News

10,000,000 page view post: The Great Feminization and my trials in woke corporations

22 Comments

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.

Here is her article in Compact Magazine.

And here is the excerpt:

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.

You can find more of her articles here.

My time in woke corporations

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?

News

William Lane Craig debates Daniel Came: Does God exist?

2 Comments
Dr. Craig's opening speech summary slide
Dr. Craig’s opening speech summary slide

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.

News

Secular left feminist Sarah Stankorb explains why women leave Christianity

2 Comments

I sometimes read articles from mainstream conservative pastors and theologians. One of these is the famous Doug Wilson who blogs at Blog and Mablog. Well, recently he was attacked by a secular left feminist named Sarah Stankorb. I looked over her recent articles, and a pattern emerged about what she – and the women she writes about – think that Christianity is about.

Here’s an article entitled “These Evangelical Women Are Abandoning Trump and Their Churches”.

She talks about a woman named Katie Loveland, who leaves her church for the following reasons:

  1. If a church allows a man to act like a fool towards women, then Christianity is false.
  2. If a church allows a man who has passed a background check and holds a concealed carry permit to be armed so he can protect church members from attacks like this one, then Christianity is false.
  3. If Christians support a politician who has a pro-life record of demonstrated achievements over a politician who promises to remove all state and local restrictions on abortion from conception to birth, then Christianity is false.

And another woman named Elaina Ramsey, and her reasons for rejecting Christianity:

  1. If Christianity requires you to disagree with your gay and queer friends, then Christianity is false.
  2. If Christians refuse to marry you because you’ve been raped, then Christianity is false.
  3. If the Bible records (and condemns) the rape of Bathsheba by David, then Christianity is false.
  4. If Christianity teaches that murdering humans is wrong, and science says that the unborn are human, then Christianity is false.

And more about another woman named Deirdre Sugiuchi, and her reasons for rejecting Christianity:

  1. If your father claims to be a Christian and spanks you, then Christianity is false.
  2. If you are sent to an abusive Christian reform school for being rebellious, then Christianity is false.
  3. If Christianity feels anti-gay, anti-black or anti-woman, then Christianity is false.
  4. If the United States opposes Al Qaeda for carrying out the 9/11 attack, then Christianity is false.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

It turns out that a lot of emotion-based people claimed to be Christians and were accepted as “Christian”, without any rational basis for believing it. And later on, when Christianity made them feel bad about being reckless and irresponsible, or when it loses them non-Christian friends, then they abandoned it. It’s not that they discovered that Christianity is illogical. It’s not that they discovered evidence to falsify Christian truth claims. Their stated reasons for leaving Christianity are entirely subjective. And none of the reasons do the work of falsifying core Christian truth claims, such as God’s existence, the inspiration of the Bible, or the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Just to review, here are some of the reasons why authentic Christians believe in Christian theism:

  • scientific evidence for the origin of the universe
  • scientific evidence for cosmic fine-tuning
  • scientific evidence for the origin of life
  • scientific evidence for habitability
  • scientific evidence for sudden origin of body plans
  • scientific evidence for molecular machines
  • scientific evidence for irreducible complexity
  • the argument from consciousness
  • the argument from objective morality
  • the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus

These arguments – and many more like them – are defended by scholars in books published by top academic presses. But I see no evidence that emotion-based ex-Christians have ever read such books. Why would they? They aren’t interested in forming their worldview based on objective reality. They aren’t interested in constructing a life plan where their desire for happiness comes second to following Jesus.

People who abandon Christianity because of feelings or experiences have not “left Christianity”. They just stopped faking being Christians. They were never actually Christian in the first place. To be a Christian in the first place, you have to know that Christianity is true. People who accept the arguments for Christianity listed above have just as many disappointments with God, bad experiences with Christians, and bad experiences with churches as people who were guided by their emotions and experiences. 

In fact, I personally know women who grew up fatherless, or had defective parents, or other setbacks. They got themselves into a lot of trouble with churches and immoral men, and yet today, not only are they solid Christians, but they actually take the lead in gospel enterprises, such as apologetics. Why? Because for them, the objective truth of Christianity was more important than their subjective feelings and experiences.

The differences between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians overlook bad feelings, shame and rejection, because we know facts don’t care about our feelings. For real Christians, the normal Christian life requires bad feelings, disappointments, bad experiences and rejection by non-Christians. We actually read the Bible, and so we expect bad things to happen to us.

Note: if you are relying on someone to act in a Christian way – say, as a marriage partner – then you’d better find out what kind of “Christian” they are, by asking them how they arrived at their beliefs. Do not marry a fake Christian who just reads romance novels and fiction. A person can’t determine the truth of Christianity by focusing on career, travel, entertainment, promiscuity, etc.