Respect for SGPC maryada

[chatanga1]

Only the ones who have this thinking (and spread it) that the Gurus were male because men are somehow better or superior to women.  You have to admit, making the statement (in an equality discussion) "why do you think all the Gurus were male" HIGHLY suggestive that he believes the reason is because men are superior / women inferior or at the very least that he thinks women should not / can not be leaders. I gave the reason...

No, thats just twisting it. You are saying that Sikhism is equal in everything between men and women. I'm telling it's not and used the Gurus as example. Everything in Sikhi is not gender equality> I know that. You know that. Stop changing your stance everytime you fail on the previous one. Just accept it.

Think about it, would the slave drivers in the American South have ever listened to a black slave claiming that blacks should be free?

OK, so first it was Men claiming women are equal, then high-castes claiming low-castes are equal, now you've moved onto slavery? Such a snake.

In that time in India, even during the 200 years span of the Guru's times... women were still treated like dirt.  Less valuable than cattle (and probably seen as more expendable too)

In India they probably were. Just like they were in Europe. But you cannot make this claim for Sikhs. Those that followed the Guru would never do that.

and this "(and probably seen as more expendable too) is just so typical of the snake you are. Think about how your own ancestors were treating women in Europe b efore you paste trash like this.

DDT's RM doesn't agree with Gurbani... Gurbani can NEVER contradict the Gurus.  Gurbani says to see ALL and treat ALL equally.  In fact DDT's OWN RM contradicts ITSELF! Because it also says that with Amrit, ALL distinctions causing false hierarchies were removed... INCLUDING GENDER! 

Gender roles do not change with taking Amrit. If you can't understand that you are really wasting this maanas janam.

but then tell women to see their husband as God, while not also telling the husband to see his wife as God? 

What does this rehat maryada tell men their responsibility to their wife is? It says dont do anything with consulting your wife. This "God" thing you have in your head is not something you can understand, or are even trying to understand. You are seeing this "God" thing as as the same we actually think of Waheguru, and its not the same.

So tell us, did you marry a man/woman/eunuch/ladyboy?

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

I married a Singh who sees me as his equal... and would never want me to think of him as having some sort of status over me. He understands we are two individuals in a relationship where neither one of us is in charge of the other. Neither one of us has 'final say' in decisions etc.  We work through things together both taking each other's wishes and feelings into account. I don't see him as some authority over me, or as a 'God' over me.  However we BOTH see God in each other...

Gender roles are man made... same as caste roles... same as rich / poor roles.  Is it a God given Divine order that a poor man must endure servitude to the rich?  Should the rich look down on the poor and expect them to serve without complaint and be submissive and subservient?  The rich think so... I highly doubt the poor belive so.  It's always easy to put a group on a pedistal if you are in the group that's on the pedistal.  However, the poor person has a choice to try and start a business, some businesses take off, and the person becomes rich after being poor.  However you are relegating women to second class status without any chance of ever changing their plight.  Yet, these differences which are being used to dictate to people what we want them to do... (ie men are dictating to women that they must be subservient and yield to male authority without any hope of moving through the ranks so to speak).  These differences are what DDT's OWN RM actually say was removed.  Did you even read it???  Gender was put on the exact same instruction as caste... were caste roles eliminated with Amrit? Of course they were! We are NOT to relegate someone's role based on their caste.  Gender is in the EXACT SAME SENTENCE!!!! Can you even read???!!!!  ROLES are PRECISELY what's being talked about there!  Using these differences to relegate some people to higher status and privilege than others. THATS what was eliminated.  The difference of gender can no longer be used to limit women under the guise of 'different roles' (who said it's women's 'role' to be submissive anyway?  Or women's 'role' to do dishes or cook?  Men can both just as well!  And there are plenty of women who are excellent leaders and obviously they were born with these qualities given by Waheguru!!!! So it's not a male 'role' to lead... it's the role of a LEADER to lead. Being a leader is not a gender role!) So creation of Amrit removed the man made obstacles and limitations placed on some people, because of things like caste, affluence, how much money they had, and yes even their gender.  I am sorry you can not see it, and that you can't even follow the same RM you claim is the ineffible word from Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself!

