The point of a quote is usually obvious, but this one isn’t. The original writers were simply laying down their sexist laws—but why are you quoting it?
I can’t speak for Rune, but I think it’s interesting because it’s awfully specific. It’s an example of the conjunction fallacy that someone thought this important enough to be a rule. To my common-law mind, it would be more sensible if it were something like ”...even if it’s to save her husband.” And maybe it did mean that, since conjunctions are a common place for miscommunication.
The point of a quote is usually obvious, but this one isn’t. The original writers were simply laying down their sexist laws—but why are you quoting it?
I can’t speak for Rune, but I think it’s interesting because it’s awfully specific. It’s an example of the conjunction fallacy that someone thought this important enough to be a rule. To my common-law mind, it would be more sensible if it were something like ”...even if it’s to save her husband.” And maybe it did mean that, since conjunctions are a common place for miscommunication.
Yeah, my interpretation was similar. It is far too specific to simply be used as an exhibit of sexist thinking.