On Equality

The U.S. Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to justify laws that discriminate on race. Strict scrutiny means that the law must be 1) narrowly tailored 2) meet a competing government interest and 3) and use the least restrictive means. Race is viewed as a suspect class, any discrimination is viewed with great suspicion. It is very hard to justify racial discrimination. Gender discrimination is not as hard to justify. The Court uses intermediate scrutiny for gender; the law must be related to an important government interest in a meaningful way. Sexual identity is seen as relating to inherent differences in a way race is not seen today. This means that equality must be viewed in a different way than race is. 

There are I think two different kinds of equality, equality as identity and social equality.

There is equality as identity, a concept in logic and mathematics. A thing is itself, and what something else has in common with that thing is also equal. This is the most basic definition. Equality as sameness. Euclid the founder of geometry defined equality in one of his postulates as “things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to each other”. 

Racial equity is described popularly as “we’re all the same on the inside”. In other words, what is essential to being human is the same regardless of phenotype, races are merely modes of being human. Gender differences do not make male and female humans totally different, but different enough that there is not identity in their interests. Gender equality will as it stands won’t progress if we look at equality as identity.

Social equality is of the power relationships between individuals, it is the result of contrivance not just nature. This equality is granted by social institutions through mutual agreement. Where there isn’t agreement there isn’t any level of equality, much as animals who lack speech only have the rights which humans give them. Social equality is possible because concepts like gender and race though rooted in physical facts are also constructs, they also have meaning through how we have defined them. How we treat race and gender is up to society as well as nature. 

This is where sexuality and gender come into play. There are differences between men and women psychologically and physically. Yet that is no reason to set up artificial levels of inequality, beyond what is necessary. To only allow women to be wives and mothers because that is what women tend to do is somewhat contingent on human choice, not an absolute necessity imposed by nature. Thus the rules we make regarding gender should be those which are for the good of society. 

Determining the common good is an arduous task, so it is better if we give people the benefit of the doubt and leave people alone, that is as they naturally are, unless there is good reason backed with public support. This itself is not sufficient to guarantee the optimal level of equality. The laws we make regarding gender should be general in nature, aiming not to benefit or impoverish certain groups. The law ought to remain flexible, subject to change, and be subject to criticism. 

The rule of law, isonomy, I think is the key to protecting social equality. The law should aim to apply to all without exception, but since we are not all or always the same the law ought to be restricted to those areas where there is identity. To do otherwise is to add inequality not of natural or necessary origin.

A feminist point of view does make us view such issues differently, however I think feminist scholars would be going too far to deny other more established theories on the grounds that they ignored women. I don’t think the more common points of view of war and the like ignore women, but have a very different place for them. Take the realist theory in international relations. Realism portrays human nature as relevant to the state in a more masculine way; aggressive, competitive, and power seeking. These characteristics are certainly more found in men as women are usually seen as more cooperative, passive, and seek social recognition. Women do have a major role in realist theory, they are what the state is trying to protect. 

It could be the case that male bodies are more disposable than women’s bodies. This is the argument of Warren Farrell in The Myth of Male Power. Men are the ones who serve in military, willing sacrificing their life. Whenever there is a fire, it is women and children out first. Men commit suicide at higher rates than women and work more dangerous occupations. If male bodies are disposable, it is because men gain power by using their body. The average male’s worth has been linked to their labor, their physical strength and self restraint. The value of a female body is allowing it to be used for male purposes or for the production and care of children. From an evolutionary standpoint this is due to differences in parental investment for offspring:  male offers his sperm once while a mother must carry the child for nine months. Males should be competitive with one another and women should be more choosy, which in turn increases the amount males need to contribute to females and their offspring.

When chimpanzees our closest animal relatives engage in raids against each other, sometimes they kill the other males and children but keep the women alive. It is because females give birth and care for children far more than males do. Males traditionally are not invested in the rearing of children. So their lives can be sacrificed to either protect women and their children. It safeguards the spread of their genes. I don’t think women are missing, it is that they are what war is partially motivated by in realist and other such theories.