marriage and sex

[Sukhi]

Uh, man if shes anything like you then damn .. i dont think i have any choice on the matter ..

Hmm. Ok, i agree that they fought to end the abuse of women. Like that sati stuff and they spoke ill of killing female babies (i think) and that women were unholy (in the brahminical system). And i think they were pretty cool when it came to seeing ppl as being the same - didnt guru gobind singh say, "Recognise the whole human race as one?" .. so i believe you.

BUT. I dont think they had a problem, with the idea of men being powerful. Correct me if im wrong, but that doesnt come up as a social issue. Women are made to seem valuable, ney, invaluable .. and great (i agree!) and things. Ofcourse this could be a consequence of sikh history written 'his' way. however i just dont see it as equality by saying equality.

whether or not u put it aside for my desires, thats a different topic!

no women arent weak and they arent powerless. they are strong and powerful in their own way. and i believe you about a woman being more powerful in a marriage.. but i think thats just a humouring thing, u let ur wife think shes running things.. oh i dont know. i just dont want a wife who thinks she can walk all over me - i suppose thats what we all want, male or female. its just easier for me to say i'll have power and leave it that way, status-quo if you like.

ha! ha! ha! you're makin me laugh (out of pure hysterics if nothing else). whether the Gurus thought men had "power" or not is inconsequential to this debate. your own quote by Guru Gobind Singh Ji should inform you that the Gurus did have a take on equality for all. if you believe that he said that all the human race is one, then i believe that includes women and children etc. therefore, unless you believe that women are not human, then you had better believe that the Gurus saw them as equals to men.

"power" is not what you think it is. and i think it suffices to say that the Gurus knew the true source of it. and it most definitely wasn't men. the power that you're talking about, that maninpulating, calculating, oppressive control, is not a virtue that the Gurus would have recognized as power. power is having knowledge and wisdom to know that the one you call "beloved" stands equal to you and will not be subject to double standards that you yourself would never endure.

that's just a humouring thing...? i'd like to see you take away that sense of "I, the great one, superior among all women, am merely humouring your amusing notions of control" to see what kind of consequences that would bring. i'd like to see you do all that your wife can and actually succeed at it. needless to say, i don't think you'd like it very much.

i don't understand exactly where your ideas of the social relations in marriage come from. this is the kind of thinking that leads relationships to sour and become totally devoid of any love or pleasure. the dynamics of power within a marriage are not limited to the husband having all the power and the wife being his virtual slave. nor does it mean that the wife controls everything and lets her husband think he's in power.

i'm not telling you that your wife is gonna walk all over you. nor am i encouraging you to do the same to your wife. but to assume that you're gonna be mr. macho man and do your own thing while you limit your wife is an insult to the institution of equality in marriage that our Gurus sparked many years ago.

[Narsingha]

Equality...strange notion...

...unless a man starts to menstruate and a woman starts to develop sperm, only then can they be considered "equal". (Discounting transgender individuals, androgens, and assuming that genetic manipulation has not been applied).

Each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses. The idea is to synergise and potentiate the other's good qualities to ensure the end result (whatever it may be) is of top quality. This notion of 'equality' seems very strange when men and women are inherently DIFFERENT. They may be 'equal' in a socio-economic sense (but even this is only relative to time, place and circumstance) - but lets not kid ourselves.

Every relationship by nature has/will have 'ups' and 'downs' - they are both important.

Trouble is that most people who seem to get into 'relationships' (casual or otherwise) are emotionally immature, lack life experience and shouldnt be allowed to vote let alone exercise their genitalia. As a consequence, we see kids having kids...

..all this breeds insecurity, emotional underdevelopment and in extreme cases this results in abuse (physical, mental, emotional, and sometimes even spiritual).

It seems an easy way to appear "cool" is for blokes to state that they think women are 'equal' and think that men and women have 'equal rights' in marriage. Its a great way to pull a girl, but its a load of tripe...

(Women ar far superior - its just that in the vast majority of societies today, the male is 'dominant' as we still have a long way to go before we completely shed our inate 'caveman' genes).

[Sukhi]

equality. what a strange notion. it doesn't take physical differences for an individual to have less sentience than another one. otherwise we'd be referring to homosexual people as being "lesser" than the average heterosexual male or female for having a different genetic makeup.

if the way we treat people was going to be a reflection of what happens on the physical level, then it's obvious that one sex would have to be considered superior and all anomalies would have to be lesser. whether it be that they are not perfect in terms of measurements or have physical deformities.

my point is merely that it's the recognition of one's intellect and ideas that leads to a sense of equality. it's not important whether one sex can carry heavier loads than the other or that one sex is capable of giving birth after fertilization and the other isn't.

equality isn't limited to physical aspects.

