CdnSikhGirl

You are also missing the point in that... feminism does not aim to put women in a superior position to men, they only seek to have equal opportunity and equal say in society. Men on the other hand are actually asking for superiority and authority over women...(masculinism I guess would be the opposite) There is a huge difference.

Strict Patriarchy operates in a system whereby the men have all the authority in society, women have no say. Same in the family... the husband gets his way all the time, while the wife has no decision making power.

To not have a voice in society is a bad position to be in with regards to your well being...

Guru Nanak was actually a feminist, by declaring that men and women were equal and deserved equal treatment.

I can understand that men would not want to give up all that power over women, but the only reason that in the last few centuries we have been given rights equal to men, was because of 'feminists' who fought for it.

And again, I have nothing against men...I believe I stated everyone should receive equal opportunity and say in society... women AND men alike. Wanting the same opportunities, is not the same as hating men. Far from it! Yet, you are trying to say that restricting women to the home into traditional roles and out of society and men being in authority positions over women, that does not equal discrimination to women?? That somehow men 'lording it' over women = harmony.

I am about to get married... he is not and never will be my 'superior'. I don't take commands from him and never will. And I WILL have equal say in the family, he won't have all decision authority, we will share it equally and talk things out. I WILL work side by side with him, to achieve the same goals. And I will make compromises, under the understanding that he will too. That's different. And he actually has worked on projects to empower women, so I guess I am lucky to have found him. He lives in India btw and is an Amritdhari Sikh!

I've never heard these jokes?

Maybe you're speaking about a culture specific thing?

Hmmm like these.... the idea is that women's sole purpose is to serve men... for example by making them sandwiches whenever they ask. There are variations, but all basically stating a woman's place is only in the kitchen making food for the man at his every whim. Can you really blame us for being upset at this???

b2ap3_thumbnail_Sandwiches2-610x450.jpg

Sandwiches_6bda81_450710.jpg

8d58f901df81e70315bbacba775a73cf876a29488903b681ae704af0abc97b5f.jpg

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.

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)...

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

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

realized I already answered this lol

Personally don't care who is in front or behind... think of it this way, the man is not 'leading' because they are supposed to be one soul in two bodies, hence moving as ONE. And they are making a CIRCLE, which has NO beginning and NO end... therefore, in a circle, NO ONE can be in the lead or behind. If the groom looks further ahead, who will he end up being behind?

But even if you chose to look at it as leading / following... I prefer to see it as like a chariot, the rider is behind the horse, but who is the one in controlling the 'reins'??? (the palla IS very suggestive of a 'rein' in this position) lol

I don't 'think' it was ever meant to be degrading to women (I hope it wasn't anyway) or to signify any sort of 'submissiveness' or to suggest that the man will do all the leading and she will always be a submissive follower. That would not agree with what the Gurus all taught. I think it was more practical in nature... it was usually the girl who left her home to be with the boys family... so she is following him towards her new home and life with him. Not so applicable anymore since both usually move out before marriage now especially if they went away to school etc, but I am more bothered by more serious things like SRM not being followed - those who disallow women to do seva that SRM clearly states they have the right to.

p.s. - I am being married this next Summer and I will be in the chariot holding on to the reins as we do the lavans. He knows if he 'trots' too far ahead all I have to do is yank on the reins to keep him in control lol!

Her back is to the Guru

I read the apology from the photographer on Facebook. Apparently he is not Sikh... and neither is she. So the fault of the Gurdwara for performing an interfaith marriage to begin with. This took place just after when everyone left to go to the procession and it was only the bride and the photographer there... that's the second error on part of the Gurdwara, someone should always be there in attendance of SGGSJ. Having said that, the photographer is accepting full responsibility and has learned a lot about Sikhi in the process.

Overall, it's been positive. In the group I directly work with, nobody has said anything negative (at least that I know of) however recently, I was removed from participating in an honour guard, and was told it was because of a medical limitation I am on right now due to my left wrist... I have my doubts because left hand doesn't really affect drill, even rifle drill is done 99% in your right. Only last year I was in a guard, and I had my wrist issue then as well and the only thing different between then and now, was the dastar.

Describing the astral realm is very very difficult. There are not really words to describe it but what I usually say is this:

I could see sound (and it was very colourful), and hear light (and it was angelic). Thoughts became real tangible things, and I felt more 'awake' than any wakeful moment in the physical world... if the word sleep even means anything at all.

