So, I am still on Cloud 9 from the amazing essay and lecture by Helen Andrews that I posted on the weekend. My female friends were unanimous in their praise for the article. My male friend Blake and I talked about it for 2 hours on the phone. My other male friends have not had the chance to read it. But on the heels of that, here’s another fantastic podcast about feminism. Terrell found it for me.
I don’t need to introduce economist Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (of the Ruth Institute) to regular readers of the blog, as she is well known for her opposition to feminism, and her policy-oriented approach to solving the problems of the Sexual Revolution. Whereas many social conservatives just moan and complain about the Sexual Revolution, and then expect men to “fix it” so that women are happy, Dr. Morse has all sorts of interesting ideas about what laws and policies to change to bring us back to normal.
Her guest Dr. Hannah Spier is someone I had never head of before. She’s a former psychiatrist who is married and lives in Switzerland with her husband and children. She’s a stay-at-home mother now. And you might not believe this but she describes herself as very supportive of “men’s rights”. Now, don’t get me wrong, she’s not a basher of women. What I heard in the podcast was a lot of discussion about what feminism is, and how women who believe in it order their lives. Does it work out for them?
Anyway, I have the video version and the audio version. So here’s the uncensored video from Rumble:
Don’t forget that our Knight and Rose Show is also posted on Rumble, if you don’t like YouTube. I certainly don’t.
I was supposed to be working on work-work (work related to my job) on Sunday, and doing the laundry. But I could not escape from this podcast. I kept re-winding it to play parts over.
Anyway, I was going to write a summary of this, but I fed Grok the transcript, and told it the parts that impressed me, and asked for a summary. I got this:
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and Dr. Hannah Spier explore how feminist ideology influences women’s choices, often leading to mental health challenges and unfulfilled desires. Dr. Spier, a psychiatrist, shares insights from her practice, highlighting how societal pressures and personal decisions rooted in feminism can create resentment and emotional distress across different life stages.
For women in their 20s, Dr. Spier observes a pattern of pursuing demanding degrees while grappling with unmet emotional needs. Many focus on dating or social status, influenced by feminist ideals of career-driven success, only to face anxiety and panic attacks when academic and romantic goals clash. This mismatch stems from chasing a glamorous career image that doesn’t satisfy deeper attachment needs.
In their 30s, women often experience burnout from unfulfilling jobs, compounded by the pressure of declining fertility. Dr. Spier notes that some women invest years in relationships with partners hesitant to commit, partly because career-focused women initially seem less likely to prioritize marriage or children. When these women later seek commitment, the delay can lead to conflict.
By their 40s, married women with children may face depression and marital strain, often feeling guilt over their children’s struggles, like ADHD, which Dr. Spier links to attachment issues from balancing work and family. Resentment toward husbands for perceived unequal responsibilities can push some toward divorce, seeking relief but facing new challenges.
Both critique feminism’s narrative that pits men and women against each other, arguing it undervalues motherhood and fuels bitterness. They encourage women to make choices aligned with their biological and relational needs, fostering healthier emotional lives and stronger families, rather than adhering to societal pressures that may lead to regret.
What was most interesting to me about all this was how even though women were making these decisions all along, it was pretty clear that they had been sold a bill of goods by powerful people who wanted them to go in this direction for whatever reason.
In particular, I was pleased to hear Dr. Spier mention how women who are committed to full-time careers deliberately choose men who support that. I.e. – men who don’t want to be burdened by commitment and children. So, to the woman who has her eventual demands for commitment and children rejected, it looks like “all men are bad” because the man she chose was bad. I know that many modern women, for example, consider support for abortion rights to be a non-negotiable when dating a man. If a feminist woman chooses a pro-abortion man, it gives her maximum autonomy for her career during her 20s. But how likely do you think it is that a pro-abortion man is going to suddenly sign up for marriage and children when she hits 32? It seems unlikely. After all, abortion is nothing but seeking reckless sexual pleasure, and then resorting to deadly violence to avoid the consequences of your actions. A man who believes in that is not going to sign up for marriage and kids. Marriage and kids are responsibilities, and pro-abortion men don’t want that.
