I have spent over 25 years in information technology, and most of the companies were large IT companies. Large IT companies tend to emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion more than smaller companies, which have to perform in order to stay afloat. And that means making sure there is an equal balance of genders, ethnicities, etc. in every different area.

Here is a very interesting post on the relationship advice forum of Reddit:

Hi all I’m posting this on an alt because I know a few of my friends are following me on here and I don’t want this spilling out until I have some clear thoughts on what I want to do.

The author – who uses Commonwealth spelling – has a short summary of her post at the top:

A colleague (27M) joined our firm last year and since then he has had zero issues socialising with the guys we work with but always finds an excuse or says no to hanging out with the girls after work, even if we go out together as a whole he rarely talks to us and its making some of my friends uncomfortable.

And then here is the long version:

So early last year our firm hired Dan (27M). In the first few weeks he was really quiet and didn’t talk much and that’s just how we thought he was. Every conversation with him was short and to the point and never deviated from work, asides from pleasantries (Have a nice weekend etc). About 2 months in he started becoming a bit more friendly with the guys in our office and they would hang out every so often and have normal conversations. However, whenever any of the girls in the office tried to do so he would quickly change the conversation back to work or just not reply. Even now after a year of Dan working with us he straight up refuses to socialise with the girls in the office and it is making them feel uncomfortable. He avoids any discussion of himself outside of work related events and future plans and doesn’t ask any of the girls either. Where as he is, what I can only assume, pretty good friends with the guys in the office.

Even on work meals out to celebrate events he is only doing the bare minimum when it comes to conversation with the girls where again with the guys he talks to them like there is no problem whatsoever. I don’t know if I’m overreacting but one of the girls is considering go to HR about this because she is saying its creating a hostile work environment. Dan treats us like he treats clients we work with; cordial and strictly about business and its wearing thin now.

Any advice is appreciated.

Many young people today don’t see the workplace as being about work. They see it as a time of socializing. And they get angry when people don’t socialize with them. They want to be allowed into a man’s personal space, even though they are the kind of people who go straight to HR whenever anyone disagrees with them, or refuses to make them happy. Many of these women are single mothers who divorced the father of their kids.

I actually left my last job and took a lower salary job, because I was being harassed by a woman who had no college degree. Her official title was “Software Engineer”, but she didn’t write code. She just supervised deployments to production. She was very attractive, and had had cosmetic surgery done – her chest was super-sized. (I heard her explaining why she did it to one of the Indian workers one day). She was also about 6-8 years older than me. She started to get very angry with me for not giving her attention at work. She would come to my desk and talk about how politically conservative she was (she must have heard that I was conservative). But I didn’t want to have anything to do with her.

I blogged previously about a woman who accused a man of grooming her because he didn’t want to get more serious with her. Men are getting tired of this. If you know any young women who are wondering why men don’t talk to them, maybe it’s because many young women are not pleasant or safe to talk to. Even if a particular young unmarried woman is safe to talk to, men will judge her based on the majority of single, unmarried women. It’s just not safe for men to have non-business conversations in the workplace with young, unmarried women.

The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Why should Christians vote? To live out a faithful life plan, you need freedom, safety, and the ability to prosper. This means being able to work without facing discrimination, keeping (most of) what you earn, and educating your children according to your values. But at the most basic level, you need to stay alive. And there are laws that affect whether you are going to be able to stay alive or not.

Now, most of us Americans feel secure from crime. At the local level, we count on the police. We don’t have two-tier policing, like in the UK. American police forces are responsive to taxpayers, not to criminals. Not only do we have great police, but we can also own and train with weapons (if we pass a background check). And even more, now the federal government under Trump is deporting criminals who belong in other countries. For Christians, this means the fundamental need to avoid being killed by criminals is largely met, at least in conservative states with strong self-defense laws.

But now let’s consider Canada.

Here’s the latest story from the Toronto Sun:

This all happened early Monday on Kent St. in downtown Lindsay.

“Officers arrived on scene and learned that the resident of the apartment had woke up to find another male intruder inside his apartment,” said a news release from Kawartha Lakes Police. “There was an altercation inside the apartment and the intruder received serious life-threatening injuries as a result of that altercation.”

