You raise some great questions, Naismith. On the one extreme we have people taking the position that any observable difference justifies any difference in treatment (people observe that men and women have different brains and then conclude men should have exclusive access to x, without even making a case based on the particularities of the observed differences!). On the other extreme are those who would claim no observable difference justifies any difference in treatment, which is also untenable (in general, not just with regard to men and women).

Although I haven’t completely sorted out what I think, I lean toward the idea that (a) not only should women have access to opportunities men are granted, (b) provisions should be made in those opportunities for childcare (which I think is generally the issue for women)–i.e., they should be adapated to women’s needs–but then (c) those provisions for childcare should also be available to men. I think Ziff’s tenure clock might stop if he (and his wife) have a baby, for example, and I’m sure he appreciates it when men’s restrooms have changing tables.

As far as sexism, I dunno. I know I’ve said this before, but the university where I work is scrupulously non-sexist and as a result is very unfair and damaging to women, in my opinion.

Interesting observation Naismith. When the ERA was on the legislative table, I was an ardent supporter until I heard convincing predictions of this very thing.

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/02/10/separate-but-equal/

I think my sense is that while some feminists might take things too far on the “we are not different” side of things, I think the church generally takes things too far on the “separate but equal” side of things.

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/01/31/exploring-a-misconception-about-feminism-difference-and-equality/

Your last comment (and also Caroline’s recent post at ExII) got me started thinking a little further; I find myself wondering whether my husband and I have really managed to transcend our LDS upbringing to embrace truly egalitarian notions. (This isn’t quite what you asked, but I’m just going off on a little personal tangent for a minute here – I hope you’ll forgive me.).

Is my husband really, truly egalitarian, or is he just an incredibly nice guy? I think it’s possible that in his own mind, he’s more an ultra-benevolent, laid-back, kindly patriarch than a true egalitarian. He treats me in a way that makes me feel respected, loved, and heard; we make decisions jointly, etc. But I think he’s probably absorbed some of the messages of our broader American culture and our specific LDS culture/doctrine, and I think it’s possible he feels some sense of unique or disproportionate responsibility for the spiritual and temporal well-being of our family. If that’s true, does such an attitude benefit or harm our relationship and family? I think I could argue either side of that one.

And I’m sure I’ve been influenced by our doctrine, too – even when I consciously reject or question it. Maybe my propensity towards laziness, passiveness, buck-passing, shyness, self-consciousness, indecisiveness, etc. are tied up in a belief system that I’m somehow less of a full agent than men are. Or maybe those personality traits are due to other environmental and genetic factors and my own choices; I might have been very similar regardless of the doctrinal teachings I was exposed to during my life. It’s hard to tease out the causes of our behavior and thoughts. Certainly our exposure to church teachings, our beliefs, our practices, and our relationships with God and each other are all very much intertwined.

(Man, how awesome to try to pass the buck on my own buck-passing propensity…)

(And I second Newt’s comment about the niceness of the ZD bloggers. You guys have managed to create a forum that feels respectful, kind, safe, and welcoming, which I really appreciate.)

(And I like Naismith’s points, too – sometimes I want equality, but often I want special consideration for special circumstances.)