There is a medical condition called Synesthesia where something similar happens to people here and now... and there are videos that try to illustrate what it's like. I do think it's somewhat like that, but it's not Synesthesia.... it's just a good comparison.

savinderpalsingh ji... no disrespect meant.... you seem to be favouring the life of an ascetic?? You can't just wall yourself away from everything. There's two options if you want to live like a GUrsikh is supposed to:

1) Wall yourself up - move to the forest in the mountains and live the life of an ascetic avoiding any and all temptation so you don't accidentally fall. What is this really saying? That you are too weak to avoid temptation that is around you?

2) Live life in this reality... this reality that was created, all of it... by Waheguru Ji. Yes you will come across temptation, and the real test in my opinion, is in facing these challenges and still persevering. I work a lot as a volunteer medical responder at concerts etc. One would say that being around music concerts, where people are drunk, on drugs etc Gursikhs should just avoid all together. I'd rather help these people. I immerse myself right in the middle of it all, and catch those who fall. I have held the head of countless drunk teenage throwing up, I have bandaged bleeding fists from drunken fights, I have consoled people who were affected by drugs, and even a few who attempted suicide and were unstable.

A school prom, there should no absolutely no alcohol as they are underage. There will be dancing... and socializing. It's one of the last chances for students to interact with their friends before they all move on. I don't know what kind of proms you guys have seen, but here, there are chaperones, no alcohol, even a police officer is on site. Having said that, yes I am sure some flirting goes on, but its a personal choice to ignore it. Anything more than flirting would be easily caught before anything happened. If you can't go a simple school prom, and interact without falling into temptation, then how do you expect to make it through life? If you don't think you can resist the temptation, then move into the forest and join savinderpalsingh ji as an ascetic.

Dear bhenji,

The suit in the picture above, looks fantastic. I think it would look great on you.

Although, do make sure that the dupatta is wide enough so that it doesn't look awkward when you have worn it over your dumalla.

Also, if hubby and in-laws aren't fussed, don't worry about the colours. Do make sure that the colours match the hubby's outfit. Nothing's worse than an un-matched wedding couple where the colours don't complement each other.

P.s. I wore an orange suit with blue dumalla on my wedding and hubby had a blue chola with orange dumalla.

I plan on wearing a white dastar with the blue suit above, and getting him to wear a blue dastar with white. That way we will match and be kind of opposites

Ok it's been awhile and I have been looking all over for different ideas... I know I said I was set on pink but I found this online, it's an anarkali, heavy embroidered, beadwork etc and it's shades of blue. Though they do say they can make in different colour schemes on the site but I am not sure since it specifies blue. I think these might be semi-stitched suits. But just want opinions... and don't have anyone to ask, least of all him because I want it to be surprise at least till closer to the wedding). I really like this style of anarkali... shorter style (I'm short so the floor length ones do not work on me) and I really like all the embellishments on it. I can't find much like this online... I know they exist and I have seen photos of gursikh weddings where the girl is wearing an anarkali similar to this in blue, or I saw one with a very dark blue accented on a cream coloured suit... where can I look for this style of anarkali online? Most seem to be just regular anarkali with a little bit of embroidery but not for wedding... This even has the heavy work chunni. The blue scheme would work with a navy blue dastar....

Interestingly, S. Kartar Singh Khalsa, Jatha Bhindran (Mehta) quoted Bhayee Chaupa Singh, “Jo Sikh, Sikhani Noo Khande Dee Pahul Na Deve, So Tankhahiya” (The Sikh, who does not give ‘Khande Dee Pahul’ to Sikhani (Sikh-woman), is a culprit). (See: ‘Khalsa Jeevan and Gurmat Rahat Maryada’ written by Sant Kartar Singh Khalsa, Jatha Bhindran (Mehta), page 180, edition 1977).

This thread is from 2009!

Anyway, men and women are equal but different.

Yes, there are differences, but those differences should never put men and women into a hierarchal system with one above the other. Neither gender should enjoy more privileges than the other. Neither should be 'in charge' of the other or 'in authority' over the other. And especially in Sikhi where we believe that the same divine light is in everyone equally.... God in either male or female form, should not be put at a disadvantage. Nobody should any restrictions placed on them based purely on their gender (any seva). As long as that person is physically capable of doing it, they should be given the chance.

