Joe Loudmouth,
"For example, when they claim their ideology as justification for harming us, we should reject their proposition as absurd. We must make a principled stand somewhere. To admit to what they say would undermine the validity of our own ideology."
Expanding...
When they claim that their ideology justifies their actions,
we simply point out how they have misinterpreted their own ideology
and that our interpretation of their ideology is the correct one.
For example, if they kill their women for bringing shame to them
according to their interpretation of their own cultural practices,
we point out that their culture does not, in fact, permit this.
If they attempt to kill us because we don't believe in what they believe,
as dictated by their ideology, we make it clear that they are,
in fact, acting counter-culturally.
Not to do so, would undermine the entire edifice of our own ideology.

Proxy,

An impressive summary of militant multiculturalism and the ideal society,however for this paradise to function correctly it's essential to convince people of European descent that they're the only racist 'ethnic' group.This technique is far more effective than simple labelling dissenters as 'racists'.

Proxy,
But amongst the cultural beliefs of some groups, particularly those which don't hold a belief in gender equality, there may well be beliefs that women can be killed for committing actions, which men in their own practice may be excused for, i.e. intrinsic inequality.

Amongst other groups, there may well be a belief that non-believers are less than human, and/or in thrall to the devil, and thereby can be killed. Most sets of cultural practices do have elements which others in other groups might find offensive or intolerable, and which may in fact contravene human rights, i.e. intrinsic equality.

In fact, the very notion of toleration or tolerance may be absent from some groups, which are still 'tolerated' in a more equitable society. This raises the dilemma: how do we 'tolerate' the practices of groups which do not practice 'tolerance' themselves ?

So it makes little sense to talk about 'all cultures being equal', if the definition of a category of people within that group, specifically women, don't measure up to the definition embedded in notions of equal human rights

Whistler: 'A person with a mere rudimentary knowledge of social analysis, or of the english language for that matter, would know sexism and gender apartheid imply disadvantage to a sex or gender.'

Exactly. How on earth would separate legislations overcome this disadvantage ? Can't you understand that this was the essence of Apartheid in South Africa, in relation to race ?

"separate legislations", Loudmouth, what on earth are you talking about?
do the Senate and House of Representative enact separate legislations.
no they don't, they agree upon the same legislation.
separation does not conflate with segregation, please consult a dictionary.
i mean it, look up the words you're using in a dictionary.
neither does legislation conflate with a legislature, again, please consult a dictionary.
all you're doing by confusing discussion of women's disadvantage with the inflammatory misuse of language is entrenching male privilege.
albeit with best intention you're commentary is counterproductive.
i repeat, a majority of the world’s democracies have a women's caucus to offer advice yet there has never been an outcry these caucuses are sexist or constitute gender apartheid.
a women's legislature converts advice to authority.

Joe Loudmouth,
<<This raises the dilemma: how do we 'tolerate' the practices of groups which do not practice 'tolerance' themselves ?>>
That's easy.
If they are whites or Christians we condemn them, by calling them racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, haters, bigots, etc.
If they're multicultural, we ignore it. If it still comes to the fore, we claim that the perpetrators are in fact victims.
Furthermore, we point out that they are acting counter-culturally, because their culture preaches tolerance, unlike Christianity.