And no I am not taking the word see husband as a 'God' to mean literally Waheguru... I took it to mean that it's saying men are in authority and control over women and women must obey. Which is wrong... At least that's how the wording in DDTs RM makes it sound.  However Gurbani says to see God in everyone as the divine light is contained within everyone and I think this was more the original meaning... So I think it was twisted deliberately to introduce male domination Brahamincal ideas based on Laws of Manu.  Think about it, how easy it would be to change at some point "see God in each other" to "women see men as God"

Sorry but ----Men don't get to be the 'boss' of women. 

Here... read it again!!!  What's the point of saying that differences were eliminated but then limit people based on the same old concepts?? It wouldn't make any sense to say okay creation of Khalsa removed caste distinction, gender distinction, rich/ poor etc. as all are to be treated the same.  And then uphold that with caste, rich/poor etc. but then fall back into the same old thinking with gender... but it's ok for men to dominate women, because you believe that's what the Gurus wanted right??? For women to be obedient little servants waiting hand and foot on men, who are supposed to be 'God' over them (ie in authority over / higher status)?? Must be nice to be male in your version of Sikhi. For the women however, I don't know how any could live in those conditions... I'd run away and live as an ascetic in the forest (or probably kill myself) rather than become an obedient slave serving a man like I was created as some inferior being and have to live knowing my husband thought of me as such!

[Ragmaala]

Raagmala, do you still believe women were created to serve men and be 'HOMELY' and 'Submissive' to male authority??

There is no such thing as Male Authority. 

I personally find feminine qualities attractive. Definition is subjective.

I am not attracted to Masculine traits in a woman.

I do not intend to control or dominate or make decisions for someone. Get that straight.

I am not a spokesperson for Sikhism or any particular group or a particular gender. I write, what I like, based on  personal analysis.

You cannot change my views, I do not intend to change your thinking. The discussion is useless.

 

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Some men find women who have leadership qualities attractive... some women find men who are not afraid to show emotion etc attractive.  Why can't traits just be 'traits'?  Why do we have to decide which traits belong to who?  Why can't we just let people be who they are and were born to be without forcing them into traits that we think they should have? 

That aside, you do realize that the word 'homely' is a derogatory and insulting word don't you?? It means 'plain' 'simple' 'doesn't stand out from the crowd' 'unremarkable' in other words, the word 'Homely' is used to describe someone who is not anything special... just a part of the decor... they are there but don't stand out.  Since every person is an individual, and everyone stands out in some way, to call someone Homely is an insult, because it means you see them as being not their own person, but just a robot, conforming, no voice, no opinion... plain... blahhhh....

 

[Ragmaala]

offtopic

 

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Ragmaala

[Ragmaala]

off topic.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Ragmaala

[chatanga1]

I married a Singh who sees me as his equal...

Why marry a Singh? Why not marry a Singhni? Or third gender? Why did you discriminate against eunuchs if we are all the same? Are you telling me you can't see God in a eunuch? Or a ladyboy?

 

Gender roles are man made...

Yes it was a MAN that decided what role a man and woman will play in procreation.

 

Gender roles are man made... same as caste roles... same as rich / poor roles. 

Great. Move the goalposts again. Try and bring caste and wealth into again.

[chatanga1]

Why can't traits just be 'traits'?  Why do we have to decide which traits belong to who?  Why can't we just let people be who they are and were born to be without forcing them into traits that we think they should have? 

Right, so from gender to caste to wealth to character traits. You are now just running around in a circle, or more aptly a wheel.

Just one big wheel, with one little rat running around in it squeaking "I'm asatkiran, I'm going to conquer the world!".

 

That aside, you do realize that the word 'homely' is a derogatory and insulting word don't you?? It means 'plain' 'simple' 'doesn't stand out from the crowd' 'unremarkable' in other words, the word 'Homely' is used to describe someone who is not anything special... just a part of the decor... they are there but don't stand out.  Since every person is an individual, and everyone stands out in some way, to call someone Homely is an insult, because it means you see them as being not their own person, but just a robot, conforming, no voice, no opinion... plain... blahhhh....

And what is wrong with being "unremarkable" or "not standing out"?  And you talk about forcing traits on someone?

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

Why marry a Singh? Why not marry a Singhni? Or third gender? Why did you discriminate against eunuchs if we are all the same? Are you telling me you can't see God in a eunuch? Or a ladyboy?

