Equal rights for women (I'm for)

You continually use the words "equal rights" but you still have not provided a list or definition of what such rights are. I have specifically delved into the only one you provided earlier -- "equal pay for pay work". What specific equal rights would you like women to have that they don't currently have? In other words, what do men possess -- legally, socially, naturally -- that women do not? Since we're focused primarily on gender, I'm not going to dive extensively into the Civil War race analogy except to inform you that race is not just "skin color". The idea of race as a social construct is a 50-year-old liberal idea that is bizarre to anyone with their eyes open. Race is a biological classification, an imperfect one but a valid one, that categorizes the human species into multiple distinct groups, much like dogs are categorized into distinct breeds. Races differ on everything from skin type to facial features to bone density to blood type to genetic polymorphisms to intelligence to even propensity for a number of diseases. These are direct results of evolutionary pressures on groups of people within certain environments, environments that differed in climate, fertility of soil, food acquisition, threats and dangers etc. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers did not believe anyone, men or women, deserved rights. Rights were not endowed by men or by governments but by the Creator or, in other words, God. They were equal only in having access to these "natural rights". We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness The rights are unalienable so, by definition, they cannot be unequal. Those are the only "equal rights" that exist in nature. There is no God-given right to vote or to possess healthcare or to earn a minimum salary. The question to ask yourself about rights is "It it something that exists in nature?" Human beings, like any other species, absolutely want to avoid death, avoid captivity and be free to pursue their own desires. The natural rights are their natural state. As a result of being human, the natural rights are equally distributed to all people. Everything else is man-made and cannot be a right; it cannot be guaranteed. I agree with your first two points. However, because men"s fertility doesn't decline that rapidly with age, they can reproduce at almost any point. A 50 year old man can easily start a family with a 25 year old woman. A 50 year old woman cannot do the same with a 25 year old man. Once again, you can add that to the list of reasons why women are more selective and, consequently, why men have to be more competitive to impress them. It's funny to see you say that they "didn't record every working-man or woman on the earth". Well, obviously. There's not a single statistical study in history that has captured the entire human population. Scientists thus try to find a suitable size group that can act as a representative micro example of macro trend. If the studies I cited are invalid because they're not large enough in scope, then neither is your "75 cent on the dollar" statistic. It"s a general estimate, not a factual truth. I once again repeat to you the same points. If men and women are doing equal work, they would be paid the exact same. If an employer decided to be sexist against either gender and pay more for the same amount of work, they would LOSE money. Thus, the pay gap cannot exist. Mandating that people be paid equally would, as Friedman noted, "reduce to zero the cost imposed on people who are discriminating for irrelevant reasons". It would HURT women. Of course people would be encouraged to get a job if its pays more. But salaries are not some arbitrary number, they are an estimate of a person's contributions to the enterprise. Simply saying "Pay women more to reduce poverty" is just as fallacious as arguing to raise the minimum wage. Why not pay all people $100,000 a year? Wouldn't that help reduce poverty? The answer is no because if people did not contribute $100,000 of work to an employer, then nobody would hire them. Salaries are direct reflections of a person's value. You cannot force a company to increase a salary for an employee without receiving increased value from that employee. It is, by definition, unprofitable and thus unsustainable. Finally, once again, if we are "all equal in freedom and in this country itself", what specific equal rights are you fighting for? Don't you already have what you're fighting for? What discrepancies between men and women do you presently see that you want to eliminate? What does one gender have that the other does not that is not a direct result of their genders?