In 2018, I wrote about a 54-year-old feminist who spent her entire life savings on a dating agency to find a rich husband. Kate spent her entire life writing columns to tell young women to live feminist lifestyles: get easy degrees, work easy jobs, spend money on fun and travel, get cosmetic surgeries, disrespect male leadership, and have lots of casual sex. How is she doing at age 63? Let’s find out.

Let’s first review my post from 2018, in part, and see what this woman was all about.

A couple of years ago, I too joined an expensive matchmaking agency. I had just come out of a seven year relationship, and was on the wrong side of 50.

I soon tired of online dating and receiving messages from over weight baldies who peppered their emails with childish emojis. I hankered to find Mr Right-for-me, a man who was suitably educated and a successful professional.

And so this is how I found myself, throwing money (my entire savings to be precise) to an upmarket matchmaking agency in central London. The agency claimed to filter out the undesirables, the mediocre and give clients the personal touch, so I handed over the hefty sum of £6,000.

So, just a few things about this lady Kate Mulvey. She has made some decisions that I find very unwise.

I documented my findings in my previous post:

• she has no useful degrees – she paid for useless degrees in Italian and French, instead of studying something useful, like computer science or nursing or petroleum engineering. Her “writing” is all about fashion, dating and “lifestyles”
• her opinion on children: “uppity children take your time, emotions and energy” – she sees children as a detriment to her highest priority (her career). She says “I, however, have lived a life of unfettered freedom to take on projects, write books and travel”
• she had loads of entertaining men “beating a path to [her] door” when she was younger
• she spend thousands of pounds on plastic surgery
• she blames her lack of marriage success on her being “brainier” than men
• she turned down men who wanted to marry her, as late as age 33
• her book is called “Accidental Singleton” because her approach to life – anti-marriage hedonism – has accidentally left her single and penniless at age 54

So, this woman, who scorns the leadership of men, made very bad decisions. Her columns are filled with constant bragging about how much smarter she is than men – men who have made far better decisions and achieved much greater prosperity than she has.

Here is the latest article, in which she explains what feminism told her to do with her life, and what that got her.

She writes:

I’m convinced that the reason I’m still booking a table for one at the age of 63 instead of having settled with a significant other is because, like so many women of my generation, feminism has ruined my love life. Instead of empowering us, those ideals of the second-wave feminists made us believe marriage and domesticity were to be avoided like the plague and that men were competition rather than partners.

[…]I had always imagined I would end up married with two wonderful children and living in a house in the countryside. I have paid a hefty price for my so-called liberation.

Act like men – demonize housework and family:

I was 17, and a pupil at Godolphin and Latymer – one of Britain’s most academic institutions – when I was introduced to the Women’s Liberation movement. It offered such hope and excitement, and we spent our lunch breaks soaking up the feminist mantras of Germaine Greer and Betty Friedan: “Act like men,” they cried as they burnt their bras and demonised housework and the family.

Recreational sex with hot pro-abortion bad boys who don’t judge:

Another thing I regret deeply is my tally of one-night stands when I was younger.

[..]My generation of women were encouraged to “have sex like a man” – in other words have casual sex…

The number of partners that a person (man or woman) has had before marriage is related to their likelihood of initiating divorce. So, someone like Kate Mulvey would be a high risk of divorce. Also, smart men don’t sign up for marriage to women who tell them that “my money is my money, and your money is our money“.

So, she spent her life telling young women to follow feminism, like she did. But are Christian leaders telling young women anything different? Many socially conservative Christian leaders believe in “servant leadership”, which means that men serve, and women lead. Instead of confronting lies and evil, men have to take out the trash, and dispense cash on demand for his wife’s handbags and travel.

Many social conservative Christians define masculinity as “men using their strength to benefit women”. In contrast, my wise advisor Dina taught me that masculinity is demonstrated when a man opposes lies and evil, and doesn’t let a woman distract him from those goals with her sex appeal. Dina would say that Christian men should only protect and provide for Christian women who are helpful to men, and led men take the lead to product results for the Boss. So, men should judge women. They should measure them, and choose good ones. And the job of Christian leaders is to produce women that good men want.

