Meta-ethical moral relativism is where I think the most disagreement lies.  I would never say ethics are relative and therefore we should tolerate different ethical systems that oppress women.  But I would definitely say that we don't all agree on what the right ethical system is. Somewhere in the middle is "meta-ethical" moral relativism.

A meta-ethical moral relativist (I include myself in this camp) says that what is "right" or "wrong" depends on your cultural norms. Some cultures have no concept of property, so they have no concept of theft.  While lobsters have hierarchy, sea sponges don't, and some small animals have no concept of territory so there is no concept of trespass among them.  Sticking to the human level, 90+% of ethics are universal among us. It's the last 10% that we quibble over, some of which however can be very serious including killing, stoning, etc. Then we get stuck in things like the trolley problem, and we can't easily determine proximate cause, and we cannot determine true intent (without mind reading technology) and so IMHO this last 10% of ethics isn't ready to be resolved. We have to live with our differences somehow.

Yet I will always argue that you should fight for what you believe. And I believe certain ethical principles are clearly good for all of us, but not widely accepted yet, and we need to explain them better and sell them better --- things like free speech. 

 fair enough man, thanks