Perhaps you like many Christians interpreted that through the lens of our cultural beliefs and not how God intended. Another way of looking at this scripture is as a warning.

Except that god specifically states that he is the one doing it.

They are predictions and prophecies, laying out the penalties that were to fall on the entire earth as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. Like the parent who gives a disobedient child time out, God announces the consequences of sin.

Consequences that come directly from god. It's not like in a human situation where if the child doesn't listen and suffers from consequences that are a part of natural law. (For example, if a child doesn't listen and grabs a hot pot and burns itself, then the consequences were simply a result of the way nature is, in that hot items burn us.) god, however, makes all the consequences, even those born of natural law, because god set up nature and that natural law. If childbirth hurts, it's because god made it hurt. If a consequence of sin is that women will be abused by their husbands, it's because god made the world work that way.

1) the evidence that your interpretation is more likely to be correct than others is...?
2) your argument helps the case of Christianity and/or refutes the thesis of the original post how...?

You used the scripture;

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.—Genesis 3:16

Perhaps you like many Christians interpreted that through the lens of our cultural beliefs and not how God intended. Another way of looking at this scripture is as a warning. When sin corrupted the human heart, it set in motion a power struggle between husband and wife. In spite of the attraction a man and woman may have toward each other, sinful pride results in each one’s trying to control the other. Since men are normally stronger physically, they are more likely to use force to accomplish their will, leading to abuse, whereas women are more likely to use subtle manipulation to take advantage of a man’s weakness.

Gen. 3:16b is addressed to Eve, not to Adam. Like God’s other words to Adam and the serpent, they are statements, not commands. They are predictions and prophecies, laying out the penalties that were to fall on the entire earth as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. Like the parent who gives a disobedient child time out, God announces the consequences of sin.

Case in point ... Has anyone ever heard of Polygamous communities where there is One Wife that is the Leader of the household, who has several Husbands? Think of it ladies .... 1st husband could be the Provider with great income, 2nd Husband could be the Sensitive Caring Guy that actually is fun to be with and talk to ...3rd Husband could be the Handyman that can build and fix anything ...4th Husband could be the Gourmet Cook and Coach for Little League ... 5th Husband could be the Romantic one that sweeps you off to Paris or Hawaii and 6th Husband could be the intellectual or artist or whatever to complete the MALE Harem of Servants who of course would be required to SUBMIT to his WIFE!!!

Good article, with just one small nit to pick.

...Most notable is the Mormon church, which from its beginning endorsed polygamous marriage...

In Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer pointed out that Joseph Smith wasn't originally a polygamist. It wasn't until sometime after he was married (supposedly happily) that he received the revelation that men needed to be polygamous. His wife was so upset by this revelation that she formed a splinter group of Mormons--one of the few of that era that still exists to this day.

It would probably be more correct to say, "from its very early days," instead of, "from its beginning."

Well, I'm sorry to tell you that I have had way too much experience with the people, and you are wrong. Muslim men, in Islamic Arab and Persian nations, will and do routinely treat their women exactly the way I depicted above. It is not the exception, it is the rule, the rule of law. You are probably thinking about Muslim women in America and other western nations, who voluntarily accept Islam. Western men and women who adopt islam are not considered to be brethren by those in arab and persian nations, they are considered to be infidels, because they live with and accept the ways of infidels.

Arab Muslim women do not have a choice of religion, or lack thereof. They cannot choose, as we do, to be Muslim or Christian or Atheist or anything else. If an arab or persian woman's husband is muslim, she is muslim, or she will be either killed or placed in prison or enslaved or, if very lucky, shown the borders of her land.

If you doubt this, I invite you to go there and see for yourself. If you are female, please go with a man.

Christianity certainly has its problems with women's rights, but most of these issues are self-inflicted. The exception can be seen in the LDS polygamy cases. Christianity rarely practices its doctrine. It is the doctrine that is evil, the people themselves, for the most part, are not.

Islam, on the other hand, is very rarely a choice for a woman, and is the equivalence of slavery. The funny thing is...even a slave can be happy to be a slave. That is the very reason Islam fights against us. If you ask them, they will tell you that they do not wish their people to see the blasphemous things represented in the west. This is their excuse for isolating their populations. The reality, of course, is that the men are primitive religious freaks who enjoy maintaining power through their religious laws, and through the threat of death. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that Muslims (of Arab and Persian nations) actually practice their doctrine, which is inherently evil, while Christians for the most part do not follow their doctrine.

That reminds me (I may have mentioned this) of a particular rant from a particular friend of mine following an extended (online) argument with a young man in Egypt who thought retrodictive readings of the Koran proved its divine inspiration and couldn't get it through his head that she might have reasons for her choice of jeans and a t-shirt as attire other than wanting to be looked at and desired or, as he put it, "tempting" men. *eyeroll* And this guy apparently seemed to be a moderate Muslim in most ways, judging by the log snippets she forwarded. Really shows you just how far Islam has to go...

Tehran, 16 Nov. (AKI) - The hardline administration of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday introduced new restrictions on women. In Iran's National Security Council, women must now work in separate rooms from men, and may not attend meetings with their male colleagues. Segregation in the school system has been extended to teachers as well as pupils: at all levels, girls' schools may only be staffed by female teachers, who may not teach at boys' schools and institutes.

In universities, where male and female students have for some time sat in separate areas, CCTV cameras have been installed to monitor contact between the two sexes. The first woman-only hospitals are due to open soon, the health ministry has announced.

I'm at a loss for words.

Also, in Richard Dawkins's documentary Root of All Evil?, RD interviewed an Islamist who charged that Western men make "their" women dress like whores, or at least allow women to dress like whores.