This should be the last topic on this matter

[kdsingh80]

US Allows Saudi Prince to Flee After He Beat and Raped 3 Women in Beverly Hills Mansion for Days
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/saudi-prince-sexually-assaults-3-women-u-s-flee/#Q9u9CbQHBgDfSXqT.99

This  is same Western society that trashes India and other Asian nations on women right issues but allow Saudi Prince to molest , rape their women and Flee.Leftists all over world criticise Israel and Hug saudi royal family , long live double standards

[dalsingh101]

Actually it is leftist Feminism that caused that. White racists are also anti feminists

How would you know sitting in India? 

 

White racists are vehemently feminist. When you understand how feminism works in economic and sexual terms you'd get that. Unless you see it in action in the corporate world out in the west, you won't get it. It's a very clever ploy to make women feel that they are empowered but ultimately controlling and using them for your advantage.

Very similar to how brits psychologically pimped hordes of jats into thinking they were free men, but actually had them subverted like muppets in real terms. In the end, white females in the west are generally  reduced to either economic cogs of the system who rarely challenge the status quo for any significant, enduring change, or sexual entities to titillate men with their presence. The latter love it, and get blinded but when age creeps on and younger more hot chicks come up underneath them and they no longer get all the attention, they become very bitter. lol

From another perspective, white racists CONSTANTLY refer back to their feminist 'achievements' as a marker of their superiority over savage, jungly, darked skinned men - it's a central strategy of their cultural othering.  What we've got with Satkiran is someone whose imbibed that (she can't help it, she's been brought up with it from birth and can't see out of it), and is projecting that onto us with all her talk of female oppression by our lot.  In the meanwhile she is oblivious to white man and their kartootaan or continually plays it down. She is deeply brainwashed and now that she is Sikh she should be shown perspectives outside of her conditioning. 

That's why we have to be careful of certain converts, they could be trying to infiltrate us to push their own bullshit agenda, and you know our lot are so thick, they wouldn't even see it coming before it was too late (not to say Satkiran is specifically doing this). 

 

I tell you the majority of whites have deeply rooted, racialised  superiority complexes due to their upbringing and social conditioning and they are completely oblivious to it. They are in complete denial about their priviledge and the way western society is designed specifically to their advantage over others. We have to watch out for this, instead of going all ladida because someone converts. In the past our ancestors were especially careful not to be infiltrated by muslims pretending to convert but having insidious agendas. We should learn from that instead of lullooing around like love starved puppies. 

 

Be on top of your social politics people!!

 

Harsh political and social realities. 

[kdsingh80]

How would you know sitting in India? 

 

 

Just Like sikhs around the world  know that Beadbi at kotkapura was done by Sacha sauda or RSS.lol

On a serious note just read some white supermacist blogs forums etc Most of them hate present structure of their nations.They hate Feminism because they think Feminism killed their birth rate. Check white woman TFR it is around 1.4-5 something , many of them call it race suicide 

I tell you the majority of whites have deeply rooted, racialised  superiority complexes due to their upbringing and social conditioning and they are completely oblivious to it. They are in complete denial about their priviledge and the way western society is designed specifically to their advantage over others.

I don't know much about this but even if they then why so much surprise. Every nation in world is blindly trying to ape them.They are benchmark of progressive liberal society People in many nations have shunned their clothes , Hairstyles to copy them. Their language is adopted as world language.In countries like India I have seen Security guards with master degree in sanskrit. while 1 girl batch mate of my brother who failed even computer degree   in first attempt got job in MNC company because of her looks and english speaking ability.In iNdia many very good students who are not good in english lag so much behind while English speaking fools who act like westerners gain so much. 

[JustAnotherSingh]

I'm a male, and I've personally witnessed quite a lot of misogyny practiced by many Sikhs (mostly Jatts, sorry to be frank, I'm one myself and while I love my rural roots it has some social ills). I think it's one of the stains that prevents our Sikh community from fully realizing its potential as espoused by Sikh ideals, just like casteism. However, I agree that we need to analyze what is necessary for our community ourselves and not appropriate other causes.

