Equal rights for women (I'm for)

The argument is incredibly open-ended so I think the first step for both of us is to agree on precisely what equal rights or the general notion of "equality" means. The latter term, along with other vague liberal catchphrases like "justice" or "fairness", are usually passed around without any explicit definitions offered. They just sound good to most ears and fill people"s hearts with glee. After all, someone who stands for the opposite -- " inequality, injustice, and unfairness " -- will quickly be labeled a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe etc even though all of human history has been one long record of the three. People like to 1) believe that they can change the world within their lifetime and 2) belong to a cause greater than themselves so it"s understandable that they are drawn to these positive terms. One definition of equality is "correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank or ability". If people expect men and women to have identical outcomes in life, then that belief must come from the foundation that the two sexes are "equal" in those aforementioned qualities. They are not. Men and women are extremely different. And even if we were to ignore the physiological, chromosomal, skeletal, hormonal, emotional etc. differences between the two, I argue that the basic distinction between male and female -- the female as the carrier of the limited sex cell, the male as the carrier of the abundant one -- is enough to explain a lot of the world around us. It"s a fascinating field called evolutionary psychology and I"d be happy to go into the basics in a later post. But back to equality... When Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, he did not mean it literally. Economist Milton Friedman summarizes it well: the Founding Fathers "did not regard 'men' or as we would say today, 'persons' as equal in physical characteristics, emotional reactions, mechanical and intellectual abilities". After all, Jefferson was "an inventor, a scholar, an author, a statesman, a governor, President of the United States, Minister to France, founder of the University of Virginia " hardly an average man". Literal inequality confronts us on a daily basis. I'm not going to prove that people are physically different because that basic truth is common sense -- we have different heights, weights, body types, hair types, facial features, skin colors, blood types, intelligences, fingerprints, abilities, preferences, hobbies etc. Human beings knew that they were different from each other long before the human genome project mapped out the 30,000 human genes. From a physical perspective, men and woman are obviously different. Logically speaking, if they were truly equal, then there would be no way to differentiate between the two in the first place; neither would have anything unique by which he could identify them. Even the radical side of the female equality argument (feminists) have come up with a fancy delineation of sex vs. gender because the biological differences between male and female are so apparent. When it comes to physical differences, we"re probably in concurrence that men and women are different. Sex is not a social construct, it"s a biological reality that concerns everything from chromosomes to height to weight to physiological features to body organs etc. What most modern leftists argue, of course, it that is not biological equality between the sexes that they seek but rather equality before the law or perhaps equality of outcome in society. Coupled with this notion is the general idea of tabula rasa, that we are born blank slates with no innate tendencies. So, as the radical feminists point out, if the only differences between men and women are a mere X or Y chromosome and the presence of a certain organ, then the differences between the two in life outcomes are due to cultural brainwashing. So, for example, if women choose to play with Barbie dolls, pursue less competitive majors and careers, and vote Democratic, it must be because society has indoctrinated and brainwashed them to behave that way. I will argue that male and female behavioral patterns (what feminists call "gender") are direct and logical evolutionary results of their physical differences (or "sex"). Expecting the two to ever be equal in outcome is not only a silly notion, it"s an impossible one. In addition to the vagueness of the term "equality", we also have to discuss what we mean by rights. You"ll notice that the Amendments to the Constitution (and good legislation in general) deals with physical absolutes: People can vote at this age, people have a right to speech, alcohol is banned / allowed etc. The Equal Rights Amendment, in contrast, offers the same vague generalities: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. What is equality before the law? What rights do they speak of? Also, why should everyone possess the same rights if they are radically different? John Adams himself said that "there has not been a democracy in history that did not commit suicide". If people are radically different, is giving everyone equality " for example, an equal vote in a election or a guarantee of a minimal income " a suitable way or running a society and is it sustainable in the long run? I argue it is not. Any societal invention that does not appeal to the rules of reality will not last long. These are just some points to ponder. I look forward to clarifying the debate further.