You are the one who made this conversation about subservience. The theological debate was over subordinationism, it’s obviously a thing, there’s a Wikipedia entry for it, what more needs to be said? It has a history in the Church and this is just another iteration.
Packer is not provoking outrage because what he said is orthodox and in bounds. Roger brought up the eternal subordination of the son debate in Evangelicalism which was primarily between Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware on one side and Kevin Giles on the other. Kevin Giles won. Grudem and Ware were denying the"eternal generation" of the Son at one point, which is certainly not the traditional orthodox Trinitarian position.
Well, Grudem at least is a YEC who believes females are literally derivative of males. So there’s that.
I didn’t bring any of this stuff up because it’s helpful. It’s stuff that makes you want to stick a fork in your eye. But Roger implied this thinking was standard Evangelical teaching, and I was just trying to redeem the good name of all the fine Evangelical theologians who called foul on that nonsense. I don’t think the average person in the pews has much of a clue about this whole thing. But it would not be the first time on this forum that we have wandered far into the theological weeds.