My apologies for the delay in responding.
How can we have a discussion if you are not willing to define your terms ? Definitions are very important. I haven't defined equality, because I'm not making a claim, you are. Define equality, and define pluralism. If you can't define them, then your argument is moot.
A definition of the words can be found in dictionaries.
But the words themselves raise concepts in out minds. It's those concepts that are difficult to define.
For instance I might talk about equality being a universal right to all, while someone else might consider equality only applies to equal opportunities for disabled people. So we can only argue our points from our own conceptual understanding of what equality means for us.
That's the pluralist movement of equality.
Muslims don't accept your understanding of equality. Now what ? must we force them to accept this standard ? Oh, the Gov already is forcing their kids to accept homosexuality via Prevent, all in the name of freedom and equality as you define it. Women wearing hijab is inequality too by the western standard, so now what ? Why do you get to define the terms and no else has a say ?
Why the concentration on Muslim societies, inequality of sexes is evident in other religions. I argue that it should be sex/gender equality irrespective of religion. But as I've said, there are some scenarios when equality of sex/gender is not possible or desirable.
If the wearing of the hijab is optional, then it is outside of the scope of equality in any society.
I don't get to define the terms of equality, as I've now said several times, it's a pluralist movement, and anyone else does have a say.
The next argument you make is one of nuisance, so equal pay for equal work as an example.
Is your predictive text writing your comments?
Again, how do we define equal ? Is there even such a thing ?
We only discuss it in specific circumstances. It's pointless defining equality in circumstances where genuine equality might create unequal opportunities.
Take two women, both have the same title, but one works very hard. The boss decides to pay her more than the other, but the titles are the same.
If they both have equal opportunity to deliver the same productivity there is no issue. It's purely a matter of ensuring they do both have equal opportunity. Your comment suggests that you misunderstand the concept of equality.
Different humans bring different potentials to the table, some more than others. If there must be equal pay, then the individuals must be equivalent in performance and output, but that is almost never the case.
Your comment confirms that you misunderstand the concept of equality.
Of course different people bring different potential to the table. The fight for equality should never seek to deny that, and should welcome it.
If they all have equal opportunity, then the difference is purely personal, and there is no inequality issue.
There could be a case for scrutinising working practices, individual dexterity, workplace assessment, etc. But that is different to inequality.
