There is no misogyny. There are difference and diverse manners of treating females.

Hello, sillydebate. I appreciate your reply. The notion that females are responsible for the honour of their families is a moral, ethical notion that has basis on subjective value judgment and conscience, without having to have concrete, physical factual grounds. It does not need any sort of "proof" for such type of notion to be established. Whether or not anyone believes such idea to be true or right is a matter entirely up to their evaluation that is outside the realms of approval or disapproval of other people. That's why it is a matter of "conscience" and "value judgement", both of which belongs to the category of subjectivity, not objectivity . I have argued as to why "human laws" are irrelevant in the contexts given in this debate. I will repeat only main points from the part here: a) value judgments and conscience are matters of subjectivity, and thus not an area for "legal" or "illegal" - both of which are concepts found in human laws - can be applied to; b) "Human laws" are mere a collection of the sounds and writings of human languages when encountering any sort of physical, concrete act which nullifies the importance of these words; c) those "human laws" are arbitrary and have utterly weak grounds, which kills its pretense to act as a standard against which acts can be judged; and d) No "human law" has any meaning, significance or authority to force itself on individuals and their acts when those people disagree with the laws. In addition to these inherent flaws that humans laws hold,, what's more sinister is that those "human laws" are nothing but an oppressive scheme that refuses to recognize and respect different value judgments and consciences between not only individuals but also cultures. The aim of human law is clear - its purpose is to make everybody act in the same way prescribed by the words in the law, and the "rule of law" dictates how its heinous goals are obtained by forcing people, very often with threats of persecutions, even when those "human laws" are in essence nothing but words with horribly weak grounds and yet are forced upon people who resist it. For those reasons, any argument that relies on "human laws" makes only fun of itself, with an embarrassingly foolish manner. You made an absolutely false claim you said to me "So far, you have provided no evidence that men and women should not be subject to the same rights and freedoms.", because I have provided the clear evidence in support for different treatments between males and females "due to natural, chemical, physical, biological and physiological differences between males and females that science has constantly discovered". Please refrain from making stating another falsehood. You have completely misunderstood the very fundamental point of my position. My point is NOT that all females that disgrace the honour of their families must be honor-killed, all wives must be beaten up by their husbands, or all females that have done a serious wrong must be stoned to death. Rather, my consistent point is that honour-killing females, husbands beating up their wives or stoning females to death is due to the differences and diversity of the manners of treating females stemming from the differences and diversity of conscience and value judgments that form moral and ethical rulings between individuals and cultures. It is not a matter of objectivity, and there is not any objective standard to judge whether such acts are "right" or "wrong". You may or may not be against those acts; I may or may not support or oppose those acts. But the attitude that we must take on such events is that we must recognize such differences, respect them and embrace our diversity resulting from the differences. Calling such those acts or events "misogyny" only reveals the speaker's bigotry, prejudice and intolerance regarding values and acts that differ from and defy their own standards, because they are incapable of accepting that there are many various ways of treating females in the world. You may not agree with what others are doing, because they are doing something in a different way. However, that does not give you any moral higher grounds than theirs, and that surely does not give you any reason to criticize them. Your neighbor may honour-kill his female relative tomorrow, but you must respect that. You may stone some female to death, and anybody must respect that too. Some guy may beat his wife, but we must embrace it. Change the subject from a person to a culture, and the main idea of recognizing, respecting and embracing still remains the same. Different standards and diverse manners exist, and are performed everyday to generate the beautiful, colorful diversity in all parts of this planet. Let us keep it beautiful and colourful.