What we need to do is to tell women that good men are men who want to commit early, and raise kids early. And so, they need to choose those good men early. Men marry for a specific plan. Good men want a helper who can help them with their plans. It’s wrong to pass up good men in the woman’s 20s, and then hope that they will be there in the woman’s 30s. That’s not a good deal for the good men. They will not take that deal. The right solution is for older women to teach younger women to reject feminism when they are still young. So, please share the podcast with young women.
Announcement: The blog just reached 10,000,000 page views since I started it in January 2009. So, leave me a comment on Facebook, Twitter or below this post, if you want me to keep going! I’m thinking about scaling back the blog and the podcast and the YouTube channel, since I am ready for early retirement! Maybe I will just scale back the blogging to days when I really am bursting to speak out.
The article I want to comment on is written by Helen Andrews. It might be the best thing you read all year, it’s certainly the best thing I’ve read this year. Better than anything you will hear from popular Christian authors and podcasters, who tend to shy away from policy and controversy. This article is about what is really going on in big woke corporations, outside of the happy Christian bubble.
Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
This part was my favorite:
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
She doesn’t mention domestic violence laws and family courts, perhaps strategically, but these both are nothing like traditional legal processes. Many intelligent men are avoiding relationships out of caution about false accusations and divorce. It’s called the “marriage strike”, and it is just the rational response to the feminization of the police force and family courts. Especially for men of means who have more to lose.
These two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that, if Christine Blasey Ford can’t provide any concrete evidence that she and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life. The feminine position was that her self-evident emotional response was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate committee must respect.
If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread. Judges will bend the rules for favored groups and enforce them rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent. It was possible to believe back in 1970 that introducing women into the legal profession in large numbers would have only a minor effect. That belief is no longer sustainable. The changes will be massive.
Her article is based on a speech that she gave at NatCon5: a national conference of conservative thought.
Please read her article, and watch the video if you like. Send it to all your friends. Post it on social media. Share the video with all of your friends. I found the article cathartic. It really moved me. I did cry for a bit because I have experienced what she is talking about, in corporate America. It really was not easy to get through.
It’s great to see Helen Andrews take up this issue of institutional feminization, which I think is the core danger of our time. Except for a very small minority, nobody seems to have the balls to say that we need to roll back things like single mother welfare, no-fault divorce, student loans for worthless degrees, anti-discrimination laws for businesses, me-too false accusations at work, etc. Most social conservative Christians, for example, claim to be pro-life and pro-marriage, but they are terrified about confronting women about their role in causing those problems. Similarly, they don’t want to confront women about their support for leftist policies.
Well, Helen Andrews has said something about one of the problems, and we all need to follow her lead. And the best part is, she doesn’t think that blaming and shaming men is the answer. She thinks the answer is changing laws and policies. That’s rare.
I wanted to add a few more words about my experience working in woke Big Tech corporations while fighting for my green card and early retirement.
The company that eventually sponsored me for my green card was a Platinum partner of the Human Rights Campaign. So, they are a far far far left woke company. They would push me hard to do many secular left actions that I disagreed with. When you are not a permanent resident, you can’t go to Human Resources, or sue the company. You have to lay low and avoid threats and find another way to speak your mind. This is something that many Christian leaders who were born in the USA don’t understand about aliases.
Here’s a few things I encountered in the 16 years before I got my permanent residency (green card):
was asked to wear a rainbow ribbon to support gay rights by my female manager
was called into my female manager’s office after a Muslim complained about my disagreement with Islam
had my blog leaked to Human Resources by a Muslim who found out about it somehow, and was called in to explain it
gay male co-workers would try to get me to disagree with LGBT in front of people so them could send me to HR
had to use vacation days to avoid woke training, and then was asked why I did that
was badgered incessantly to donate to the United Way, a woke non-profit
was called into a meeting with a Director because I spoke to a CHRISTIAN woman about apologetics at work (she was offended because I made her feel bad about her fideism)
was passed over for IT promotions for female candidates who did not even have STEM degrees, or in one case ANY degree or IT work experience
hauled into Human Resources after a Hindu communist complained because I asked him why he didn’t stay in India if he was so opposed to free market capitalism
was called onto the carpet by my female manager for making the no-degree and no-experience lady feel bad when she declined to reply to my e-mails about requirements for an entire week
was denied a letter of reference from the Human Resources lady at a previous employer that I needed for my application for Permanent Residency, (she knew I was a conservative and Christian because I slammed their woke policies in my exit interview)
And I could go on and on, but this is the kind of thing that I had to put up with, mainly from cry-baby feminists and LGBT activists, in corporate America.
