I was just reading about the collapse of 38 Studios. One of the wives wrote a letter about their experience:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/172303/38_Studios_Spouse_speaks_out.php

>> ^lurgee:

Adam was the first man, right? Eve was the first woman, correct? They had two kids, Cain, and the Undertaker...I mean Abel. The Bible says that Cain and Abel took wives. My Question: Where did these wives come from? Who were their parents?
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:
Jesus believed the end of the world was coming in HIS lifetime (Mark 9.1). "The historical Jesus" is a Jesus who rests strictly on the evidence. The dominant view among scholars: Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. The end was coming now! (Mark 14.62)

I have to say that I disagree with your exegesis. Firstly, Jesus didn't expect anything to be happening within His human lifetime:
Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again
As you can see, He had just said this in the previous chapter. Does it then seem logical to think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming in His lifetime? Clearly, He expected it to come at some point after His death.
Now, let's examine Mark 9:1
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
What is He saying here? That those standing directly in His presence would not die before the Kingdom of God came with power . Clearly, then, the Kingdom of God must come within the lifetime of those individuals, otherwise Jesus was wrong. So, how will we recognize when that happens? Let's ask Jesus:
Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Here Jesus makes a curious statement. He says that when the Kingdom of God comes, it will not be external to us, it will be internal. It will be within us. What could this possibly mean?
Let's see if scripture draws any parallels..
1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
We also see that God's Spirit lives within us. Is there any connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God?
Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
From this we can see that the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit is directly associated with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Since the Holy Spirit lives within us, we know that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us, with power (to cast out devils for instance), the Kingdom of God has come.
Therefore, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Kingdom of God is here. When did the Holy Spirit come? On Pentecost:
Acts 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance
After Pentecost, the disciples were transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from ignorant and fearful to learned and courageous. They preached the gospel boldly throughout the world whereas before, they had cowardly abandoned Christ during his final hours.
Pentecost meets all of the requirements of Mark 9:1, and when we interpret what the Kingdom of God actually is, we see it fits it perfectly.
In regards to Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, here is a more complete rendering:
Matthew 26:64
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
The author of the video is of course utterly disingenuous for leaving out this verse and drawing a false dichotomy between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69. Clearly, Jesus had said both things in the same breath, but Mark and Luke each only recorded one half of it. Matthew records both halves, which, if you're paying attention, completely undermines his ridiculous assertion that Luke altered Marks text to compensate for a failed prophecy. What this verse shows is that Jesus was speaking of some point around His second coming. Everyone will see Him because everyone will be resurrected to stand before Him. He was not saying they would see Him during their lifetimes. If He was, He wouldn't have said this two chapters previous:
Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only
He plainly said that He did not know when that day would come. Therefore, He could not definitively tell the jews they would see Him in His lifetime.
The problem with relying on atheists to interpret the bible is that A. they are only looking to discredit the bible and B. the bible is a spiritual book and can only be properly interpreted by someone who has the Holy Spirit. They can only give you a superficial exegesis that relies on appearances, and always ignores context. They are simply looking for "gotchya" verses with no awareness of the meaning of what they're talking about.



Cains wife was most likely a sister, niece or grandniece. Scripture doesn't say how old Cain was when he killed Abel. Considering their long lifetimes, he might have been hundreds of years old, which meant there were already quite a few people on Earth at that time.

Adam was the first man, right? Eve was the first woman, correct? They had two kids, Cain, and the Undertaker...I mean Abel. The Bible says that Cain and Abel took wives. My Question: Where did these wives come from? Who were their parents?
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:

Jesus believed the end of the world was coming in HIS lifetime (Mark 9.1). "The historical Jesus" is a Jesus who rests strictly on the evidence. The dominant view among scholars: Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. The end was coming now! (Mark 14.62)


I have to say that I disagree with your exegesis. Firstly, Jesus didn't expect anything to be happening within His human lifetime:

Mark 8:31

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again

As you can see, He had just said this in the previous chapter. Does it then seem logical to think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming in His lifetime? Clearly, He expected it to come at some point after His death.