[Rakash Singh]

so how do you plan to overcome your problem then?

[Dynamic_Banda]

Which of the following is equal.. ?

4+4 = 2+6

8 = 8

both would be concidered as equal yet one is made up of different components on each side of the equals sign yet their overall value is the same. The other is made up of exactly the same components (number) on both sides this too is equal.

Man and women are like the first equation they are made up of different components and have different purposes and in some ways different values but their overall value is equal.. for example

lets say 4+4 is a woman..

and 2+6 is the man

If we look at the individual numbers which make up the man and woman then we see that the woman has a one component which has greater value then that of the mans 4 is greater then 2. (lol im doing maths i hate maths) so a specific characteristic of a woman would grant her more power then a man or higher value

however, if we look at the other component which makes up the woman the other 4 it is less then the 6 of the man meaning the man has more power then the woman with regards to that characteristic.. however if you take the overall value of both it is equal neither is the SAME in components but they are equal in value.

Man and women equal. It is from this theory that the great sanskrit shabad of the rigveda was created..

2 4 6 8 who do we appreciate..

[sexy_singh]

sukhi wrote

ha! ha! ha! you're makin me laugh (out of pure hysterics if nothing else). whether the Gurus thought men had "power" or not is inconsequential to this debate. your own quote by Guru Gobind Singh Ji should inform you that the Gurus did have a take on equality for all. if you believe that he said that all the human race is one, then i believe that includes women and children etc. therefore, unless you believe that women are not human, then you had better believe that the Gurus saw them as equals to men.

first of all, its crucially important for me to mention that im delighted in making you laugh. you also made me laugh with your other post because it was so confronting. Whether the gurus thought men had power is very consequential to the debate. if they had wished to communicate this wasnt the case, wouldnt they have?

furthermore, when i sat down and thought about this sex equality stuff i realised that something as obvious as power imbalance in the sexes could not have been missed by the gurus. so why did they choose NOT to do social commentary on it? If it wasnt a social issue then (im sure it was), wouldnt they have perceived it to be one in the future (very likely). As far as i've been made aware, they only commented on downright obvious breaches of human rights. Like female infanticide, killing widows, denying religious education and so on.

my white friend once asked me, so whats so special about your religion? A bumbling idiot like me gets all excited and starts pointing out with great enthusiasm "our gurus promoted equality - sex and race ...", he stops me, "oh yea? how many of your gurus were female?", i respond, "uh, none.". i was silent.

now im the first one to point out that the gurus didnt make every little decision in their life MEAN something - just to teach the masses a lesson. But lets think about this. We admire our gurus because at certain important times they did set examples. would it have been a "little" decision to have a female guru? Wouldnt that have been a HUGE HUGE HUGE thing for female rights - if that WAS their intention? 100% of the gurus were male. When it came to choosing life (and all that involves, dreams, hopes aspirations, almost everything human) over principle (defending the right to practice religion) didnt guru teg bahadur make that important decision and set us an example.

so im forced to conlude that wasnt their intention and if it was, then they failed to act on it. i cant accept my guru failing to act, however i can accept that they fail out of trying. now this leads to an interestion question.

Does sikhi evolve and should it?

If we accept this hypothesis then maybe we should continue in the direction and spirit of what our founders wished for. Maybe it would be a good thing to have equality - i dont know .. it sounds good on paper. however to say they definitely asked of sikhs to have equality between sexes still needs to be shown.

go ahead if u think u can. but i suggest you'll find yourself putting your own ideals in there and hoping, or confusing them to be that of the founders. Show me where they unequivocally state the equality of men and women and i'll believe you. however, in my cultuer, this sort of thing isnt obvious and it isnt present. I do agree to giving women a voice and other things .. i respect women and hold them in great esteem and will continue to do so.

however i simpify cant accept the failure of my gurus to be obvious and unambigious in stating this equality - because while everyone knows you are a bad sikh if you drink, who knows if you are bad singh if you have power over your wife?

