CdnSikhGirl

The reason for assuming it was heirarchal were several people: Bhagat Singh Ji saying that men require women to be obedient, and Paapiman saying that in Sikhi wives are "lower status" than their husbands and therefore husbands deserve more respect. And he specifically started a thread using that tuk above as justification to say that wives are "instructed" to do so in Sikhi. So that's why it was assumed.... next question: Question #3: Does Gurbani Condemn women of being Impure during menstruation, such that she is not allowed to do seva during that time? Hari Singh Randhawa caused a huge uproar last year in Canada when a group of women protested what he had previously stated about women being impure during this time. The shabad which he used to support his claim was this: ਜਿਉ ਜੋਰੂ ਸਿਰਨਾਵਣੀ ਆਵੈ ਵਾਰੋ ਵਾਰ ॥ Ji▫o jorū sirnāvaṇī āvai vāro vār. As a woman has her periods, month after month, ਜੂਠੇ ਜੂਠਾ ਮੁਖਿ ਵਸੈ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਇ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ Jūṯẖe jūṯẖā mukẖ vasai niṯ niṯ ho▫e kẖu▫ār. so does falsehood dwell in the mouth of the false; they suffer forever, again and again. ਸੂਚੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਜਿ ਪਿੰਡਾ ਧੋਇ ॥ Sūcẖe ehi na ākẖī▫ahi bahan jė pindā ḏẖo▫e. They are not called pure, who sit down after merely washing their bodies. ਸੂਚੇ ਸੇਈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜਿਨ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਸੋਇ ॥੨॥ Sūcẖe se▫ī nānkā jin man vasi▫ā so▫e. ||2|| Only they are pure, O Nanak, within whose minds the Lord abides. ||2|| However when I read this full shabad, (to me anyway) it becomes apparent that it's actually speaking AGAINST the idea of menstruation causing impurity... it's saying hey you think that she is impure? well just as she has periods month after month so does the falsehood that dwells in your mouth. To me the next line makes it pretty clear, that purity is not had by washing the body, purity is only in the mind... There is also one other line in Gurbani which he quoted that says: ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥ Je raṯ lagai kapṛai jāmā ho▫e palīṯ. If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted. However the context of that shabad seems to be speaking about exploitation... the next line says "those who suck the blood of others..." hence the blood stained clothes seems to me to not be related to menstruation at all (or even literal blood for that matter) but more in line with the saying "having blood on your hands" meaning not literal blood... but that you caused someone else harm and that "stain" (knowing you caused pain to someone) is now on your hands. Is this correct??? As for cleanliness... that is different than the idea of ritual impurity. I can certainly understand back in olden days if women did not have access to good hygiene products that they might want to stay home to avoid embarrassment. But with today's hygiene products, there is virtually no chance of a leak or accident that would cause any issues. If women can prepare langar during that time without anyone worrying about hygiene (and preparing food is the place that they SHOULD worry if there is an actual cleanliness issue!), then sitting on tabiya should not be a problem. There are even some products which completely seal the menstrual fluid inside until the device is removed (Google Diva Cup), they do not leak, and can be worn for 12 hours at a time. Also, hormonal methods that actually stop the cycles all together also exist. Regardless of whether women themselves CHOOSE to stay home or not, or to sit on tabiya or not... is there ANYTHING in Sikhi which says they MUST not do seva while on their periods? Again, DDT does have it in their RM that women should not sit on tabiya during periods, but their justification is the same shabads mentioned above.... SRM does not have anything like this in it. And should it be the choice of the Singhni themselves in the end??

Okay, so the point is, wives in Sikhi are NOT subordinate to their husbands, are not lower status or even expected to be blindly obedient. Patti Parmeshwar concept is cultural, not Sikhi. Meaning if a Punjabi Sikh wife wishes to, its her prerogative but just like Punjabi women may like to show devotion that way, women who are not Punjabi might show their devotion in a different way. Gifts, gestures etc. And since Sikhi is a universal faith and path to truth, the way in which a husband and wife show their love and devotion to each other is their own choice and specific way is not forced upon everyone. As far as Gurbani is concerned, we should ALL see the divine light in each other. Okay I am happy with that answer too! Though some other members may not be. (same for the final answer on question 1)

