Hmm...lovely sentiment, but absolutely horrendously terrible statement of fact, because it is not.

If the value of X can be mutually agreed to by two parties in (at least) tangible terms, and exchanges involving X are not illegal (and even if it is) then X ipso facto is a trade item, and hence is property.

Nor can you argue that you can absolutely dispose of and otherwise deal with your property as you wish - this has never been true of real estate and in increasingly not true for many other possessions.

Now, can you think of anywhere women are in fact commodities for trade? Hmm, a few places do come to mind...

/wishes he could re-word in a snarkier fashion
//has high hopes in Attila's capability to do so
///has even higher hopes in other commenters' ability to twist and reword so as to only vaguely resemble original

:)

I hear you can still buy a woman in Saudi Arabia, to this day. (That would be "our friends, the Saudis.")

Of course, any human being can be considered "property," once his or her will has been broken. When white settlers reached North America, some actually attempted to enslave the Native Americans. But to strip someone of his/her humanity takes a bit more than just capturing him or her, physically. Generally, it takes a lot to dehumanize large groups of people: with Africans, it was done by transporting them to a different continent, where they did not speak the language. With Jews, it was done through propaganda, special markings on their clothes, and eventually the shaving of their heads. (I'm painting with a broad brush, but you get the idea.)

With women, the burqa can serve the same function of erasing individuality. I'm not against head scarves for women (which are still used by some traditional Catholics at mass, and are required by many Orthodox Jews), but the covering of a woman's face starts to get into the territory of deliberate dehumanization.

McCain could run an ad consisting of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, add "I'm John McCain, and I approve of this message," and the Obama campaign would still call it racist.

'Sides, if a black man marrying a white woman really honked us off that much, Clarence Thomas would not have been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

They call McCain a racist for the same reason that middle-school bullies call weaker boys faggots: Because they think it's something bad, and therefore hurtful.

As for "owning" women, the Saudis (and Muslims in general) are most certainly guilty of believing that they "own" their women: It is perfectly legal in any Islamic nation for a non-Muslim woman, or widow of a non-Muslim, to marry an Islamic man, and in fact they approve of the latter situation, so much so that they will help out by making her a widow. But it is utterly forbidden for any Muslim woman (or widow of a Muslim) to marry any non-Muslim.