Jump to content

Diary Of Sikh Woman: Why I Cannot Get Married


Guest Sikh Woman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Who said having hair on the face is a male identity and there is no pressure to look the same. Instead women are pressured fanatically to remove hair from all over the body and who doesn't, isn't seen as a human being. Your stereotyping of women is disgusting.

Those photos are the imagination of an artist and is not an accurate representative of the Gurus or women at that time.

When Mai Bhago Kaur went into battle with a sword in hand did she become a male in that moment. According to you, she did, because she lost her softer side.

Women like you should be ridiculed till you drop your oppressive stereotypes of how every women should be. Have some shame.

Who said having hair on the face is a male identity and there is no pressure to look the same. Instead women are pressured fanatically to remove hair from all over the body and who doesn't, isn't seen as a human being. Your stereotyping of women is disgusting.

Those photos are the imagination of an artist and is not an accurate representative of the Gurus or women at that time.

When Mai Bhago Kaur went into battle with a sword in hand did she become a male in that moment. According to you, she did, because she lost her softer side.

Women like you should be ridiculed till you drop your oppressive stereotypes of how every women should be. Have some shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said having hair on the face is a male identity and there is no pressure to look the same. Instead women are pressured fanatically to remove hair from all over the body and who doesn't, isn't seen as a human being. Your stereotyping of women is disgusting.

Those photos are the imagination of an artist and is not an accurate representative of the Gurus or women at that time.

When Mai Bhago Kaur went into battle with a sword in hand did she become a male in that moment. According to you, she did, because she lost her softer side.

Women like you should be ridiculed till you drop your oppressive stereotypes of how every women should be. Have some shame.

Think you are going OTT about this. Yes whT mai bhago did was brave but only when women act in ways that are typically celebrated as male are they celebrated in sikhi. What about bebe nanaki the first to recognise guru Nanak ji but she is not widely celebrated. Is there evidence of women keeping facial hair in the times of the gurus? In order to make children there has gone some level of physical attraction & unfortunately I don't think many men will find facial hair attractive in women. Please stop the political correctness and be honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you are going OTT about this. Yes whT mai bhago did was brave but only when women act in ways that are typically celebrated as male are they celebrated in sikhi. What about bebe nanaki the first to recognise guru Nanak ji but she is not widely celebrated. Is there evidence of women keeping facial hair in the times of the gurus? In order to make children there has gone some level of physical attraction & unfortunately I don't think many men will find facial hair attractive in women. Please stop the political correctness and be honest

I'm surprised to hear this from a kaur. Almost every woman naturally has a small amount of facial hair. A woman with a full grown beard like a man wasn’t very common in the past because people's lifestyle was more healthy and active, so there will be no evidence to find through pictures. But even if a woman was to grow an excessive amount of facial hair due to a condition, do you believe a man should suddenly love the woman less and feel repulsed to even be near her? It would be a complete mockery on himself as he himself has a full grown beard.

Guru Sahib has given us non-gender specific rehit to follow, and valued and respected women for who they are. Guru Sahib never moulded women to suit men’s sexual desire- that is one way you can tell Sikhi is not a man-made religion. You tell me would Guru Sahib instruct a woman to strip away her femininity by removing her natural facial hair just for a man’s sexual desire, while men were advised to keep their hair? No because it would be hypocritical and Guru Sahib was charismatic, and had a mind beyond any human beings limited and conditional understanding.

Your view on attraction is very small and superficial. Attraction is deeper than being attracted to flesh. Real attraction comes from loving the characteristics of the person, their soul. With your thought, you could be attracted to a lifeless person or a "good-looking" person who has a hideous soul. Believe it or not, there are people who find attraction to a person on much more meaningful characteristics in a person. I for one do not even understand how people become physically attracted to the next good-looking person they see; I find it very cheap and low-minded. When a singh marries a singhni with facial hair, it is because he found her to be truly beautiful inside and out due to her strong characteristics radiating from her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are some people who are not attracted by physical appearance and only to the soul but they are rare. Viaguru made us into physical beings and to be physically attracted to someone is not wrong or dirty as that is how Vaiguru made us, just as we have a desire to eat. If it is only about attraction of souls than why the need for different genders with different physical forms. Attraction is more than just liking someone's physical appearance, as 2 people may find different people attractive but it is an aspect of connecting to another person, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you are looking for a marriage partner especially in our culture you won't always have time to get to know their soul in depth before marriage. There's nothing shallow about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are some people who are not attracted by physical appearance and only to the soul but they are rare. Viaguru made us into physical beings and to be physically attracted to someone is not wrong or dirty as that is how Vaiguru made us, just as we have a desire to eat. If it is only about attraction of souls than why the need for different genders with different physical forms. Attraction is more than just liking someone's physical appearance, as 2 people may find different people attractive but it is an aspect of connecting to another person, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you are looking for a marriage partner especially in our culture you won't always have time to get to know their soul in depth before marriage. There's nothing shallow about it.

