Mike's conclusion on 'ezer': the complementarian view is weak if based on this word; it doesn't imply subordination or submission. The consistent thread is that the person being helped can't do it alone.

Mike concludes that 'ezer' carries no inherent subordination or submission -- this is the area where he changed his mind during his study. He sees no OT context where it's used that way outside Genesis 2, so he won't read it in. The one consistent element across almost every use: the person being helped can't do it alone. This fits Genesis 2 well -- Adam can't be fruitful and multiply alone.