Yes, I even believe that people we might consider to be disabled, should also be given the chance to be panj pyares... if they are physically capable of maintaining the correct posture etc. Because 'disability' is not a black and white definition. One person may be more challenged by something while another isn't. We can't put our own definition of disability. We can't label someone because they have different challenges. So my definition of someone who is 'disabled' could be different than your own. Who should have the say which one is correct when selecting panj pyares? I think the term 'disability' in the correct spirit of the term when speaking of restrictions, means those who can't physically perform the ceremony without making adjustments to it because then the ceremony has been changed. But someone with a bad shoulder may be perfectly capable of carrying out the entire ceremony as it was meant...

As for panj pyares and women. When I look at someone, I don't immediately judge them based on their gender, rather their actions. I don't think 'hey this person can't do this because they are guy' or 'this person shouldn't be allowed to do this because they are a girl' etc. I think instead 'if they are fully capable of doing this, and have desire to do so, then they should be given the opportunity to do it' I don't even consider gender etc. I think this is in the true spirit of what our Gurus taught. Not, let's restrict women from doing doing this, simply because they were born women. I don't think the Gurus taught men to look for any minute little detail to find reasons to restrict their Mothers. their sisters, their daughters, and instead taught to uplift and support them so that they could stand as independent equals beside their Singhs.

The fact that some members on here consider the mere suggestion that women and men should have the same rights and privileges, to be sexist against men, says a lot.

Also I have seen N30's post on another forum about women Sants (and on here) It's a beautiful post and we need more like it! However, I have seen quite a few members speak against that post though, saying that women have never been 'officially' recognized as Sants, so therefore they are not really etc. It's was really disheartening to see those negative responses...

The difference is my statements are ALL entirely in response to posts that were suggesting women 'shouldn't be allowed to do this' or 'women have loose morals' or 'women should have less privelages in sikhi' or 'women shouldn't even be given the same Amrit as men' or 'women can't possibly maintain rehet to the same degree as men' etc. My posts are all defensive against such above remarks and merely calling out the men for it. And yes it's been from day one....

Show me one post even where any of you say that sikh men and women should be treated equally, or that in the face of inequalities even in this modern world that sikh guys should stand up for the equality taught by the gurus about every human and that Singhs should be supportive of the equal status given to Kaurs in Sikhi. There isn't even one. I've just done searches for the terms 'women' 'bibian' etc and in every single thread are comments suggesting women shouldn't be treated equal, women shouldn't be given same privelages in sikhi, women are all loose morals, they can't maintain rehet, even one now saying merely giving birth to a child means a woman breaks rehet.

I have never posted anywhere suggesting men should be treated less than women.., not once. I merely keep pointing out the men who keep saying these things about Sikh girls who are supposed to be their sisters. And you are trying to call this sexist against men? Never did I say or suggest men should be treated as less than women or that men have less capability to maintain rehet or suggest men are all loose morals etc. So you are taking that even merely suggesting that men and women should be treated equally in Sikhi is some kind of sexist remark against men???? Really???? That just proves my point!

That's the big difference. I'm promoting equality between gender as taught in Gurbani... Same divine light in everyone... And you are trying to suggest that if I try to defend against inequality touted by 'some males' on this forum, then you are saying I am being sexist. Huge difference!

savinderpalsingh ji, can you please explain to me why women would break rehet by giving birth? And please include references... Why would women giving birth mean they can not follow rehet? As far as I know, giving birth does not require intoxicants, cutting hairs, adultry, or (kutha) meat... and those are the 4 kurehits that would mean needing to retake Amrit. Also, what about women who chose not to have children?

Myself, I chose to never have kids, and pursue a career in the military, and I follow SRM. Am I still less qualified to have kande de pahul than any male in present time, who never actually embodies the 'soldier' aspect? I know plenty of SIkh men who work at cushy desk jobs and would never fight, yet I have made a career of it.

It seems to me, that you guys are actively looking for reasons to put women into lower roles than men. You are approaching everything with the mindset to find something.... anything to use as justfication. Is this not ego (male ego)? Is this not a case of "I am more deserving than any female, just because I happened to be born a male" because this is really what it sounds like. It's gone beyond hanging up the 'boys club no girls allowed' sign, and gone to researching medical books for any hint of a suggestion that girls really have cooties to use as justification to ban them from your blanket fort.

Fair point. ...

I wonder what Mata Sahib Kaur Ji, Mata Bhaag Kaur Ji etc. would say....

More than just being disappointed in the men for thinking such things, they'd probably kick their butts!