Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.
Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.
All things being "equal"
I see contradictory arguments presented by feminist supporters regarding this point in the debate.
First, the claim of equal work rests on the implication of equal ability. You cannot have the former without the latter - if ability is unequal, then those with greater capability will surpass the lesser in job performance. In order to assert equal work as a determining factor in the discussion, feminism must assume that women on average have the physical traits to be able to perform every job related requirement at the same level of capability as men on average do... an assertion which would require women to possess equal physical strength and endurance to that of men.
That assertion/assumption combination is contradicted by the assertion that women need extra legislation to protect us because we may be victimized by bigger and stronger men. That assertion rests on the assumption that we are made vulnerable to victimization by a lack of equal physical strength and endurance. The two feminist positions are not compatible. If our strength and endurance are such that we can and do offer the same job performance even on labor-intensive and endurance-demanding jobs, then our strength and endurance are such that we should be equally capable of defending ourselves should we be assaulted or otherwise abused by a man... at least enough that the same laws enacted to protect everyone should be enough to protect us. We should not need additional legislation, such as VAWA and rape shield laws. And certainly, we should not have an issue of being unable to communicate consent or refusal due to emotional overload at receiving the attention of a man, so if we want to claim equal capability, we cannot also claim emotion-induced paralysis as justification for demanding "only yes means yes" as a standard for sexual consent. Feminists claim a need for special accommodation in the legal arena for women being of lower physical strength and endurance, and inferior emotional toughness and willpower, yet attempt to also claim equal physical capacity, equal toughness, and equal reliability on the job.
Second, whenever I make that first point, the reply I get from feminists is the claim that feminists don't deny the biological differences between men and women. This is a denial made by members of the same group which asserts the claim of equal work - a claim which requires the listener to accept that men and women have equal performance ability in areas of strength and endurance... which in turn requires one to deny the biological differences between men and women. This leaves one of two possibilities. Either feminists are so unthinking or stupid that they spout their ideology without ever thinking about the basic meaning behind their terms, or they are liars who use verbal dodging and weaving in order to avoid admitting that their positions contradict each other.
MRAs need to stop tolerating this. Feminist debaters need to see the demand for a consistent answer on the question of biology - are women so small, weak, and helpless that we cannot ever be counted upon to stand up for ourselves, and defend ourselves in tough situations, or are we strong enough and tough enough to work side by side with men on dangerous, labor-intensive, endurance-demanding jobs? We need to start pushing for answers which nail down a concrete position regarding which of these contradictory claims they feel justified in asking us to accept - and we need to not waver on the point that it cannot be both.