Not just in woke corporations
I don’t expect Christian leaders who have given me flack for my alias to understand this, since none are legal immigrants by employer sponsor and few have worked in a woke Fortune 100 IT shop. But even outside of woke IT corporations, I have seen many “conservative” Christians throw out the Bible and side with crying women against men who were in the right Biblically and morally. I have seen “pro-child” “Mama Bear” Christians urge women to initiate divorce over money, and lie about their husbands in family court in order to get custody of kids, even though the divorce was completely unBiblical and immoral.
Many very “manly” looking Christian leaders fold up like origami for women, too. Many years ago, a very famous masculine-looking Christian apologist told my 30-year-old girlfriend that she should feel free to go to Europe to do TWO NON-STEM DEGREES, and that I would be here waiting for her to marry her when she returned. She returned to America at age 34. She didn’t work when she was in Europe, just lived off of donations and debt. And she never used those extra degrees for work. No one had the boldness to confront her about her crazy choices, not even that male “masculine” apologist. And in fact two other male apologists were so desperate to be liked by her, that they also told her that going to Europe at age 30 was a great idea. Do you ever wonder why so many aging Christian women are struggling to get married? Many of them wasted their 20s chasing worldly happiness, to the applause of weak Christian men who merely appeared masculine.
A famous woman apologist once told me that I should not reject women who had tens of thousands of dollars of debt as a wife candidate, because “if Jesus forgives her sins, then who are you to judge her? You need to lower your standards”. We just don’t have Christian leaders who are tough enough to confront women about the lies they believe, and their poor decision-making.
Last point from me. I’ve mentored several women who went through a wild phase as non-Christians. I teach them apologetics and economics, and build up their resume and finances. Once they get their lives on track, the most frequent phrase I hear from them is “everyone was lying to me when I was young”. People tell young women what they want to hear, and it causes them problems in the long run. It is a mistake to think that men exist as ATM servants who will just dispense cash and fixes when women have gotten themselves into these problems. We need to do better at telling women the truth early, even if it hurts their feelings.
Read and share Helen’s article
So, yes. It’s just so encouraging to see an article that finally takes a step into saying “maybe it’s not a good idea to have these laws that force businesses to place women into positions of authority”. Read the article. Share the article. And just consider; should we confront the threat to civilization posed by the feminization of our institutions? Or should we cower in fear of displeasing women, and just keep telling them what they want to hear, so that they will like us?
The video of the debate was posted by ReasonableFaith.org – Dr. Craig’s organization. This debate occurred in March 2017 at the University of Dublin, in Ireland.
The video: (91 minutes)
My non-snarky summary is below.
Dr. Craig’s opening speech
Two claims:
