Will circumstances dictate only a man as President?

What if our understanding of the dialog between Adam and Eve after she ate the apple was based on their not being separated since they were married and without children at that point rather than she was the weaker vessel? If you consider that point-of-view, then you see a couple working together for their common good - a grand love story, if you will. And their explanations of their respective actions was straight forward.

Maybe it has been useful for mankind to view Eve as the lynch pin of unleashing trouble much the way Pandora's Box gives the story line. What if there are more complex and mature reasons for the so-called Fall than our simplistic response of "Eve did it!"

If Eve were the crowning glory of Creation and was "of" Adam, those details support the idea of a supportive, complementary relationship as male/female and husband/wife.

Agency and accountability entered the world, and the physical change from eating the fruit presaged the birth of all of us. Men who use their religion as an excuse to abuse women are without excuse!

And the Savior came in the Meridian of Time because of the Fall just as the prophets foretold.

No wonder the Bible is called the Good News. Let's not tear it to shreds with our sectarian infighting.

Marriage is ordained of God and women are beloved of the Lord.

I will vote for a capable, experienced female for president if she is the best candidate. Hillary does not fit this model; she is an intern.

Surely there was nothing in the recored record of the Savior's life and teachings to cause to believe that He had anything but love and respect for women. His last act was to care for His mother and the first person He talked to was a humble women who came to dress his body properly.

Yes, there is a deep cultural bias around the world towards the intrinsic worth of women but I do not believe that bias came from the Savior - who was the God of both Testaments.

I have long been an advocate for women, and too often religion has been abused and used as a pretext for male dominance. I repeat something I keep saying; so long as women are considered inferior to men so long will we lack wisdom and lacking this there will be no hope of peace in the world.

Having been a young married woman with a little girl (and a full-time job) during the clashing days of the "women's lib" and "equal rights" movements, I had little time to march, hold up signs or burn my bra (besides, bras were too expensive to burn, and I might want them again some day!).

At one time one of my sisters, also married, also with what she called a "brood," I remember her saying that she was liberated enough and didn't want to be any more "liberated" than she already was.

To make a long story as short as possible, I watched these women, watched as they marched, watched and listened to their speeches and was at all times my inherently ambivalent self about all of it.

Eventually I came to believe that, yes, we were equal, yes we had equal rights, yes, we were liberated.

HOWever, I kept the old Biblical attitude that men were better equipped to be in a position of authority. Not absolute authority, of course, but that in matters of great importance, a woman's husband was the final arbiter. I kept my mind open, of course, to the necessity for dialogue before decision.

So there we have it. I came to the conclusion then and there that it is possible for someone to hold two completely opposing views on one subject.

I have come across no other question in life where this conclusion had to be put to the test, nor do I believe there ever will be one. Suffice it to say that I can have it both ways. And I do. Without any inner conflict or ambivalence whatsoever.

What's more, I do not believe I am alone in this. It simply has not been a topic of much discussion.

It's a question for philosophy.

Thanks for the input SF. You expressed very well what most I believe would admit is ambivalence and hope this will carry the day. I cling to the hope we may yet honor the compatibility of differences without it coming to open warfare between the sexes.

Kill her with kindness.

Then no guy will have to slap the sn_t out of his wife because she disagrees with him.

Or because dinner's not on the table on time.

Or because his favorite shirt is still in the laundry (not ironed).

Or because the vegetables got cold.

Or because she gained a little weight.

Or because she whines about wanting to get out once in a while to see her relatives (he has made a prisoner of her).

Or because there are toys scattered over the floor.

Or because it's Tuesday.

Or because he has spent his last nickel at the neighborhood bar and blames their financial situation on her.

Or because she smiled (he would call it smirked) at something he said that was not supposed to be funny.

I am one of those women who knew instinctively that the man she was marrying was not the sort of male (not to be confused with the word "man") who would do any of the above -- except for maybe the first line: kill her with kindness.

I am also one of those women who has said repeatedly when the subject came up -- and it does more often now, what with news services being so ubiquitous -- that I would pity the creature who beat me.

I would tell him never to go to sleep. I would say that it may, may, happen once, but it would not under any circumstances happen twice.

I meant every last word of it. And hang the consequences, as I said in a comment to another blog.

This is not unreasonable for any woman.

Bravo SF! I wish more women had your attitude toward the problem. Maybe then it would stop being such a problem.