Woman As Guru

[ramgharia]

My freind was asking me a question that " sikhism treat woman as equal to man then why sikhism had no woman as there guru"?

[jaikaara]

This is just one of the tantrum kinda questions ..how many lady saints have been seen in Islam and Christianity ? why is the Pope always a man ? Why is the Imam always a man ?

If that is not enough , they will jump to gays and transsexuals.

[ragnarok]

There is no gender for the Guru. Guru is neither man or woman, people who see only the body of the Guru do not see the Guru.

[CdnSikhGirl]

ragnarok is correct. Their gender did not matter. Souls are neither female or male in the physical sense. However all of us are seen as 'soul brides'. It was likely coincidence that they were all male, however there was a positive benefit for women, with them being male.

Think about it:

Who would have more impact? A slave claiming that they should be free and treated as equals, or their master claiming this? The message of women being equal, needed to come from men in order to have the impact. Women could have demanded to be seen as equal all they wanted but would never have been taken seriously. So the message had to come from men. It had to be men that admitted openly that women were their equals in order for it to mean anything.

[starchpagg47]

Women were never made equal, that is post 1857 lie.

2 different things cannot be equal, guru sahib just said to treat them fairly.

Something many people of that time did not do,

there is no monogamy either EVER in Indian history.

[BhagatSingh]

My freind was asking me a question that " sikhism treat woman as equal to man then why sikhism had no woman as there guru"?

The problem with this question is that this is misunderstanding of what equality is.

What you are looking at is equality of outcome, which is not really equality.

Suppose that Universities in US have 60% white population and 40% coloured population.

You'd think that that is not equal, the universities are racist. But in fact there are other factors that play into this that can explain this phenomenon better than racism.

1. The population of US is about 60% white and 40% coloured

2. Preferences of different cultures e.g. Asians have a strong culture of maths and there is immense focus on studying

3. Whether it is considered beneficial to go to university, many don't even consider uni as a good way to a career so they drop out or never enroll

Similarly, in India there were many more men who were exploring spiritual states than women. It has nothing to do with equality.

There have been only a few women who have explored it e.g. Meera Bai, who sung many poems and wrote herself, and Mai Bhago (although she never wrote any poetry), etc. And they are known for that as well.

However, the fact is that many more men have been mastering meditation than women and that's why most Gurus are men.

A lot of those engrossed in equality miss the actual picture. They don't realize people have different responsibilities, preferences, interests, etc.

And a lot of the western equality movements usually play the victim card at every step and pretend to be uniquely oppressed.

Equality can never be achieved, instead we should focus on bringing the best in people. That's it.

This is just one of the tantrum kinda questions ..how many lady saints have been seen in Islam and Christianity ? why is the Pope always a man ? Why is the Imam always a man ?

If that is not enough , they will jump to gays and transsexuals.

Exactly, it is really like throwing a tantrum.

It's never enough. The goalposts are constantly shifting and there are plenty of agendas in play.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I have to disagree with you BhagatSingh Ji... about women not being as spiritual or meditating etc. I think it's just that women have not felt the need to speak openly about it as much, or if they did, they were held back from doing so for fear of not being taken seriously in a society that saw women as lower spiritually then men. I think both gender equally have the same capacity for spiritual awareness and awakening.

I think the Gurus being male was more because of society at that time would never have taken women seriously, and women being uplifted to equal status, the ideal had to come from men.

Besides I think there are far more Sants who were female than we will ever know, but since they were not written about like the men, and because women usually do not feel the need to parade around stating to everyone that they are, they were kind of lost in history.

I have talked personally to far more women who have had natural spiritual experiences (without even trying) than men who have.

[harsharan000]

Some similar type of this question was asked on a different web...

The thing is, He knows best. This not a political contest, where aspirants politicians want to reach a certain post, neither it is gender supremacy....

You see, this is not something chosen by people, by votes, but appointed by Himself....and for this reason, we should be thankful to Him with closed eyes.

Now we say, we want a woman guru, than we will say, we want her to be of such race, such colour, such height...and so on, we people if given choices, we will have a thousand and one demands...

As some wise ones have said in the posts above, Guru is not a gender, is a level of highest consciousness.

Let us trust Him, whatever He does, is the best, without analyzing it.

If we do the contrary, it means, forget being devotees, we are not even seekers, cause we are still using our manmat, instead of just fully enjoying His blessings.

Sat Sree Akal.