Now, let's examine Mark 9:1

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

What is He saying here? That those standing directly in His presence would not die before the Kingdom of God came with *power*. Clearly, then, the Kingdom of God must come within the lifetime of those individuals, otherwise Jesus was wrong. So, how will we recognize when that happens? Let's ask Jesus:

Luke 17:20-21

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here Jesus makes a curious statement. He says that when the Kingdom of God comes, it will not be external to us, it will be internal. It will be within us. What could this possibly mean?

Let's see if scripture draws any parallels..

1 Corinthians 3:16

Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

We also see that God's Spirit lives within us. Is there any connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God?

Matthew 12:28

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

From this we can see that the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit is directly associated with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Since the Holy Spirit lives within us, we know that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us, with power (to cast out devils for instance), the Kingdom of God has come.

Therefore, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Kingdom of God is here. When did the Holy Spirit come? On Pentecost:

Acts 2:1-4

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance

After Pentecost, the disciples were transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from ignorant and fearful to learned and courageous. They preached the gospel boldly throughout the world whereas before, they had cowardly abandoned Christ during his final hours.

Pentecost meets all of the requirements of Mark 9:1, and when we interpret what the Kingdom of God actually is, we see it fits it perfectly.

In regards to Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, here is a more complete rendering:

Matthew 26:64

Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

The author of the video is of course utterly disingenuous for leaving out this verse and drawing a false dichotomy between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69. Clearly, Jesus had said both things in the same breath, but Mark and Luke each only recorded one half of it. Matthew records both halves, which, if you're paying attention, completely undermines his ridiculous assertion that Luke altered Marks text to compensate for a failed prophecy. What this verse shows is that Jesus was speaking of some point around His second coming. Everyone will see Him because everyone will be resurrected to stand before Him. He was not saying they would see Him during their lifetimes. If He was, He wouldn't have said this two chapters previous:

Matthew 24:36

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

He plainly said that He did not know when that day would come. Therefore, He could not definitively tell the jews they would see Him in His lifetime.

The problem with relying on atheists to interpret the bible is that A. they are only looking to discredit the bible and B. the bible is a spiritual book and can only be properly interpreted by someone who has the Holy Spirit. They can only give you a superficial exegesis that relies on appearances, and always ignores context. They are simply looking for "gotchya" verses with no awareness of the meaning of what they're talking about.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
of the big lake they called "Gitche Gumee."
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
when the skies of November turn gloomy.
With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more
than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty,
that good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
when the "Gales of November" came early.

The ship was the pride of the American side
coming back from some mill in Wisconsin.
As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most
with a crew and good captain well seasoned,
concluding some terms with a couple of steel firms
when they left fully loaded for Cleveland.
And later that night when the ship's bell rang,
could it be the north wind they'd been feelin'?

The wind in the wires made a tattle-tale sound
and a wave broke over the railing.
And ev'ry man knew, as the captain did too
'twas the witch of November come stealin'.
The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait
when the Gales of November came slashin'.
When afternoon came it was freezin' rain
in the face of a hurricane west wind.

When suppertime came the old cook came on deck sayin'.
"Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."
At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in; he said,
"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"
The captain wired in he had water comin' in
and the good ship and crew was in peril.
And later that night when 'is lights went outta sight
came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does any one know where the love of God goes
when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
if they'd put fifteen more miles behind 'er.
They might have split up or they might have capsized;
they may have broke deep and took water.
And all that remains is the faces and the names
of the wives and the sons and the daughters.

Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings
in the rooms of her ice-water mansion.
Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams;
the islands and bays are for sportsmen.
And farther below Lake Ontario
takes in what Lake Erie can send her,
And the iron boats go as the mariners all know
with the Gales of November remembered.