As I’ve blogged about before, there are many reasons why good men will be cautious about marrying feminists. Men are realizing that women today are not the same as their mothers and grandmothers. They don’t offer the same value to a marriage-minded man. They don’t respect men as much, and they don’t want to help a man who leads as much. Not only is there the problem of young women being extremely leftist, but there is also the problems of feminized laws, policies and courts being hostile to men. We need Christian leaders who fight against young women’s feminism while they are still young enough to have 4+ children. And we need leaders who fight against laws, policies and courts that are hostile to men.

Tyler O’Neil over at the Daily Signal does a good job of keeping up with the news about the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC web site has been used by domestic terrorists to target Christians and conservatives. Recently, the FBI decided to cut ties with the SPLC. But many big corporations are still using their resources. Which corporations? Tyler has done the research.

Here’s his article from Daily Signal, and then after that, I have some other information that might help you to keep your dollars away from the secular left.

Tyler writes:

Conservative shareholders at eight major corporations have filed resolutions urging those companies to stop using politicized tools like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” which added Turning Point USA a few months before the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

[…]“As someone who lives in Alabama, right in the SPLC’s backyard, I’ve seen its nefariousness up close,” Allen Mendenhall, senior advisor for Heritage’s Capital Markets Initiative, told The Daily Signal. “The assassination of Charlie Kirk has made tragically clear what conservatives have warned for years: When groups like the SPLC equate mainstream conservative beliefs with hatred, they help create a culture of dehumanization with deadly consequences.”

You might remember that SPLC’s resources were used by a convicted domestic terrorist who attacked the Family Research Council headquarters, in an attempted mass shooting. It turns out that big American corporations are using these same resources.

Anyway, here are the companies:

The Heritage Foundation filed resolutions with Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Mastercard, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), PayPal, Salesforce, and Starbucks. Bahnsen filed a resolution with Texas Instruments.

I’ve written about the left-wing extremism of many of these companies before. I’m trying to avoid using their products and services. I closed my account with PayPal. One of my co-workers gave me a Starbucks gift card for Christmas, and I just threw it in the garbage. I’m trying to buy more and more from Publix, which doesn’t get involved in secular leftism as much as Amazon. Even Wal-mart is better than Amazon. I buy my technical stuff from NewEgg or the local Best Buy instead of Amazon. I do my best to stay clear of these 8 corporations as much as I can. Not only are they opposed to my religion and values, but their bias also creeps into their products, making them unreliable. Have you tried search using the Google search engine lately? It just returns a bunch of data from left wing hate groups and far-left corporate news media. I just ask Grok when I need something. Google is useless as a search engine.

The Daily Signal article has details on how each of the 8 companies is linked to the SPLC. I will leave those for you to read.

Let’s look at who the SPLC puts on their hate map:

The Southern Poverty Law Center… publishes a “hate map” that plots mainstream conservative and Christian groups… A terrorist used the “hate map” to target the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., for an attempted mass shooting in 2012…

The SPLC added Turning Point USA to the “hate map” this summer, a few months before the assassination of Kirk, Turning Point’s founder. The SPLC condemned the assassination, but has yet to remove Turning Point from its map.

In recent years, the SPLC has added parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty to the “hate map,” along with groups of doctors who oppose “gender-affirming care,” conservative Christian nonprofits including Focus on the Family, and even the nonprofit PragerU, best known for producing 5-minute educational videos.

Far-left extremism, if you ask me.

Now for something very new. As I mentioned in a previous post, I worked in several tech companies that pushed me to make mandatory donations to the far left United Way. It was so bad that the CEO of one company met with me, and at a different company, someone from the head office met with me. That’s how alarmed they were that I wanted no part of the United Way giving. I don’t give money to United Way, and neither should you.

Well, there’s another company called Benevity, which uses the SPLC “hate map” to discriminate against Christians and conservative charities.

This article from Do No Harm explains:

Benevity is a software company that provides a platform to facilitate companies’ charitable giving efforts to nonprofit organizations.

However, Benevity uses a so-called “Hate List” and “Hate Map” developed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to vet the nonprofits deemed eligible for corporate charitable giving and employee matching programs. The SPLC fully supports radical identity politics, branding efforts to fight back against discriminatory DEI practices and gender ideology as somehow hateful.