[…]“The (alleged) intruder was transported to Ross Memorial Hospital and later air lifted to a Toronto hospital,” say police.

[…]Kawartha Lakes Police Service added: “When released from hospital, he will be held in custody pending a bail hearing.”

So they took the intruder to the hospital, but they arrested the homeowner:

Ezra Levant of Rebel News has spoken with the man who is named Jeremy McDonald.

“A 44-year-old Lindsay man (homeowner) was charged with: aggravated assault and assault with a weapon” but was “released with a future court date,” said that release.

Perhaps in court there will be presented a fuller picture of why police decided to lay the charge on both the alleged intruder and on the break-in victim. Until then, people see it as just another example of letting criminals off easy while victims have to take it — even when they are in a dream state.

Now, those charges – aggravated assault and assault with a weapon – those are very serious charges.

Grok says:

In Canada, the maximum sentence for one charge of aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code is 14 years imprisonment, as it is a straight indictable offence. For one charge of assault with a weapon under section 267, the maximum sentence depends on the prosecution method: if prosecuted by indictment, it carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment; if by summary conviction, the maximum is 18 months incarceration.

Imagine that you were an elderly Christian scholar like Wayne Grudem or William Lane Craig, and you got sentenced to 10 years of hard time in a federal prison for defending your home and family from an armed intruder. That’s what happens in Canada! And the feminized majority up there vote for that – it’s “compassion”. I know there are some great conservative Christians in Canada, but that’s not who is making the laws and the policies.

I asked Grok what would happen for a similar case in a conservative American state with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws:

Consider the same scenario in Florida. If a homeowner wakes to an armed intruder wielding a knife, grabs a baseball bat, and injures the intruder, Florida’s Castle Doctrine (Fla. Stat. § 776.013) presumes the homeowner acted lawfully. As long as the response was proportionate and the threat imminent, the homeowner is unlikely to face charges and may be immune from civil lawsuits. Excessive force, like attacking a surrendering intruder, could lead to charges, but the law strongly favors the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

Here’s an actual case from Tennessee, reported by The Blaze, that shows how diferently self-defense is handled in conservative Americans states:

A Tennessee grand jury will not bring charges against a Lenoir City homeowner who fatally shot an intruder through a front door in May, saying the shooting was a “stand your ground” self-defense case, according to a Wednesday press release from Russell Johnson, the 9th Judicial District Attorney General.

[…]The grand jury reviewed a presentation by Lenoir City Police Department detectives Lynnette Ladd and Jon Yates and agreed with the District Attorney General Johnson’s decision not to bring criminal charges against the homeowner who fatally shot Owen based on the “stand your ground” statute and that it was a case of self-defense.

Everyone – the police and the District Attorney and the grand jury (fellow Tennessee taxpayers) – sided with the law-abiding homeowner and not the violent criminal.

In strong self-defense states like Tennessee and Florida, the law protects law-abiding citizens. When voting, Christians must consider this. Supporting policies like those of the Democrat Party risks two-tier policing, as seen in the UK, or the criminalization of self-defense, as seen in Canada. To live out your faith, stay safe, and remain free, vote for leaders who prioritize your right to protect yourself and your family from armed criminals.

Vote like your life depends on it, because one day, it might.

There were a couple of interesting articles in The Federalist about marriage and divorce, so I wanted to blog about them. The first one is about the no-fault divorce law in Texas. The second one is about temporary restraining orders. And then finally I wanted to talk about whether Christian social conservatives really are as socially conservative as they claim.

So there is the first article from The Federalist, and it’s about the Texas Christian man who has had a divorce initiated against him, and he is fighting it, because he doesn’t think it’s Biblical.

The article says:

Jeff Morgan was blindsided when his wife of 11 years recently filed for divorce in Dallas County, Texas. On Aug. 8, he filed a 31-page motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the Texas no-fault divorce law is unconstitutional for 11 distinct reasons. Although Morgan isn’t an attorney and represents himself, his papers are packed with case law.

In a no-fault divorce, one party can dissolve the marriage – even if there are young children! They just say that the marriage is over because of “discord or conflict of personalities”. They don’t need to prove abuse or adultery or abandonment or addiction. Divorces are automatic just because one spouse is not getting along with the other.

