So presumably you also think it a good thing that Muslim women cover themselves in public? I don't see any difference.
The main difference is that by wearing it ( a turban) a Sikh woman is asserting her equality as a warrior, with a man. ( who already wears it).
When all Muslim men start wearing hijab, niquab and burka, then it will be equivalent.
It's like a woman in the west wearing trousers, and you claiming there is a parallel with female Muslim attire to cover up.
Men and women wear trousers in the uk, equally.
Well some Sikh women, like the men, wear a turban.
It's no more covering up than wearing trousers.
Can't you see?
The Muslim women dresses differently to a male Muslim, and much is made of it, the woman not having an equal role or status.
Some branches of Christianity are also a bit sniffy about the role of women and how they should be dressed and what they should be able to do.
A Sikh women can wear a turban just like a man to make a point. They are equal. Both can be warriors.
I wear trousers, it doesn't mean that because I have, I'm covered up like a Muslim.
Women in the uk, when they didn't have an equal place were not expected to wear trousers. (And not so long ago a woman that wore exclusively trousers would have been labelled a lesbian, at least they were in the 1960's)
Hence the old joke, she wears the trousers! ( she is the boss)
In Sikhism both men and women can wear the turban
Not sure which bit you don't get tbh.
A woman being able to dress in the same manner as a man, is actually far more equal than one who isn't allowed.
Yes?
Sikhism is not Islam.