"power" is not what you think it is. and i think it suffices to say that the Gurus knew the true source of it. and it most definitely wasn't men. the power that you're talking about, that maninpulating, calculating, oppressive control, is not a virtue that the Gurus would have recognized as power. power is having knowledge and wisdom to know that the one you call "beloved" stands equal to you and will not be subject to double standards that you yourself would never endure.

i agree with this and its a good thought.

i'm not telling you that your wife is gonna walk all over you. nor am i encouraging you to do the same to your wife. but to assume that you're gonna be mr. macho man and do your own thing while you limit your wife is an insult to the institution of equality in marriage that our Gurus sparked many years ago.

so make this case for me and the thousands who think the way i do. or simply accept your gurus didnt care enough about your female empowerment enough to preach, even act on it. That doesnt mean sikhi is any less, it just means it lacks that teaching. maybe someone should fork sikhi and make a new politically-correct-sex-equality-version of sikhi .. and that'd be something you'd liek to follow.

ps. my previous ideal of a partner was someone much liek you, an outspoken strong kaur with such a mindset .. however i've much given up on her as shes almost impossible to find.

[Dynamic_Banda]

lol according to ur ps note.. u found her.. NEXT SA Marriage sexy and sukhi

[Sukhi]

DB, if you're not careful, you're gonna become the next SA shaheed for those comments. how blasphemous of you to think i'd ever consider getting married to someone who can't think of his wife as his equal. (note to sexy_singh: maybe you've been having issues finding her cuz you have no idea of how to truly treat a woman as your own equal.)

sexy_singh, you're entire argument revolves around the fact that none of the Gurus were women. i have no answer to the question of "why" the Gurus were not women, and i doubt whether any answer i can give will truly explain the will of the Gurus and God.

as you said, the Gurus had to make decisions that would mean something. they had to lead by example.

what you fail to see is that the Gurus did JUST THAT and DID promote equality among the sexes by TREATING THEIR OWN WIVES AS THEIR EQUALS.

now maybe you should learn from the Gurus by following their example. which Guru had an extra-marital affair? none.

which Guru promoted men to cheat on their wives? none.

which Guru encouraged men to have a mistress on the side to please their erotic natures and a good wife who'd take care of their kids? none.

now you tell me. if the Gurus themselves saw their own wives as their equals, who are you to say otherwise?

[Beast]

Yep, I can't see Guru Hargobind treating any of his wives as inferior to himself.

[sexy_singh]

ok sukhi, leave aside the cheating stuff and please address the rest of my post about the lack of emphasis on female empowerment by the sikh gurus. thankyou.

for example i look at any panj pyare i've seen and never have i seen a female in the assembly. its just tradition, yeh ok. but if thats the case how come no sikh ever changed it?

[Dynamic_Banda]

lol wives.. if i had 6 wives i'd treat them equally too..

Dhan dhan sikhi..

dhan dhan equality..

[Beast]

ok sukhi, leave aside the cheating stuff and please address the rest of my post about the lack of emphasis on female empowerment by the sikh gurus. thankyou.

for example i look at any panj pyare i've seen and never have i seen a female in the assembly. its just tradition, yeh ok. but if thats the case how come no sikh ever changed it?

but then this slips into another argument...namely the purpose of the Khalsa (read the keski debates and the arguments abt different types of Amrit).

Also, didn't one of the Gurus use mainly women to look after Dharamsalas? Isn't that a classic case of empowerment?

Also, I don't hink you'd disagree with me if I said that all the Gurus 'thinking' was in line with Guru Nanak Dev's teachings (one jot in many bodies)...how then does this fit with Guru Nanak Dev Ji's famous shabd about women being equal to men?

[Sukhi]

sexysingh, if you take a look at sikh history, you'll see many examples of "female empowerment". i can't remember exact quotes or references, but i do know that the Gurus encouraged women to lead in the community. none of this info is as readily available as information on say the panj pyare. but if you look carefully enough, you'll find many examples of women leading in Sikhi.

you can start your search with these websites:

http://www.sikhs.org/women.htm

http://www.sikhs.org/women_h.htm

http://allaboutsikhs.com/articles/role_and...men_in_sikh.htm

http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/social/h...eninsikhism.htm

i personally think the last link is one of the better ones since the entire site is devoted to sikh women and you can browse around and find more info

[Beast]

change ur text colour back - it's too hard to read.

flippin women.

[Sukhi]

*smacks beast* stop swearing at your sisters, fool! i've given up on the new colours so i'm stickin to black from now on. thank you to whichever mod or hacker changed my font colour.

[Sukhi]

and here's some more info...

The Power of the Khalsa Woman

Men's stories are public. Women's stories are private. Men commit great feats in a burst of energy that are sung and talked about for hundreds of years. Women slowly and consistently nurture and build their children, their families, their communities, their visions. It is easy to point to a man's accomplishments. It is much more difficult to point to a woman's. Yet, the Gurus understood that men and women both participate equally in the play of Creation- that both are necessary.

