MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384568795 · doi:10.36315/2023inpact048

"SECULARISM WON’T SAVE US FROM SEXISM: ATHEISTS IN ROMANTIC DYADS DEMONSTRATE NON-EGALITARIAN CHORE DIVISION"

2023· article· en· W4384568795 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Speed, Allyson Lamont, Jordan MacDonald, Catherine Hall, E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological applications and trends · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBalkans: History, Politics, Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphTrent UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecularismDivision (mathematics)RomanceReligious studiesTheologyPsychologyPhilosophyPsychoanalysisArithmeticMathematicsIslam

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:Major religions often have scriptures or teachings emphasizing the role of women in performing labour within the home.In contrast, secularism is often argued as promoting egalitarianism in relationships, which should produce less pronounced gender roles.If secularism promotes egalitarianism at an individual level, we would expect atheists in heterosexual, romantic dyads to report greater equality in the performance of unpaid labour.Purpose: Our intent was to explore how atheists divided household labour relative to Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Baptists, Christians, Lutherans, Gospel/Pentecostals, Free Church/Presbyterians, United Church, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Agnostics, and the generically nonreligious.Method: The present study used data from the 2017 Canadian General Social Survey (Nweighted > 14,000,000) to investigate if there was a relationship between atheism and chore division.We retained only individuals who were in a romantic, heterosexual relationship in which they lived with their partner.Our housework variables were: meal preparation, laundry, generic housework, and washing dishes.Respondents could indicate that the chore was performed 'By themself', 'By their partner', or 'Split evenly'.Notably, we controlled for age, marital status, education of respondent, education of partner, employment status of respondent, employment status of partner, and whether children were in the home.Results: We found that the main effects of religious affiliation, religious attendance, prayer, and religiosity had little predictive power.Functionally, religious variables (unadjusted for sex) were not associated with more or less egalitarianism.When sex was added to the model, we found that women were more likely to prepare meals (RRR = 0.21, p < .001),wash laundry (RRR = 0.13, p < .001),perform generic housework (RRR = 0.19, p < .001),and wash the dishes (RRR = 0.47, p < .001).When examining our central research question-whether the relationship between sex and chore performance varied across religious affiliations-we found little evidence to support secularism promoting egalitarianism.Sexism was found to exist within romantic dyads irrespective of religious affiliation, and the burden of chores fell disproportionately on women.Discussion: While sexism is often portrayed as a latent or manifest product of religion, there is little evidence that secular groups (e.g., atheists) demonstrate a greater degree of egalitarianism with respect to the division of unpaid labour in the home.This may suggest that the uneven division of household labour is due to a broader structural sexism as opposed to a narrower religious sexism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological applications and trendsSame topicBalkans: History, Politics, SocietyFrench-language works237,207