Seeking God in a Socially Acceptable way

Laura Wood ('The Thinking Housewife') offers a theory of why (some) Western women convert to Islam.

A woman almost never does something that will bring about [her own personal] social annihilation. Men are more influential in shaping society through idea. Women are more influential in shaping it through form.

Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative considers the case of Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of Tony Blair who recently converted to Islam. My guess is that she sought to embrace God in a socially acceptable form. She might have lost more friends if she had become a pious Christian than a pious Muslim. She did not risk social annihilation, not in self-annihilating Europe of today. More Western women will probably follow in her footsteps.

Mrs Wood's theory would likely never have occurred to me (doubtless because, being a man, I don't think quite like a woman does), but once comprehended, it seems so obvious.

I mean, I understand that present-day moderns are quite unhappy with the deal their parents and grandparents (and, back, all the way to the so-called "Enlightenment") made to ditch Christianity for socialism and scientism. I understand that women (as a class of persons) got the short end of that deal, and that many of them are starting to realize it. I understand that human beings *want* relationship with God ... and they want "religion" in their lives. It just never would have occurred to me that part of the appeal of the anti-religion and demon-worship known as Islam is that it is more Socially Acceptable in some social circles to be known as a Moslem than as a Christian.

And so, the philosophically shallow person, feeling the pull of "the religious impulse," who imagines that "all religions are the same" or that the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are the same, may well evaluate the two religions not on their content, but upon their Socially Acceptability within his or her (*) circle.

(*) This was a perfect opportunity to use "gender inclusive language" (that is, to write "her" rather than "his" or even "his or her") to mock it, but I didn't. The reason using "her" would have been mockery of "gender inclusive language" is that "gender inclusive language" is never (and may never be) used in a manner that might be perceived as negative toward the grammatically incorrect "she" of one's hypothetical or subjunctive statement. Thus, one will constantly be treated to "gender inclusive" math professors or philosophers (despite that women, in general, are not too interested in either subject) or soldiers or "firefighters" (despite that women, in general, are physically, and frequently mentally/emotionally, unsuited to either role), but one will never see a "gender inclusive" bank-robber or plumber ... or philosophically shallow person.


Edit (2010/10/27):
Vox Day has a fairly good post about this (despite that he seeks to tie it into that silliness known as "Game").