 

Yes it was a MAN that decided what role a man and woman will play in procreation.

 

 

Great. Move the goalposts again. Try and bring caste and wealth into again.

There are those who are attracted to same sex and I don't discriminate against them at all.  If they want to do seva, then they should be allowed. 

On your second point, we aren't speaking about procreation. That's the only thing where gender is actually required.  Cooking, cleaning, doing menial tasks around the home, changing dirty diapers, those are not parts of procreation... same as working outside the home....either gender can do any of those tasks. Whether one is submissive, obedient, or whether one is a leader, has nothing to do with procreation.  See this is where you are wrong... Procreation does not delineate what someone can or can not do outside of actual procreation itself.  Seva as Panj Pyaras, for example... has nothing to do with biological procreation or roles in procreation.  Neither does kirtan at Darbar Sahib, or leadership positions in the Takhts, or palki sahib seva, or being a Granthi etc. None of those have anything at all to do with biological procreation.  And outside of who has to carry and deliver a baby, once the baby is born, the tasks can be shared equally with Mother and Father and any tasks beyond childbirth, are not gender driven.  Either spouse can watch a child, either spouse can feed a child, either spouse can cook, scrub dishes, sweep the floor... etc. 

We weren't speaking about making babies... we were speaking about equal treatment in seva, equal say in the family, equal representation in leadership etc.  

I keep bringing caste and wealth into it because your precious DDT Rehet Maryada brings them all into it together in the SAME sentence!!!!  It equates caste, wealth, and gender on the same level.  When Khalsa was created these things were eliminated! Since you believe Taksal's RM is THE RM of Guru Ji right from his mouth, then you can not ignore it!  You can't claim caste is wrong to discriminate on or wealth but then discriminate based on gender because the very RM you claim is the words right from Guru Ji's mouth says the differences caused by these things (meaning the discrimination based on them) are all in the same barrel!  It's not ME bringing caste and wealth on the same level and into this... Guru Ji himself is (since you think this RM is the direct words of Guru Gobind Singh Ji)!!!! 

Should I post it again for you??? 

 

 

[Ragmaala]

satkirin ,

at hazoor sahib nanded, only hazoori singh can go inside and do sewa, no other man or woman can go inside. So do you think that is discrimination towards common men and women ?

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

satkirin ,

at hazoor sahib nanded, only hazoori singh can go inside and do sewa, no other man or woman can go inside. So do you think that is discrimination towards common men and women ?

 

 

absolutely! 

[Ragmaala]

absolutely! 

No it is not discrimination at all.  It is just maryada/ tradition/ discipline of that place. Only a celibate high character man can do sewa inside not even a common man.

That place is constantly guarded by Shaheed Singhs/ Spiritual Army. If one tries to go against the maryada they get instantly punished.

A long time ago, the committee tried to install two non-celibate men as sewadars inside, shortly after they died. Then they had to bring back the previous Jathedar Ji.

This is a recent incident maybe two years ago. Jathedar Kulwant Singh Ji stopped doing the maryada of striking bells...he lost his eyesight. Then he did ardas for forgiveness, and regained his eyesight. This incident was personally narrated to a Granthi Singh, who was close to our family.

 

So now will you accuse the Shaheed Singhs/ Spiritual Army or Guru Gobind Singh Ji of  discrimination against the non-celibate men who cannot do sewa inside the takhat hazoor sahib ?

 

 

[Harjots8963]

absolutely! 

Please Elaborate?

And Satkirin Ji I think whats going on is that Sikhs who don't think Women should be in Panj Pyare because of Sant Ji's Bachan believe so because Sant Ji is very dear them... That Doesn't mean they believe that Women are Lower!

[Ragmaala]

Please Elaborate?

And Satkirin Ji I think whats going on is that Sikhs who don't think Women should be in Panj Pyare because of Sant Ji's Bachan believe so because Sant Ji is very dear them... That Doesn't mean they believe that Women are Lower!

What she is saying is that it is discrimination towards other men who cannot go inside the Takhat Hazoor Sahib and do sewa. She does not understand the concept of respecting a certain Maryada or tradition.

[CdnSikhGirl]

the Gurus taught us to speak against ritualistic practices that are wrong. In this case being exclusionary and elitism.  The gurus saw all humans as equal.  Traditions which put some on a pedestal over others are wrong.  The gurus own examples are proof of this or else women would still be killing themselves on their husbands funeral pyre. 