Satkirin, here's a pretty simple example that shifted my mindset from solely Western feminist constructs. I once saw an interview where Dharmindar (actor) was like "the status of Punjab today is awful, women are starting to drink alcohol." I told my dad that this was a rather stupid remark to make considering how much Punjabi men drink like fish in the community. My father told me that I needed to understand more immediate context; while men do drink, women are often the social force in the village that pushes men to stop drinking. "Tere Gate Ch Jatti" is a good song that illustrates this concept, as does the historical example of how Bhindranwale's original followers were predominantly women who cheered on this sant who was able to make their husbands recede from alcoholism. So while in the West, some perceive that it's "only fair," that women get to drink profusely as men do, in Punjabi context and in-line with Sikh ideals, it actually makes sense to promote women's shunning of alcohol to the extent that men too can be relieved of its negative effects.

[Guest]

I'm a male, and I've personally witnessed quite a lot of misogyny practiced by many Sikhs (mostly Jatts, sorry to be frank, I'm one myself and while I love my rural roots it has some social ills). I think it's one of the stains that prevents our Sikh community from fully realizing its potential as espoused by Sikh ideals, just like casteism. However, I agree that we need to analyze what is necessary for our community ourselves and not appropriate other causes.

Satkirin, here's a pretty simple example that shifted my mindset from solely Western feminist constructs. I once saw an interview where Dharmindar (actor) was like "the status of Punjab today is awful, women are starting to drink alcohol." I told my dad that this was a rather stupid remark to make considering how much Punjabi men drink like fish in the community. My father told me that I needed to understand more immediate context; while men do drink, women are often the social force in the village that pushes men to stop drinking. "Tere Gate Ch Jatti" is a good song that illustrates this concept, as does the historical example of how Bhindranwale's original followers were predominantly women who cheered on this sant who was able to make their husbands recede from alcoholism. So while in the West, some perceive that it's "only fair," that women get to drink profusely as men do, in Punjabi context and in-line with Sikh ideals, it actually makes sense to promote women's shunning of alcohol to the extent that men too can be relieved of its negative effects.

It make more sense to actively promote NOBODY drinking, as alcohol is against Sikh ideals anyway! Perpetuating the idea that it's ok for men to drink and not ok for women to drink, when in reality its not ok for ANYONE to drink, just promotes the idea that somehow its ok for men to 'break the rules' without consequences. 
See, I am western, and I do NOT support ANYONE drinking alhocol, or partying... so much for that 'nasty' western feminism thing I have been accused of.  Nor do I hate men.  Nor do I want to push men into a subordinate role. 

What I want to see in Sikhi is actually VERY VERY simple and is what Gurbani is telling us to do:

1. Bibis should not be stopped from any seva or religious position - Gurbani says straight out that ALL are equal and ALL Gurmukhs are to see eveveryone with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained (God is in ALL equally). 
2. Singhs need to stop promoting this nonsense that women are impure, dirty, less spiritual inclined etc. due to Sootak - Guru Nanak Dev Ji directly condemned the idea of sootak when he said as a woman has her periods each month so does falsehood dwell in the mouths of the false. Pure are NOT those who merely wash their bodies. Pure are those ONLY in whose mind the Lord abides.  Meaning, purity is within our mind and actions, not natural biological functions created by Waheguru.
3. Stop perpetuating nonsense like wives are inferior to their husbands and must look at them as God over them and obey them. -  The instruction to see all equally, is to EVERY Gurmukh. A Gurmukh husband must also see the divine in his wife on equal level to himself.  Husband is not in authority over or in control of his wife. They are two halves of one whole. Pati Parmeshwar is not a Sikh concept. It's a Brahaministic concept brought into Sikhi to degrade women.  Husband and wife are equal, despite their obvious biological differences related to procreation. The consciousness / soul within the bodies are the same and deserve the same treatment.

This to me is not the 'nasty' western feminism that you guys have been speaking about LOL. The above 3 points are simply HUMANIST.  Giving all humans equal opportunity and dignity despite their physical differences. 

[SAadmin]

It make more sense to actively promote NOBODY drinking, as alcohol is against Sikh ideals anyway! Perpetuating the idea that it's ok for men to drink and not ok for women to drink, when in reality its not ok for ANYONE to drink, just promotes the idea that somehow its ok for men to 'break the rules' without consequences. See, I am western, and I do NOT support ANYONE drinking alhocol, or partying... so much for that 'nasty' western feminism thing I have been accused of.  Nor do I hate men.  Nor do I want to push men into a subordinate role. 