Edited December 16, 2014 by harsharan000

[CdnSikhGirl]

Women were never made equal, that is post 1857 lie.

2 different things cannot be equal, guru sahib just said to treat them fairly.

Something many people of that time did not do,

there is no monogamy either EVER in Indian history.

You are thinking in terms of physical. Remember there is only ONE. Physical is an illusion. And all souls are equal.

You sound like you are stating that males are superior to females and women should just be treated 'fairly' but not receive equal status or opportunity.

Of course everything physically is different. Even one man from another... but would you ever consider that any male is superior to another because of their differences? Difference does not mean inequality!! Equality means no perceived higher STATUS over others. ALL humans are equal in status and equal in worth and should have equal opportunity.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize That's how it reads though...

[BhagatSingh]

Satkirin

I have to disagree with you BhagatSingh Ji... about women not being as spiritual or meditating etc.

I said something different, which is not exactly what you talking about.

"the fact is that many more men have been mastering meditation than women and that's why most Gurus are men."

You are referring to inner sense of spirituality whereas I am talking about mastering spirituality.

Now it very well could be that more women practice spirituality than men however let us consider an additional factor.

I would add that men often take more risks and they often put themselves in way more stressful situations. Men are often found in more stressful environments due to the responsibilities they have towards their families, toward staking care of them. They think "if it puts food on the table, I'll do it". Even if that means longer commutes, more dangerous or more stressful workload, with more risks. This is an observable trend where men who get married, will often increase their working hours and take jobs that puts them further away from their families, all to put food on the table and be able to provide comfort and luxury to the family.

(If you look at stats of workplaces deaths, commute hours, hours at work, suicide rates, etc you'll find that they unfortunately favour far too many men.)

Being a Guru is risky and very stressful profession. Indeed any leadership profession is. And thus men are more likely to be a Guru than women because they are more likely to pursue it.

Why do I say that?

Let's look at cooking and professional Chefs.

There are far more women who are cooks than there are men, as housewives and as mothers who want to provide their husbands and children with healthy meals.

Then why are professional cooks, chefs, mostly men?

This is easily explained when we study the nature of being a professional chef, working in a professional environment. It is very stressful and can be very risky environment. Compare this to the environment at home. There is some stress at home but is no where near the levels of the professional field. There is a lot of pressure on professional cooks to perform and to be able to create quality meals under that pressure. And because of that stress, the job also pays well thus puts food on the table. Men think "if it puts food on the table, I'll do it".

I think it's just that women have not felt the need to speak openly about it as much,

Here you present a reasonable idea however this is not my experience nor is this stated in any research.

As far as I know, women talk about their experiences all the time. What they did, what they felt, how they are feeling, the dream they had last night, their everything.

Women develop linguistic skills very early on in childhood, even before men, and we notice that they are more vocal as a community than any other.

You confirm this view when you say - "I have talked personally to far more women who have had natural spiritual experiences (without even trying) than men who have."

I think both gender equally have the same capacity for spiritual awareness and awakening.

This is not the point. Women could be even more spiritual than men and even then we'd see mostly male Gurus. You have to look at all the factors that come into play.

Besides I think there are far more Sants who were female than we will ever know, but since they were not written about like the men, and because women usually do not feel the need to parade around stating to everyone that they are, they were kind of lost in history.

This is partially true.

What is true that women tend attribute their successes and failures to environmental factors more often than men. And this has its pros and cons. You can recognize the cons, can you recognize the pros as well?

It is not true that saints are parading around and telling everyone that they are saints. That is not only false but a very distorted view to take on sainthood or indeed other professions. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean it like that.

There are far more Saints, in general, that we will never know of. That is due to the nature of being a saint or the nature of being liberated. This is not unique to any one group but to the Sainthood, in general.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I would not say that holds anymore with regards to men taking more risks. The fact is women used to stay at home more and so all professions were mostly male dominated. Not so applicable anymore. I know plenty of women in high stress leadership positions in all professions. Myself I'm in the Navy for 18 years now and St a supervisory level.... That too in one of the most stressful naval environments... Submarines!! I'm not the only one. Society has changed very much since the Gurus times. And even the. It wasn't women's inability to do those things but the society they were immersed in. It's a very different world today and if the gurus were bringing Sikhi to the world now instead of then we likely would see a few of them women.

I still stand on my views that women and men both possess the same ability to develop (and lead) in spiritual matters.

