Someone (I think a sometime-commenter here) has a blog which linked to me in their post Religion is Beta. In the comments there, Whiskey said “young women HATE Christianity with its limits on female sexuality and alpha males”. That didn’t sound right to me, I googled for age, gender and religiosity. A first-page result was for the book “Adventures in social research”. Sounds fun! On page 309 they have a big complicated table I can’t read well, summarized with a more readable one.

Percentage Who Attend Worship Services About Weekly

Age vs Gender Under 21 21-39 40-64 65 and older
Men 21 32 49
Women 38 36 37 45

I guess relative to those 65 and older, but I don’t know under what other standard young women could be said to hate Christianity. I might check this out in the GSS or WVS later, but that should do for now.

I don’t read Roissy and others of his ilk (Devlin might be more up my alley, since he’s Last Ditch approved). Like the Inductivist, I value societal order (even though I indulge in irreverent & acidic skepticism with respect to it) and find them both personally displeasing and destructive of said order. So I suppose I’m a supporter of the “Beta revolution”. However, I think it was a poor choice to define onesself with the greek letter. Shouldn’t a reactionary be using a more old-fashioned word to indicate an archetype with the appropriately positive connotations? Perhaps “yeoman”, “husbandman”, “burgher” or so on. The old Puritan “goodman” has the right idea behind it, but would sound lame.