Question #2: Does Sikhi support the idea that husbands are God over their wives (literal or otherwise)? In other words, does Sikhi support the idea that wives are in a subordinate position to their husbands, expected to “obey” while he gets to “command”? Does Sikhi see us as in a lesser and more “servant” role while he is in a “leader” role? Some members have justified it with the fact that the husband leads in Anand Karaj, saying this is a symbol of her placing herself “under” his leadership (or, giving up her rights to final decision making etc as it manifests in the actual marriage). I don’t want cultural answers, or historically males were breadwinner and women stayed at home etc as these are not based in Sikhi… I want to know what specifically does GURBANI / SIKHI state on this? If a husband and wife in TODAY’S world wish to be equal partners in their marriage, without any sort of hierarchy, would that be supported by Gurbani etc. or is there something definite written somewhere, taught by the Gurus etc. that says women MUST subordinate themselves beneath their husband’s authority over them? I know it’s written in Hinduism in Laws of Manu. If using Gurbani please use full shabad to show full context and not risk taking one single tuk out of context. I know DDTs RM uses one line from Gurbani to support it, but in that translation they place on that single tuk, does not make any sense with the rest of the shabad which has nothing to do with physical husbands and wives, but instead is speaking about satee, and relation of soul bride to husband lord. As I will show below: DDT’s wording of that single tuk is: "Guru Jee says, she who looks upon Her Husband as the Lord, is blessed and has firm faith; great are those wives and they are received with honour in the Court of the Lord." http://s2.postimg.org/4n908sgq1/0000004.png They use it to justify this command in their RM: “A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni, and a Singhni should look upon her husband as Parmeshwar (God)” http://s15.postimg.org/mz6up57jv/0000005.png However, the actual tuk IN CONTEXT of its shabad says: “Says Nanak, she who looks upon the transcendent Lord as her Husband, is the blessed Satee she is received with honour in the court of the lord” http://s2.postimg.org/te3a0clgp/0000006.png --- Is this not speaking of soul bride / husband lord (and not about physical husbands and wives)? Changing it to mean physical wives and physical husbands makes no sense with the rest of the shabad and actually goes against the rahaho line which is: “Only by the actions of destiny does she rise up and burn herself, as a 'satee'. ||1||Pause||”. Meaning it’s speaking of destiny and not actions, of the “she” in this is referring to soul bride… all of us as are soul brides to Waheguru who is only true “husband”. Or am I wrong here?? Especially since this is what is in the lines directly above the tuk that has been (in my opinion misused): http://s2.postimg.org/ji2nk2wmh/0000009.png And have a look at DDTs RM again, what they include right above the mistranslated line!!!! The very same thing… they acknowledge that its about soul bride to husband lord relationship. So how can they twist it to justify a woman is somehow subordinate position below her *physical* husband and that its somehow telling wives that their physical husband is GOD over them? http://s2.postimg.org/4n908sgq1/0000004.png -------Above posted so you know what the background is based on what other members etc have said over the last year and counter arguments------- SO THE BASIC QUESTION IS: Cultural influences aside (as well as Hindu influence) neither of which are Sikhi and have no bearing on it... does Sikhi itself command wives to look at their husband as God (while not expecting the same level of respect towards wives from the husbands)?? Or is it more accurate to say that Gurbani tells us to see God in each other (everyone)??

Okay so the end answer is: YES Women CAN do seva as Panj Pyaras!!! Those saying that women are outright 'prohibited' are wrong. It's only certain groups stopping us, and not Guru Ji, or any written rules. Traditions as you pointed can and do change especially if the changes are for positive reasons! Traditions that develop "just because thats how its always been" don't sit well with me... we deal with those types in the military all the time who are resistant to change - any change - even positive. :) You just made my day! I'll post next question in a bit.

Is there anything written anywhere that DEFINITIVELY prohibits women from seva as Panj Pyaras (meaning not implied but actual stated)??