What I want to see in Sikhi is actually VERY VERY simple and is what Gurbani is telling us to do:

1. Bibis should not be stopped from any seva or religious position - Gurbani says straight out that ALL are equal and ALL Gurmukhs are to see eveveryone with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained (God is in ALL equally). 
2. Singhs need to stop promoting this nonsense that women are impure, dirty, less spiritual inclined etc. due to Sootak - Guru Nanak Dev Ji directly condemned the idea of sootak when he said as a woman has her periods each month so does falsehood dwell in the mouths of the false. Pure are NOT those who merely wash their bodies. Pure are those ONLY in whose mind the Lord abides.  Meaning, purity is within our mind and actions, not natural biological functions created by Waheguru.
3. Stop perpetuating nonsense like wives are inferior to their husbands and must look at them as God over them and obey them. -  The instruction to see all equally, is to EVERY Gurmukh. A Gurmukh husband must also see the divine in his wife on equal level to himself.  Husband is not in authority over or in control of his wife. They are two halves of one whole. Pati Parmeshwar is not a Sikh concept. It's a Brahaministic concept brought into Sikhi to degrade women.  Husband and wife are equal, despite their obvious biological differences related to procreation. The consciousness / soul within the bodies are the same and deserve the same treatment.

This to me is not the 'nasty' western feminism that you guys have been speaking about LOL. The above 3 points are simply HUMANIST.  Giving all humans equal opportunity and dignity despite their physical differences. 

Satkiran penji you forgot to put at the end its from satkiran.

[Guest]

Satkiran penji you forgot to put at the end its from satkiran.

SorryI am at work... I hit the submit button to quick and it wouldnt let me edit it.

sk work

[Guest]

Satkiran penji you forgot to put at the end its from satkiran.

Why does anyone have to promote anti drinking propaganda, when the Guru has already spoken on this matter?

You surprise me!  Who has been telling you that it's okay for men to drink but not okay for women to do the same? Which century are you from and what kind of sikhs are you interacting with?  Are you sure that you are actually interacting with genuine sikhs?  If you are, this kind of propaganda should not exist. You claim to be a sikh and also a 'westerner' but you simply refuse to accept the fact that it is the Sikh Gurus that are the pioneers of equal rights for women and men.  The Sikh Gurus taught equality for both sexes and a genuine sikh lives by these teachings!  I don't wish for anyone to say that they 'want to see in sikhi' something ever.  By saying this one  is implying that one is not happy with sikhi the way it is taught by the Gurus. We have no choice, we are not in any position to change sikhi as taught by the Gurus.  No one has the right to change anything about the teachings of the Gurus. If you are not happy with what you see in sikhi no one is forcing you to follow it and call yourself a sikh!!!  The Gurus taught us equality on every level ie gender, color or caste.  Who are we not to follow it and make bogus declarations as to what we would like to 'see in sikhi?

It is not sikhi that prevents 'bibies' from doing seva.  It is the men who claim falsely to be sikhs that are doing it and are fully supported by the women who relate with them. This has got nothing to do with sikhi. It is manmat of the ignorant masses that falsely associate themselves with this wonderful religion. It is the culture they follow which belongs to the Stone Age!  They are the duffers of the 21 century.

The Gurus have never called women impure because of their menstrual cycle or their ability to menstruate..  It is through this cylce and ability that a woman's body is able to give birth or experience pregnancy.  We are all born after the ovum has been fertilized.  When the ovum fails to fertilize, the levels of estrogen and progestrone decrease causing woman's body to shed the lining of the uterus wall.  So it is not rocket science to understand this simple female reproductive function. The two  hormones  thicken the lining of the womb to receive fertilized ovum thus preparing it for pregnancy.  Menstruation occurs when there is no pregnancy!  What is so impure about this?  Nothing!!  So, why would sikhi look down on women when it knows very well that procreation is impossible without female ovulation/menstrual cycle?  It doesn't.