[BhagatSingh]

Satkirin

If you want to have a discussion. Learn to understand generalizations and what they mean.

When the entire topic is about generalizations then why are you going on about your own particular case. It's simply egocentric and it's just not what the discussion is about.

You could be a master kickboxer, with a black belt in karate, with a state of mind so high that you gave it all up and lived in a cave for thousands of years, meditated and then came back to enlighten us on forums.

But we are not talking about you nor any particular man or woman. We are talking about men as a group, women as a group, and humans as a group.

Your entire post has nothing to do with what i said.

As a fellow spiritual person to another highly spiritual person...

The fact is your mind is poisoned by western "equality" movements which are in fact victim-mentality movements. They cannot understand that women are not oppressed, never were, never will be, anymore than men. You may have seen outside the clutches of Maya but you have not seen outside the clutches of these forces that seek to separate us and pit us against each other in a multi-million dollar business.

Men and women have lived in harmony for MILLIONS of years. They have danced together. They have suffered together. They have evolved together. Every dynamic between men and women can be explained by their mating dance, by studying the other and by studying the whole dynamic.

Look at the big picture!

You are missing out on it. (with regards to this particular topic)

These victim-mentality ideologues want to create a war between men and women and put them on opposite sides. Stop falling for their shitty narrative, they never go by reality or evidence. They are still crying about non-existent pay-gaps and gender symmetrical domestic violence and other crap.

You should know better especially when you are presented with evidence to the contrary in multiple posts. When you are shown specific examples that point to entirely benign reasons. Be strong and face the facts. And if you don't believe me look up the examples I gave in more depth. Read some research papers yourself. Read books that oppose your closely-held viewpoint. Challenge yourself.

[chatanga1]

I think the Gurus being male was more because of society at that time would never have taken women seriously, and women being uplifted to equal status, the ideal had to come from men.

Very good point. It is the same with caste. If a low caste claimed equality it would not have the importance of a high caste claiming it. Good topic and discussion.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I think I said in my last post those dynamics may have been true in the past where women were maybe less spiritual because they were tied to reproduction (no birth control) and had to look after children etc and therefore did not have the time for a career or to dedicate to spiritual practice. At least they couldn't without having become an ascetic and celibate. Men on the other hand could reproduce as much as they wanted and never have to worry about caring for young.

That dynamic has changed drastically now. The old dynamic is pretty much gone. Call it due to the western equality thing or whatever you want, but even in India now, women are seeking careers. In fact over half the scientists who were responsible for the Mars mission in India recently, were women!

That the dynamic has changed is also not bad... and you are labelling it as such! It has just 'changed' is all. Women do not want to be locked into the sole role of wife (servant) and Mother (baby machine) anymore. Education and achieving their own aspirations are now possible (instead of only being able to live vicariously through their husbands achievements).

And I wouldn't call the old dynamic exactly living in harmony either... you don't think women were oppressed at all? Maybe try reading some history books! In India some of the worst took place (at least prior to Guru Nanak Dev Ji): No property rights, dowry killings, domestic abuse, even sati. Women were told to view their husband as a God and listen to his authority as such and act on his every whim. Is that really fair???

From your point of view you might think its perfectly ok for males to exercise privilege over women, and don't see anything wrong with it, and label it however you want and try to justify it however you want, but ask yourself this question... If you had the chance right now, to be transformed into a woman, and live the life of a woman, in the time of the Gurus, or even now.... would you???

The only thing I have ever said is that both genders should have equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal worth. That means the same opportunities for work, same rights legally etc. We are not talking about minor physical differences in gender and trying to define who is the superior gender (which men try to bring back to physical prowess all the time to justify being superior). What I mean is that regardless of our biology, all humans deserve to have equal opportunity.

Why it was good for women that the Gurus were male in that time period I already explained... a woman would not have been taken seriously in that time (still think women were not treated unfairly?) but having male Gurus openly claim that women were equal to men, uplifted women's status far better than if a woman had claimed the same.

[dalsingh101]

Education and achieving their own aspirations are now possible (instead of only being able to live vicariously through their husbands achievements).

You say that but SO MANY educated, white European women appear to do just that. Cherie Blair, George Bush Jnr's wife. The amount of middle class, educated, stay at home moms in England - who are married to executive types in the city (and live in the suburbs) is HUGE.

What do we make of that?

Maybe in the past a lot of women also preferred to live like this?