In Sikh history, it is easy to identify the public, male stories that show the power of the Khalsa consciousness. Yet, with every male story there is a hidden side – the private world of the Khalsa woman.

The Chali Mukte: The 40 Liberated Ones. Forty of Guru Gobind Singh's men deserted him at Anandpur. They were afraid to die, afraid for their lives, desperate and starving. They were so concerned with their own survival, that they willing wrote and signed a letter denouncing their Guru. When they arrived home, rather than finding wives joyful for their return, happy that they were alive, what did they find? Wives who were appalled that they had deserted Guru Gobind Singh.

The male side of this story is that the men returned to fight for the Guru and died in the battle, liberating their souls in the process. But the hidden story is that the consciousness of their Khalsa wives is what inspired them to do it.

The Khalsa women consciously chose widowhood. They would have rather born the burden of seeing their husbands dead, of being left with the sorrow of being widowed, of raising their children alone, of having to find their economic security in the absence of a husband - they would have rather endured all this than to see their husbands walk away from their destinies and betray their Guru. These women knew - the duty and role of a Khalsa wife is to serve the soul of her husband and deliver him to his destiny and to God and Guru no matter what. Who liberated these men? Themselves? No - it was the grace, security, wisdom and blessing of their wives that allowed them to be liberated. It was the meditative discipline, the trust in the Divine, the attunement with God’s Will through the experience of their own Spirits that allowed these women to look their husbands in the eye and say - you are dead to us, no matter what. Go back and stand with your Guru or leave. Minus the spiritual understanding of the women, the 40 Liberated Ones would have never returned to their Guru and would have gone through lifetimes of karma to repay the mistake. These Khalsa women understood non-attachment, security in the Divine, living in the Will of God, loyalty to the Guru so well that they could fearlessly send their husbands to their death, knowing that it was better for their husbands to die in service of the Guru than to live any other way. And the pain of loosing their husbands was less to them than the pain of seeing their husbands loose their path to God. Publicly- the valor of the men prevailed. Privately- the wisdom of the women prevailed. And it was this joint consciousness, valor and wisdom, male and female, that displayed the true power of the Khalsa.

Mata Gujri ji: Wife of Guru Teg Bahadur, mother of Guru Gobind Singh. Guru Gobind Rai assumed the Guruship at the age of 9. During those early years of his life, his father, Guru Teg Bahadur, traveled and taught. The responsibility for training Gobind Rai was left in the hands of his mother, Mata Gujri Ji. What kind of woman must she have been to be chosen by God to teach and guide Gobind Rai so that he would be capable of assuming the Guruship? He was a human boy, but he had the most divine mother who instructed him in the ways of wisdom so thoroughly that he was ready to take on the responsibility for his destiny when he was nine years old. God works through a woman's touch. Man is what woman creates him to be. Gobind Rai was what he was, but the destiny of his soul was entrusted to Mata Gujri Ji's care it was the touch of his mother through which God could awaken him.

And didn't the Gurus teach us - those who are truly married are one soul in two bodies? If this is Divine Truth, can we possibly say that Mata Gujri Ji and Guru Teg Bahadur were one soul in two bodies? One mission with two faces - the public and the private, the male and the female, the conscious and the subconscious, the power and the wisdom? If marriage creates us as one soul in two bodies - then what is the difference between Guru Teg Bahadur and Mata Gujri Ji except that they had two different jobs to do, two different times and spaces, yet sharing one light between them?

She was the woman who created the man who created the Khalsa. And so powerful was her touch that Gobind Rai was ready to lead when he was a nine year old boy.

The Panj Piare: The names of the Panj Piare are inscribed in the heart of every Khalsa. Bhai Daya Singh, Bhai Dharam Singh, Bhai Mohkam Singh, Bhai Himmat Singh, and Bhai Sahib Singh. Their act of total surrender and devotion, of being willing to give their heads to the Guru, is celebrated every year at Baisakhi. It was through their selfless courage, absolute love, and total fearlessness that the Khalsa came to life. But do we know the names of their mothers and what their mothers did to raise them with such a consciousness? Everyone has the Light of the Divine within them. That is never the question. But to live that Light unto death - that is a matter of training and the mother is the first training ground of the soul. What values did their mothers instill in them? What discipline? What stories? How did their mothers teach them? What did they teach them? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a parenting book for Sikhs based on how these mothers raised these boys? The boys who became the Panj Piare and initiated the order of the Khalsa? Truly, they must have had Khalsa women as mothers, even though the Khalsa had not yet come to life.