I have grown up in a sikh household and I have never heard this BS from anyone that wives are 'inferior to their husbands and therefore should look upon them as God and obey them!'  THIS IS UTTER BS.  My father has great respect for my mother.  All my uncles treat my aunties with decorum.  I am the youngest of the six children and have three older brothers.  They have never been disrespectful to me or my other female siblings ever!  They argue all the time , no doubt, but never have they ever put any of my sisters or myself down.  If they ever did, I am sure,  my parents will never ever stand for it, full stop. They have always taught us to love and respect each other.  So. I have no clue where or which century you originate from, no idea! My mother is my father's soulmate and vice versa.  They are both amritdharies and they are so in tune with each other that is amazing! They can almost read each others' minds!  My spiritual training did not start somewhere in a gurdwara, it started right here at home with my mum and dad as my mentors!  It is so shocking to read what you have to say about the sikh people or sikhi.  All I can say is that you are not interacting with the genuine sikhs.  My father is my hero. He has worked hard and looked after us so well unconditionally.  I wish I could write about my father here but I can't, it will take me a long time to finish what I have to say.  My mother is my heroine.  She is the only woman I know that has no double. No one can match her. She is unique and I have learned everything from her, I wish I could write about her too, but I can't.  I have never seen my parents arguing about 'equality' or 'inferiority' ever.

 

 

[SAadmin]

I am confused as to how previous post guest quoted me and what that has to do with my post.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I think maybe they meant to quote me...

Guest Ji - agree 100% with you. And the Sikhs I associate with in real life in person also would agree.   But I think you will find on this forum majority will disagree and will uphold those issues I mentioned. So when I said I want to see these things in Sikhi what I mean is I know these principles are basic in Sikhi... Equality etc are basic tenets of Sikhi.......but not all Sikhs are upholding them - and you will find on here especially, many who fall into that category and will use tons of excuses to try to justify their stance on those above 3 issues I mentioned - and a favourite word they use in their argument against gender equality is 'nasty western feminism' lol ...... Ironic when Guru Nanak Dev Ji advocated for equality of gender (along with caste etc) making him a feminist lol

Edited October 31, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[jaikaara]

I think maybe they meant to quote me...

Guest Ji - agree 100% with you. And the Sikhs I associate with in real life in person also would agree.   But I think you will find on this forum majority will disagree and will uphold those issues I mentioned. So when I said I want to see these things in Sikhi what I mean is I know these principles are basic in Sikhi... Equality etc are basic tenets of Sikhi.......but not all Sikhs are upholding them - and you will find on here especially, many who fall into that category and will use tons of excuses to try to justify their stance on those above 3 issues I mentioned - and a favourite word they use in their argument against gender equality is 'nasty western feminism' lol ...... Ironic when Guru Nanak Dev Ji advocated for equality of gender (along with caste etc) making him a feminist lol

Generation to Generation things change and the change you are looking at has started on a small scale in the types like 3ho. I am neutral to this since i feel i cant stop anyone from thinking in this way and i dont think its a bad idea too.

Do you know what people here are not agreeing to ? its the way you are pushing ideas. Everyone has a different way to look at the Gurus and their message, for you the equality part matters for someone else the spiritual . My wife looks at Guru Nanak with respect since He made it clear that one has to be a family man and not run away from their duties. For me like many others it is the message to worship the One Oankaar and not criticizing others entities .

We all know you are feminist and nothing wrong with that but lets discuss things the way they have to be and not add feminist or other angles . Let discussions sail smooth, disagreements are fine.

I have my disagreement but lets appreciate the fact that the crowd here is mature. Settle down, none of us here are wife beaters or some orthodox desperadoes with women in the veil at home. 

Peace ...Peace ...Peace ...Waheguru Bless you and help you and everyone to be a better human being.

[Ragmaala]

 satnam 

waheguru

[Guest]

I am confused as to how previous post guest quoted me and what that has to do with my post.

Sorry about this.  I meant to quote Satkiran Kaur penji, accidentally I quoted you instead.  Fortunately she has taken the time to respond to my post which I think clarifies the situation further.  She is good.