There is a problem with white people banging on about their grand achievement of feminism, and trying to use it to rub into perceived 'lesser societies' faces. It's a narrative that they frequently wheel out, when they are about to invade and attack another nation.

I live in England. The amount child female sexual abuse that takes place in this 'bastion' of female rights is inordinate! (involving high ranking politicians and prominent patronised media figures no less; and taking place over decades in an 'open secret' type fashion). But they still have the front to point fingers at other nations about their treatment of women...

Edited December 17, 2014 by dalsingh101

[CdnSikhGirl]

Though UK (like many other places) have rampant sexual abuse (and India is far from immune in this respect, just look at the recent high profile cases of rapes and killings... the Delhi case on the bus, the low caste woman raped and hanged, the two young sisters raped and hanged etc).... In light of these incidents however, we have to be very careful not to jump to victim blaming. It's never women's faults for being raped or sexually assualted. It's totally the fault of the perpetrator. There are plenty of sane and normal men in the world who do not do that to women, in ALL societies. It sounded like you were trying to say "see women this is what you get for wanting freedoms and preivelages like men have, we will rape you and take away your dignity for even daring to speak out and want the privelages we have" this is very wrong and if this is not what you meant then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But really, rape and assult happened in India before and during the times of the Gurus too. In fact I would say that the rate is actually higher in India than UK... so I don't really see what you were trying to say actually, since India still has higher amount of people following traditional roles. So taking the actual numbers, it still seems like societies where women are more empowered and have equal freedoms, there is actually less harassment, sexual assualts, and rapes I would surmise because society in general holds higher value on women when they are given equal rights. When they are not, they become chattle... property of men.

As for those women who try to steal some of their husbands glory... I know some women who do that. There are girls who purposely look for a husband who is a doctor or lawyer for example or a CEO, gold diggers, those looking for power in the wake of their husband's power... the "if you don't do this I'll sick my husband on you" types.... they do this so they don't have to personally strive for anything on their own is my guess. They are being lazy, and are bad examples of women. Me I'd rather achieve something on my own, so when someone says congrats, I know I worked hard to get to the point. I don't ever want to be the shadow... when everyone congratulates the husband, and all you have to listen to is how your husband achieved this or how he achieved that, while you have done nothing of merit or achieved anything on their and are basically a doormat and arm candy for their husbands.

I guess I was just born with a mind and consciousness that thinks being told by anyone (least of all men) that I can't do something or I am not allowed to do something because I am somehow below them on the biological totem pole is just wrong.

I'm sure that No man would ever want to be in the situation where he was told what to do all the time, bossed around by the other gender, and restricted from being able to live out his own potential and aspirations simply because of what's between his legs. Meanwhile the other gender gets to enjoy full privelage.

Being told you are subordinate to someone else, and will always be, no matter what you do, simply because you were born female is just plain 'bites' (sorry I cant think of a better word).

You say that but SO MANY educated, white European women appear to do just that. Cherie Blair, George Bush Jnr's wife. The amount of middle class, educated, stay at home moms in England - who are married to executive types in the city (and live in the suburbs) is HUGE.

What do we make of that?

Maybe in the past a lot of women also preferred to live like this?

There is a problem with white people banging on about their grand achievement of feminism, and trying to use it to rub into perceived 'lesser societies' faces. It's a narrative that they frequently wheel out, when they are about to invade and attack another nation.

I live in England. The amount child female sexual abuse that takes place in this 'bastion' of female rights is inordinate! (involving high ranking politicians and prominent patronised media figures no less; and taking place over decades in an 'open secret' type fashion). But they still have the front to point fingers at other nations about their treatment of women...

Edited December 17, 2014 by Satkirin_Kaur

[kdsingh80]

That dynamic has changed drastically now. The old dynamic is pretty much gone. Call it due to the western equality thing or whatever you want, but even in India now, women are seeking careers. In fact over half the scientists who were responsible for the Mars mission in India recently, were women!

Let me correct you on this

1) Only 10% of scientists in ISRO are women

2) The old dynamics is very much alive in India .The two income families is very much norm of 5-6 big Indian cities where there is IT

and economic revolution .Rural India and small town Indians still have the same lives .Men there are still prime breadwinners apart from being teacher there are very few economic oppurtunities for women .90% of Indian population lives their.So big career chasing is still just for 5-10% women of India

[CdnSikhGirl]

that was my point.... in India where the old dynamic persists, the rate of rapes, sexual harassment, etc are higher. Certainly rape happens everywhere, but the rate is highest when women are valued less and seen as less than equal contributors in society. I was countering Dalsingh Ji's comments about the rape rate in the UK.