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,
in the "Maritime Sailors' Cathedral."
The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times
for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
of the big lake they call "Gitche Gumee."
"Superior," they said, "never gives up her dead
when the gales of November come early!"

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/03/1334230/how-chemistry-stymies-attempts-to-regulate-synthetic-drugs

There is an ever increasing crackdown on vendors of these stimulants, and an ever increasing response from the chemists by synthesizing more. One of the people who ran a website just for vendors got caught up in a sting operation, and he is one of many similar stories taking place.

http://internetchem.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-crackdown-on-research-chemical.html

The legislation in response to this has been to basically ban "chemicals" ... and i wish i were kidding about the specificity in some of the laws... although in all cases, banning a specific one does nothing.

It's almost like you can't win a war on drugs... only a war on the people who use them... that's a fact sure to help cure the paranoia, but just in case, lets make sure people who are angry and under-medicated can get guns.


if we're the majority who is deciding our lives for us...the plot thickens*!







*just kidding its old white men and their nagging wives.

>> ^lantern53:

I know a lot of Christians and none of them are like the people in this video.
All the Christians I know are pretty nice, decent people, they believe in helping their fellow man, they are empathetic and as normal as anyone else.
Actually, they are better people because they don't go beating their wives, driving drunk, doing drugs, etc. for the most part.
But if you like your bugaboos to be church-going people, so be it.



I know a lot of christians too. Without a doubt most (not all) are nice people. However, their belief in talking snakes, noah, and armageddon and the like is freakish. I don't blame them in the least, as they were indoctrinated into this crazy belief system as children. Not like they had any choice in the matter. It was purely geographic. If they had been born somewhere else, such as afghanistan, they'd likely have been muslim.

I know a lot of Christians and none of them are like the people in this video.

All the Christians I know are pretty nice, decent people, they believe in helping their fellow man, they are empathetic and as normal as anyone else.

Actually, they are better people because they don't go beating their wives, driving drunk, doing drugs, etc. for the most part.

But if you like your bugaboos to be church-going people, so be it.

It seems you were the one that fell for the illogical Bareboards... Just because I stated an opinion against a person you assume that I take a stance counter to what the person is saying?

Let me make myself clear then. You are incorrect. I believe that marriage should be gifted to people that love and value each other. A man loving a man is no less beautiful than a man loving a woman. Who am I to judge, just because I am straight?

Likewise, I think a man or woman should be able to marry as he pleases. E.g., a man should be able to have three wives if he and they so choose. The law should not interfere such arrangements but support it.

You know what is ironic BB? Some gays and lesbians bash my point of view, that polygamy is acceptable, because they are bigoted against polygamy or because it inconvenient to their argument. For example, those against gay marriage bring up bestiality and polygamy as the "next logical step." They ask where these rights will end? Should a man be able to marry five wives or his dog, they say. And do most gays say, "WAIT THE FUCK UP. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE LOVE OF A MAN FOR MORE THAN ONE WOMEN TO THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL?!!!!" No, no they do not. In fact, they ridicule my beliefs by stating something like, "No, nobody is talking about making bestiality or polygamy legal. Those are absurd lifestyles and will never be accepted."

I am actually shocked that they would allow the comparison, then go so far as to be derisive of other people's rights that they themselves fight tooth and nail for, and basically call those people's beliefs equal to that of pig fuckers.

You know why they do this right? For their own agenda. It's like the kid at school who is about to be picked on. That kid then turns on a weaker, more ridiculed kid and beats him up so that everyone will stop picking on him. I have only heard a few with courage enough to take the political heat and speak up for both sides...and it saddens me.

No, you won't find an argument from me against gay marriage. I am only in support of marriage equality. By pointing out to messenger that this is a rehashed argument, I merely, politely at first, was pointing out that his reason for promoting this video was a little silly. It, to me at least, was like he just woke up one day to find out that Obama won the presidency. This argument has been around for quite some time and it amused me--not at Messenger's expense.