Not sure how much anyone knows about Hemi-Sync (Binaural Beats) also called Brainwave Technology or Entrainment... where frequencies are embedded in the music etc offset on purpose to cause your brain to follow the phantom third beat created by the offset. The phantom beat is essentially not real, but is created in your brain. Anyway it can actually affect your brainwave state and has been used successfully to help people attain deep meditation, lucid dreaming, astral projection etc. by guiding their brainwave pattern into the appropriate state. It's obviously not a miracle maker but lots of people have said it really helped them. Must use headphones to get the effects. Here is a freebie...

Well kind of all of them! Since its a summary of what members on here have given as reasons to prohibit women from doing this seva over the last year or so: 1) Because of DDTs RM (wording being "five singhs" 2) Because "no woman gave her head" 3) Because while caste and skin colour were removed, someone's gender can never change 4) Because "tradition" etc. I have given the counter arguments along with screenshots to all 4 reasons above. Which I have done so on here before and nobody has actually answered beyond those 4 and maybe one more (because Sant Ji said so.... but his reason again falls back to #2 above which is no woman gave her head... but then no black man did either... see what I mean?) It always ended with... I believe in SAnt Ji so it "just is". What I want to know is there anything definitive in writing which says specifically that women are "not allowed" to do this seva? Meaning not "implied" as in the DDT RM because as was pointed out, DDT DOES in fact allow women to do the other seva listed in their RM with 'singh' like kirtan etc. so coming to conclusion just based on "because it says five singhs" can not hold up. I'm not asking about DDT specifically but because that particular RM is the one quoted most often as reason to bar Bibis from this seva. I am completely ignoring Paapiman's given reason, which was that women are 'incapable' of making amrit... like if they went through the motions, it wouldn't actually BE amrit because of some defect in our bodies or something. His comment was the ONLY time I have EVER heard this reason!!! Not to mention there is nothing in Gurbani to suggest that women's bodies are in any way 'defective' or 'incapable'. Oh there is one more reason Singh123456777 had said that since its a spiritual *rebirth* that the men are acting as the ones giving birth. So its fair because women give birth physically. However, to counter his argument... Gurbani says all of our souls are IDENTICAL. They are genderless. So spiritual rebirth would not require gender. Further, in the physical sense, a person's gender has nothing to do with creating Amrit. They are reciting banis, stirring the amrit, and sitting in bir posture and deep concentration. Guru Ji had said when five Khalsa are together he will be present. So obviously they must be Amritdhari but being Amritdhari also does not depend on specific gender. It's open to both. And Singhnia are not told they are any "less" Khalsa than the Singhs! (unless you count kirpan amrit which has been condemned even by DDT) Also, when I personally took Amrit the Panj Pyaras that day, specifically told us females present, that not only can women act as Panj Pyaras, but that they WANT to see at least some of us in their place someday, administering Amrit. So they reiterated SRM, and also stated their wishes to see more women do this seva so they were actually being positive about it. So what I want to know is there anything CONCRETELY written in any document SPECIFICALLY stating that women are disallowed, or are the nay sayers all just IMPLYING, and making up excuses as justifications like the above, because of their own personal views against Bibian, and are trying to project their personal feelings onto Guru Gobind Singh Ji? Do we KNOW for SURE what Guru Ji wanted or intended? If a Bibi did volunteer her head that day do you think Guru Ji would have stopped her?

