jkvlondon

Abandoned WIves - another cosh to beat sikhs with?

79 posts in this topic

....

Edited by CHaamCHrick

Share this post


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

This is not a political issue but one concerning psychology, sociology, and perhaps biology. Read up on male and female behaviour patterns. There are always exceptions, because humans cannot be nearly categorised, and there are always outliers that buck trends. It's a matter of extrapolating what has been proven and applying it to current society in its many forms. How you've managed to compare a micro situation - the subtle minutae of the dynamics between the members of a same-sex group of friends - and compare it to a macro situation of a war between countries is mind-boggling. I had you down as someone who was smarter than the kind of stuff you've posted above. You're letting your resentment towards established societal norms cloud your judgement.

It's amazing how Sikhs are governed by Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism and not even Sikhi.

Our guru's were not politically correct, I'm sure that they must have upset the feelings of many a Brahmin and a MaulvI. 

Our guru's had a very good understanding of human nature and psychology and not afraid of calling out a spade for a spade.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

It's amazing how Sikhs are governed by Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism and not even Sikhi.

Our guru's were not politically correct, I'm sure that they must have upset the feelings of many a Brahmin and a MaulvI. 

Our guru's had a very good understanding of human nature and psychology and not afraid of calling out a spade for a spade.

You know, it's so true what you are saying here. They were quite forthright in saying what had to be said regardless of consequences - even when it brought violent wrath upon their own, their families and the communities head. 

But there is that sakhi where Guru Hargobind Ji (I think) discourages a zealous brother who had broken the nose off an idol and then asked the irate worshipers to make the idol defend itself (so to speak) when confronted. Although, what the idol-breaker was saying was true from a Sikhi perspective Guru ji told him to hold that kind of stuff down and be a bit more sensitive of people's beliefs. 

Am I wrong in interpreting this (and wider Guru-period Sikh history)  as Guru ji tolerating minor things in other communities that don't really harm us, but being boldly forthright in confronting more serious issues/ideologies that do have a potentially negative effect on us (like Aurengzaab's style of Islam)?

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Why only women. Don't men play such mind games on each other as well. Wickedness is not sole preserve of females .

Maybe women are sick of millenia of patriarchy. I m too. Straight men have way too much power. Historically they hv been responsible for wars and killing. When was the last time you saw a rioting mob of women. 

All our Guru's from Guru Nanak Dev Ji to Dashmesh Pita were all patriarchs. 

For all the faults of Patriarchy, it's the patriarchs that pushed forward civilisation.

There were plenty of war mongering female leaders as well. Women have played their part in bringing down empires too for personal gain.

For example, Google Cortes and Montezuma during Spain conquista of Mexico and who played a key role in bringing down the Aztec Empire.

Women in history have had no qualms in siding with conquerors when it suits their purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain people shouldn't be idolising any gender - male or female (or anything in-between seeing as that appears to be a growing group these days??).

Male and Female can both be evil as hell. Both are as susceptible to the 5 chors as each other. Women can and do start fights in between blokes as much as other blokes and their crap does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

All our Guru's from Guru Nanak Dev Ji to Dashmesh Pita were all patriarchs. 

For all the faults of Patriarchy, it's the patriarchs that pushed forward civilisation.

There were plenty of war mongering female leaders as well. Women have played their part in bringing down empires too for personal gain.

For example, Google Cortes and Montezuma during Spain conquista of Mexico and who played a key role in bringing down the Aztec Empire.

Women in history have had no qualms in siding with conquerors when it suits their purpose.

India started off as a matriarchical society with outside influences it was changed to become a patriarchy .

there are many women warriors who didn't do what you suggested but fought against and lead others to fight against invaders 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/59287/9-female-warriors-who-made-their-mark-history

including Mata Bhag Kaur ji 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

It's amazing how Sikhs are governed by Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism and not even Sikhi.

Our guru's were not politically correct, I'm sure that they must have upset the feelings of many a Brahmin and a MaulvI. 

Our guru's had a very good understanding of human nature and psychology and not afraid of calling out a spade for a spade.