ALL Maryadas are man made... The closest we have to actual words from Guru Gobind Singh Ji are his 52 hukams and even some people doubt that. So no Maryadas should take precedent over what Gurbani instructs because that IS direct words from our Gurus (and others). You can hold man made Maryadas and traditions over SGGSJ but I never will.  If something seems to disagree with Gurbani then it can't be correct. 

 

 

[Guest Yvclyf]

That means with ur thinking people who r disabled r allpwed to be in panj pyre,  if there no maryda then the meaning is one can do what he or she wants and twist the meanings of gurbani to promote there way

[jaikaara]

 

the Gurus taught us to speak against ritualistic practices that are wrong. In this case being exclusionary and elitism.  The gurus saw all humans as equal.  Traditions which put some on a pedestal over others are wrong.  The gurus own examples are proof of this or else women would still be killing themselves on their husbands funeral pyre. 

ALL Maryadas are man made... The closest we have to actual words from Guru Gobind Singh Ji are his 52 hukams and even some people doubt that. So no Maryadas should take precedent over what Gurbani instructs because that IS direct words from our Gurus (and others). You can hold man made Maryadas and traditions over SGGSJ but I never will.  If something seems to disagree with Gurbani then it can't be correct. 

 

 

Please come out of this mindset of seeing India as some snake charmer country. Women killing themselves on their husband's pyre were in a few states/provinces initially started when the Mughals and afghans attacked and to save the honor the women folk did Sati.

If you claim that this was stopped during Guru Maharaj's time why then did Maharaja Ranjitsingh's wives commit Sati ?

Maryada is man made and just as you want to white wash maryada into one single rule book is never possible .

Japji Sahib says 'Andar Hukume Sabh ko Baahar Hukum no Koe' The command is from inside, then how will you take maryada as?

Akaal Ustat sahib bani, Guru Maharaj says Sabh Karam Fokat Jaan Sabh Dharam Nehfil Maan Bin Ayk Naam Adhar Sabh Karam Bharam Veechar consider all actions (rituals) useless consider all Religion as fruitless , without the support of the One Naam everything else is like a illusion.

So where does maryada fit here then ? where do your feminist ideas fit here ? No..nothing ..naught ..No man ..No woman ..no truth no false ...Just NAAM !

 

AkaaaaaaL !

 

[jaikaara]

Satkirin , for all the shit you throw at Hinduism and Puratan maryada of India here is something which your own white rogue race committed due to which today you exist in Canada:

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/intro2.html

The highlights :

1857: The Gradual Civilization Act is passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, permanently disenfranchising all Indian and Metis peoples, and placing them in a separate, inferior legal category than citizens.

1874: The Indian Act is passed in Canada’s Parliament, incorporating the inferior social status of native people into its language and provisions. Aboriginals are henceforth imprisoned on reserve lands and are legal wards of the state.

1884: Legislation is passed in Ottawa creating a system of state-funded, church administered Indian Residential Schools.

1905: Over one hundred residential schools are in existence across Canada, 60% of them run by the Roman Catholics.

1907: Dr. Peter Bryce, Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs, tours the residential schools of western Canada and British Columbia and writes a scathing report on the "criminal" health conditions there. Bryce reports that native children are being deliberately infected with diseases like tuberculosis, and are left to die untreated, as a regular practice. He cites an average death rate of 40% in the residential schools.

You Guys killed children and innocent people , rape murder , land grabbing ...THIS IS YOUR DNA ... full of crime.

Dont Preach us here what we need to do about our maryada  ..see the way your clan  wiped off an entire race ...SHAME !!!

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

I am not claiming that Europe and North America did not treat women badly too by a LONG shot!  They did!  But we were  not talking about Europe or North America.  The Gurus weren't here, they were in India. Therefore, we were speaking about the culture in India at that time which drove the need for the Gurus to be male. As I said, if a low caste or female at that time were to come and proclaim they were a Guru and teach about the equality of low caste and women, nobody would have listened.  It had to be the group that at that time was considered to be in authority and have the control, which were higher caste males.  

