This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.
There's one big problem with Carter's argument -- he has things exactly backward. One doesn't need to rely on selective interpretation to understand that women have second-class status in the Bible. Instead, creative interpretation is necessary to pretend otherwise. This is typical of liberal Christians. Rather than accept that their religion, the scriptures, and their God are horribly flawed, and that the Bible promotes many things that are repulsive to moral and ethical people, they just pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to accept. The rest is dismissed out of hand or interpreted away as no longer relevant.
In some ways this is similar to liberal interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't really mean what it says; it means whatever they think it should mean. But with Christianity the Bible is supposedly the holy word of God. If it means whatever you think it should mean, and you can discard any unpleasant parts, what good is it? Why not just admit that it isn't the word of God, just a collection of ancient writings that you are cynically using to support your own particular ideas?