Identical vs Equal?

Question

There seems to be a serious confusion about people (such as myself) who believe men and women are entitled to equal rights, as equal human beings. Being EQUAL is greatly different from being IDENTICAL. We have different physical strengths, sex organs, women give birth, men don't---however, what does this have to do with being valued as equal human beings with the same rights?

A senior citizen is not identical to a junior citizen in so many ways, a white man is not identical with a black man, a short man is not identical with a tall man, but does that mean they should be entitled to less rights as human beings?

Philip H- Equal pay should be given for equal work & qualifications- no exceptions.

Maternity leave- I understand some differences in that regard because a woman carries the child and her body needs to recover after giving birth...however, I agree with the paternity/maternity laws in Scandinavian countries, men should be given significant time also, as a child needs bonding with both parents.

Answer 1

All people deserve identical rights - even though they are not themselves identical.

All humans have identical value as humans - even though they are not themselves identical.

I think there is general agreement that men and women have identical rights and value as humans - even though they are not themselves identical.

Does that answer the question?

Answer 2

Identical and equal are different concepts. Being Identical is being the same. Being Equal is having the same value. Saying that women should not have equal rights is saying that we are not as valuable. The same for anyone who does not have equal rights because of some difference.

And equal rights does not mean all of the same rights. For example a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body re reproduction.

Facts: Some colonies in America allowed widows who owned property to vote and most colonies allowed a wife to give her husband's vote if he was sick or at sea. Only women in New Jersey who owned property could vote in post-colonial America in 1790 and they were banned in 1807. Women could not vote anywhere in America after that untill 1869 in the Wyoming Territory.

Saying that more women and children survived the Titanic's sinking is Not saying that women are free and equal in society.

Answer 3

I believe that we should all be considered equal in this world regardless of race, sex, religious deliniation, or any other differences. It is an idealist type of attitude, but I would like to think that since some are capable, then others have the capability as well...Whether they will or not is what is the question. They do not because they do not want to have equals...They are too afraid to consider someone of difference as their equal, intimidation I believe.
We should all have the same rights as human beings as well.

Answer 4

From a moral, ethical AND legal viewpoint, EQUAL is a given.
If you deny the DIFFERENCES, you would have to be considered less than SANE!
That fact should be kept in mind when arguing legal cases like "equal pay for equal work."
Example: I have a friend who works for Gen. Motors. Women on the assembly line get equal pay but NEVER get assigned the hard jobs, plus they get maternity leave, but fathers don't.
Is that equal? Is that different? Is it JUST!
Justice SHOULD consider the differences.

Answer 5

Well of course we aren't all identical. That wouldn't be any fun now would it? :( But seriously when you say you want equal rights that means that men do not have rights that women don't have and women don't have rights that men don't have. Equal rights does mean identical rights. Yes you are right we aren't identical (how much fun would that be?) but we do deserve identical rights.

Equal: adj. 3. having the same rights or status
Same: adj. 1. identical; not different; unchanged

Answer 6

Yes, but equality can be defined in different ways and measured by different criteria. The methods and criteria have to reflect the priorities of both sides equally, and they don't today. And that the feminist-friendly materialist criteria are more easily quantified than the male-friendly covert-manipulation criteria is no excuse to exclude the latter.

Answer 7

You are absolutely Right! Although, we already have equal rights with men, what are you in an uproar about? Now, if you want to argue for rights with the Unborn who would Contribute to this world, you have a supporter.

Answer 8

Of course not. And you're absolutely right. But Americans are not particularly GOOD at making such distinctions... And there are WAY too many of us, who indulge ourselves in the "us verses them" theory of how things "should be". We ALL want to be #1., & "Special", -and if THAT comes at the "cost" of making someone ELSE #657,015 and lost in the "crowd"- well, that's not "Our" problem... :(

Answer 9

You are correct. There is no practical reasoning behind denying a human being rights, unless that human being happens to be a criminal.

Answer 10

Know what? In the colonial times, you had to meet two requirements in order to vote:

1: You had to be the head of a household
2: You had to own property.

A single or widowed woman who owned property could vote. A man who did not own property could not vote. In fact there were laws saying that a woman could vote in place of her husband if he were unable to. It was one vote per household. Nothing wrong with that!

I think some feminists believe that underrepresentation means that there's discrimination. They're WRONG. How many women do you know who are interested in being auto mechanics? I don't see where women are being discouraged from it, either.

Except for women being treated as pretty ornaments during the so-called "Enlightenment" era, I haven't heard of much evidence of women being oppressed.

Women sure weren't being oppressed on the Titanic!