And at some point, the SPLC designated Do No Harm as a “hate group.”

Do No Harm, along with 11 other similarly-branded organizations, is signing onto a letter urging Benevity to immediately cease relying on this discredited and harmful list.

“By relying on these partisan designations, Benevity legitimizes a severely biased blacklist that inspires violence, urges discrimination against mainstream organizations, and undermines the spirit of charitable giving,” the letter reads.

The letter then cites examples of groups that have been falsely deemed hateful by the SPLC and subsequently subjected to violence.

I never had to deal with Benevity. But one thing for sure – if you work in one of these companies that wants you to give your money to any charity, say no. Take the money and give it to charities you trust. Me, I like Ratio Christi. Find a chapter, and partner with them. But don’t co-operate with these secular left companies, and don’t give them any of your money.

You might remember how famous philosopher Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, recently investigated Christianity. He found the evidence good enough to make a commitment. I wrote about what arguments he found convincing in this post. A new famous scholar, Charles Murray, has investigated into Christianity. Let’s see what arguments he looked at and where he came out.

Before we see what Charles Murray found, here is a good list of arguments for a Creator and Designer.

I have a list of 8 scientific arguments:

1. origin of the universe
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. origin of life (building blocks and sequencing of information)
4. Cambrian explosion (and other surges of information in the fossil record)
5. galactic, stellar and planetary habitability, e.g. – habitable zones
6. molecular machines in the cell, e.g. – bacterial flagellum
7. evidence for a non-material mind, e.g. – split brain surgery
8. the waiting time problem

And then there are philosophical arguments, too:

1. the moral argument
2. the contingency argument
3. arguments for substance dualism, e.g. – intentionality
4. the argument from reason

And historical arguments:

1. reliability of the New Testament documents
2. minimal facts case for the resurrection, e.g. – Paul’s conversion
3. prophecy, e.g. – Psalm 22

I excluded all “soft” arguments from my list, because emotion-based claims grate on my software engineer and military history soul.

So, what was Murray’s starting point? He explains in a New York Post article:

By the middle of the 20th century, academia’s appraisal of religion amounted to “Smart people don’t believe that stuff anymore.”

That’s the message I got when I reached Harvard in the fall of 1961.

None of my professors was religious (at least visibly). I didn’t have any friends who were religious.

When the topic of religion came up, professors and friends alike treated it dismissively or as a subject for humor.

I didn’t expend energy rejecting religion. It was irrelevant. I ignored it.

That’s his starting point. And why investigate Christianity when you are already at the top of your field, getting a lot of respect for the influential books that you are putting out?

So often, Christians are taught to think that Christianity is something that you investigate when you have a life crisis. Then you take this irrational leap into the dark, and turn over a new leaf, to get your life in order. Maybe to make people stop judging you. That’s how Christianity is seen today. Most people think that Christianity is about feelings and community, but that’s not the way Jesus saw it. Jesus said that everyone who is on the side of TRUTH listens to him. He used evidence in order to appeal to people who didn’t believe in him already. We talked about Christianity as a “truth quest” in our podcast episode with Dr. Gunter Bechly, who went on a truth quest and arrived at Christianity. Intellectuals who are curious and open can find solid evidence for the Christian worldview.

Science and Culture has an article up about what evidence Charles Murray looked at in his new book:

“Millions are like me when it comes to religion: well-educated and successful people for whom religion has been irrelevant,” Charles Murray writes. “For them, I think I have a story worth telling.”

Taking Religion Seriously is Murray’s autobiographical account of the decades-long evolution in his stance toward the idea of God in general and Christianity in particular. He argues that religion is something that can be approached as an intellectual exercise. His account moves from the improbable physics of the Big Bang to recent discoveries about the nature of consciousness, from evolutionary psychology to hypotheses about a universal Moral Law. His exploration of Christianity delves into the authorship of the Gospels, the reliability of biblical texts, and the scholarship surrounding the resurrection story.

These align with some of the arguments that I mentioned (origin of the universe, fine-tuning, consciousness, moral argument, gospel reliability, resurrection), showing you how these arguments really do work on non-Christian scholars.