[Singh123456777]

[CdnSikhGirl]

can someone pls translate lol

Although I don't advocate either side of this cartoon... Nobody should be bowing to another human - or stepping on their backs lol wouldn't it be much better if they stood side by side holding each others hands...or in a loving embrace... as equals??  

[Guest]

can someone pls translate lol

Although I don't advocate either side of this cartoon... Nobody should be bowing to another human - or stepping on their backs lol wouldn't it be much better if they stood side by side holding each others hands...or in a loving embrace... as equals??  

 

That is the difference between the 'oriental brain' and the 'occidental brain' in the twenty first century!  One doesn't need to follow the western version of feminism to make a statement like this one, one just needs to read a good classic literature book written by a westerner to know right from wrong!! Well done!

[chatanga1]

 

 Nobody should be bowing to another human -

There is nothing wrong or anti-Gurmat in bowing to someone out of respect.

I bow to my parents and did to my grandmother also. When we are introduced to elders from our family/village I also touch their knees or feet with both hands. I bowed to my Dilruba and touched his feet even though he is a Namdhari Singh, hope she has nothing against Namdharis). I also used to bow to my Vidya Guru and touch his feet with folded hands as well.

It is our ancient sanskrit to bow out of respect.

Can someone pass the message on?

 

[truthseeker546]

Humm ... and I thought men and women were "equal" in Sikhism.

[paapiman]

Humm ... and I thought men and women were "equal" in Sikhism.

Bro, all living (men, women, transgenders, plants, animals, insects, etc) and non-living matter are the same, as they all have Almighty God's light in them.

The question is: Do we have the eyes or the spiritual level to see it? If not, then physical differences will have to taken into account, during interactions.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Guest]

Bro, all living (men, women, transgenders, plants, animals, insects, etc) and non-living matter are the same, as they all have Almighty God's light in them.

The question is: Do we have the eyes or the spiritual level to see it? If not, then physical differences will have to taken into account, during interactions.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Whether or not we can personally see it, shouldn't we at least acknowledge it by treating everyone equally? Whether we like to or not, whether we can see the Almighty light in everyone, are we not supposed to still treat them with equal respect regardless?  I have read your posts where you say that wives are supposed to bow to their husband and see their husband as God, and you said that there is no instruction for husband to do the same right?  Veer ji can I please show that is wrong thinking without you becoming defensive?  Here is why your thinking is flawed. 

There is a passage in Gurbani which says that all Gurmukhs are to see all humans with equality because as you pointed out above, the light of divine creator is in all equally. You stated in previous posts that the instruction was only for a Brahamgyani as only a Brahamgyani is capable of seeing the divine in all. Here is why your thinking is flawed.  If only Brahamgyanis are capable of seeing the divine in everyone, then your argument about women being instructed to see their husband as God is flawed because as you said, only a Brahamgyani is capable of doing so.  So either you are saying that women are all Brahamgyanis or posses at least this quality of a Brahamgyani, which would make them actually higher than us spiritually. Yet you have stated that it is somehow meaning that husbands should have more respect from their wives than the wives deserve from the husband? If my wife can truly see the divine in me, but I am incapable of seeing it in her, then she has much higher avastha than I! So how can you say that it somehow means she is lesser than me? 

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a wife seeing God in her husband.  If she does, then she is also following the instruction to see God in all.  She should also be seeing God in everyone else she encounters, not just her husband.  The husband is not free of this instruction.  A true Gurmukh husband would also see his wife as God, and also all others as well. But if it is as you said, only a Brahamgyani is capable of this, then why do you think women are capable of doing so and not men?  And if women are capable of it, but not us as men, then how could that ever mean women are lower status than us or a downgrade (you have used both to describe women).  

Your thoughts on this are very puzzling.  On the one hand you demand respect from women, as if you are higher status than them. You claim that they are instructed to see their husband as God.  But then to make the statement that only Brahamgyanis are capable of seeing God in others, means you believe either our Gurus asked something impossible of wives, or you have to acknowledge that women are higher avastha than men (if indeed men are incapable of this unless of course they are a Brahamgyani as you said).  Meaning women are not lower status than us, more like the other way around!  

So Paapiman veerji, why do you believe women are lower status than us? Certainly if they can see God in us, while we are stuck comparing them to cockroaches and other vermin (which you have done numerous times on here), then that actually makes them higher status than us and more deserving of our respect don't you think? 