Vaheguru made us into physical beings with a soul. If physical attraction is the foundation of any relationship then people would not be failing miserably in holding their marriage together. And why stop with women, men should also remove any facial or bodily hair to fit into societies conditioned view of beauty. Our culture and way of thinking is very superficial. Guru Sahib says true sikhs are rare.

You are still going on the concept on difference in physical appearance when women grow some facial hair and bodily hair as part of their natural physical appearance. It is not always equivalent to the amount of hair growth on a man but they still grow hair and our body is different regardless of our hair growth (I shouldn’t need to explain this). If hair defined our gender identify, I am sure Vaheguru would have never made it possible for women to grow any hair apart from the hair on the head. Our hair is natural and not something to be deemed ugly or unfeminine or to feel ashamed of.

Truthfully, to find an attraction to the soul, you do not even need to get to know the person; a truly beautiful person radiates good qualities through their aura. If someone cannot see this it is because they are hollow. People’s attraction to others is often a reflection of their own character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there evidence of women keeping facial hair in the times of the gurus? In order to make children there has gone some level of physical attraction & unfortunately I don't think many men will find facial hair attractive in women.

You know this reminds me of when the suffragettes wanted women to have the right to vote so that they could work, have independent finances etc. Sadly at that time there were some women who were against it because, they had the same logic as skaur888 that, they were not men and they were not supposed to do 'manly' things like running a country or having a say in economics etc. The truth however is simran8888 also grows face hair but is in denial that all woman look like this.

Its so sad when other woman will claim that those with hair are being men - when infact all women have hair. This is what false conditioning has done to us. We no longer see the truth, that this is what we as woman are. Also if everyone kept hair it would cancel out this argument of 'attractiveness' because the human conditioning would be altered to a state where you would find acceptance in a female with face hair and instead you would see a face with no hair on it as being abnormal. To put this into todays context it is just like how we see people with no eyebrow hair as being abnormal or looking diseased from cancer. Slowly, mark my words, it will be normal in a couple of years for females to remove their eyebrow hair. I have already seen women removing eyebrow hair and the next thing we will say is that men don't find it attractive that women keep their eyebrow hair. skaur888 let me ask you this - where does this thing stop?

If you read up on the history of human behaviour and conditioning in psychology and sociology then you will start to realise that we have caused attractiveness to be perceived as having no hair. Its like how some people see thongs as being 'sexually' attractive. Actually not a long time ago thongs were unknown and if you showed them to someone they would have no reaction. But whats happened is that we have conditioned thongs or no hair on a female to be a message in our brain. A few centuries ago when there were no hair removal products, females with facial hair were accepted and there was no issue with attractiveness.

This is just like how someone conditions a female wearing make up and perfume to be attractive and 'ready for it' - if you study history you will see that these things just change depending on culture and society. The issue of female facial hair is the same - its actually just the way society has conditioned us and we live in a culture where we are anti female hair. If we lived in another type of culture it might have been different.

The issue is that we are trapped by the culture surrounding us and some of us don't even realise it or those that do realise it cannot escape it. Its like how the Chineese preferred their girls to have small feet because that was seen as attractive and so all girls were put in plaster casts and had deformed feet. Those people at the time linked attractiveness to feet and if you told them feet does not equal attractiveness - they would not see it because it is how they were conditioned. It is like how currently in the western culture the size of your breasts are valued and it would be difficult to convince people otherwise. However I am sure in the amazon rainforest where woman walk around naked all the time exposing their breasts - it does not have the same meaning in their society.

The issue of female facial and bodily hair is the same - we are in a culture that is anti hair female hair. Because we are in that culture we cannot see it is an issue with our minds and our perception. Also it is going to get worse. It will not only affect females but also men - men are already removing chest hair and armpit hair to appear attractive. In the future both men and women will only be attractive if they remove their hair - because the hair removal companies are in charge of your media, they want you to spend money and will tell you that you must groom yourself in this way, and if you don't then you are not attractive. You the new generation will all follow and not know any better.

If in the future men start removing arm and leg hair - If at that time I came along and said its ok for them to keep it and that the 'attractiveness' is in their minds and the minds of their female partners - no one would listen to me because its about conditioning the majority to a certain behaviour. Just wait until you become grandparents and see your grandchildren removing hair from e.g. the back of their necks because they have been told that the head hair should stop at a certain level and so both your girls and boys do a clean shave line at the back of their head where there is supposed to be hair, or the boys start waxing chest and leg hair, or have laser to reduce their hair on their arms and legs. As that age, you will develop an appreciation of how societies values influence your behaviour or thinking. However we must ask ourselves is it the truth?

I have often wondered if society started removing female body hair because traditionally, men used to marry young girls. Therefore girls who had grown into women i.e. who had grown 'older' would remove hair to make themselves appear younger, in order to find a partner. Either way the truth is that having hair is what all women look like. This problem with acceptance of the female saroop is societies attitude towards it and it is very much an issue in the mind about 'attractiveness' based on conditioning. That attitude exists with 'false' conditioning where we have accepted something that is false as being the truth. True conditioning is accepting that all women have hair including upper lip hair.

Mistersingh in relation to your question on my conditioning then there are 2 types of conditioning. False conditioning and true conditioning. The answer is that I choose to condition myself on true conditioning and I will think before forming an opinion and developing a habit. I will only consciously do something if it is true conditioning. Accepting hair is true conditioning according to sikhi and psychology teachings. As sikhs we have to make sure we are linked to true conditioning - hair removal is false conditioning and must be avoided according to rehat. We as Sikhs need to be conscious of false and true conditioning. As humans we are thrown into a system yet we must ask ourselves does this make sense, why are we doing this etc. Please search false and true conditioning on google to read up more on false and true conditioning because once you understand this, then everything I am saying will make sense.

If society accepted female hair then it would be ok for females to not spend hours and days of their lives painfully crying whilst waxing, plucking, threading, lasering, shaving etc. I guarantee if hair was not such a big issue in our culture today then women would not want to remove hair. Who in their right mind would want to cause themselves so much pain? It is only because we have given it an aesthetic value that people do this. Women and now men remove hair because of societies values and reactions towards hair.

However, this amount of hair removal is not good for either male of female skin elasticity. It surprises me that woman will go out and buy the latest cream (not proven to actually work) to look after their skin when they are causing so much micro-trauma and micro-scarring from hair removal (proven to cause micro-scarring and micro-skin trauma).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said having hair on the face is a male identity and there is no pressure to look the same. Instead women are pressured fanatically to remove hair from all over the body and who doesn't, isn't seen as a human being. Your stereotyping of women is disgusting.

Those photos are the imagination of an artist and is not an accurate representative of the Gurus or women at that time.

When Mai Bhago Kaur went into battle with a sword in hand did she become a male in that moment. According to you, she did, because she lost her softer side.

Women like you should be ridiculed till you drop your oppressive stereotypes of how every women should be. Have some shame.

You couldn't have said it better -I cannot believe the amount of girls/grown women in denial over the fact that they grow face hair too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just answer the question, would you marry her? Be truthful and stop deflecting. We all know the answer already.

Let's play your game. Why are you cutting your nails then? Let it grow out then. Why take a shower or clean yourself after taking a dump? It's all part of our body right? See how easy that was?

In my opinion kesh IS for identity. This prevented many practicing Hindus to swallow Sikhism and make it a sect of Hinduism. By creating the requirement for keeping long hair and turban, it effectively prevented 'fence sitters' to dictate and claim Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism. It once and for all forces you to choose. There is no grey area. Nobody back then had long hair with turban. Turban maybe but thats it.

The truth is you can argue pretty much anything if you want to argue. But the truth is based on facts and not opinion We all have an opinion on everything. You believe any facial hair removal is bad and others think differently and it's their perogative. Thats fine and dandy however that is your opinion, nothing more. Blindly believing in something based on someones personal opinion is basically creating a set of dogmas.

No need to reply. Thanks.

I already answered your question when I said 'I would 120% marry her'. I have not deflected. Also she is already married!!! I don't think we need to keep asking who wants to marry her when she is happily married and getting along with her life. I also know of her, so be careful.

What I want to emphasise is that her hair pattern is due to disease. Most woman do not grow facial hair like that so she shouldn't be the poster girl for this is what females who keep facial hair look like. It very clearly says in the article that she has a disease contributing to an excess in hair. The article is about someone with excess who had the bravery and strength to keep it, something that is admirable considering females with less hair don't keep it. She brings everyone else to shame and I respect her immensely for that. But it is important to realise that it is not an article about 'this is what females who keep facial hair' will look like.

However woman do grow visible facial hair - side hairs, chin hairs, visible upper lip hair, 'thick, messy' eyebrow hair, yet they remove it.

There are non sikh people who have identified that society has an issue with female body hair. Please see these articles on how society is 'against' female hair on any part of their body that was previously never an issue due to influences from the companies selling hair removal products, media images and porn industry influencing us (males and females) on what we 'expect' to be normal -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/instagram-pubic-hair-censorship-sticks-and-stones_n_6515654.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10120130/Pubic-hair-taboo-like-it-or-not-we-need-to-break-it.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/07/pubic-hair-has-job-stop-shaving

In answer to the nails verses hair debate. Sikhs have 5 kakkars and hair is part of the kakkars and rehat. Nails are not part of the kakkars or part of the rehat. That is because nails are not considered 'ang' and in sikhism we are allowed to remove our nails for the reason of impracticality and cleanliness. In the sikh philosophy hair is not unclean and does not need to be removed. The sikh approach to life is minimalistic and functional. Having nails would not be functional and would be impractical. However having hair is not impractical and is very much considered part of your 'ang' that should not be removed. Thats why it is in the kakkars and the rehat. If I was to simplify the answer to your question in one sentence then that is that, in sikhi, all bodily hair is considered 'ang' but nails are not considered 'ang'.

Your opinion on only head hair being necessary for sikhs is not backed up in rehat or sikh history. Before sikhs were given the identity 'saroop' they did not remove hair anywhere on their bodies. I am sorry to say this but if your keeping only your head hair then you are not practising sikhi properly. Sikhs are forbidden to remove all hair, on any part of their body, and you cannot claim to be following rehat just by keeping head hair. This is a fact and not a opinion. It is backed up by rehat that all hair should be kept and if you go to any amrit sanchar they will say the same.

The issue here is that sikhs are not practising sikhi properly therefore there are 'few' numbers of real sikhs. This is purely a numbers issue where we don't have enough numbers of high quality rehat keeping sikhs.

We as the next generation need to teach our sons and daughters the rehat properly, especially the sikh boys and sikh girls need to be more accepting of the female sikh saroop just like there is a global acceptance of the male sikh saroop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read anywhere whereby Guruji Maharaj specifically asked for women to not rid themselves of facial hair. Nowhere is it written. In my humble opinion, I very much doubt Guruji Maharaj would want Sikh women to look 'butch' and like men. The requirement for keeping a beard is aimed at men and not women. Otherwise why didn't Guruji ask for womens head when he created the 1st Panj Pyare? Or at least a mix of men and women? If the requirement for men and women are identical, then surely he would have called for womens head as well. Obviously women back in the day could not wield a sword or fight in battle like men so men were chosen. Since Guruji saw the difference between the 2 genders therefore it is only logical that the requirement for the 5K's for women are not identical to men.

With any kind of organization be it religious or social in it's infancy there will be pragmatism. Pragmatism is when one is able to see thing in a balanced manner. In time, dogmatism takes over and rules are applied in a dogmatic way. People who are pragmatic are able to think in multi dimensions whereas dogmatic people think in single dimensions.

Lets take the US constitution as an example. The US constitution states the US citizenry has the 'right to bare arms'. This was incorporated into the constitution in order ensure that the citizenry were well armed in case the government became tyrannical. Also back in the day, you were on your own in some distant farmland and times were dangerous. You needed guns to protect yourself.

Those who are dogmatic today will say 'I should be able to have any kind of weapon as the constitution said I have the right to bare arms'. 'Thats what the founding fathers said and thats that'. Should the average civilian be allowed to own a bazooka? How about rocket grenade launchers? Drones? Heat seeking missiles? Obviously some sort of pragmatism is needed here.

As for the argument that hair is natural and should be left uncut, that is pure nonsense. We are not born with a rule book in our hands stating what is natural and what isn't. If it is so unnatural to cut hair, Waheguru Ji would have made cutting hair painful or resulting in death. This argument is pure nonsense. As for the OP stating Gillette has brainwashed the masses, she is obviously quite ignorant to history of mankind and has never heard of 'threading'. As soon as humans found a way to cut their hair, they did it. You can see this in all cultures and has existed hundreds of years.

Men and women are naturally attracted to beauty and there is nothing wrong in that nor is it 'shallow'. It is only shallow when that is the ONLY basis when looking for a partner. Those who are arguing that it is 'shallow' or 'unnatural' have a twisted view of reality.

From a psychological standpoint I believe we humans 'need' beauty. That is why we wax/ polish our cars, paint our houses, cut the lawn, iron our clothes...etc, etc. Without beauty, life becomes depressing.

These are just my humble thoughts. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read anywhere whereby Guruji Maharaj specifically asked for women to not rid themselves of facial hair. Nowhere is it written. In my humble opinion, I very much doubt Guruji Maharaj would want Sikh women to look 'butch' and like men. The requirement for keeping a beard is aimed at men and not women. Otherwise why didn't Guruji ask for womens head when he created the 1st Panj Pyare? Or at least a mix of men and women? If the requirement for men and women are identical, then surely he would have called for womens head as well. Obviously women back in the day could not wield a sword or fight in battle like men so men were chosen. Since Guruji saw the difference between the 2 genders therefore it is only logical that the requirement for the 5K's for women are not identical to men.

With any kind of organization be it religious or social in it's infancy there will be pragmatism. Pragmatism is when one is able to see thing in a balanced manner. In time, dogmatism takes over and rules are applied in a dogmatic way. People who are pragmatic are able to think in multi dimensions whereas dogmatic people think in single dimensions.

Lets take the US constitution as an example. The US constitution states the US citizenry has the 'right to bare arms'. This was incorporated into the constitution in order ensure that the citizenry were well armed in case the government became tyrannical. Also back in the day, you were on your own in some distant farmland and times were dangerous. You needed guns to protect yourself.

Those who are dogmatic today will say 'I should be able to have any kind of weapon as the constitution said I have the right to bare arms'. 'Thats what the founding fathers said and thats that'. Should the average civilian be allowed to own a bazooka? How about rocket grenade launchers? Drones? Heat seeking missiles? Obviously some sort of pragmatism is needed here.

As for the argument that hair is natural and should be left uncut, that is pure nonsense. We are not born with a rule book in our hands stating what is natural and what isn't. If it is so unnatural to cut hair, Waheguru Ji would have made cutting hair painful or resulting in death. This argument is pure nonsense. As for the OP stating Gillette has brainwashed the masses, she is obviously quite ignorant to history of mankind and has never heard of 'threading'. As soon as humans found a way to cut their hair, they did it. You can see this in all cultures and has existed hundreds of years.

Men and women are naturally attracted to beauty and there is nothing wrong in that nor is it 'shallow'. It is only shallow when that is the ONLY basis when looking for a partner. Those who are arguing that it is 'shallow' or 'unnatural' have a twisted view of reality.

From a psychological standpoint I believe we humans 'need' beauty. That is why we wax/ polish our cars, paint our houses, cut the lawn, iron our clothes...etc, etc. Without beauty, life becomes depressing.

These are just my humble thoughts. Thanks.

Morons never understand these topics and keep on repeating themselves till they are blue in the face. And shamelessly keep on talking nonsense

You are a prime example of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use