In the UK’s Guardian conservative academic John Milbank preaches for a “truly radical feminism” that… encourages women to stay home, submit to “authority within the family,” tend to the “traditional ‘female’ subject defined by private concerns” known as “biological reproduction,” and just generally enjoy domesticity since it “protects women physically and compensates for their lesser muscular strength.”

Milbank is known for arguing elsewhere that (according to his Wikipedia entry)

...the social sciences are a product of the modern ethos of secularism, which stems from an ontology of violence. Theology, therefore, should not seek to make constructive use of social theory, for theology itself offers a comprehensive vision of all reality, extending to the social and political without the need for social theory.

One thing theology did not prepare the guy for, that social sciences might have, is the ability to distinguish correlation from causation. In the Guardian he says

In the case of liberal feminism, the left has shied away from the fact that its success has coincided with a regressive era that has involved an increase in economic inequality and a decline of civil liberties while covertly compensating sexual liberties.”

He said it here.

Well, yes. The left has also shied away from the fact that the success of feminism has also coincided with an increase in the use of computers, color television, and just-in-time manufacturing. Also the decline of Morse Code, leaded gasoline, and Communism.

Perhaps Mr. Milbank is equally prepared to lament all these correlations as caused by feminism. If so then perhaps he should bend his rules just a little and take a 100-level statistics class. If he was instead aware of the error and committed it anyway he should instead consider retaking 100-level class in ethics.