Remember, 69% of the time divorces are initiated by women. Before you blame the husband for that, remember that lesbian couples have the highest rates of divorce. So it’s not men who are responsible for the majority of these cases. When men make a commitment, they really mean to keep it. Feeling “conflict of personalities” doesn’t make them break the marriage covenant.

So what happens in the divorce court? There’s no judge who listens to two sides in a divorce case – the person who files is heard, and the divorce is automatic. Morgan doesn’t get to make a case for why the marriage should stay intact, and how it will harm the children. No one listens and no one cares. Even in red states, supposedly conservative Christian lawmakers don’t want marriage laws to be conservative or Christian.

Why do people want no-fault divorce? Well, they want to make the decision about who to marry recklessly. They don’t want to feel any kind of constraint or responsibility to vet the other person for marriage abilities. Many of them get into marriages based on Disney stories about “soul mates”. And then when they find out how much work marriage really is – responsibilities, expectations, obligations – they want to get out of it. Doesn’t matter if it hurts the kids.

Here’s another article from The Federalist, this one is about “temporary restraining orders”. These orders are routinely used in divorce hearings in order to get men separated from their children and kicked out of their own houses. All the woman has to do is say “I’m scared” and the judge grants it immediately. No police report, no investigation of facts, no jury trial.

Note that Protection from Abuse Order (PFA) is the same as Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). It’s called different things in different states.

The article says:

In family court, PFAs are colloquially known as “silver bullets.” They instantly shift custody, restrict communication, and tilt the playing field in favor of the accuser. Even if dropped, the damage lingers.

[…]Take the case of Harry Stewart, a lay minister from Weymouth, Massachusetts. Stewart was arrested and jailed simply for walking to the door of his ex-wife’s apartment building and opening it. Why? He had violated a restraining order “that prohibited him from exiting his car near his ex-wife’s home.” The system treated this routine act of fatherhood as a criminal offense. Writing about the case in Salon, Cathy Young observed, “While his former wife told reporters that Stewart was dangerously unstable, her examples — that he had watched ‘prison movies’ with his 8- and 6-year-old sons and promised to send them some live caterpillars to grow into butterflies — seem shocking only in their innocuousness.”

As Stephen Baskerville noted in Taken Into Custody, “Stewart had already been jailed for six months not for committing any crime but because he refused to confess to one.” The real offense was not violence, but noncompliance with a legal fiction.

The consequences didn’t end with jail time. As Young wrote, “The client could have only supervised visitation for the next two years, until the social worker who monitored the visits finally gave him a clean bill of health.”

A lot of socially conservative Christians today are complaining about men. They are asking “why don’t men approach women?” and “why don’t men take women out on dates?”. They don’t know that men are very much aware of laws and policies like no-fault divorce, false accusations PFAs / TROs, paternity fraud, and biased policing of domestic violence. Men know, and men count the cost.

Have you ever heard a sermon that was critical of divorce or false accusations? Is there any popular music, like from Taylor Swift, that condemns such things? Are there movies, like The Notebook and Titanic, that argue against these things? We are not a culture that really values marriage. And Christians today are not battling against these threats to marriage and family, either.

Here is what I would do in order to make marriage more attractive to men, and better for children (stability):

• person who initiates divorce leaves with clothes on back, no access to kids except by permission of remaining spouse
• abolish single mother welfare, and all other welfare that rewards bad decisions about divorce and reckless sex
• no special category for domestic violence, just have regular criminal law apply to violence in the home
• false accusations to be punished by giving the accuser the sentence that the accused would have gotten
• mandatory paternity tests for all children after birth
• ban IVF in all cases
• remove abortion coverage from all medical insurance policies, and have them be a separate policy, like life insurance or home insurance
• abolish all government-provided, government-guaranteed student loans. (Only banks give loans, based on the likelihood of being paid back)

I mention student loans, because men see a woman’s student loans as a deterrent to marriage, and a predictor of financial irresponsibility that can lead to divorce.

Have you ever heard a Christian social conservative advocate for solutions like this? They would certainly solve the problem. So why don’t we hear anything about these solutions?