singhbj singh

How many parents ask their daughters who earn money to contribute to house expenses ?

14 posts in this topic

In sikhi we are not meant to live off the earnings of our mothers, sisters, daughters ...this is an article written by a hindu lady with ulterior motive . Sure girls shouldn't be emptyheaded loafers but on the whole sikh women are not taught to behave in that way , they are expected to work hard at school, home and work if they go .The whole sikh philosophy is to do one's best effort and leave the rest to Waheguru ji. No , a sikh should think of developing sikh character first and foremost the rest will come with education and effort .

In my own life  I would earn and then buy things that would help in the household like new appliances because my Parents would get angry if I offered them money (now I understand but then I found it strange). Mostly I would be told to save it for myself ... after I was going to get married both my fiance and I paid for the whole thing and costs ourselves I did not want to burden my folks at all. When they looked after my eldest when I was working I would provide everything and also pay my Mother the going rate.

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhein ji whether she's Hindu, Muslim, Christian it shouldn't matter !

Thing is, she makes a valid point regarding career & contributing to house expenses.

Either girl's should opt for a home maker lifestyle and forget about this article or 

look into the above advice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, singhbj singh said:

Bhein ji whether she's Hindu, Muslim, Christian it shouldn't matter !

Thing is, she makes a valid point regarding career & contributing to house expenses.

Either girl's should opt for a home maker lifestyle and forget about this article or 

look into the above advice.

To be  a Kaur in the modern world means you should have the backup skills and wherewithal to look after yourself whether or not you make a career , this will ensure that she will remain achint in the face of macho posturing of the husband or in-law pressure/bullying. It is our girls who are not educated enough who feel trapped and put up with spousal abuse because they are scared of facing the unknown.

 

These days I have noticed a trend of golden goose syndrome the guy might be a hardly 10th pass but he wants a wife with a profession why ? so she becomes a work slave  providing an income stream for him. This is on top of daaj demands. So again the Punjabi learns from the bad of others - well done, try learning something from sikhi instead. 

Your thinking also displays an element of backwards attitude to Kaurs ...there are so many who are positive contributors without paying ...maybe they take on ALL the families caretaking duties so their parents are free to work ...but of course in your eyes that wouldn't be worth anything ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhein ji life is all about choices !

Bibi can either be homely or career oriented.

Problem starts when you mix both lifestyles.

Alpha females usually end up with sissy husbands or toy boys.

They are also called home breakers by in-law's coz they are not wired to live in joint families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, singhbj singh said:

Bhein ji life is all about choices !

Bibi can either be homely or career oriented.

Problem starts when you mix both lifestyles.

Alpha females usually end up with sissy husbands or toy boys.

They are also called home breakers by in-law's coz they are not wired to live in joint families.

In the west you may not have the choice because of cost of living so do not jump to false conclusions my mother worked and looked after her duties too as do millions across the world , the only things that changed is location of workplace compared to previous generations . An alpha female is not a home breaker she is a home maker because she has strong self-confidence and ability can bring that to her family life , some in-laws live to blame the daughter in law when the fault lies in their sons . My brothers don't live with my widowed Mother , they don't look after her why? because my mother was wise enough to recognise that they didn't want that responsibility, so she let it go. Her daughters and their husbands are the ones who ask after her and help her out in a practical way although they live elsewhere. The Punjabi model makes selfish men and the Western Model selfish women , the sikh model makes Selfless people . I have a Sikh Mother ...that is better than anything this Hindu commentator knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhein ji whether East or West everyone gets to choose.

Guru Sahibaan's vigorously promoted "Santokhi" ie contented lifestyle.

Can working women instill that virtue in children, guess Not !

Edited by singhbj singh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, singhbj singh said:

Bhein ji whether East or West everyone gets to choose.

Guru Sahibaan's vigorously promoted "Santokhi" ie contented lifestyle.