1. There are good reasons to think that theism is true.
2. There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true.
Five reasons for God’s existence:
1. The beginning of the universe
– actual infinite past is mathematically impossible
– BGV theorem: any universe that is on balance expanding in its history (like ours) cannot be past eternal
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– slight changes to quantities and constants prevent a universe from supporting complex embodied life
– the multiverse response of atheists conflicts with observations, e.g. the Boltzmann Brains problem
3. Objective moral values
– God’s existence is required to ground objective moral values and duties
4. Minimal facts case for the resurrection of Jesus
– there are good reasons to accept the most widely accepted facts about the historical Jesus (empty tomb, appearances, early widespread belief in the resurrection)
– the best explanation of these minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead
5. Experience God directly
– in the absence of any defeaters to belief in God, a person can experience God directly
Dr. Daniel Came’s opening speech
1. The hiddenness of God
– if God wants a personal relationship with us, and a relationship with God would be the greatest good for us
– God ought to reveal himself to us, but he does not reveal himself to many people, the “non-resistant non-believers”
2. The inductive problem of evil
– many evil events occur that are pointless – there is no morally sufficient reason why God would allow them to occur
– examples: animal suffering, children born with disease, tsunamis
– the theistic response to this is that humans are not in a position to know whether there are morally sufficient reasons, due to our limitations of knowing the consequences
– but this ripple effect defense has 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which don’t do the job of justifying
Dr. Craig’s first rebuttal
1. The hiddenness of God
– God’s goal is not to make his existence known, but to draw them into a love relationship
– it’s speculative that overt displays of God’s existence would draw people to him in a love relationship, they might resent his bullying
– atheist would have to prove that God could draw more people into a love relationship with him by revealing himself more overtly
2. The inductive problem of evil
– as humans, we are not in a position to know for certain that any apparently pointless evil really is pointless
– William Alston article: 6 limitations of human knowing make it impossible to judge that an evil is actually “pointless”
– Dr. Came says that there are 4 possibilities for the ripple effects, and since 3 are bad, it’s likely that there are not morally sufficient reasons for a apparently pointless evil
– it is logically fallacious to assert probability conclusions without knowing the probabilities of those 4 options
– there is actually an argument from evil: since the problem of evil requires an objective standard of good and evil by which to measure, and God is the only possible ground of objective morality, then pressing the problem of evil actually requires the atheist to assume God, in order to ground this objective moral standard
Dr. Came’s first rebuttal
3. Objective moral values
– there are naturalistic theories of moral realism where objective moral duties and objective moral values exist in a naturalistic universe
– I’m not saying that any of them are correct, but there are many theories about object morality in a naturalistic universe
There are naturalistic theories for all of the 5 arguments that Dr. Craig presented. It is Dr. Craig’s responsibility to present those naturalistic theories and prove that they are not as good as his explanations. I’m not going to defend (or even name!) a single naturalistic theory for any of these 5 arguments by Dr. Craig.
Dr. Craig’s explanations for the 5 evidences he gave can’t be admitted, because we have to know how God did something in naturalistic terms before we can know that God did it supernaturally. Explanations are only valid if they are naturalistic.
1. The beginning of the universe
– naturalism explains how the universe expands after it came into being, so that explains how it came into being
– the God explanation, that God created the universe out of nothing, is not admissible, because it is not naturalistic
– how does God, as an unembodied mind interact with the physical world?
– the only agency that we know about is human agents, and we have bodies, so how could God perform actions without having a body?
The theistic hypothesis does not make any predictions, but naturalism makes lots of testable predictions. God could do anything, so he is not constrained and is therefore untestable. We can’t infer God as an explanation in principle because we can’t predict what is more probable if God exists than if he does not.
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– the university was not set up to make embodied intelligence plausible, because the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life
– there are models of the multiverse that escape the Boltzmann Brains problem that Dr. Craig raised
Dr. Craig’s second rebuttal
Some of Dr. Craig’s arguments are deductive (e.g. – the beginning of the universe, objective moral values), so that the conclusion follows from the premises if the premises are true. The resurrection passes the standard tests for historical explanations.
1. The beginning of the universe
– the whole point of the argument is that there is no naturalistic explanation for an ultimate beginning of the universe
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– the whole point of the argument is that there is no naturalistic explanation for a design of the universe to support life
– he has to prove that intelligences has to be attached to bodies
– human beings are non-physical minds united to physical bodies
– naturalistic attempts to explain mental operations fail
– the arguments prove that unembodied minds exist
– the vast expanse of the universe is required in order to form the galaxies, stars and heavy elements needed for complex life
– why expect that the entire universe should be small, or that life would be everywhere?
