo and D’Vera Cohn. Accesed 18 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/10-demographic-tredns-shaping-the-us-and-the-world-in-2017/.
  76. “Demographic trends shaping the US and the world in 2017,” Pew Research Center, Anthony Cilluffo and D’Vera Cohn. Accesed 18 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/10-demographic-tredns-shaping-the-us-and-the-world-in-2017/.
  77. For example, see Canadian federal government’s preferential treatment to women owned businesses at the cost of men owned businesses: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/107.nsf/eng/home
  78. “The narrowing, but persistant, gender gap in pay,” Pew Research Center, Anna Brown and Eleen Patten. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/.
  79. “Demographic trends shaping the US and the world in 2017,” Pew Research Center, Anthony Cilluffo and D’Vera Cohn. Accesed 18 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/10-demographic-tredns-shaping-the-us-and-the-world-in-2017/.
  80. Stefania Albanesi and Ayṣegūl Ṣahin. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports: The Gender Unemployment Gap. Staff report No. 613, (New York: Federal Reserve Bank, 2013).
  81. “Breadwinner moms,” Pew Research Center, Wendy Wang, Kim Parker and Paul Taylor. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/.
  82. Glen E. Weisfeld and Carol C.Weisfeld, “Marriage: An Evolutionary Perspective,” Neuroendocrinology Letters 23, Suppl. 4 (Dec 2002):47 – 54
  83. “Breadwinner moms,” Pew Research Center, Wendy Wang, Kim Parker and Paul Taylor. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/.
  84. “Breadwinner moms,” Pew Research Center, Wendy Wang, Kim Parker and Paul Taylor. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/.
  85. “Demographic trends shaping the US and the world in 2017,” Pew Research Center, Anthony Cilluffo and D’Vera Cohn. Accesed 18 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/10-demographic-tredns-shaping-the-us-and-the-world-in-2017/.
  86. “Number of U.S. adults cohabiting with a partner continues to rise, especially among those 50 and older,” Pew Research Center, Renee Stepler. Accessed 17 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/number-of-u-s-adults-cohabiting-with-a-partner-continues-to-rise-especially-among-those-50-and-older/.
  87. “As U.S. marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap in marital status widens,” Pew Research Center, Kim Parker and Renee Stepler. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/.
  88. “Demographic trends shaping the US and the world in 2017,” Pew Research Center, Anthony Cilluffo and D’Vera Cohn. Accesed 18 Feb. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/10-demographic-tredns-shaping-the-us-and-the-world-in-2017/.
  89. “As U.S. marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap in marital status widens,” Pew Research Center, Kim Parker and Renee Stepler. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/.
  90. “For young adults, the ideal marriage meets reality,” Pew Research Center, Wendy Wang. Accessed 24 Feb. 2018, www.pewsocialtrends.org/ 2013/07/10/for-young-adults-the-ideal-marriage-meets-reality/.
  91. “Labor force, female (%of total labor force),” The World Bank. Accessed 11 Mar. 2018, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sl.tlf.totl.fe.zs
  92. “World publics welcome global trade – but not immigration,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 21 Feb. 2018, www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/.
  93. “Religion and Education Around the World,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2016/12/13/religion-and-education-around-the-world/.
  94. “Religion and Education Around the World,” Pew Research Center. Accessed 19 Feb. 2018, www.pewforum.org/2016/12/13/religion-and-education-around-the-world/.
error: