• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Guru_Da_Chella

Disrespect To Turban At Gurdwara Matrimonials From Sikh Females

is there too much hate towards sikh turban in gurdwara matrimonials?   90 members have voted

  1. 1. is there too much hate towards sikh turban from sikh females in gurdwara matrimonials?

    • yes
    • no
    • possibly
    • I do not know anything about gurdwara matrimonials

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

85 posts in this topic

If these people aren't Amritdhari, (the men), then what is logically stopping them from marrying non-Sikh women? Personally, I think it's more logical for them to go that route than to be depressed about keeping Kesh for some Punjabi girl. I don't want to say anything negative, but it is extremely unlikely that some Amritdhari Kaur would marry a Keshdhari with the gender ratio of Amritdharis going in that direction and the fact that Keshdharis seem to still drink and some of them eat Non-Jhatka meat, (as long as they aren't some Anti-Jhatka Sikhs like some people on this site), at times. I really don't who somebody wants to marry in some other part of the society, (unless maybe I've liked the person, then that person should be me):@. Maybe they can make Non-Sikhs interested in Sikhi from their Rishta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Maybe I'm out of the loop on this one, but can someone explain to me why Gursikhs of a marriageable age would object to a dastaar wearing girl? What are they teaching them in their little sects these days? How has something that use to be an honourable and positive sign ended up being viewed as a negative? 

Keski on women is associated with a particular Jatha, (not going to mention it), and this Jatha has some things the other Gursikhs family doesn't agree with: (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Last Ang for example). Or it they are Sunday Sikhs or generic Amritdharis they probably are expecting someone to be like their spouse to be like their female relatives, (cutting Kesh on the Skin and face), sometimes among Keshdharis men they can't stand women having any kesh on anything but the head, and sadly it's coming from even Amritdharis. It's one thing to not exactly like someone with excessive Kesh on the face; however, every human on the planet grows Kesh on the Rom, (skin), but not everyone grows Kesh on face. There is no excuse for denying a woman with skin Kesh, since the only way she couldn't have skin Kesh was waxing or laser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Keski on women is associated with a particular Jatha, (not going to mention it), and this Jatha has some things the other Gursikhs family doesn't agree with: (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Last Ang for example). Or it they are Sunday Sikhs or generic Amritdharis they probably are expecting someone to be like their spouse to be like their female relatives, (cutting Kesh on the Skin and face), sometimes among Keshdharis men they can't stand women having any kesh on anything but the head, and sadly it's coming from even Amritdharis. It's one thing to not exactly like someone with excessive Kesh on the face; however, every human on the planet grows Kesh on the Rom, (skin), but not everyone grows Kesh on face. There is no excuse for denying a woman with skin Kesh, since the only way she couldn't have skin Kesh was waxing or laser. 

It's all head spinning. I can only imagine what someone must think who's trying to get a foothold in the faith. Mixed signals and confusion all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

It's all head spinning. I can only imagine what someone must think who's trying to get a foothold in the faith. Mixed signals and confusion all the way.

I wish I could say that Jatha doesn't matter for somebody like like me, but that's a bit too idealist; even for the rest of Panth I truly wish that could be the case, in this era of extreme intolerance among little issues which causes people to take out 3 ft. dull Kirpans and fighting each other over them. I know there would be marital problems for some guy like me if I were to hypothetically marry such a person associated with the Jatha I'm talking about, (forgive me for being realist), we'd fight everyday over a tiny issue like Jhatka,(which I have a history on this website for being the only one that is neutral to my views, but to everyone else I'm the most bias to the view on the pro-Jhatka side), so inter-jatha; or if I don't agree with your Jatha, marriage is really not for me, and the most I'll ever address you is as a sister. And let's not even get started on serious topics, which could cause chaos for me. (Though those Non-associated with that Jhatha would be fine.) Vaheguru forgive me for not being some hippy all-love Sikh, for just mentioning actual facts of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all these problems are cuz of jatha culture.

Don't matter what you do and what divides you break, the manukhs will always go form another division

When trying to make decisions> use your sikhi and gurbani to get your answers. The jatha is not your sikhi, just like caste is not your sikhi.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Jhatka is not the only issue in the jatha of which you speak. Issue of strict sarbloh bibek as well. But not all Kaur's who tie a dastaar belong to that jatha. Though all Kaur's from that jatha have to. There are taksali and nihang Kaur's who also tie dastars and even many of us who don't follow any specific jatha at all. 

But the kesh I spoke of was not regular thin skin hairs. Many Kaur's have darker thicker hairs on chin or upper lip. Following Rehet Maryada they can not remove these. Would these same Singh's who complain about women not choosing turban wearing bearded Singh's, have no issue choosing a Kaur with a hint of a moustache or some chin hairs? I think there can be easily a double standard here. I think ALL of be turban tying Singhnis with some facial hairs would have NO issues what so ever with marrying a bearded and turban wearing singh. But will the Singh's choose those Kaurs?

Every human grows Kesh on the body/skin, to some people even that much is not good enough. Also I don't want to say anything negative about any Jatha, but most of the time I naturally associate Keski with that particular Jatha. Some people just don't grow much hair on the face, it usually depends on the testostrome an individual has over the traditional estrogen. Some people don't remove Kesh at all and can still not have lot's of Kesh on the face, what's wrong with those Kaurs? (It's obvious who waxes and threads if you didn't know that.) Also it takes more than wearing or not wearing a Keski for a Rishta if you were wondering that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/03/2017 at 11:57 AM, Jacfsing2 said:

Every human grows Kesh on the body/skin, to some people even that much is not good enough. Also I don't want to say anything negative about any Jatha, but most of the time I naturally associate Keski with that particular Jatha. Some people just don't grow much hair on the face, it usually depends on the testostrome an individual has over the traditional estrogen. Some people don't remove Kesh at all and can still not have lot's of Kesh on the face, what's wrong with those Kaurs? (It's obvious who waxes and threads if you didn't know that.) Also it takes more than wearing or not wearing a Keski for a Rishta if you were wondering that.

If the natural rom hair on the skin is an issue I'd suggest then that person needs to stop comparing against girls who do hijamat (muslim and some hindu girls) . PCOS syndrome or insulin resistance can cause hirsutism so it is a bit unfair that guys who are expected to grow  a beard and are criticised for it would do the same against a female who perhaps cannot help being hairier when maintain their kes as directed by rehit.  Besides girls from hot countries generally tend to darker longer vellus hair which is more noticeable on fair skin most Punjabis case (Pakistanis probably wax it off  if you compare)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

If the natural rom hair on the skin is an issue I'd suggest then that person needs to stop comparing against girls who do hijamat (muslim and some hindu girls) . PCOS syndrome or insulin resistance can cause hirsutism so it is a bit unfair that guys who are expected to grow  a beard and are criticised for it would do the same against a female who perhaps cannot help being hairier when maintain their kes as directed by rehit.  Besides girls from hot countries generally tend to darker longer vellus hair which is more noticeable on fair skin most Punjabis case (Pakistanis probably wax it off  if you compare)

I know this is an unfair standard for Kesh, but most people who keep facial hair but still don't keep body hair just looks like Pakhand, (an example of this is Harnaam Kaur, who clearly waxes but keeps hair on the face). So I do give higher respect to people who respect all Kesh instead of picking and choosing which Kesh is important and which is not. (I haven't mentioned any negativity towards Rom Kesh.) Also just cause a girl doesn't have a full-out beard doesn't mean she's waxing or threading, some people naturally grow less Kesh. (Most men can grow more Kesh than me on the body and face than I can, and other men couldn't grow long Kesh even if they tried). But yes, if you keep a certain hair, but remove hair elsewhere, you will be shown to me as a Pakhandi if you are trying to make Guru Sahib proud, you wouldn't. But if a woman or man removed Kesh before Chacking Amrit or desiring to be a Sikh, I wouldn't hold that against them, I myself was a Mona once: so I shouldn't hold some impossible standard, that I myself was imperfect from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

All I know is I think a fully bearded turbaned Singh looks much more distinguished and stands out than a guy who shaves and looks like a child. I would not have married a clean shaven Singh (aside from the fact that I have taken Amrit).  But even still I just find them more attractive in natural form. As for tied or flowing dhari that's a different conversation. Either is fine to me as long as they don't pluck or trim etc. Just like I comb my eyebrows but don't pluck. You can still do basic hygiene and care and you can still shape eyebrows that are natural by an eyebrow brush so they look neat. No need to pluck. Same for a beard. (Luckily I don't have hirsutism like some women but if I did I'd expect my husband to respect me just the same. )

So all you clean shaven Singh's consider growing your beards. Don't be worried that you won't find someone. Almost every Singh here in Kashmir keeps their kesh and ties turban and I'd say 99% of the Sikh population in Kashmir are Amritdhari. None have issues finding a wife :) 