A Wall Street Journal article (archived) has more about his process of changing his mind:

Whatever else may be said about Mr. Murray, he can’t be accused of dishonesty or cowardice. He has a penchant for saying what many other writers and scholars know but either can’t say or can’t say clearly and without a thousand qualifications. He has often been typecast in liberal organs as an ideologue, but that is exactly wrong: Reading Mr. Murray’s work—this is most plainly true in “Losing Ground” and “Coming Apart”—you often sense that the writer would rather draw different conclusions but, in view of the evidence, can’t.

“Taking Religion Seriously” is, in that sense, typical of its author. Mr. Murray wasn’t searching for religious belief.

He starts out with a book written by a famous atheist astronomer, Martin Rees, about the cosmic fine-tuning argument. This argument is generally viewed by atheists as the most compelling argument for a Creator and Designer of the universe:

Mr. Murray’s conversion, if that’s what it is, began in the early 2000s, when he read a few theoretical accounts of the universe’s origins, among them Martin Rees’s “Just Six Numbers” (1999). So wildly improbable were the conditions necessary for the so-called Big Bang, it seems to Mr. Murray, that the whole business, whenever it happened, sounded very much like what Christians call creation. “I can’t believe I’m thinking this,” he recalls reflecting, “but it’s the only plausible explanation”—“it” meaning the divine origin of everything.

He was also impressed by the case for the reliability of the gospels, including the relatively recent, ground-breaking work done by Dr. Richard Bauckham on the eyewitness backing of the gospels:

One of those books on the Gospels’ formation is perhaps the greatest of them all: Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” (2006), a densely researched and dispassionate argument that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are more or less what they present themselves to be: accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, compiled from the testimonies of eyewitnesses. Mr. Murray also read prominent critical accounts of the Gospels—books by Bart Ehrman, among others, that reject all supernatural claims—and wasn’t so impressed.

These latter accounts, Mr. Murray concludes, falter under the weight of unanswered questions. Among those questions: If the idea of Jesus’ divinity was so late an invention, as all critical biblical scholarship must assume, how is it that not a single New Testament book so much as alludes to the most cataclysmic event of ancient Judaism, the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70? Jesus foretells its destruction in the Gospels, and this has been interpreted as a later insertion to make him sound prophetic, but are we to believe that any mention of the temple’s actual destruction never found its way into any New Testament book?

And why does the Acts of the Apostles end with the reader wondering what became of its two most important characters, when we know they were martyred? “If people kept augmenting and altering the books of the New Testament as the revisionists insist,” Mr. Murray wonders, “why wouldn’t someone have added a few lines at the ending of the Acts mentioning the deaths of Paul and Peter?” The most plausible answer, of course, is that Luke’s account was finished before their deaths and no one in subsequent decades felt sufficiently bold to tamper with it. And most puzzling of all: Why did Jesus’ disciples go to their deaths insisting he had been raised from the dead when they had neither hoped for nor expected such a thing in the first place, if they knew it never happened?

If you’re a student of apologetics, then you’ll have heard of these concerns before, maybe in the writings of William Lane Craig for one and two, and N.T. Wright for number three. That’s why Christian apologists spend all this time reading this stuff, so that we can suggest these books to skeptics like Charles Murray! And these books do work on skeptics. It’s a shame that so many Christians never learn about how to use these books in church.

Anyway, if you like stories about very, very famous non-Christians taking a look at the good evidence for God’s existence, and Christianity in particular, then mark this one down on your list. It’s good to not care too much about flashy celebrities, and people who draw crowds based on their entertainment ability. Life isn’t about that. Life is about taking the time to puzzle about the evidence in nature and history that you can follow to get into a two-way relationship with the Boss. Many people seem to get so busy with other things. Some of these things are bad, and some of these things are good. But the purpose of life is surely to puzzle about the big questions, and to be reconciled with God.

Maybe you’ve been a Christian all your life, and you don’t even know why. Maybe you’d like to find out how to show non-Christians your work? In that case, it’s helpful to consider the stories of people like Gunter Bechly, Larry Sanger, Charles Murray, etc. and do a little study to see how good the evidence that they found really is. It’s fun to talk to people about the clues that the Boss has left.