Okay so reference Maryada, why don't we all just follow Guru Ji's 52 Hukams then since it's the one that's actually linked to Guru Ji?  (If you are in fact wishing to follow 'puritan' RM)??  If we allow any different group to create new RMs whenever they want, and use 'tradition' and 'maryada' as excuse, then we can also encourage any group to be discriminated.  Why not add caste back into it, or discriminate against those who are poor? Why stop at women?  I just pointed out in the very RM that everyone says is THE be all end all of Maryadas... where it says that with creation of Khalsa caste, rich/poor, GENDER were eliminated.  It equates caste and gender on the same level.  This RM is touted as the DIRECT words from Guru Ji's mouth. Eliminated is a strong word... and since we know it can not be speaking about actual gender itself, or actual caste itself or rich/poor because these things don't mysteriously change when one takes amrit,... what was eliminated were the false statuses and hierarchies that were being enforced because of these differences.  It was the differences that were removed so that no matter what background someone had, they were seen as equals.  So why are caste defined roles upheld today (even staunchly) as being wrong y people who follow this RM, but not gender roles which place women into inferior position and why is discrimination of women allowed??  After all, Guru Ji's direct words were that even gender difference was eliminated and this was in the very same sentence in the same RM.  Everyone is avoiding answering this and ignoring the screenshot because I think nobody knows how to answer without also allowing caste discrimination.  Gurbani also agrees with seeing everyone on equal level and giving everyone equal opportunity, despite their differences.  

And I am sick of people comparing being a woman to a disability.... a woman is a fully capable person.  The reasoning for disabled is because the person has to be able to physically sit in the correct posture for extended period.  Someone who uses a wheelchair for example could not do that.  As long as someone can physically perform the duties of Panj Pyaras, then they can do it.  Akal Takht supports allowing women, the only accepted RM by Akal Takht SIkh Rehet Maryada, STATES WOMEN ARE ALLOWED to do seva of Panj Pyaras. MANY Gurdwaras around the world who do not associate with jathas or dheras etc. allow women to be Panj Pyaras. Our Gurdwara locally does not bar women from any seva, the historical Gurdwara I took amrit at in Srinagar Kashmir, has had women act as Panj Pyaras.  So obviously women CAN be Panj Pyaras.  

 

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

That means with ur thinking people who r disabled r allpwed to be in panj pyre,  if there no maryda then the meaning is one can do what he or she wants and twist the meanings of gurbani to promote there way

Actually twisting Gurbani is taking one liners like Hari Singh Rhandawa did in order to support Brahaminical thinking like sootak to put women into inferior position instead of taking context of the shabad.  Same as was done in that one line in DDT's RM stating women are to see their husband as God while the husband is instructed to see his wife only as a follower dictating a superior/inferior relationship right from anand karaj.  INstead of taking context, they took one line out of context and twisted the meaning to support a Brahaminical thinking right out of Laws of Manu.  Sikhs do not follow Laws of Manu. 

Should we allow any group or Jatha to start creating their own Rehet Maryada, and write whatever they want in it and start say disallowing low caste people from entering their gurdwara?  

Edited October 7, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[jaikaara]

I am not claiming that Europe and North America did not treat women badly too by a LONG shot!  They did!  But we were  not talking about Europe or North America.  The Gurus weren't here, they were in India.

 

 

 

So then better stick to Sikhi and stop poking your nose in what doesn't concern you ..! You claim or don't claim what your white race did with women ..children...innocent harmless human beings .

shameless white rogues have destroyed entire populations ..have some remorse ..you belong to such a race who has done sins beyond imagination so dont EVER give anyone names ...

Yes there were no women in the Panj pyaare ..yes there are limitations to sewa..yes there are stray cases of wife beating ...BUT ...they still arent as bad as the treatment to women in the land from where your forefathers claim their origin ..before raising any fingers have some shame ..you belong to the most cunningest race which treated ENTIRE HUMAN RACE badly...you dont even have the right to point fingers at other humans 

You owe an apology to the Mayans , to the Latin America ..to the Philippines ..to the Africans....To Goa in India..to hell with your liberal feminism ...trust me ..your race will pay it back ..they will pay with their blood ...there are more than a hundred thousand of those cunning jihadis entering Europe ..they will avenge all the tears and agony of the human race whom you oppressed, raped and murdered all these generations .

