To expand on meat partitioning within poor households, our discussion brought up the point of biological differences as a justification for certain degrees of differential treatment. Katie, our TA, makes a counterpoint by asking us to consider (not verbatim) that maybe its the differential treatment that is creating these biological differences. While that may be true, the differential partitioning of resources between male and female members among neanderthal man has already occurred. The state of the matter is that males are biologically more capable in providing physical capital than females. I believe that generic men and women living exactly equal lifestyles, equal exercise diet, etc. will generally result in men growing to be more physically powerful than women. Of course, there are a myriad of other general biological differences. At this point in human history, sheer equality will result in unequal results. I'm not saying that we should enact discrimination in policy. No. If an applicant for, say, a job in the fields (not that a job in the fields doesn't leave much to be desired) is female and can perform just as well as the generic male, then there is no reason not to reject her if the employer is hiring. Performance over empowerment. Sure females and males might share an abundant number of characteristics, but to use shared characteristics while ignoring differing characteristics is to be incredibly short-sighted.
Of course, this last sentiment also applies to animal equality. Humans may share many general characteristics with animals, but the general differences are significant enough to merit differential treatment. I think fairness should be valued over equality, and since most species, humans and non-humans, are generally evolved to treasure its own survival, fair treatment entails doing what is most conducive to both the survival and flourishing of our respective species since that is what is ingrained in all species - the desire to propagate the species. If other species would prey on humans if given the opportunity, humans are perfectly entitled to prey on other species (i.e. animal testing for bio-medical purposes, not treating animals like humans).
I mean, you could always poke the semantics of my vernacular. Vir might mean man and animals might include homo sapiens sapiens, but at the end of the day, such trivialities don't prove anything other than a desire to make a big fuss out of subjectively perceived 'problems' via vague correlations.