These issues need to be discussed openly without prejudice or fear. The more people are shouted down or insulted for even daring to suggest such things, the more these issues are pushed underground, and we all know when that happens, certain ideas, beliefs, etc, begin to thrive under adversity, but they also fester and bubble away until a tipping point arrives when it all explodes. The very nature of making something taboo and controversial invites a certain sense of rebellion, which ultimately lends such things a quality of being "cool."

Where I draw the line personally is in the idea that it's acceptable to offend and hurt. You usually find it's deeply prejudiced individuals who bleat on about the right to offend, but I don't think that's necessary. To be able to discuss a subject, no matter how controversial, without goading or offending someone under the pretence of free speech, is the grown-up way of doing it. Most of the people who advocate such things want to win an argument rather than actually resolve certain issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

India started off as a matriarchical society with outside influences it was changed to become a patriarchy .

there are many women warriors who didn't do what you suggested but fought against and lead others to fight against invaders 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/59287/9-female-warriors-who-made-their-mark-history

including Mata Bhag Kaur ji 

 

I am beginning to think that India is and has always been a matriarchal society, what we think of patriarchal is really patrilineal.

Those women warriors that you have mentioned came in the absence of male authority.

What is very interesting as well is that many of them were Queens that sought revenge.

Did they really do it for revenge or what is it to keep a grip on power. 

It seems to follow a similar pattern to a lot of the women Prime Ministers and Presidents in a lot of countries that seem to be the daughter or the wife of some leader like Cory Aquino of the Philippines,  Benazir Bhutto, De Kirchner of Argentina, Indira Gandhi (however her Son Rajiv Gandhi follows this pattern, we know who he set his vengeance on), or Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh.

The only  woman that deserves respect in that list other than our Mata Bhag Kaur Ji is Joan of Arc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The only  woman that deserves respect in that list other than our Mata Bhag Kaur Ji is Joan of Arc.

Absolutely yes. Joan of Arc has always fascinated me. What she achieved primarily based on, as she claimed, a command from God, is remarkable. Her conduct during her life, and the manner in which she faced her death was immense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I see a transgender case potentially happening before my very eyes here.... lol 

Your hate is showing 

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2017 at 5:27 PM, jkvlondon said:

happened with Mum , she just told them to be happy where they wanted so my two brothers are on opposite sides of London to each other and then at least an hour's drive away . Whereas my sis and her hubby live down the street and I live about fifteen minutes away ...

A classic example of how women rule the rule the roost in our families.

All women are closer to their parent's and will try to live closer to them.

However, the sons are ruled by their wives and therefore have to be less close their own parents to ensure that their marriages are successful.

I see this pattern emerging time and time again.

Women in general do not like their husband's being close to their own families but will complain about their brothers not being close with their parents.

The irony does not occur to them that their bhabiyah act with their pekheh in the same manner that they act with their saureh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Your hate is showing 

Nothing to do with hate. I just feel given the widespread emasculation of Sikh males, the last thing we need is another bloke acting girly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

including Mata Bhag Kaur ji 

AM I missing something? I didn't see Mata Bhag Kaur in that list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

Nothing to do with hate. I just feel given the widespread emasculation of Sikh males, the last thing we need is another bloke acting girly. 

Any criticism/questioning of the feminisation that is taking place is always conflated with hatred.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

However, the sons are ruled by their wives and therefore have to be less close their own parents to ensure that their marriages are successful.

(Edit: need to rephrase what I wrote. My English is shocking today)

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

AM I missing something? I didn't see Mata Bhag Kaur in that list?

She was not on that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A wife’s best defense against a troublesome mother-in-law.

 

Not all mother-in-laws are troublesome, but when they are troublesome they are a great source of frustration for wives.   Most wives who face this problem try to solve it by putting pressure on their husband to intervene. Wives can bring a great deal of pressure to bear on their husbands in the form of denial of sex and threatened divorce, but in this case their go-to solution is shockingly ineffective.