Not sure if you understand how Subcontinental people find spouses, or even generic Amritdharis finding spouses, but most people usually marry with someone their family has contact with, or they have direct/indirect contact with the person they want a Rishta with. Usually Amritdharis if their parents aren't Amritdharis marry within their social crew, instead of going all the way to Kashmir to find someone, and even if they do go into the Subcontinent, they will find someone from where their family is from, (Punjab, Delhi, anywhere else).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I know this is an unfair standard for Kesh, but most people who keep facial hair but still don't keep body hair just looks like Pakhand, (an example of this is Harnaam Kaur, who clearly waxes but keeps hair on the face). So I do give higher respect to people who respect all Kesh instead of picking and choosing which Kesh is important and which is not. (I haven't mentioned any negativity towards Rom Kesh.) Also just cause a girl doesn't have a full-out beard doesn't mean she's waxing or threading, some people naturally grow less Kesh. (Most men can grow more Kesh than me on the body and face than I can, and other men couldn't grow long Kesh even if they tried). But yes, if you keep a certain hair, but remove hair elsewhere, you will be shown to me as a Pakhandi if you are trying to make Guru Sahib proud, you wouldn't. But if a woman or man removed Kesh before Chacking Amrit or desiring to be a Sikh, I wouldn't hold that against them, I myself was a Mona once: so I shouldn't hold some impossible standard, that I myself was imperfect from.

Harnaam does a lot which is not right for a sikh woman but I agree it is mental to insist on your beard and then remove the other kesh . It's probably now her only ticket to fame , sad. I respect Baljit Kaur more she's kept her sikhi and integrity. 

My Mum and a lot of ladies in her gen were not sporting any major facial growth but after hitting menopause and the whole androgen increase that has changed but it's kind of accepted that is going to happen . It's much harder for girls and women  , I suspect it's the increased ingested oestrogen in dairy being converted to androgens because of the increase over the decades with changes in  dairy production practices (heavier reliance on meds and hormones) .

Ultimately it's up to the individual .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It seems there has been another incident near a mosque in Newcastle. Another vehicle driven into worshippers on Eid. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/821057/Westgate-road-crash-eid-prayers-Newcastle-Muslim-attack
    • From what I can discern, the panic and concern at contemporary immigration is less to do with the immediate threat of terror (although in the short term it's a genuine issue considering everything that's going down in the Middle East at the moment), but more a long term view to the irreversible impact on demographics and social makeup of a country, especially if we take into account the types of migrants that are flocking here. It's very, very easy to get cynical and insular about this whole problem, but I think we mustn't forget that we're also children of immigrants, and somehow it doesn't quite sit right with me if we're shouting, "Send the buggers back!" Equally, these western countries are our homes. We were born and raised here. There's a definite emotional connection to our immediate environment and, if it stretches that far, the long-term success of these lands. Make no mistake, if these lands fall, then so do we. And, yes, ultimately I believe these lands will fall if things continue unabated. That's not being dramatic or hysterical. We won't be able to hole ourselves up in a Gurdwara and tough it out, lol. Unfortunately, you won't get similar sentiments of positivity for the future of Europe amongst certain other communities who exist here, even those who, like us, were born in the West. If you don't believe me, there are hundreds of unbiased, unfiltered videos on YouTube that will prove me right. This fundamentally erroneous belief that deep down all people are equal and good in character and intention is demonstrably false. I wish it wasn't false, but there it is. To echo an earlier sentiment, I'm sure our parents or grandparents came to the West in order to make the most of living in a modern, western country with all the associated benefits (not THOSE benefits, lol) of existing in a first world country. I don't want to wake up 30 years into the future, and wonder whether I'm living in Mogadishu or Rawalpindi. Does that make me a bad person? Should I, as a brown person, remain silent on the issue of immigration? Blind hate or anything like that is useless and completely silly. It's negative energy. But there's a way of having these discussions, and they need to be had. I can predict your response, but I'm hoping you'll reply in a manner that originates from a place of wanting to engage in an open-minded and fair discussion. I can't be doing with any communist propaganda, Sukh. Talk it through like a human being, not an ideologue dancing from point to point in order to secure a metaphorical knockout punch. 
    • First, lets admit one thing straightforward :  Our religion has somethings that make it difficult to follow in modern times , esp for men ! So unless we give sikhi to our kids , we're going to lose them from sikhi once they grow up . Its inevitable.  But then our religion is very straightforward path to god , without involving any superstitions.  Our kids need to be taught at modern age why they have to wear turbans or kes . Otherwise our kids will grow on to understand turban as "burden" (yes I have heard this word from sikh teenage boys).    Khande di paahul or amrit ? In gurbaani, amrit means name of god which doesn't discriminate on bhek (outer appearance).   
    • I admit, biology isn't my strong point.  Although I am vaguely aware that some Indian historians poo-poo the idea that Punjabis descend from various European races. Is that commonly accepted, or is that mindset from a fringe who perhaps don't like the idea of us originating from exclusively non-Asian genes?