Is substansive equality true equality?

Question

I know of some feminists who are in favor of substantive equality. (i.e.; lowered standards for physically weaker groups (women/handicaps/elderly), etc.)

Is substantive equality true equality though? What is your opinion on it?

Answer 1

Substantive equality is based on treating the sexes differently, in other words discrimination based on sex.

It would be best termed as "discriminatory equality", which is sort of an oxymoron.

Answer 2

Interesting question.
In theory, substantive equality seeks to level the paying field by accommodating physical differences. Wheelchair ramps are a good example... by making sidewalks and buildings accessible to wheelchairs, physically challenged people can move about as freely as the able-bodied.
I think the concept has been taken too far in some areas, though, under a misguided belief that 50/50 representation in all walks of life is necessary and desirable. I think it's OK that some occupations are male dominated, and some are female dominated, so long as everyone has an equal *opportunity* to pursue a career in their chosen field. Qualifications for a job should not be adjusted, quality should not be compromised in the name of equal representation.
Equal Opportunity, not quotas.

One problem , however, is in a field dominated by a single gender, a social culture develops which can make life uncomfortable for minority gender. In such an environment, harassment and discrimination are more likely to occur than in a mixed group. These social issues do need to be addressed, but I don't believe affirmative action is the proper solution.

Answer 3

on condition that any lady can call them selves feminist, and a few of them spout maximum foul and hateful rubbish ... it may in common terms be honest to end that some feminists prefer equality, some despite if are very selective of their recommendations of equality. the two types declare its equality they seek for. And its very slender minded to speak in blanket generalizations. You talk of the defining factors of the assumption-approximately feminism no longer its followers and what they intend to do with that concept. Feminists of their actual definition could in common terms seek for equality and balancing out with their fellow human .... yet then human beings arent so merely defined. I dont classify as a feminist - i've got self assurance its a polarizing perception. I dont classify as an anti feminist - comparable as above. I beleive in human beings. and that i beleive they're wonderous and loopy .. so very diverse so very comparable ... and equivalent even of their adjustments and similarity's. Edit Rio seems to have taken a fall from grace .. i grew to become into under the effect that the two feminists and antifeminists have been approximately equality - merely there to make effective the different doesnt over step the boundries .... as I factor somebody categorized feminist doesnt immediately mean they actually provide a rattling approximately equality lmao. Shell .... lmao ... extraordinary, happy to make certain some distracting humour lmao

Answer 4

Men and women are different.
From a legal viewpoint, they should be treated equally, but in fact, they cannot be truly equal.
As a society, as well as individuals, we should come to grips with that fact and GROW UP.
Ideally, we should treat each other fairly and justly at all times.

Answer 5

No. 50/50 representation in all things would be nice, but when we need to make less of an effort to get it, it isn't worth it.

Answer 6

Yes it is. We need to make allowances for individual differences and the ability for us to contribute to the best of our ability - whatever that ability is........

Answer 7

No it is not. I think this is an obvious answer, but maybe I am wrong.