Scales-problems of 2 legal choices appear to resolve claims of social injustice
law could either ignore differences, thereby risking needless conformity, or it could freeze differences, thereby creating a menu of justification for inequality. Concrete universality eliminates the need for such a choice. When our priority is to understand differences and to value multiplicities, we need only to discern between occasions of respect and occasions of oppression. Those are judgments we know how to make, even without a four-part test to tell us, for every future circumstance, what constitutes domination. If we are serious about survival, we need a radically more serious approach to equality. Law must embrace a version of equality that focuses on the real issues-domination, disadvantage and disempowerment-instead of on the interminable and diseased issue of differences between the sexes.