In reality, that instruction to see God in all is not for only Brahamgyanis. It's for all of us, whether we are capable or not. It's telling us to treat everyone equally whether or not we can see it.  It's only by doing this, that we might start to actually see it as well.  I might not be able to see God in a Muslim fundamentalist who would sooner kill me an an infidel than see the same in me.  However, it's my duty as a Gurmukh to look for that understanding. At some point, this Muslim fundamentalist was a little boy, who was innocent like all humans.  Somewhere along the line, he was exposed to wrong ideology, and led astray. Living in that Ego (individual) perspective, he became entrapped within that ideology.  But somewhere deep inside, still exists that innocent child.  They still have a family, they still breathe and have a heart beat, and have likes and can experience pain and sadness.  They have just become so filled with hate and anger that they can not see past it.  They are no different than us, fighting with the five thieves.  So if caught and imprisoned, should we strive to bring back that innocent child, or mock and torture them? 

Just something to think about.  Sikhi does teach equality and even if you can't on a personal level see that your sister is equal to you, regardless of physical strength or other attributes.  The soul within you are the same.  Everyone have obstacles, some are taller, some shorter, some are smarter, some are artists, some scientists, some leaders some followers. Such is the way of individuality. But these differences should not be markers of status, or who is better.  And physical things like gender do not equal status with regards to respect or who should bow to who.  When you meet people, see the innocent child in everyone, before the Ego surfaced.  See their soul, and not the outer shell.  See that part of them which is permanent and not the impermanent.  

Gurbani says we must.  Therefore we can not stop women from seva for being women.  We can not say wives have to bow to their husbands and obey them as being higher status, and we can not say that simple biological functions created by Waheguru are impure and should keep people away from seva because that is just pushing them away from Waheguru.  Do you think Waheguru intended for women to be pushed away from him because of something he created? (And I say he only because we are used to that reference, but we know Waheguru has no gender).  

Veerji please remove this hatred you have of women.  Some of the most spiritual and dedicated Sikhs I know are female. 
 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Bro, all living (men, women, transgenders, plants, animals, insects, etc) and non-living matter are the same, as they all have Almighty God's light in them.

The question is: Do we have the eyes or the spiritual level to see it? If not, then physical differences will have to taken into account, during interactions.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

That's a matter of opinion! We can choose to treat everyone equally even if we cant see it! 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Generation to Generation things change and the change you are looking at has started on a small scale in the types like 3ho. I am neutral to this since i feel i cant stop anyone from thinking in this way and i dont think its a bad idea too.

Do you know what people here are not agreeing to ? its the way you are pushing ideas. Everyone has a different way to look at the Gurus and their message, for you the equality part matters for someone else the spiritual . My wife looks at Guru Nanak with respect since He made it clear that one has to be a family man and not run away from their duties. For me like many others it is the message to worship the One Oankaar and not criticizing others entities .

We all know you are feminist and nothing wrong with that but lets discuss things the way they have to be and not add feminist or other angles . Let discussions sail smooth, disagreements are fine.

I have my disagreement but lets appreciate the fact that the crowd here is mature. Settle down, none of us here are wife beaters or some orthodox desperadoes with women in the veil at home. 

Peace ...Peace ...Peace ...Waheguru Bless you and help you and everyone to be a better human being.

Actually I self-identify as a humanist. Not feminist.  I don't like seeing men put in disadvantage either.  Some of the situations mentioned on here where women take men to the cleaners in court etc.  I am against that too.  I think children need both parents, so I am more for equal / joint custody and equal bill paying when it comes to the kids - IF divorce is even necessary.  I am more for sticking together if at all possible.  You made a commitment, in front of God.  So try to work it out, instead of thinking grass is greener on the other side and leaving.  Most cases things can be worked through its just nobody wants to compromise.  Yes the 'old fashioned' or traditionalists just think the women should obey and do what the man wants.  Meaning he will not compromise. But unless he does (and her too) then yes it can lead to them parting ways.  He has to understand that marriage counselling etc won't just miraculously get her to obey his every whim. She is an individual too.  They have to learn to BOTH compromise.  But often times, neither one will budge and they split. It can't be all HIS way, and it can't be all her way either.  This is why I am for equality... they have to both compromise and sometimes its his way and sometimes hers. This is not feminism. This is humanism.  

