Another point that should be made is that like any other good, the fact that this more limited form of egalitarianism is a goal to be pursued, but is not necessarily one that can be immediately achieved, in all places. There are cultures that can be found that have either recently emerged (comparatively speaking), and are still formulating their customs, or have been substantially disrupted, and are trying to reclaim them. In either case, we should, again, have the wisdom to back off, and leave these people alone. Rationalistic, non-authoritarian societies are able to function, because of the existence of a body of custom, instilled from birth, too elaborate to be codified or consciously learned, that took millenia to develop. Given this body of custom, each knows what is expected of him, to a large extent, instinctually, allowing all to work together harmoniously with a minimum of authoritarian oversight. But that body of custom has to be developed first, and those "elders" and theocrats who seem so stifling, from our point of view, are necessary to provide the order in which such customs will have a chance to arise.

So, if our first point here was everything in its own place, our second would be, everything in its own time. Just because something is desirable, that doesn't mean that it can be quickly or easily achieved. Let us merely be grateful for our own good fortune, if we were born into subcultures that have outgrown the need for such authorities, and fight to the extent that we must, to see to it that those traditions and that good fortune, are passed along to the next generation.

Grasping at straws, trying to find one bit of common ground, someone, when this was being discussed, once said, "Well, OK, so you're in favor of abolishing traditional sex roles", which, to a certain extent, I was. But it doesn't follow from this value, or this code, and support for this idea will not be a prerequisite for coming here.

Equality does not mean identical treatment, because people aren't identical. Simple example. My aunt loves liver, which I loath with a passion, and gags on octopus, which I enjoy the taste of. So, if one is serving us dinner, and has one serving of each, what is the fair way of serving us? Giving us a half-portion of each would be a waste of a whole dinner. Equal treatment, obviously, means being equally concerned with the pleasure of both. It does not mean acting as if both will be pleased in the same way. Now, some would take this notion to a more intense level, and say that men and women enjoy vastly different things in life, to such an extent that a patriarchal system meets the needs of both. Some of them, one should point out, are women. Not any that most of us here would date, but ... there they are, and the fact that their desires don't fit into someone else's ideology, won't erase their existence.

This is a beautiful example of why one might hesitate to take part in cross-cultural crusading. What if the people you are "liberating", don't want to be liberated? So, does this mean, that this value is in no way incompatible with certain traditional sex roles, in the Middle East, in particular? No. The point of objection, is not that the rules are different, given the belief in the degree of innate difference between the sexes, but with the greater value put on male happiness, than on female.

We may disagree with the view of female human nature, that holds that the wife will be happy in the patriarchal home, but human nature is not so universally constant, that we be abolutely certain as to our own rightness. So, in this cross-cultural situation, we respectfully agree to disagree, and hold to some hope that they might eventually find it agreeable to come around to a different point of view - on their own, without pressure. But, for example, for a father to go into mourning because his wife has delivered a daughter is a custom, which, should it still endure, should be sent out with this week's trash. There is no justification for that, and we will condemn that lack of paternal affection and concern, in no uncertain terms, as an immediate consequence of the egalitarian principle specified here.

Let's return.