[OnPathToSikhi]

So then better stick to Sikhi and stop poking your nose in what doesn't concern you ..! You claim or don't claim what your white race did with women ..children...innocent harmless human beings .
shameless white rogues have destroyed entire populations ..have some remorse ..you belong to such a race who has done sins beyond imagination so dont EVER give anyone names ...

Yes there were no women in the Panj pyaare ..yes there are limitations to sewa..yes there are stray cases of wife beating ...BUT ...they still arent as bad as the treatment to women in the land from where your forefathers claim their origin ..before raising any fingers have some shame ..you belong to the most cunningest race which treated ENTIRE HUMAN RACE badly...you dont even have the right to point fingers at other humans 

You owe an apology to the Mayans , to the Latin America ..to the Philippines ..to the Africans....To Goa in India..to hell with your liberal feminism ...trust me ..your race will pay it back ..they will pay with their blood ...there are more than a hundred thousand of those cunning jihadis entering Europe ..they will avenge all the tears and agony of the human race whom you oppressed, raped and murdered all these generations .

Such racists views. Are you a rss bhakt trolling here with some agenda?

[Orochimaru]

[Orochimaru]

If femenism comes in sikhi then it would ruin the spiritual aspects of sikhi like how femenism is corrupting western nations 

[CdnSikhGirl]

So then better stick to Sikhi and stop poking your nose in what doesn't concern you ..! You claim or don't claim what your white race did with women ..children...innocent harmless human beings .
shameless white rogues have destroyed entire populations ..have some remorse ..you belong to such a race who has done sins beyond imagination so dont EVER give anyone names ...

Yes there were no women in the Panj pyaare ..yes there are limitations to sewa..yes there are stray cases of wife beating ...BUT ...they still arent as bad as the treatment to women in the land from where your forefathers claim their origin ..before raising any fingers have some shame ..you belong to the most cunningest race which treated ENTIRE HUMAN RACE badly...you dont even have the right to point fingers at other humans 

You owe an apology to the Mayans , to the Latin America ..to the Philippines ..to the Africans....To Goa in India..to hell with your liberal feminism ...trust me ..your race will pay it back ..they will pay with their blood ...there are more than a hundred thousand of those cunning jihadis entering Europe ..they will avenge all the tears and agony of the human race whom you oppressed, raped and murdered all these generations .

Aain, we are not talking aout North AMerica... and since I an Amritdhari Singhni history of our Gurus is not posking my nose where it doesn't belong.

And two wrongs don't make a right!  Really all you can do instead of saying change is needed, is to point fingers at other cultures... here 's what it sounds like... Me: "We need change because wrongs have been / are being done in the Sikh religion which I am part of"  you: "But so and so did it in North America so it's ok for us to"  Really, instead of hiding behind the excuse that since others did it, it's ok for you to do it, why not work for positive change?  At least North America has progressed. By the way, I am not American.  And neither I nor my family background has anything to do with Mayans, Latin America etc.  I am in Canda and my family background include Aboriginal Canadians... just as an FYI.

Here is why the gender issue should not hold up with Panj Pyaras:  The gender they had was not their only trait. They also came from different castes so if we are aiming to reproduce the original group, then maybe only the five original castes represented should be allowed to do this seva? Why are any caste now allowed?  But I know what you will say next... that castism (discrimination based on caste) is shunned in Sikhism... and you would be correct.  But genderism (discriminating based on gender) is also shunned in Sikhism - in the very same Rehet Maryada that majority of you on this site hold as the actual words of Guru Ji, in the very same line!!!!!  Instead of holding on to your own preconceived notions of women not being worthy, or not being able to represent the original five simply because their gender is not the same, then all those who caste are not the same should also not be allowed to do this seva - or else you are a hypocrite.  And maybe we should go further and limit this seva to only those who are from the same localities? And have the same names? Oh but this is absurd you say?  So what makes gender so different that it's ok to discriminate based on gender but not ok to discriminate based on caste?  Especially when the Rehet Maryada you refer to says they are both on the same level, and the idea of discrimination using either was eliminated???

And where is the idea that the first grooup of anything always has to be represented by like people for all time - where has this idea come from anyway?  If this were the case, the world would never progress as everything would remain the same as the first group who did so.  So all space explorers for all time should be American males because the first to walk on the moon were men, so anyone doing so thereafter should be American men? Just using one example...