So now we have this debate about women doing seva in the Golden Temple, and I think about the anguish of the Panth: where has our glory gone? Where are the great, selfless acts of valor and courage that show us the Khalsa spirit still lives? Perhaps the simple truth is the public acts of Khalsa men are missing because the importance of the private strength of the Khalsa woman has been forgotten. The stories of the Khalsa women are lost because they are quiet and patient stories, stories of endurance and duty, stories, ultimately, that are difficult to tell, difficult to point to - until a man created by the touch of a Khalsa woman delivers his Spirit in the face of death.

Those who deny women seva in the Guru's Court and the blessing of leading the sangat in devotional kirtan are creating an unfortunate future, not just for themselves, but for the entire Panth. Those who would keep women in spiritual darkness are the true enemies of the Panth, trying to preserve the reigns of power for their own egos. It was never Guru's will for the daughters of the Khalsa to be enslaved by tradition. Who has the right to tell a Khalsa woman what she can and cannot do for her Guru? Who can determine what spiritual acts will bring her to her full spiritual awakening? What person has the authority to deny her the blessing of seva, of the selfless service that will clear her karma, awaken her soul, and bring her to an understanding of her destiny?

When the day comes for the Khalsa nation to truly rise in its glory, greatness and spiritual sovereignty, it will be Khalsa women who lead the way. Women who have crowned themselves as Princesses of Guru Gobind Singh and live in the nobility, dignity and grace of the 10th Master. Women who, with their loving touch, transform their homes into the Ghrist Ashram where meditation and practice of the Guru's teachings are the center of family life. Where all who need solace, healing and comfort are welcomed with open arms, warm food and kindness. Women who can train their sons and daughters in meditation and Gurbani so that their children do not become confused by doubt and maya, but have such a clear, direct experience of the Divine that they can fearlessly live to the calling of their Spirit and Destiny, even unto death. For the Khalsa nation to come to life, those who have the destiny to give birth to it must realize their duty. And every Sikh has an obligation to do everything possible to give those Khalsa women a chance to wake up, own their power and change the world.

Wahe Guru Ji Ka Khalsa,

Wahe Guru Ji Ki Fateh.

In service, love and devotion,

Ek Ong Kaar Kaur Khalsa

Espanola, New Mexico

[sexy_singh]

OK. fair point. my careless phrasing lets me down again. Sure there are cases of female empowerment - you list some of the examples and history has noted a fair number of them. i agree they exist and its pleasing.

however, that is not what i meant by female empowerment. To me, the existence of such cases does not say the same thing as male=female power. all it says is that there were *some* women, in history who was qualified enough, through their own actions, or perhaps at the graciousness of someone powerful to justify their enpowerment.

it doesnt say that women in general are the same as men in a sikh society. the fact that we are citing individual notable examples shows that its an irregular thing in our society for a women to have the same status as a man. its not normal.

if the intention of the foundres was to create a society with men and women being completely equal then surely they'd have said so, at least. i think while the gurus were on a higher plane of thought and thus easily able to accomodate tolerance into their own world views .. it still remains to be shown that they explictly demanded male-female equality of the society they were creating.

i havent clicked on those links because quite frankly im not excited about the prospect of reading through sikh big upping ecstatic propanda right now. ive done enough of that already in my studies of sikhi. that stuff doesnt mean anything to me now. i am ONLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

how things REALLY are. not how we WISH they were, so that we can sit back and bask in our completely modern up to date superior religion. i think sikhi has gaps, and im not afraid to say so. That doesnt mean i dont think its a wicked religion, it truly is .. and i cant find another one to replace it with nor do i want to. but im aware of its limitaitons and it doesnt help the issue to confuse our own expectations with that of the faith. lets just be honest with ourselves.

male female equality isnt called for explicitly by sikhi. sure you can read into the teachings and look at the universality stuff .. about everyone being the same. thats all good. i like that stuff. i expect it from my guru, and i expect it from any other religious exponent whether jesus or mohhamad. but its one thing to say all men are equal - an agreeable sort of thing, and another to say but ESPECIALLY the other half - women; are equal to men.

u might think im trying to justify my world view .. that i dont like women having power and thats why i write what i write. maybe u might rightfully think that, but honestly .. ur wrong. i used to support female empowerment ... because it sounded like a good thing and i thought my gurus did too. but then i realised no, if they really did wish it, we'd have more to show for it than the male dominiated societies we've had for centuriies since them.

beast, good post. which famous writing re u referring to .. can u please share with us all.

