What is Sexual Equality and Why Does Tey Want It?

I wish to pose some questions for "the feminist," and in particular for the feminist case presented by Alison Jaggar in "On Sexual Equality."1 The feminist wants equality because justice apparently demands it. Jaggar declares that "a feminist is one who believes that justice requires equality between women and men."2 Yet it is not clear that the kind of equality that Jaggar wants is a requirement of justice, and there is reason to believe that it involves injustice. Equality, in Jaggar's sense, means "that those of one sex, in virtue of their sex, should not be in a socially advantageous position vis-a-vis those of the other sex."3 But what precisely does this mean? Consider one possible interpretation: In a just society there will be no one of one sex who, in virtue of ter sex, is in a socially advantageous position vis-a-vis those of the other sex. Jaggar is not expansive on what is involved in the notion of a socially advantageous position, but it is reasonable to assume that A is in a socially advantageous position relative to B if A has greater income than B. Now suppose that this situation obtains: B does not want the higher income level of A, and B does not want it precisely because of ter sex. According to Jaggar's view there is an injustice here, and the only way to rectify it would presumably be to force B to accept the higher income against ter will. But surely this coercion is the real injustice, violating B's right to lead ter life as tey chooses. My point is that the inequalities Jaggar deplores may arise because of the way that free men and women choose to lead their lives. If their choices reflect their conviction that the difference between the sexes is more than simply a physiological distinction, and indeed that the difference makes it fitting for them to introduce inequalities in advantages, then they should not be forced to conform to a feminist egalitarian vision. Perhaps such people can be taught to change their minds. But the