Now, let me focus on my real discontent with the video content. Marriage for life is batshit insane. To accuse someone of having the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment to me is a very serious accusation because marriage for life, as I have said, is batshit insane. I am equally offended when the religious nuts demean gays by accusing most of being into pedophilia. Both things I mention are batshit insane. You better have proof, at least to me, or your a bigoted asshole.

My message is clear. Don't lump people together. I would think that the persecuted, such as gays and lesbians, would understand this the most. But, in fact, it seems to be the opposite. It is okay to lump our enemies together because they do it to us...

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?
Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.
Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.
Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.
Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:
1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.
2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.
Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?
There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Great video, but I have one quibble.
16 million people can trace their ancestry back to one person, but that person is not Genghis Khan. It is Genghis Khan's mother. His brothers (the ones he didn't kill) followed his leadership and were able to have many, many wives and concubines. Between them they have 16 million descendants.

I thought the Khan lineage was traced on the Y-chromosome. Wouldn't that require that "one person" to be male?


I thought about that after I posted.

If that's the case, change that to Genghis' father.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Great video, but I have one quibble.
16 million people can trace their ancestry back to one person, but that person is not Genghis Khan. It is Genghis Khan's mother. His brothers (the ones he didn't kill) followed his leadership and were able to have many, many wives and concubines. Between them they have 16 million descendants.


I thought the Khan lineage was traced on the Y-chromosome. Wouldn't that require that "one person" to be male?

Great video, but I have one quibble.

16 million people can trace their ancestry back to one person, but that person is not Genghis Khan. It is Genghis Khan's mother. His brothers (the ones he didn't kill) followed his leadership and were able to have many, many wives and concubines. Between them they have 16 million descendants.

No evidence that sharia is becoming accepted in the US. What city/county/state uses it?>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't this fly in the face of sharia, which is becoming more and more accepted in the US? How can we respect other religions and their customs while prosecuting the men who are allowed to rape and beat their wives?
...so confusing...

Doesn't this fly in the face of sharia, which is becoming more and more accepted in the US? How can we respect other religions and their customs while prosecuting the men who are allowed to rape and beat their wives?

...so confusing...

Lots of religious discussion in the last half dozen years or so. Maybe notice it more because I'm older, but it seems more prevalent.

I saw a quote somewhere else by Napoleon Bonaparte, so I looked up his quotes and found two I thought were interestingly applicable to the current climate.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte

We're coming off of the biggest financial crime of our lifetimes, with no one being punished. And they aren't even trying to stop it from happening again, they are fortifying the regulations that made it possible for it to happen in the first place and attempting to add more craziness with SOPA/PIPA to solidify control over the only location everyone can have a say and organize -- the internet.

So, I have to call into question all of this religious posturing that is becoming the forefront of the debates and "hot topics" in most traditional media coverage. Anything regarding rights of gays = religion based arguments, abortion = religion based, etc......everyone is affected by the economic meltdown and financial theft that occurred. And they address it by skipping back to "Those damn gaaaaaaayyyyss" or "ABORTION --- RAWRRR" and anytime they can't flip over to those we get the piracy! and It's your fault for buying a house during the bubble! oh and OWS rapes people so you can't believe in any of that.

And the OWS argument makes me laugh, because they'll have you believe the whole movement is made up to allow rape to occur and it's a legitimate reason to call their ethics and argument into question. But when Gingrich was asked a question in the debate allowing him to respond to his cheating on his wives and leaving at least one of them in a bad situation, it was applauded when he refused to answer and how that was bad form to question his morality based on those acts. When you could say, he just wants to be President so he can get more on the side with the secret service to facilitate or some other overly dismissive thing they do to the OWS.

The whole process is insulting, they speak of stability but create controversy to take focus away from issues that going unaddressed whom 70% or more of the citizenry agrees needs to be addressed. And I suspect it's not because they don't see there's issues, it's because they want those issues to remain....it makes it easier to stay rich if you can exploit them.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}