– a non-fine-tuned world is more likely in the multiverse, and in a multiverse, we are more likely to have a Boltzmann brain world than a world with complex, embodied life
– Dr. Came has not advanced any naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning
3. Objective moral values
– non-theistic ethical theories cannot account for the ontological foundations of objective moral values and duties
– atheistic theories of moral realism simply assume objective moral values out of thin air
– it is especially hard to find any basis for objective moral duties in the absence of God
Dr. Came’s second rebuttal
5. Religious experience
– Dr. Craig should not bring up religious experience in a debate where arguments and evidence are central
– people who have dreams, hallucinations and psychotic delusions could appeal to religious experience
– religious experience is by no means universal, and it is possible to doubt it
3. Objective moral values
– there are lots of atheists who hold to objective moral values
– Dr. Craig has to explain how God grounds objective moral values and duties
– Dr. Craig has to explain why atheist moral realist theories don’t work to ground objective moral values and duties
1. The beginning of the universe
– Dr. Craig claims that something can’t come from nothing, that’s not an argument
– there are numerous models that don’t require an absolute beginning of the universe
– Dr. Craig cites the BGV theorem, but Guth (one of the authors) says that only the inflation has a beginning, not the whole universe
Dr. Craig’s conclusion
1. The beginning of the universe
– on theism, there is an efficient cause, but no material cause, for the origin of the universe
– on atheism, there is neither an efficient cause nor a material cause, for the origin of the universe: that’s worse!
– if he thinks that there are models of the universe that don’t require a beginning, then let him name a viable eternal model of the universe
– he never refuted the mathematical argues against an infinite past
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– nothing to refute
3. Objective moral values
– God is a better ground for morality than humans, because he is ultimate, and not contingent and arbitrary
– God is a being who is worthy of worship, and therefore command his creatures with moral duties
4. Minimal facts case for the resurrection of Jesus
– nothing to refute
5. Religious experience
– only justified because there are no defeaters to it
1. The hiddenness of God
– atheist has to show that if God’s existence were more obvious, that it would result in more people being drawn to him
2. The inductive problem of evil
– Dr. Came’s argument was logically fallacious, and makes errors in probability theory
Dr. Came’s conclusion
Sometimes, people can’t prove something, but lack of evidence is a justification for doubting it, e.g. – werewolves.
If none of Craig’s arguments work, then it follows that it is not rational to believe that God exists, and it is rational to believe that God does not exist.
Atheists shouldn’t have a burden of proof for what they know, only theists have a burden of proof for what they know.
My thoughts
One quick point. If life were common everywhere then atheists would infer that God wasn’t involved in it. Period. “Life is everywhere, so it’s common, why do we need a designer?” they’d say. I agree with Dr. Came about denouncing religious experience in a formal debate. I don’t like when Dr. Craig brings this up, but I see why he does it – he’s an evangelist, and that’s a good thing, too. I just worry about how it looks to atheists, although it’s good for sincere seekers. I’m not the one on the stage, though, Dr. Craig is.
I think the point about more overt revealing by God would annoy people and make them turn away. Think of how gay people respond to the suggestion that there is anything wrong with them, with rage, vandalism, threats, coercion, attempts to get you to lose your job and business, and using government as a weapon to fine and imprison you. It’s really obvious to me that more God does not mean more love of God. For those who don’t want God, the hiddenness is respect for their choice to put pleasure above the search for truth. (I mean the gay activists – I have great sympathy for people who struggle with same-sex unwanted attractions because they were impacted by a failed bond with their parent of the same sex as they are).
Whenever I meet people like Dr. Came, I always urge them to keep investigating and pursuing truth, because they will find it if they are sincerely seeking after God. Some atheists do sincerely seek God, but I don’t know any who haven’t found him. I’m not sure if that’s because those atheists who claim to be non-resistant and rational are in fact resistant and non-rational, or what the real reason is. If you believe the Bible, all unbelief is non-rational and resistant (see Romans 1). Regarding the werewolves, we don’t have any good arguments for werewolves, we do have good arguments for God. Dr. Came didn’t refute the arguments that Craig raised, nor did his own arguments for atheism work. And there are many, many more arguments (origin of life, Cambrian explosion, habitability-discoverability, molecular machines) that Craig did not raise, too.
WINTERY KNIGHT 