But the way you guys paint it is that any model where the man doesn't have last say or authority = feminism.  Not only feminism but 'nasty western feminism' so you aren't happy unless the male has at least some form of dominant role over the female.  All else is seen as nasty western feminism lol.  But I don't see it that way... I see compromise, and mutual respect as humanism.  

 

Edited October 31, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[jaikaara]

I now understand Satkirin, however the conversations before positioned you as a feminist . I am glad to hear you are talking of balance . Going further this too will come . What have been typically male bastions have gradually changed and i am sure these institutions too will change. For that the society needs a big change too since women are reluctant too, so lets keep it neutral like this with everyone .

 

Guys i hope you hear her out ..lets not villainize her

[Guest]

Jikara, you are starting to see I am not against men. Not in the least. I have had several male friends lose on custody battles etc. And I feel really bad for them, and think it shouldn't happen. 

I am for fairness on both sides.  When it comes to marriage, I am more for people not splitting in the first place. Marriage is a commitment made to Waheguru for life. In understand things happen, extreme cases, but in those cases I support joint custody over one parent getting full custody.  I am not even against women doing all the menial housework etc... IF that's what they choose. I am only against forcing someone into that role. Because for some couples, they find sharing housework and cooking actually brings them closer, and majority of families, both must work to make ends meat anyway.  It's no longer a primitive agricultural society anymore where the men worked the fields while women cooked and did laundry etc all day. The world has evolved, and so have those roles. My good friends have I think found the perfect balance.  They both work 4 day on 4 day off cycles offset by 2 days.  So She goes to work for two days, while he stays home with the baby. Then they both are at work for two days when they drop the baby to the aunties.  Then next two days she is home with the baby while he's at work. And finally they have 2 days where they are both completely off and can spend together (that's their 'weeked' but obviously falls sometimes during the week).  But this way both parents have 2 days with the baby by themselves to bond.  They have 2 days together off work to spend as a family.  And there's two days where the baby spends with an older aunt who is retired, along with a cousin, giving the baby time to spend with other family. It's the perfect set up as they both get to pursue their careers.  Obviously this can't work for everyone.  But they should not be put down for it.  He should not be seen as 'emasculated' because he spends two days with his daughter by himself being a Dad.  And other schedules CAN be worked in a similar manner.

But when it comes to seva, or performing religious duties etc. this is wehre I get very frustrated when Singhs tell us, no you cant do this because you are a female.  Then all the excuses at how women and men are 'different' as if these differences matter when doing seva.  And speaking with a disgusted tone, when saying women have periods therefore they are impure and can't do seva of SGGSJ (when all I see is a life giving biological function given BY Waheguru, not to make women impure or keep women away from seva, but to create life), or saying that women are lower status than their husbands, and must 'obey' them and be submissive or subjugated to them, or even bow to them. Or call women a downgrade to a male body, or say that devi/devtay wanting a human body they only want a male body not a female one etc.  It really makes it sound like women are looked down upon, put in a lower position etc.  And it hurts... it actually makes us feel like Waheguru hates us or is punishing us for some reason to be born in this body.  But then, Gurbani says this HUMAN life is rare so don't waste it.  It says nothing about women being punished or inferior.  It's Singhs who are perpetuating this... not all Singhs... but as I mentioned above, it seems as if most men are scared... theya re scared of ANY social model where the male does not have at least some sort of upper hand, or dominant role over women.  It seems as if ANY model where men don't at least have some control or higher position over women is always labeled as 'western feminism'.  Why is it that men can't be truly happy unless they are in a position of pwer over women?? I think this is the true question to ask.  And will it really be THAT bad if women are in leadership positions, lead roles in Religion etc? Will it REALLY be that bad if men are not the ones always making all of the decisions?

That cartoon above... I disagree with both sides... I'd rather see them side by side in a loving embrace as equals, both helping each other, both respecting each other and both LOVING each other.  Not as a heirarchy with one over the other.  Maybe I am thinking of the impossible...

SK Work