EVERYONE ELSE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING IN THIS THREAD!!!!!! @amardeep First Question: Regarding women and seva as Panj Pyaras. Why are so many against it?? I realize this is the BIG one that most Singhs have a stink about. It feels like they are actually disgusted by the idea of a Singhni doing this seva, regardless of her avastha. It goes beyond saying its tradition etc. Viewing some of the comments from Singhs on this, makes it sound like pure contempt and disgust towards females to even fathom the idea, like the entire female gender is being looked ‘down upon’ and seen as wicked, unworthy etc. Points of Importance: Sikh Rehet Maryada is only accepted RM by Akal Takht. And it states specifically that women are allowed. Argument against that is usually that Damdami Taksal rehet maryada says ‘Singhs’ and therefore that means no women allowed. Regarding DDT’s RM… ALL SEVA mentioned in DDTs RM says ‘Singh’ and not just Panj Pyaras. Here is an example of what I mean: http://s12.postimg.org/55k60qrf1/0000008.png If one uses the argument that the wording ‘Five Singhs’ means only males, then that means DDTs RM actually says that virtually ALL seva is reserved for men only. (see above) When I brought this paradox up before, everyone on here hummed and hawed and only said that it only applies to Panj Pyaras and not the other seva (without actually explaining HOW or WHY it only applies to Panj Pyaras). But my point is, that if you are using the simple wording as the justification, then since the wording is the very same for nearly all seva in the DDT GRM, then women should also be not allowed to do akhand paaths, kirtan, etc either because those also specify ‘Singh’ (For example, Raagi Singhs, Granthi Singh, Singhs performing Akhand Paaths etc. see in above screenshot.) Also, further down in that same RM, it states under Section 3, Amrit Sanchar: “Differences in caste, creed, colour, GENDER, rich and poor all have been ELIMINATED by the creation of the Khalsa. The true Guru is all powerful” http://s21.postimg.org/mn8zxjxfr/0000001.png So, in their own RM, Damdami Taksal are making statement that all differences used to discriminate have been eliminated. Obviously a person’s skin colour did not change, nor their caste (family background). What was eliminated was the discrimination based on these things… using false -statuses- to create privilege over others. They were all seen as equal humans once they took Amrit. Is this correct?? So how can one use DDTs RM as a means to discriminate against Bibis to act as Panj pyaras? When you acknowledge discrimination based on caste and colour etc are wrong (and so any caste or colour are allowed now to do seva as Panj Pyaras, even though they too were not represented by the original five), why do some Singhs feel like gender is so different and that it’s “ok” to discriminate on gender but not the other reasons? Is this really what "tradition" should be about? Creating false statuses and giving some priveleges over others? Preferential treatment? Does Sikhi through Gurbani etc. support a “tradition” which only serves to delineate people, create false statuses and perpetuate discrimination? Especially since Gurbani tells us to treat everyone equally: And also to shun pride in false statuses (same as DDTs RM claiming that false statuses based on caste, colour, gender, creed, etc were eliminated): http://s18.postimg.org/lszmyh0x5/00000010.png If you still -personally- disagree with women as Panj Pyaras, then please explain why…. and if your response includes the words “because no woman gave her head that day” then please explain why a black man or a male from a caste not represented by the original five are allowed, as no black man etc gave their head that day either. And if your answer to that includes “because caste etc were removed but someones gender isnt” then please refer to my quote from DDT’s RM stating that ALL these things were eliminated and gender is stated along with them in the very same statement. If your reason is just personal, explain why... do you personally look down on females and consider us lesser (spiritually etc) as your reason? And finally....At the very least if someone does disagree with a woman doing this seva. Instead of getting angry, calling them nindak etc. would it not be better to just acknowledge they are following different RMs and therefore bound to different rules… and not look in disgust at the Singhni chosen to do this seva, but instead respect that she was likely chosen for the same attributes as Singhs are who are given honour to do it. That is, their dedication, their gian, their avastha. Instead many Singhs look on with disgust as if she sullied everything just by her 'femaleness'.

I will, and I will include sreenshots... but I want factual answers, based on Gurbani etc. And not opinion or answers like "its just tradition". Im at work and the forum keeps crashing on me, so I can't type much. Usually ic ant even stay logged on. So I'll type whole thing up tonight.

hiw it feels to be a woman? It sucks... Every turn you feel there is a door stopping you from something just because of what's between your legs! What women want more than anything from men particularly their husbands is for their husband to see them as an equal and not as a subordinate. Because all else comes automatically from that... To be considered subordinate and have less privileges to do seva etc feels like you are seen as less in eyes of tbe Gurus and Waheguru. Like we aren't seen as good enough or are lacking. It's one thing to be limited because of your actions in this life which you control but to be limited based on gender which you had no choice over sucks...

Ragmaala occipital neuralgia also presents like that doesn't it?? (Bullhorn pattern) It can cause tingling too (though usually there is tenderness along the greater occipital nerve).