[Mr_D]

Males and females are made different and act different, we all know this.

Bhagati, or devotion towards God, is very feminine. The Bani of Guru Granth sahib ji is feminine ( vast majority). Kirtan is feminine.

Strength is masculine. Power and control in masculine. Leadership is masculine. Dhadi vaars are masculine.

Sexy singh, my only cautionary words will be to not manipulate history, ideals, values, scripture to come to your conclusion (whatever it is). I’m not accusing you of doing this, but just cautioning you. Take the example of the Guru’s not being female, lets not take our assumptions to mean anything more than what they are, assumptions.

Given that the male is dominant, which I agree with, what privilege does that give?

I know someone already asked you this, but I’ll ask again, doesn’t your wife also have the right to screw other guys because she doesn’t get the wild love she may want? I think it’s a case of give and get. I can understand if you want to be in control, but does it mean you have the exclusive right to have sex outside of marriage?

I think these questions will hep you make up your mind, hopefully.

p.s why don’t you think your wife will enjoy passionate round the clock sex?

[Dynamic_Banda]

u cant have woman without man.. else you would only have.. WO

Problem solved.. !!!

WO.. which may be esoteric abbriviation for.... with out.. !!

man im more confused then i started off..

[Sukhi]

first of all sexysingh, history doesn't remember every single story. so just because i listed a few known stories, it doesn't mean that these are the only ones.

we don't know EVERYTHING that happened in the past regardless of what our sources are, since the source depends on the person who is witnessing those events. what i'm trying to say is that there are probably many other examples of women being "empowered" in Sikh society in the past that have been forgotten.

secondly, i don't think what you're saying is making sense. how much more explicit can the Gurus get in their views on equality than telling us all humans are equal? the only way that i can possibly fathom you not accepting women as equal beings to men as a direct result from that statement was if you thought women weren't human beings.

so... do you think women are human beings or not?

lastly, i think you're mistaken in believing that since women aren't treated equally in all households that it makes your demented ideas of women as lesser beings valid.

if the truth and validity of an idea lies in the sheer number of people who believe in it and follow it, then the persecution of Jews should be seen as truthful and valid.

the Jews have been discriminated against since time immemorial by more people than one can fathom. therefore, the discrimination and prejudices against them must be correct according to your underlying argument. and the Nazis of Nazi Germany should be revered because they outnumbered the Jews in Nazi Germany.

if might makes right, dear sexysingh, then the Germans should've been justified in killing the Jews.

but they weren't.

why?

simply because doing something or believing it doesn't necessarily make it right or correct or valid or true.

similarly the way women are treated by some individuals should not be taken as an example by you to add support to your case. it's irrational to use the quantity of people who act out of the belief that women are inferior as support for you argument.

what i really want to know is why you think of women as lesser beings. what is it exactly that leads you to believe that women are not equal to men? i can't understand your logic behind thinking as such.

[sexy_singh]

sukhi sukhi, please try to understand what im saying .. otherwise there is no point having any discussion at all. I have alread conceeded that those who wrote history might have been biased towards men. Thats certainly conceivable. I have also agreed that the gurus told us "all humans are equal" and such.

Also realise that i do not think women are lesser beings. So your whole post accusing me of trying to justify my prejudices falls short of the mark. Thats fine, i dont hold anything against you, but if we are gonna reach any sort of understanding you have to give up the notion that im a bigot and not capable of saying anything meaningful apart from that motivated by bigotry.

Secondly, yes, the gurus didnt see any differences between people. Yes they promoted universal equality. But does that mean they didnt go into special cases - to discuss problematic, present social views. Didnt they come down heavy on the brahminical view of society - that was a specific thing to address. They took that view and turned it upside down, completely. But did they take the equally important issue of female rights to same extent? Im arguing that they did not take female empowerment far enough. To do so properly would have been the best and indeed only way to elevate female rights. You cant simply preach and hope people listen. You have to do more. But to do both is important.

Tyranny of the masses isnt what my point is about. Im not saying its ok to do something because everyone else does. Im saying why is there no notion of female equality as practiced in sikh households everywhere. It simply doesnt exist. Why? I attribute directly to the lack of emphasis on it by the founders.

Extra points to you sukhi for invoking goodwins law though. So abandon the idea i hate women and give a real response.

