If you want to read hundreds of bizarre feminist quotes and gnash your teeth every time the state lays another boxcar-load of money on them, read O’Beirne’s book. For the time being, let’s jump ahead to her concluding chapter, entitled, “Mother Nature Is a Bitch.”

“Feminists have squared off against Mother Nature, and she’s no feminist,” O’Beirne says (p. 180). Whether they’re railing against “compulsory heterosexuality” (p. 181) or trying to stop scientific research into the differences between the sexes (p. 182), they are always, in the author’s view, kicking against the goads of nature.

But by nature she means just that: blind, insensate nature, governed by laws of natural selection. Mrs. O’Beirne — who has successfully maintained her long-term marriage, and raised two sons, and had the courage and the integrity to yank them out of public school early on and educate them in Catholic schools — disappoints us in the end by opting for a naturalistic explanation of why feminism is wrong.

“The drive for reproductive success dictated the sexes’ behavior,” she writes (p. 184). “If a feminist cave-dweller subscribed to Ms. magazine and bought into being sexually liberated, evolution would have seen to it that her feminist genes would have perished along with her abandoned offspring” (p. 185). Mothering skills, she concludes, are the “result of natural selection” (p. 190), while “Men needed spatial skills to hit moving _targets and to make tools” (p. 194), and so on, for a whole chapter.

Well, what’s wrong with making that argument?

First, it simply isn’t true. The Bible tells us that men and women are different because that’s how God created them: “male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). God also created the family as our basic social institution, pre-dating tribes, cities, nations, states, etc. All of these more complicated institutions rest on the foundation of the family, and have so rested for the entirety of human history.

By arguing from a standpoint of evolution, O’Beirne puts herself in the same presuppositional ballpark as the feminists. Feminists are naturalists; they believe fervently in evolution. And upon this framework may be erected any just-so story that meets the rhetorical needs of the moment. So we find alleged scientists publishing scientific papers about the evolution of homosexuality as a boon to human survival during some vague, totally conjectural interlude in prehistory.

Evolution is a harlot who’ll go to bed with anyone who pays her. Feminists can certainly find any number of naturalistic, “evolutionary” arguments to justify their program.

We got into this socio-political mess in the first place by turning our backs on God, disregarding His Word, and substituting our own inventions for it. Feminism is one of those inventions. We will not escape from our predicament by coming up with more inventions. Godlessness is the bus that brought us here, and it’s a one-way trip. Mrs. O’Beirne would be well advised to get off.

Only when we stand on God’s Word do we have any firm place to stand at all. Otherwise, moral issues fall into perpetual debate — a debate whose outcome is influenced by outside factors like money, access to the media, political maneuvering, demagoguery, intimidation, and sometimes even violence.