Let me correct you on this

1) Only 10% of scientists in ISRO are women

2) The old dynamics is very much alive in India .The two income families is very much norm of 5-6 big Indian cities where there is IT

and economic revolution .Rural India and small town Indians still have the same lives .Men there are still prime breadwinners apart from being teacher there are very few economic oppurtunities for women .90% of Indian population lives their.So big career chasing is still just for 5-10% women of India

[kdsingh80]

that was my point.... in India where the old dynamic persists, the rate of rapes, sexual harassment, etc are higher. Certainly rape happens everywhere, but the rate is highest when women are valued less and seen as less than equal contributors in society. I was countering Dalsingh Ji's comments about the rape rate in the UK.

Again you are wrong , rapes in India is not higher. Population wise rapes in India is quite low

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

In India there is only 1.8 rapes per 100000 population compared to UKs 27 rapes. Even if you say that there is under reporting and increase rape stats of India

10 times it is still lower than UK or USA

[BhagatSingh]

Satkirin
"I think I said in my last post those dynamics may have been true in the past where women were maybe less spiritual because they were tied to reproduction (no birth control) and had to look after children etc and therefore did not have the time for a career or to dedicate to spiritual practice."

Men have a similar responsibility of earning for the family, which as I explained is much more stressful and dangerous than raising kids and taking care of the house.
Men are often found in more stressful environments due to the responsibilities they have towards their families, toward staking care of them. They think "if it puts food on the table, I'll do it". Even if that means longer commutes, more dangerous or more stressful workload, with more risks. This is an observable trend where men who get married, will often increase their working hours and take jobs that puts them further away from their families, all to put food on the table and be able to provide comfort and luxury to the family.
(If you look at stats of workplaces deaths, commute hours, hours at work, suicide rates, etc you'll find that they unfortunately favour far too many men.)


Satkirin
"Men on the other hand could reproduce as much as they wanted and never have to worry about caring for young."

This is an ignorant statement. You are better than this.

I say men and women lived in harmony because -
In order to any family to function, you need someone to take care of the children in the house, and you need someone to take care of the house and bring in food and resources into the family.

Through years of evolution, women have selected for men to do the latter. They have selected men who had resources, power and territory and who could maintain that. This provided them with security and access to that resource, power and territory.

Men on the other hand, cannot have children. Thus they find a woman to have children with.

This the mating dance/dynamic of men and women. One needs to materials to take care of herself and the children, the other needs someone to have the children with.

There have always been repercussions for men if they had children and never took care them. Simultaneously there were repercussions for women who would have children with another male, other than her husband. (by repercussions, I mean to the point of death, being made outcaste)

Satkirin
"That dynamic has changed drastically now."
Not really. Psychologically this dynamic is fundamentally the same. The specifics may change.
It's hard-wired over long period of evolutionary history.

E.g. more women in India might be seeking careers but they are still looking for partners who earn more and who can provide for them.

And the fact that they are seeking careers is a good change overall.

Satkirin
"That the dynamic has changed is also not bad... and you are labelling it as such!"

My point is that it really never changed.

Satkirin
"wife (servant) and Mother (baby machine)"

These are grossly ignorant statements and a horrible way of thinking.
Hence why I think your mind is poisoned by the multi-million dollar industry. They seek to make money off your problems. And they have been quite successful at convincing women that their worth as wives and mothers is nothing. That's where they can start raking in money.

The role of a wife is not that of a servant. The role of a mother is not a baby machine.

The role of a wife is support her husband, as he is out taking on dangerous jobs such as mining, fishing, or stressful jobs, like professional cooking, sales, etc so that he can provide for her and the kids. It is crucial for a wife to support her husband through tough times otherwise he won't be able to continue.

The role of a mother is to pass down traditions and highly regarded values to her kids. To teach them the rituals of their culture and religion. She should provide her kids with fresh, nutritious meals so that they can prosper. She is the doorway of the culture.

Think about it. These are important roles in a family and not at all like what you are describing.

Satkirin
"in India now, women are seeking careers"
"Education and achieving their own aspirations are now possible (instead of only being able to live vicariously through their husbands achievements)."

That is good as their is fulfillment to be found in achieving goals and having a career.