[Sukhi]

lol... extra points? oh wow... i never thought i'd be so lucky. are you sure you're not just letting me think i was witty? are you leading me on?...

anyways... as per what i've seen and learnt, i believe that the Gurus did enough to promote equality among the sexes. the problem wasn't that they didn't take it far enough, but rather that most Punjabi households tend to hold onto certain cultural beliefs more than they do religious ones. and whether that can be attributed to lack of education or horrible cultural influences from the outside world or whatever is a completely different debate.

but i still stand by my belief that the Gurus DID give enough emphasis on equality between the sexes. but the rest of us are the ones that failed to take their teachings to heart.

as for your belief that they simply preached and did nothing more, i think i've already addressed that by showing you some examples of how they themselves held women in the same regard as men. not only did i illustrate some of them, i actually gave you the urls for a bunch of websites that have much more info to offer than i can merely type up here on SA. but of course, you don't wanna look at those sources because you've already seen it all.

as for me giving you real responses and abandoning the idea that you hate women... that has nothing to do with this debate.

do i think you have a certain disregard for women because you think us unequal to men?

yes.

do i think you hate all women because of this view?

i'm not sure.

but i DO think it's important that you tell me why you believe women are inferior or "unequal" to men.

i think it's only fair that you answer my question since i'm probably the only one who's been answering this thread for a while now and frankly speaking, i still can't understand why you don't think men and women are equal.

[Pheena]

I suppose you can take this as a question your wife would ask given that she found out that you were having an fling with other women and this is a very general answer she would receive. Hope it gives you some insight.

__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_

A new sannyasin says she has been living with a man for a year who likes to be with other women also, and she does not know how to handle her jealousy.

It is always difficult for a woman unless she also starts loving people; otherwise it will remain difficult. He cannot be prevented, and to prevent him is ugly also. Then you are destroying his happiness, and if his happiness is destroyed, he will take revenge on you; he will not feel so loving. If you try to dominate him, to prevent him from going here and there, he will feel suffocated.

The problem is that down the ages man has always lived that way. And woman has never lived that way—for a few reasons. Firstly: in the old days, the problem was the child—if she gets pregnant then she will be in trouble—so it was a question of security, finance, and everything. Secondly: man himself has been teaching woman to be pure, to be virgin, always to love one person. Man has been using a double standard: one standard for the woman another for himself. The woman has to be pure, devoted, surrendered. And man? They say 'Boys are boys.'

Man has kept all freedom for himself. And he could manage to in the past because the finances were in his hands. So financially he was powerful. He was educated, he had the job. The woman had no job, no education. Her whole world was confined to the house. She had no contacts outside the house, so it was almost impossible to fall in love. At least you need some contacts—only then can you fall in love with somebody. And man has created big China Walls around the woman…. For centuries Mohammedans

have not even allowed their women's faces to be seen by others. And the woman was not supposed to talk to any man. A long repression—it has gone into the very bones.

Now things have changed. Now the woman is educated, she can have a job. She is as free as man. She can meet people, she can fall in love, she can enjoy life. The problem of pregnancy is irrelevant now; the pill has been one of the greatest freedoms. But the old mind persists, and it is not a small thing—thousands and thousands of years' conditioning. Your mother and mother's mother and all the women that have preceded you, were all conditioned, and that conditioning has penetrated into you too. So the problem will be there unless you become very conscious and drop it. Only two are the possibilities: one possibility is to go on nagging your friend, as women have been doing down the ages.

That doesn't help; that simply makes the man feel more repulsed by the woman. The more you nag, the more you throw him into somebody else's embrace, because he becomes tired, bored with you, and he would like to go somewhere and meet somebody who will not nag; and it is a relief. That is not going to help and that is destructive too. The other thing is: become courageous, tell him that if he feels like that, then take note of it—you will

also move in the same way. There should not be double standards! If he enjoys loving other women then you will enjoy loving other men. You love him but you will love other people too. Just make it clear to him, and immediately if he is afraid, if he himself is a jealous type, either he will say 'I will stop'—but then he is stopping on his own…. Or there is no need to be worried—you start moving also.

Nothing is wrong in it! I am not saying that he is doing anything wrong. All that I am saying is: there should not be two standards, only one standard for both. And each couple has to decide on a single standard; that is the

commitment. Either you both decide that you will remain only for each other, monogamous—good, if you both decide willingly, happily, joyously…. If it is not possible—one says 'I would like to keep my freedom'—then you also keep your freedom! Why be miserable? The misery arises because he is having fun and you are just sitting there thinking of him. You also have fun! And this is not a question which is personal only to you. This is going to be the question for every woman in the future. Gather courage! I will help you—these groups and meditations will help you.