Can working women instill that virtue in children, guess Not !

hahaha keep trying ... yes santokh can be instilled and sikh core values ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2016 at 8:33 PM, jkvlondon said:

 

In my own life  I would earn and then buy things that would help in the household like new appliances because my Parents would get angry if I offered them money (now I understand but then I found it strange). Mostly I would be told to save it for myself ... after I was going to get married both my fiance and I paid for the whole thing and costs ourselves I did not want to burden my folks at all. When they looked after my eldest when I was working I would provide everything and also pay my Mother the going rate.

 

If you don't mind me asking Sis why did your parents object to this? offering the money I mean?

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thanatos said:

 

If you don't mind me asking Sis why did your parents object to this? 

Guru ji hukam that a Singh should never eat from the earnings of his sister or daughter

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jkvlondon said:

Guru ji hukam that a Singh should never eat from the earnings of his sister or daughter

Oh right. I either wasn't aware of that or it slipped my mind, apologises. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-09-26 at 3:26 AM, jkvlondon said:

Guru ji hukam that a Singh should never eat from the earnings of his sister or daughter

This is from Guru Gobind Singh Jis 52 hukams and the wording was consider the income (property) of a daughter as poison. The underlying meaning was to prevent exploitation of women, slave labour of ones own family etc. 

Growing up when I had a job I paid my parents for room and board. I didn't see it as them exploiting me rather I saw it as me helping pay my own way. It helped me learn to manage money and when I joined the military and got my own apartment it had helped me to manage my own place by myself. Life skills you know... 

i think the idea of this hukam was that things should not be taken from a daughter to better the life of a son... one should not have better life than the other.... you know take from a dowry from a daughter (Hindu) to make the sons marriage that much better etc. At least that's how someone explained it to me or sometimes daughters would be sold out for services rendered (prostitution) and the parents would benefit. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

This is from Guru Gobind Singh Jis 52 hukams and the wording was consider the income (property) of a daughter as poison. The underlying meaning was to prevent exploitation of women, slave labour of ones own family etc. 

Growing up when I had a job I paid my parents for room and board. I didn't see it as them exploiting me rather I saw it as me helping pay my own way. It helped me learn to manage money and when I joined the military and got my own apartment it had helped me to manage my own place by myself. Life skills you know... 

i think the idea of this hukam was that things should not be taken from a daughter to better the life of a son... one should not have better life than the other.... you know take from a dowry from a daughter (Hindu) to make the sons marriage that much better etc. At least that's how someone explained it to me or sometimes daughters would be sold out for services rendered (prostitution) and the parents would benefit. 

