Before I go on I want to discuss a statement I made previously in which I said the story of Adam and Eve is used to justify marriage without compensation for women. If you consider the theological implications of the Fall you might see a possible problem with my theory. On the other hand, saying that a story has been used in a certain way is not the same thing as saying it was written for that purpose. And the story of Adam and Eve has been used in a certain way. The deist John Locke denied rights to women based on the story of Adam and Eve. Apparently this can be done regardless of a culture’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof. My point in the previous article was that if bridewealth was practiced in the Old Testament after the Fall, compensation for women never officially ended. Therefore when Paul Ryan withholds benefits and entitlements and then tells women to have more children, it is an unprincipled act.