Gather courage, and tell him before you start moving 'This is going to be the case—don't feel jealous of me.' Because men are even more jealous; their male chauvinistic ego feels more hurt: 'My woman making love to somebody else?' They start feeling as if they are not man enough. But then that is his problem. First make it clear that you are to follow a certain standard. When two persons decide to live together, then a certain rule of conduct has to be evolved. When you are alone there is no question of any

rule of conduct. Just have a rule of the game, but it will be applicable to both the parties.

Have a good talk with him and make it clear that if he is enjoying, then you are also free. And be free! Freedom needs a little courage, it needs guts, but you will enjoy it. And it is not going to disturb anything in your relationship; it will enhance it. You will stop nagging him. When you yourself start moving with people sometimes, you will stop nagging. In fact that's why women don't move, because then the nagging will be pointless. And they enjoy nagging—it gives them power. If they also move they cannot make the man feel guilty. And to make the man feel guilty gives immense power. But this is wrong. Never make anybody feel guilty. If you love the person, why make him feel guilty? If he likes it this way, let it be this way! You also have a few small love affairs. That will make both of you free from each other. And when love is free and is given out of freedom, it has a totally different quality to it. It has something really beautiful in it.

Then there is no conflict, no fight, no jealousy, nothing of the sort. There is a calm and quiet, silent, relationship. When you are also moving into a few new loves and he is moving into a few new loves, both are always in a kind of honeymoon; meeting together is always beautiful. Then things never become old and rotten.

Just a little courage…and it will happen!

[Sukhi]

[sexy_singh]

anyways... as per what i've seen and learnt, i believe that the Gurus did enough to promote equality among the sexes. the problem wasn't that they didn't take it far enough, but rather that most Punjabi households tend to hold onto certain cultural beliefs more than they do religious ones. and whether that can be attributed to lack of education or horrible cultural influences from the outside world or whatever is a completely different debate.

I dont buy it. Every panjabi (sikh) knows if you drink alcohol you are not being a good sikh. Ditto for the various nashe out there. But also note that drinking is quite widespread, perhaps even at epidemic levels. So according to you, if it was simply a matter of majority rule, no one would bloody care if drinking was allowed or not. But wait. They do know it. As anecdotal evidence i offer my own story. Here in the west im routinely offered alcohol, even by people who should know better. Over there? No one even jokes about it. Its such taboo.

Look, i dont think females are inferior, whatever that means. They just arent men. And as far as i can see, no one has ever proposed giving women the same amount of power as men. It bloody never happened. We had a few strong kaurs who earned respect through courage and so forth, and we admire them for that. But how do you jump from admiring a person from a group to generalising those admired qualities to the whole group.

What really gets to me is the myth that sikhism the religion, has, built-in, the notion of male-female equality. It simply doesnt. And who pushes this argument? Those who'd like to see it that way. But really, almost everyone knows this is reaching and grappling with truth. So in the end, we fool ourselves, into thinking yes, our religion has this equality, but the problem is with "culture" or "the people". That sort of attitude pisses me off. If the damn religion had an unambigious stance on equality we wouldnt use these weak easy-blame answers that lack substance. I recognise it as a weak response because i've seen it used to many times, on so many topics.

In fact, any problem with the sikh community is almost ALWAYS answered with "its culture". So how can you even go about solving things if our way of identifying cause is so rigid and uncritical? We simply cant make any progress. Stop blaming the damn culture.

Are you telling me that this same culture of male domination wasnt present when the founders lived? It was bloody the same. If the founders had a problem with it, then surely they didnt care enough to address it, modulo a few obvious inhumane breaches of rights that anyone with a half sense of fairness would have agreed with.

When you ask, why should men have power. I answer, i dont know. Its just the way its been in the past, and as far as i can tell, the gurus didnt have a problem with it (if that matters to you or me). About this imbalance, do i have a problem with it? Yes. I do. Do sikhs have a problem with it? It seems no, they dont. So lets leave utopian-forum-world and deal with the real world.

The whole equality thing is fast becoming a political correctness buzzword. we all sit there agreeing on the stuff that is agreeable and then go back to our lives filled with inequities, then blaming culture, or whatever (i think its in vogue to blame human nature too) and achieve nothing. If we sat down and correctly identified the truth we might actually have a chance of achieving that equality. But whatever. Im tired of this religion rife with self appreciation and shockingly trivial solutions to problems, that amount literally to shifting blame to "culture".