Oh don't get me wrong I am currently trying to decide if Sikhi is for me or not. I am still following Sikh Rehet Maryada for now but I can't help but be frustrated at all the misogyny in Sikhi that I never really knew existed. I was hoping praying that Guru Ji did not see us as deceitful and inherently lustful compared to men, and was hoping it was adulteration or tampered (Charitropakhyan not rest). And if it was Guru Ji who wrote it he wrote something that very overtly demeans women (even if you can somehow extract some hidden coded spiritual meaning from it fact remains 278 of charitars openly paint women as deceivers and sluts while only 26 address men as such.) the fact that Guru Ji could think this way of us is causing some very serious doubts in my mind if Sikhi can actually be the 'truth' and whether i could follow a path that sees me as such. And that's just one issue we still have the other issues: unfair limitations on seva, calling women impure because of biological functions, instructing women to worship men as God over them, wives actually bowing to their husbands to show their inferiority. People like chatanga and paapiman saying this is how Our Gurus really wanted women to be treated. And that resisting is going against the gurus. There is a lack of women heroines celebrated (there is a petition online right now to have five Sikh women added to Nanakshahi calendar and I assume u will all be against it) but right now not one single Sikh female heroine is celebrated. The Chaar Sahibzaade are celebrated for example but why not Mata Gujri Ji who was martyred same time? Just as one example. It just seems like Siki puts men in public sphere they are the ones celebrated and looked up to and get to do the good works and be called Heros etc while Sikh women are shoved into the kitchen and expected to be meek and hidden in shadows behind men. Little boys are taught to be strong leaders while little girls are taught how to cook and clean. It's Like men want to rule everything and have women always subordinate and never looked up to as leaders etc. I find it very difficult to swallow because I have never been submissive. To me it feels demeaning. If you as a man can't put yourself in submissive position or can't stomach the thought, that's how I feel. It doesn't mean I don't love my husband or that I don't respect him. I just don't consider him to be in authority over me as we are both adults with free minds. I don't see how his gender means he should always get his way. Luckily my husband doesn't believe in heirarchal marriage at all. But plenty of Singhs do and try to make me feel crappy for not wanting to be a doormat. And I feel like I was sold a fraud when I was learning about Sikhi. Every resource and even every Sikh I encountered said women are treated equal in Sikhi. But as I am finding out it's just not true... I used to think it was just some Singhs who thought this way and were interpreting things wrong but you guys have been making me see that our Gurus actually felt this way... Sikhi definitely does favour Singhs and give them preferential treatment. And hence the huge inner conflict I am now going through. I just feel like I have to either give up and conform (kill me inner being and just become a robot - I assume that's what is meant by being broken like prisoners and salves etc when they finally give up and just become stoic). Or I might have to give up Sikhi. Right now I dont really see anything overly positive for women in Sikhi... I asked you guys to post something anything... And not one person has. Maybe because there isn't anything... However I've just become apathetic about it now. I love my husband so I go through the actions.

There is an iphone app thats great for breath training called Pranayama. You can set number of breaths per min, how long to hold etc. I was using it to increase lung capacity for Navy (escape traning for subs etc). And it's very good! Infact you can go even lower than 5 per min!

If you guys believe the opposite of what I put in that post then PLEASE by ALL means show me some POSITIVE THINGS about women in Sikhi!!!! Actual references... that don't seem to put us down, that don't say we cant be trusted, that don't say men are in authority over us, etc.

No, Paapiman directly called him a Sant. Thats why I said that.

My point was to show the picture that you guys have been painting of Sikhi... and I have the posts of individual members saved as screenshots that show what they actually said about each point I covered in that post.

Bu But there are so many Singhs on here who stick to certain 'sampardas' simply BECAUSE they follow and agree with the puratan rehetnamas. And they don't dismiss them as being only applicable to a certain society and time. In fact, they are the biggest complainers against Sikh Rehet Maryada simply because it doesn't agree with those puratan ones. If it's not a stretch to think a puratan rehet could have been adulterated or corrputed, then why is it so hard to think the same could happen to dasam granth? And before you say that nobody considers it... maybe you should ask a few members on here. My reply in the other thread was actually all from posts on here and the sentiments expressed by the members who posted. It's not my argument. I had thought Sikhi was positive for women. It's only taking all the posts over the last year or so that I came to realization that it's actually the opposite.

If it was meant for only *certain* women, then why would a SANT instruct men to NEVER TRUST ANY WOMAN, EVEN HIS OWN WIFE! Chaua Singh was close to Guru Gobind Singh, then how could he interpret it such if Guru Ji meant only certain women?