It's also good because it gives women a new perspective. Women who seek careers and go to jobs will now develop a better perspective of what men were/are going through, silently.


Satkirin
"you don't think women were oppressed at all?"

Not anymore than men.


Satkirin
"No property rights, dowry killings, domestic abuse, even sati"

For every problem a women has, a man also has a problem.

She had no property of her own.
He had to struggle to get property and then died defending it (In old time, men had to give his allegiance to a Jagirdar/Zamindar to serve under him to defend their property. However in modern times, we have a different military system. the same principle applies.)
(Only those men could vote who vowed to defend the country till death)


She gets killed over dowry.
He (father) commits suicide because he can't pay her dowry.
If he is young, he cannot even get married because income is not high enough for the daughter.

She faces domestic abuse.
He also faces domestic abuse.

She chooses to commit sati.
He choose to defend his wife and children till death.
And so on.

Women have problems. Men have problems. We can learn to live together and address our problems as we always did, without accusing each other of oppressing.

Satkirin
"Women were told to view their husband as a God and listen to his authority as such and act on his every whim. Is that really fair???"

Yes it is fair when seen in context.

A wife was told to be very mindful of her husband's situation e.g. by listening. This is important because -
-he is out taking on dangerous jobs such as coal-mining, fishing, or stressful jobs, like professional cooking, sales, etc so that he can provide for her and the kids.

Husbands were told to love their wives as Devi, Goddess, and their kids and to die for them. They were protectors and providers. If he failed there were repercussions.

It went both ways.


Satkirin
"Maybe try reading some history books!"

You talk about history books, how many men do you think were martyred defending their women and children and elders? What do you think Baba Deep Singh was was fighting for before Harimandir Sahib was attacked? What happened to all the Singhs who were fighting with him? Why are 40 Mukte called Mukte? What happened at Chamkaur? At Anandpur?

Do you have any idea? Have you been paying any attention to what men have been going through?


Satkirin
"From your point of view you might think its perfectly ok for males to exercise privilege"

Males don't have any more privilege than females.
Like I said -
Men and women have lived in harmony for MILLIONS of years. They have danced together. They have suffered together. They have evolved together."


Satkirin
"If you had the chance right now, to be transformed into a woman, and live the life of a woman, in the time of the Gurus, or even now.... would you???"

Yes. Why not?
As I explained both feel hardships. I would simply be trading one set of hardships for another. It truly is an equal trade!


Satkirin
"The only thing I have ever said is that both genders should have equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal worth."

Equal attention to problems as well.

You say that but SO MANY educated, white European women appear to do just that. Cherie Blair, George Bush Jnr's wife. The amount of middle class, educated, stay at home moms in England - who are married to executive types in the city (and live in the suburbs) is HUGE.

What do we make of that?

Maybe in the past a lot of women also preferred to live like this?

Bingo.

Edited December 18, 2014 by BhagatSingh

[CdnSikhGirl]

You make it sound like a career is horrible!

I have spent 18 years in the Navy now. That is a pretty high stressful and dangerous career! I wouldn't trade a minute of it! I love the challenge fighting fires, floods on board (which I have been through for real), sea survival, the thrill of standing as watch leader controlling the entire team of sonar operators, making decisions on the fly to advise command etc. Stressful at times? you bet! But I would never have it differently. I feel like I have accomplished something! I gravitate towards these things that you say are male things...

Ask me to change a dirty diaper, or wipe a snotty nose, or slave over a stove all day... nope just not into it and as such I never had that Mothering instinct ever....

So if you segregate entirely by gender only.... you assign roles because of gender and not by people's merits, then what do you do with women like me?

Anyway let me ask you one direct question:

Do you believe men should have authority over women in (A) society and ( marriage?

By authority I mean, all the major family decisions he gets to make, and she has to just follow even if she doesn't like it. And in society, should men have privilege over women (we can already see this in the Panj Pyare argument)...

[dalsingh101]

In light of these incidents however, we have to be very careful not to jump to victim blaming. It's never women's faults for being raped or sexually assualted. It's totally the fault of the perpetrator. There are plenty of sane and normal men in the world who do not do that to women, in ALL societies. It sounded like you were trying to say "see women this is what you get for wanting freedoms and preivelages like men have, we will rape you and take away your dignity for even daring to speak out and want the privelages we have" this is very wrong and if this is not what you meant then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But really, rape and assult happened in India before and during the times of the Gurus too. In fact I would say that the rate is actually higher in India than UK... so I don't really see what you were trying to say actually, since India still has higher amount of people following traditional roles. So taking the actual numbers, it still seems like societies where women are more empowered and have equal freedoms, there is actually less harassment, sexual assualts, and rapes I would surmise because society in general holds higher value on women when they are given equal rights. When they are not, they become chattle... property of men.

