And if a few things had been different the Nazis would have had nuclear bombs first and would therefore have won. What grounds would you have had for objecting?
Other times, like when the west adopted the roman catholic church was a bad evolution. It created a powerful empire, but it also allowed the church to dictate morality, which caused the dark ages for 1000 years.
Surely you would have objected to Julian's attempt to resist the evolution of society, wouldn't you?
""Subservient" how? To whom? In which contexts and in what manner?"
Subservient to men.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?
The bible is one of the most chauvanistic books ever written. Is this really a point of contention?
Yes, actually, it is.
And no, you don't prove anything by cutting and pasting something from a person who thinks Oholibah was an actual person.
Argh, the bible is very specific that women do what they are told.
Told by whom? In what respects? In which context?
This is not compatible with democracy.
So what do you plan to do about it?
I define them by humanistsic standards (real humanism, not your version).
That doesn't really clarify anything.
What? Why would we need to take away women's suffrage? Suffrage means the rigth to vote. Whast does this have to do with anything?
I dunno. You're the one who brought it up. You were expounding on the need to conform to changes in social values, so I brought up some possibilities I thought you'd dislike, namely cannibalism and a return to male-only suffrage. You replied, "I can't see how we would ever need male suffrage, but if we did, I'd fight for it." Perhaps you were confused (more so than usual, that is).
Things like gender/racial equality are irreversible.
This is truly a remarkable sentence.
Your patience excels mine.
"And if a few things had been different the Nazis would have had nuclear bombs first and would therefore have won. What grounds would you have had for objecting?"
True, until only recently the most brutal ruled. Hunmanism is a very recent ideal ancient greece excepted), and it does not go well with the 'might makes right' attitude.
"Surely you would have objected to Julian's attempt to resist the evolution of society, wouldn't you?"
I don't know who you mean by Julian.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?"
By their husbands.
"Told by whom? In what respects? In which context?"
Are you saying the church has not resisted vehemently against women's rights? Still there is debate about letting women into the clergy!
"So what do you plan to do about it?"
Secular and civil rights trump religious, it's taken care of.
"Perhaps you were confused (more so than usual, that is)."
Easy!
"This is truly a remarkable sentence."
Why is that remarkable? Granted, just because currently I can think of no reason why we would ever consider one race/gender better than another in the future, does not mean that some new information cannot change that. But according to gentics, there is no race. Given what we know now, everyone should be treated equally regardless of race/gender.