Thank you because in actuality, I copied every single point almost word for word from posts of members (Singhs) on here. And they know who they are. Taken as a whole, I am trying to show that this paints a very negative image of women by our Gurus and Sikhi in general. This is the message of Sikhi that many members on here have been trying to drive into me the last year or more (knowingly or unknowingly). And even another female member is noticing it. In fact I saved the screenshots of the actual posts and the comments by the member who posted it, which show their support of the meaning being negative to women. So I can actually post them all if need be. Hint here's one... Trust me the respective posts for all the points and more which I addressed in Gurpreet Kaur Bhenji's post, I have saved as screenshots.

But this is the message that many of you have been pushing on here for a long time... especially paapiman! I thought you'd be happy that I finally have accepted it! Nothing I wrote there was my own writing... it was all summary of things many of you have said over the last year! There is no conclusion taking them as a whole except that our Gurus looked down upon us. (to be fair I pulled most of them from posts from paapiman).

If you disagree with the above then reply with evidence to show they are not speaking against women. I provided actual quotes from Gurbani, so prove to me how they are not against women! I conceded to all of you that fine the Gurus wrote these things about us and obviously they didn't think highly of us. I thought you'd be happy. They are not even my writing... All I did was summarize everything all of you have been saying for a long time on here. (to be fair most of them I pulled from posts from paapiman over the last year)