the difference is YOU decided to help out not you earned and they took . It is quite right that one shoud not take advantage of a single girl of any family, one they may be saving for their own studies or life  and two we have a duty of care on our younger siblings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never met a perfect Sikh before, I've just them on a totally scale based system. Working or non-working means less especially in the diaspora, (most diaspora women work which is something almost no body will deny).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Whether you’re a confident but controlling first-born or a resourceful yet restless middle child, your positioning in the family can affect everything from your choice of career to how successful your marriage is.   The order we’re born in – first, middle or youngest child – is outside our control. So it can make us uncomfortable to think that our birth order can play a significant part in our success, our personality – the direction of our life. Surely, these things are not set before we even get started? And yet, we all know a ‘typical middle child’, we recognise ‘classic only-child behaviour’. And the over-achievement of the first-born is one of the most consistent findings in child psychology. So how big a role does birth order play? I’m coming from a vulnerable, emotionally charged and pregnant perspective. I have two daughters, aged five and six, and am about to add a third baby to the mix. At the moment, Ruby, our eldest, has life sussed. She’s independent, educationally gifted and sometimes I think I could leave her in Sainsbury’s and she’d probably look after herself. Tara, her younger sister, is the one who wants the cuddles, who frets if I’m not first at the door when school finishes. The idea that she’ll soon be shoved out of her space as the baby of the family and squashed into the middle fills me with guilt. Is it downhill for her from now on? The importance of birth order was first set out by the Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler. Michael Grose, an Adlerian-trained parenting expert and author of Why First-borns Rule The World And Last-borns Want To Change It (Random House, £12.99), explains the basics. ‘We’re in a Darwinian struggle from the moment we’re born, fighting for scarce resources within a family – our parents’ time, love and affection,’ he says. Through human evolution, birth order has determined who inherits power (the first-born) and who is sent to war (the youngest as he was the ‘spare’). First born Historically, first-borns have been less likely to die in infancy, are less susceptible to disease and, as adults, are more likely to reproduce. They are their parents’ ‘blue-chip security’, whose birth is most eagerly anticipated, whose first steps, first words, first everythings are celebrated. ‘Typical first-borns are appro-val-seeking missiles,’ says Grose. ‘They’ve been showered with attention and identify strongly with power.’ First-borns are thought to be conscientious and achievement-oriented. A study of Norwegians born between 1912 and 1975 found that educational achievement was highest in first-borns and diminished the further down the birth order you got, despite little difference in IQ. The legal profession is, says Grose, filled with first-borns. World leaders are also overwhelmingly first-born children. On the negative side, first-borns are the only ones who experience having their parents all to themselves, then having to share them. For this reason, they’re thought to be anxious, emotionally intense, defensive and prone to jealous rages. These are all characteristics that fit Sarah Ruskell, 43. The eldest of three, she’s a successful academic, married with three children. As a child, she was serious, bookish and mature. ‘I had a younger sister and brother who were much naughtier on a daily basis,’ she says. ‘But if I was pushed, if they messed up my room or touched my records, I’d rage. Any threat to my power, I suppose.’ Another characteristic of first-borns, according to Frank Sulloway, author of Born to Rebel (Abacus), is caution and aversion to risk. They’re the least likely to travel or be physically daring. Again, this fits Sarah. While her middle brother took up hang-gliding and both siblings backpacked round the world, Sarah’s biggest adventure to date is a thunderstorm in France. Many theorists group only children among first-borns ­– although they never experience having to share their parents, nor the frictions, fights or fondness that comes with siblings. For this reason, they feel like outsiders, distanced from much of life. The only child is thought to be extremely mature, aloof, someone who expects a special standing. Middle child So what about the middle child? According to Darwinian theory, they lose out as they are neither the precious, able, oldest,­ nor the vulnerable youngest. Their strength is that they learn to be more flexible and sociable, to compromise and build coalitions. ‘Middle children tend to be more relaxed,’ says Grose. James, 39, is a typical case. Born between his sister and brother, he has always been easy-going, and loves to be surrounded by friends. Yet his affability comes at a price. ‘I turned my back on becoming a pro rugby player because I lacked competitive drive,’ he says. As the first-born boy, James didn’t struggle to establish his own identity as some middle-borns do, but, he says, ‘if I wanted something I definitely had to shout the loudest to make myself heard’. Gemma, 33, the middle of three sisters, found it harder to carve out her niche. ‘I lived in my older sister’s shadow, and was overlooked in favour of my younger sister,’ she says. ‘I felt left out, and overcompensated by forging friendships outside the family.’ She also became a skilled negotiator. ‘As a “middle” I was the peacemaker. I still use those skills now, and I’m good at seeing everyone’s point of view.’ Last born The youngest children are more likely to question the order of things, and develop a ‘revolutionary personality’. Many last-borns choose a completely different path to their older siblings to avoid direct competition. They are the babies of the family, and may grow up expecting others to take responsibility. ‘They’re not life’s volunteers,’ says Grose. ‘They’re more likely to put others in service.’ As the youngest of three, I can recognise myself in that. Growing up, I was the most likely to have blazing rows with my dad, I sympathised with the underdog and I’m not a volunteer. (At family get-togethers, I’m still the least helpful.) But a lonely outsider, struggling with an inferiority complex? It seems harsh to condemn anyone to this description simply on the basis of where they stand in the family. Grose admits the effects of birth order can vary according to different factors, including temperament, gender and age gap. Lucy McDonald is the third of five children, but was the first girl. ‘I’ve got a mix of middle and oldest child traits,’ she says. ‘You can have an easy-going first-born, which will ease the competition all the way down,’ says Grose. ‘If the children are the same sex, the competition is more extreme –­ two boys close together produces the most rivalry, and, generally, the closer the age gap, the more dramatic the birth-order effect. When the gap is more than five years, it’s greatly diminished.’ Grose has found birth order a useful tool when dealing with adult clients. ‘Recently, I was approached by a professional in her forties who was basically worn out,’ he says. ‘She admitted that, as a child, she was always playing catch-up with her sister, who was two years older than her. She had always tried to run as fast and be as clever, and the pattern had played out her whole life. As an adult, she was competitive in everything ­– she’d replaced her older sister with her colleagues, her boss, her friends. Despite career success, she was never happy with herself. Helping her see the problem through the context of birth order put her on the path to understanding and modifying her behaviour patterns.’ Cliff Isaacson, author of Birth Order Effect for Couples (Fair Winds, £9.99), believes birth order can even help you find a partner. ‘Two third-borns make the best couples,’ he says. ‘They relate without conflict, there’s a lot of humour and they make a protective environment for their children. Two first-borns rarely connect, there’s no compromise, it’s not a happy relationship.’ According to Isaacson, however, birth order is not a fixed state. ‘It’s a set of strategies developed in childhood to cope with your siblings (or lack of them), parents and the family situation,’ he says. ‘As you get older, you may learn other ways of interacting with your peers. The best reason for studying your birth order is to understand yourself or your children a little better – then overcome it.’ Are you a born leader? More than half the US Presidents, every US astronaut and most Nobel prize-winners have been either first born or an only child. Typical professions are law, politics, science and accountancy. First-borns: Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler (actually his mother’s first surviving child), Kylie Minogue, Cherie Blair. Only children: Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Franklin D Roosevelt, Jean Paul Sartre, Burt Bacharach, Frank Sinatra, Tiger Woods. Middle children: many middle children work in retail, sales, fashion, advertising or the caring professions. Stella McCartney, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jacqueline du Pré, Princess Diana, Cindy Crawford, Cate Blanchett, Emily Brontë. Last children: thought to be rebels, non-conformists, also drawn to creative professions and performing arts. Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi, Charles Darwin, Leon Trotsky, Charlie Chaplin, Hugh Grant, Johnny Depp. Source - https://www.psychologies.co.uk/birth-order-effect
    • https://www.thequint.com/women/2017/03/15/sexual-harassment-at-the-time-of-sita-draupadi-mandodari-ahalya-ramayana-mahabharata
    • Yeah, but as a condition for marriage if everything else was excellent; that's an overperfection. Though he's got to be happy, instead of starting a marriage on a bad foot.
    • Massands were proven to be Anti-Gurmat, for this very reason? Only Guru Sahib can give Amrit; this is proven in Gurbani 24/7 when imperfect humans start putting their feet in water, and calling it Amrit then we have problems. Guru Sahib is allowed to give Amrit because he is God's form. Nihangs also don't believe in female Punj Pyare; the only groups that do believe in it are man-made Jathas and not Jathas made by Vaheguru; Taksali and Nihangs; (note, not all Nihangs were formed by Guru Sahib). +1, nobody should be changing the topic, but O.P. really got to stop msking threads like this; he has not even bothered to post anything in this topic he knew would lead into a fight. (I'd give him 9000 troll points for this).
    • I'd say most Sikh guys are between 5'6" and 5'11" taller than that is not the norm from what I have seen. And for women about 5'2"-5'5" average. You can find Sikh girls in the 5'8" or taller range but rare. Of course I'm not in Punjab but Kashmir.