Still Passionate and Confused

Yes, this. Plus his argument around divorce misses another core issue -- which is that divorce in many early societies was purely a way for men to dodge economic responsibility for women they had previously had relationships with (and for the children of those relationships). So the prohibition can be seen as being about responsibility and not treating women as disposable. Certainly, that seems to have been how some early Christians interpreted it -- the Irish saint and abbot Adomnan explicitly made laws to protect women from exploitative, male-centric marriage practices and from abuse when they had been cast aside. The interpretation this lj writer puts on it is, as Roz notes, deeply male-centric and misogynistic, and the whole piece is, as she also notes, riddled with straight privileged male blindness, which doesn't need to think about why it might be questionable or to wonder if its assumptions might not be the truth.