Please really think about what you will be getting into if you take amrit. I wasn't aware when I took Amrit how anti-woman Sikhi really is. I think, in recent times it's been 'fluffed up' to look like it's fair and equal. But it's not. Remove the fluff, and you will see that the Gurus hated us, and thought of us as nothing more than vile, filthy deceitful creatures. I used to think that it was truth. That Sikhi was the true path and that all humans were seen as equal. Thanks to the Singhs on here for opening my eyes to see how much our Gurus hated us and that in Sikhi we are considered so lowly. - Guru Gobind Singh considered us deceitful and sluts and wrote at length on it. Just watch as they go through each charitar in dasam granth section. Already second one in a row pushes message: woman=deceiver and slut / man= the one deceived. Women are painted as cheaters, deceivers, immoral, sluts. The men are painted only as being gullible. Ask yourself which is worse?? Ahhh but they try to say its only about *certain women*? Read on... - Chaupa Singh is revered as a "Sant" by many. And he was close to Guru Gobind Singh. He instructs men to NEVER trust ANY woman including their own wives! If Guru Gobind Singh was only against *certain women* then why would someone as close to him as Chaupa Singh instruct men to never trust ANY women? We are to be seen as the 'embodiment' of deceit. - Guru Gobind Singh was not the only Guru who looked so lowly on us. Guru Ram Das also pushes the message in SGGSJ, that men who act according to the orders of women, are considered impure, filthy and foolish (SGGSJ Pg 304) ਜੋਰਾ ਦਾ ਆਖਿਆ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵਦੇ ਸੇ ਅਪਵਿਤ ਅਮੇਧ ਖਲਾ ॥ Jorā ḏā ākẖi▫ā purakẖ kamāvḏe se apviṯ ameḏẖ kẖalā. Those men who act according to the orders of women are impure, filthy and foolish. ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪੇ ਕੁਸੁਧ ਨਰ ਸੇ ਜੋਰਾ ਪੁਛਿ ਚਲਾ ॥ Kām vi▫āpe kusuḏẖ nar se jorā pucẖẖ cẖalā. Those impure men are engrossed in sexual desire; they consult their women and walk accordingly. - But that's not all. We are considered downgrades to men. (being born female is a punishment) If men even think of women at all at time of their death, the punishment is to be reborn as a prostitute (SGGSJ Pg 526): ਅੰਤਿ ਕਾਲਿ ਜੋ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਸਿਮਰੈ ਐਸੀ ਚਿੰਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਜੇ ਮਰੈ ॥ Anṯ kāl jo isṯarī simrai aisī cẖinṯā mėh je marai. At the very last moment, he who thinks of women, and dies in such thoughts, ਬੇਸਵਾ ਜੋਨਿ ਵਲਿ ਵਲਿ ਅਉਤਰੈ ॥੨॥ Besvā jon val val a▫uṯarai. ||2|| shall be reincarnated over and over again as a prostitute. ||2|| - In fact nearly every mention of women in SGGSJ (save for the one verse from Guru Nanak that seems to be positive) mention women only in relation to men... wives, prostitutes, etc. and never as independent human beings. And even that passage by Guru Nanak which *seems* positive towards women is not. (SGGSJ Pg 473) ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥ So ki▫o manḏā ākẖī▫ai jiṯ jamėh rājān. So why call her bad? From her, kings are born. "Why call her bad from whom even Kings are born?" This message seems like its positive. But it's not. She is only being considered good for her ability to produce male leaders (Kings). She is not being revered for her own sake as a woman. In fact the entire shabad speaks about men's association to women, showing that women only matter by our association to a male. - Even natural biological functions created by Waheguru in us are considered impure. Blood is pollution after all. And it's just yet another reason for Singhs to limit what we can do. I used to think the following passage was being misused, but now seeing how women are actually thought of in Sikhi maybe that was the intention... that we are seen as impure, pollution. (SGGSJ Pg 140) ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥ Je raṯ lagai kapṛai jāmā ho▫e palīṯ. If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted. - We are barred from most seva at Darbar Sahib, its scandalous to ever think a mere woman could ever do seva as one of Panj Pyaras. Boy babies are celebrated in Punjabi families. A girl baby commands condolences. Little boys are given powerful images of strong Singh warriors, and little girls are shown how to wash the dishes (hmmm but can we even be trusted to do the dishes?? Maybe he should do them!). - Getting married? You are expected to see and serve your husband as a God over you. He however, doesn't even have to even see you as fully human (and as stated earlier he is to distrust you always). According to paapiman on here, women are only sub-human. Downgrades to a male body. We should bow to husbands because of their higher status over us. (I'm sure the reference came from some 'scholar' he heard it from as most things he posts are). There is also a shabad where I used to think he mistranslated the tuk (because it takes it out of context of the shabad) but now not so sure. Since Sikhi seems to be very anti female maybe that's how it was meant. "Guru Jee says, she who looks upon Her Husband as the Lord, is blessed and has firm faith; great are those wives and they are received with honour in the Court of the Lord." (SGGSJ Pg. 185) So our only way to Waheguru is to bow to men as Gods over us apparently. It's awesome to be male in Sikhi isn't it!? --- Anyway please please think twice about what you are agreeing to if you take Amrit. I didn't know all the above till after I did. I couldn't believe it to be true that we are seen this badly. But it's apparently true. By taking Amrit you are agreeing with all of the above. Just be informed before you make that decision... Edit: Forgot to mention some places DID prohibit women from Amrit! Even until recently! They did give a 'consolation' amrit by kirpan so that the food wives cooked for their husband would not be considered 'jhoot'. Some of the Singhs on here believe that amrit was only given to women for this reason (look at the thread about women having amrit in 1699) (so that the men could eat the food without becoming impure and filthy), and nothing to do with women having equal opportunity for liberation.

Sorry that was me... my work computer has trouble staying logged on...^^

Men gossip all the time about women... I'm in the military and work with nearly all men. There's a saying when we are at sea that what's said stays at sea. I can't repeat some of the things I've overheard them say about women in general and more importantly about their own wives. So of course hey gossip... And some of it is pretty cruel. maube we should distrust all men????

Do u understand the words LEAVE ME ALONE you mean rude little man. Just stop!!! Mob iously Chaupa Singh got the same meaning!!!!!!! And was close to Guru Ji so it can't be coincidence that he's saying for all men to never trust any woman.... Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take it up with him. But please just stop even posting to me!!!! i do t even care about dasam Granth or who wrote it what I care about it how it's being used to tell Singhs to never trust us!!!!!!!! Do u understand the implications of telling all males to never trust any females!!??????????? Look at paapiman!!!! His hatred of women and contempt is obvious and very much in line with Chaupa Singhs thinking!! And this is what happens when you read over and over stories putting women as deceivers and sluts and men as their hapless victims. Psychological conditioning! What I care about is this how Guru Ji saw us!!!???