Kaalka

..

..

Well no, but even if I did, I don't think they'd have me anyway! lol

Dalsingh veera sure you arent planning to join AKJ ;) ?

Benta to admin Saab
please delete/lock this pointless thread.

I think the answer is here
 

why are you still here?

Haha I actually thought that was a spoof of the Tram Experience. Didn't realise till they started with the fisticuffs that it was for real!

DalSingh Its not just AngloSaxons. Lets look at it the other way: How many fundamentalist Sikh deny that other sikhs can call themselves so? Apparently, if you aren't 'amrit-shak' your not a sikh. If women shape their eyebrows they cant be sikhs. There was even a court case in Pb about this a while ago. I believe a girl was declared a non-sikh because she trimmed her brows!? If women don't wear a turban they are not sikhs. If you have a picture of 'Sri Ram and Sita' (-its actually ShivJi and ParbatiJi) on your site, your not a sikh!
This self elitist attitude exists in all communities. How many apne deny that American Sikhs are sikhs?

And like the AngloSaxons, its all based on looks.

I would be careful about encouraging it! If a girl feels she does not fit in her own gender and desires to adopt 3rd gender identity (for example lesbian or asexual) she might wear a dastar as a regular wear.No problem!
But for the normal girls there is no need for that and it actually goes against well established codes. The Rahitname talk about chunni not dastar for women!!!!

Dear Shaitan ka bacha (I love that name ) I suggest a very good artcile on the matter: http://www.shastarvidiya.org/htmls/keski_introduction.html

In addition to that I can add that a lot of girls are made to believe that in order to get any respect by men they should dress up like men. Interestingly enough these people keep on talking about Mai Bhago as being a proper Khalsa woman but fact is she had to ask for explicit permission from Guru Gobind Singh to do so because a woman dressed as a man in South Asia is considered a 3rd gender person. It is a renowned fact that all the major rulers in India had amazon bodyguards i.e. female body guards dressed as men. Maharaja Ranjit Singh himslef had a whole battaillon of such amazon bodyguards.There is a famous article by Walter Penrose on a similar issue: Female Homoeroticism in South Asia where he mentions amazon bodyguards.
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Female%20...sian%20Past.pdf

But I am sure those guys could easily tell which one of them was male and which one was female.
Outside race perspective doesn't count.
We had Singhs wearing surma, ear-rings and tons of jewelry, when the British came to India. We wore as much jewelry as their women. But our women wore even more jewelry than us.

Funny, you should say this!  Men and women can never look the same ever!   Women have different body shapes with soft gentle voices!  Men on the other hand are full of extra testosterone running in their bodies and therefore very loud, aggressive and always confrontational!!  They can never look the same ever!  Women wear executive suits all time nowadays in their work  lives but they don't ever look like men, even if their hair is cut short back and sides!!  No matter, how they try, they can never look alike!!  Sorry to disappoint you sir!
Of course, their choice to wear it or not depends on how close they feel to the Khalsa philosophy and it's ideals!  And there are many women with surnames 'Singh' but when they are really Kaurs.  

So I'm not the only one LOOOOOOLL

No doubt. Some sampardas (still) view women as being inferior due to periods and other reasons think it blasphmous if a woman tried to be in image of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Having periods (dirty) and being physically weaker is because they are being punished for past karma. That is why they are also dead set against women in the punj pyaras. It has nothing to do with no woman giving her head that day as suggested by some. It has to do with women being spiritually inferior to men. Thats the only reason it is seen as a sin for them to tie a turban. (Otherwise its just a piece of fabric worn to cover and protect the keshas.) Because its seen as a woman trying to usurp a higher spiritual position than she is, and not accepting her punishment. Women need to wait until they do enough bhagti and be reborn in a male joon to do religious things. Otherwise, they should focus on serving their husband and raising children only. They should remain quiet, and not try to pretend to be men (pretending to be higher spiritually than they are) and just accept they are here under punishment in this joon.
The above is NOT my thinking. This is how many Singhs unfortunately view women. And it's sad. Our Gurus did not teach this. This is pure Brahaministical thinking only. And its well known Brahministical thinking crept into Sikhi while Wikhs were forced into hiding in the woods and holy places occupied. We lost so much.

My grandmother was also against women wearing turban , the sewapanthi samprada which had influence in their area was dead against that. She told me once a woman came under influence of AKJ's and wore turban when she visited the sant s they were shocked , they scolded her and told her its a sin 

Pink being for women is western. That's a young Singh not a woman. Firstly there were no nihang women anyways especially in 1834 what a joke. Look at old kurtay or cholay around India. Hint of pink or red and different colours are abundant but women w turbans is a recent phenomenon. 

Sikh women just started wearing turbans since AKJ and this neo Sikh mentality sunk in. Look at bhagat Singh's mom and ask other real sardar families none of their women wore pags. There are instances where people like Mai Bhago did though but that has occurred w rajput women as well and only at the time of war or a last stand. Women have never worn pags 24/7 as these neo Sikh women do. Sikh women wore bindiyan and mehndi and surma too. Men wore earrings and jewellery as well. This new Sikh rehat maryada you keep trumpeting is a new construct. You need to wake up. 

I think you are being a bit harsh bro.  Let them decide what they want to wear as long as it is modest. 
However, the other party ( satkirin) should also not enforce the idea that turban is a must . Some times chunni wearing bibi can be spiritually higher than a turban wearing. :)
 

*blushes like a girl* *peehee* I am a girl 
*covers face with larr of dastar - I mean chunni*
 
Disclaimer: chill.

Great observation! 
Let's deny the truth for arguement's sake and say his Singhni has a turban, the fact they are in poverty is possibly to moving around due to war.
His singhni may of a turban to give the impression to the enemy that there is 2 Singhs instead of a couple, this way fear is instilled within the mind of the enemy. 
A Khalsa war tactic.

Absolutely pathetic to generalise all normal women to be "bimbos" and "dolled up" because they don't tie a male signifier: turban. 
Maybe that says something about your character while you didnt tie a turban.
Theres endless women who we respectable who look like women and not men.

I think the answer is here
 

My dearest Satkiran talking about hypocrisy again. There's feces for you.

Absolutely pathetic to generalise all normal women to be "bimbos" and "dolled up" because they don't tie a male signifier: turban. 
Maybe that says something about your character while you didnt tie a turban.
Theres endless women who we respectable who look like women and not men.

A person, who believes that menstruating women can do Seva of the most pavitar (pure) saroop of Maharaaj (which is an utter disgusting act), should not feel that the above video/pictures are nasty.
 
Bhul chuk maaf