popnperish
"What I mean by equal is having equal rights under the law. Obviously there are biological differences between men and women but that's not what I'm talking about."

Okay but how can people have equal rights in respect of unequal biological differences? For example should men and women have equal rights under the law to decide whether a woman has an abortion of a child for which both parents should in law be equally liable? It's meaningless.

Isn't it? How could it not be?

It would be fine if equality under the law were confined to formal equality in things where the sexes are equal, e.g. one vote, one value.

But in the nature of a society under a highly interventionist state,, equality under the law is meaningless.

For example, take a hypothetical
- mother of three children married to their father
- single mother with three children by two fathers
- man who has fathered three children whom he has never known about
- single man
- single woman.

Obviously they are not factually equal. But how could they have "equal rights under the law"?

Lactation break? Maternity leave? Obviously they would have to go. And it would be no use saying that, for example, the single mother's pension should be changed to the sole parents' pension. This would only beg the question why parents should have unequal privileges as against non-parents forced to pay for them.

The only way, that I could see, is if taxation, social security, employment, and discrimination law were abolished. I personally am all in favour of that, but is that what you had in mind?

If not, how could the sexes possibly have equal rights under law? What would be an example to do with their biological differences?

Peter Hume

You're conflating the words "equal" and "identical". It is possible to treat two different things equally, but cater to their differences. Where is the line between "equal, but different" and "unequal"? Of course, that's a hard question to answer, but I can tell you that it's not in Iranian law.

That said, many of your arguments aren't valid. For instance, while both parents should be liable for the child, only one parent will ever have the obligation to carry the child for 9 months inside of her body. That substantially alters the way the law should apply.

Similarly, there is no cause for the removal of maternity leave, but possibly an argument to introduce paternity leave (which I think does exist in some places).

NQD
I’m not conflating the words "equal" and "identical". I’m saying I don’t see how non-identical things can be "equal", and *asking* how they can be? Nothing you have said has explained the distinction.

>“It is possible to treat two different things equally, but cater to their differences.”

No-one has shown
a) why they should, or
b) how they could, or
c) how it could be done without self-contradiction, and
d) how it could be done without unethical use of aggressive force.

>“Where is the line between "equal, but different" and "unequal"? Of course, that's a hard question to answer, but I can tell you that it's not in Iranian law.”

No doubt, however
a) it’s not in Australian law either, and
b) since I’m not asserting it, it’s not for me to answer.
c) since you are asserting it, it’s for you to answer. Go ahead. The whole of your argument depends on it.

As I said, it’s literally meaningless to say that things are equal but different, excepting only if we define different things to be equal in a purely formal sense. For some things this is valid, e.g. right to vote, right to freedom of speech, right to be free of unprovoked aggression.

But for other things it’s not valid, including policies funding benefits, because such policy depends on a threat of physically attacking other people in order to get the money to fund the benefit. So such policies are ethically problematic for equalitarianism, since they intrinsically depend on treating people unequally and aggressively.

“That said, many of your arguments aren't valid. For instance, while both parents should be liable for the child, only one parent will ever have the obligation to carry the child for 9 months inside of her body. That substantially alters the way the law should apply. “

That doesn’t prove my argument is invalid, it proves that yours is. It proves that it is meaningless to assert that the sexes are, or could be treated equally, in respect of anything concerning their biological differences.

>“Similarly, there is no cause for the removal of maternity leave, but possibly an argument to introduce paternity leave (which I think does exist in some places).”

No there’s not, because the interest of the sexes in looking after any given child is not equal, so there’s no reason why it should be treated equally in the first place. A man has, by nature, a viable reproductive strategy that a woman does not: namely, impregnating a woman or women and leaving her or them to look after any resulting child or children as best they can, while he himself spends the resources that might otherwise go to supporting them, on inducing still other women to agree to have sex. It’s true that this offends the ethics of patriarchy, but if women aren’t to be bound by the obligations of patriarchy, then there’s no reason for men be forced to either. Equal provision for children is unequally biased in favour of women’s interests - for the reasons you yourself have identified - and there is no reason why the *female* interest should have precedence, or be taken as the measure of what is just and fair. To treat the sexes equally, the male interest should just as much be respected, enshrined and subsidised in policy? Yes?

But if not, then that only proves my point that it is meaningless and impossible to treat the sexes equally in anything that concerns their biological differences. In which case, the only policy consistent with equality of the sexes is formal equality in being free from unprovoked aggression, and all the freedom that follows from that. But that rules out all so-called affirmative action I’m afraid.

So how about you, or anyone, explain:
1. how the sexes could be treated equally in respect of their biological differences
2. why they should
3. how it could be done without self-contradiction
4. how that justifies the use of aggressive force.

Merely pleading the advantages to women's special interests is no more of an argument than pleading the advantages to men's - by your own theory!

Well a law saying that anyone who is pregnant can ultimately decide whether or not to have an abortion, or that anyone who gives birth is entitled to a period of paid leave. The fact that this will only practically affect women is immaterial, there are many laws aimed at general society that only affect one group in reality.

I also think you're taking the wrong approach to the issue of paid leave - I don't think it's there to cater to a female interest, I think it exists to make the process of child birth easier and therefore more appealing. It's not for the benefit of mothers so much as wider society - we gain a lot from ambitious, educated and hard-working mothers being able to have children.

Finally, why is it my burden to posit the perfect solution to the "equal but different" principle? I reject the all-or-nothing approach you are taking, where if we can't find the perfect solution and there are one or two flaws then the whole idea must be entirely unfounded.

>Well a law saying that anyone who is pregnant can ultimately decide whether or not to have an abortion, or that anyone who gives birth is entitled to a period of paid leave.

Inconsistent with equality of the sexes under law. But if it's permissible, then how about anyone who's male is is entitled to special privileges? Nothing unequal in that, is there?

> The fact that this will only practically affect women is immaterial, there are many laws aimed at general society that only affect one group in reality.

Many, but none consistent with equality under law.

>I also think you're taking the wrong approach to the issue of paid leave - I don't think it's there to cater to a female interest, I think it exists to make the process of child birth easier and therefore more appealing. It's not for the benefit of mothers so much as wider society - we gain a lot from ambitious, educated and hard-working mothers being able to have children.

Anyone can find reason for unequal laws benefitting themselves. My point is only that it can't be reconciled with the stated value of equality, so you haven't got to square one yet.

>Finally, why is it my burden to posit the perfect solution to the "equal but different" principle?

Because I have shown reason why it's impossible, and you are saying it can be done but haven't proved it, so the burden on you is to prove it can. I'm not asking for a "perfect" solution, but you haven't yet even got to one that is possible without self-contradiction. By the equalitarians' own ethos, there is no reason why some people should be able to exploit others, and their self-privileging self-contradictory rationale is not good enough.