I think you could easily be mistaken. I'd say Anglo society has strong, long standing traditions of seeing women as weak and needing of constant protection, that continue to this day and permeate all through their societies:

You can tell by the narratives they frequently conjure (to this very day!) when planning some dubious attack on some 'backwards' nation. Always women's rights get highlighted, be it wearing burqas, or education access related, or rapes (as in India). Anglocentric culture very early on puts narratives of 'damsels in distress'; 'knights in shining armour';'princesses locked away in towers' and 'delicate, vulnerable Englishes roses' into the psyche of their children. They essentially drum a construct of victim-hood and helplessness into their females.

Then we have the other hypocrisy of historical portrayals of non-White men as natural abusers of women, when white men themselves where evidently raping, abusing and grooming females throughout their colonies, be this indigenous natives or slaves transported from Africa. We haven't mentioned the rampant abuse of vulnerable females in the motherlands yet either.

But despite all these things, they have the audacity to go out of their way to point out other communities flaws.

In modern times you have another phenomena orchestrated by power holding western men in that they purposefully suppress talented men of colour from various corporate positions whilst freely taking on attractive females from ethnic minorities to build up exotic little 'harems' in their environments. They consider these often naive 'educated, empowered women' as something similar to chattle themselves.

Point is, white people banging on about feminism is a tool to me. One used to suppress nonwhites, whilst completely turning a blind eye to the rampant abuses going on under their own noses by priests, celebrities and politicians.

Have a look at what goes on in a so-called post feminist society for yourself; this is just a 'tip of an iceberg' btw. And please, don't make the mistake of thinking I am blaming feminism for this, I'm just showing you its limitations.

I know a lot of educated African-American women don't buy into feminism themselves, because they see it as representing the interests and ambitions of white females. Women of colour have to deal with sexism AND a powerful over-arching racism that targets them, their brothers and children. I think the feminist agenda is commonly used as a tool to attack nonwhites by a proxy. So forgive us if some of us are a little skeptical.

That's not to justify any of the plainly backwards stuff going on in my own community, but seriously, people in glass houses and all that.....

Edited December 18, 2014 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

I'm sure that No man would ever want to be in the situation where he was told what to do all the time, bossed around by the other gender, and restricted from being able to live out his own potential and aspirations simply because of what's between his legs. Meanwhile the other gender gets to enjoy full privelage.

No, many of us experience this because of the colour of our skin. So let me paraphrase:

I'm sure that No man would ever want to be in the situation where he was told what to do all the time, bossed around by another race, and restricted from being able to live out his own potential and aspirations simply because of the colour of his skin. Meanwhile the other race gets to enjoy full privelage.

You seem acutely conscious of discrimination due to gender but oblivious to discrimination due to skin colour/race which some of us are forced to deal with because of your own privileged people. Hell, look at where you are now - 300 years ago there were no whites there and now they act like they own the place and have been there forever! lol

Edited December 18, 2014 by dalsingh101

[CdnSikhGirl]

Actually, I am colour blind (at least when it comes to skin). I only see a person, a potential friend. I consider everyone equal no matter what.

No, many of us experience this because of the colour of our skin. So let me paraphrase:

You seem acutely conscious of discrimination due to gender but oblivious to discrimination due to skin colour/race which some of us are forced to deal with because of your own privileged people. Hell, look at where you are now - 300 years ago there were no whites there and now they act like they own the place and have been there forever! lol

And yes, I am very aware of discrimination... in all forms.

You know if men wanted women to remain submissive and 'in their place' they certainly didn't help over the years with all the 'shut up and make me a sandwich' jokes.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Satkirin_Kaur

[dalsingh101]

Actually, I am colour blind (at least when it comes to skin). I only see a person, a potential friend. I consider everyone equal no matter what.

And yes, I am very aware of discrimination... in all forms.

You know if men wanted women to remain submissive and 'in their place' they certainly didn't help over the years with all the 'shut up and make me a sandwich' jokes.

I've never heard these jokes?

Maybe you're speaking about a culture specific thing?