(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
Sure, I'd definitely say that God looks after us. But I really don't see how you're transferring that to women. The act of creation isn't what makes God want to protect us - He wants to protect us because He loves us. This isn't something that differentiates men and women.
About man 'leaving his father and mother', it's talking about how a man will leave his family and be united with his wife, and they will become 'one flesh', and be their own family unit. I really, really cannot see anything about protecting/leading in there, can you explain?
About rights - all I was responding to was this idea that relationships were fundamentally 'correct' between the genders before the 1950s. I don't see how anyone could think those times were times were the biblical view of womanhood prevailed.
The Bible clearly does teach that a woman should be submissive, and not a slave (as was essentially the case in Victorian times), but you're omitting the fact that men are also taught to submit. I do not see any reason to give different content to the woman's submission.
If we're talking about Eve, I don't think we can use the curses after the Fall as prescriptive. If we were, we might suggest that women ought not be allowed pain-relief during labour, or that work for men must be painful. Given everything else that's contained in those curses, it seems to me we ought to view them as descriptions, certainly not as pronouncements on what manhood and womanhood should be.
God loves men and women equally, yes, but 'equality' does not mean that they are the exact same in role and duties. 'Equality' is all about unity in diversity. For example, I'm sure you'll agree that all races are equal yet they are expected to perform different cultural functions as humans are such diverse creatures. If you reject what God said in Genesis then you reject the natural order of human beings, therefore meaning that you reject the the fact that homosexuality and sodomy are sins as they are in repugnance to this.
In Genesis 2:21, the word 'therefore' is used which is a term used to warn those hereafter against breaking the divine nature of marriage set in place by God. Whether you interpret Genesis as allegorical or not, the idea of marriage mentioned in chapter 3 is an imperative as a result of Eve's sin as the "curses" were not merely to punish humans, but to protect them against the rebellion of Satan which God had foreseen. Eve's desire in Eden was to the sinful promises of the Serpent, so God ensured that in future a wife's desires would be to her husband. Submission of a wive should be treated with love and care by a husband, not dominance. Men are taught to submit to their duty which is to protect and honour their wife.
Now, men are the natural guardians of women because Adam was what women were made from:
7"For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
8 "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."
9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
Men are thus trusted to look after women just like he is trusted to look after the other creatures and beings created "for the man". But this is not to be confused with some autocratic relationship which was evident in earlier times; many people have interpreted this principle in a very misogynistic way by using it to bolster their position over women without realising its contribution towards both love and God's pleasure.