Ironically the reason wives find themselves powerless against their mother-in-laws is their having taken on the power position in the marriage.  Once they did this they created a de facto matriarchy.  As the more senior member of the clan the mother-in-law outranks the wife.  Putting pressure on the husband doesn’t work in this situation because the husband isn’t acting as the leader and protector of his household;  he is trying to placate two women who are effectively in positions of authority over him.  The mother-in-law will sense this even if she couldn’t articulate it.  When her son requests that she change her behavior the mother-in-law sees him for what he is;  he is a messenger from the wife, whom the mother-in-law outranks.

The solution is simple;  the wife needs to relinquish the position of head of household and cede that position to her husband.  This means she needs to abandon her tools of manipulation over her husband, not ratchet them up.  This will take some time and effort, and there are simple steps a wife can take to encourage her husband to start taking on the role of leader and protector.

The solution isn’t foolproof, but it is extremely effective.  Nearly all men are highly protective of those they lead, and if they see themselves as head of the household they will start to naturally see themselves as their wife’s protector.  The mother-in-law will also sense the change, and since the husband is now acting under his own natural authority she will take him seriously in a way she never did with the wife or when she saw him as the wife’s ambassador.

My wife has given this advice to married women in her circle, and while most were aghast at the idea of allowing their husband to lead the ones who followed the advice were amazed at the results.  In many cases the mother-in-law not only ultimately settled down, but became downright pleasant to the daughter-in-law.  In one case the formerly at odds mother-in-law and daughter-in-law now actually enjoy each other’s company so much they regularly go shopping and to lunch together.

Patriarchy or matriarchy:  take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

 

A wife’s best defense against a troublesome mother-in-law.

 

Not all mother-in-laws are troublesome, but when they are troublesome they are a great source of frustration for wives.   Most wives who face this problem try to solve it by putting pressure on their husband to intervene. Wives can bring a great deal of pressure to bear on their husbands in the form of denial of sex and threatened divorce, but in this case their go-to solution is shockingly ineffective.

Ironically the reason wives find themselves powerless against their mother-in-laws is their having taken on the power position in the marriage.  Once they did this they created a de facto matriarchy.  As the more senior member of the clan the mother-in-law outranks the wife.  Putting pressure on the husband doesn’t work in this situation because the husband isn’t acting as the leader and protector of his household;  he is trying to placate two women who are effectively in positions of authority over him.  The mother-in-law will sense this even if she couldn’t articulate it.  When her son requests that she change her behavior the mother-in-law sees him for what he is;  he is a messenger from the wife, whom the mother-in-law outranks.

The solution is simple;  the wife needs to relinquish the position of head of household and cede that position to her husband.  This means she needs to abandon her tools of manipulation over her husband, not ratchet them up.  This will take some time and effort, and there are simple steps a wife can take to encourage her husband to start taking on the role of leader and protector.

The solution isn’t foolproof, but it is extremely effective.  Nearly all men are highly protective of those they lead, and if they see themselves as head of the household they will start to naturally see themselves as their wife’s protector.  The mother-in-law will also sense the change, and since the husband is now acting under his own natural authority she will take him seriously in a way she never did with the wife or when she saw him as the wife’s ambassador.

My wife has given this advice to married women in her circle, and while most were aghast at the idea of allowing their husband to lead the ones who followed the advice were amazed at the results.  In many cases the mother-in-law not only ultimately settled down, but became downright pleasant to the daughter-in-law.  In one case the formerly at odds mother-in-law and daughter-in-law now actually enjoy each other’s company so much they regularly go shopping and to lunch together.

Patriarchy or matriarchy:  take your pick.

This is from a Christian website but interesting insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't want to sound rude and anti-man. I am a man myself. Sorry if I sounded rude 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Any criticism/questioning of the feminisation that is taking place is always conflated with hatred.

 

I ain't hating. But I want morally upright, tough brothers (and sisters) to stand next to. Even more so in these times. Anything else doesn't cut it.

I've met bi apnay who could (and would) break heads off. So it isn't like being gay excludes you from stepping up when the time comes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

She was not on that list.

she was in the post added by myself try looking again ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

This is from a Christian website but interesting insight.

yeah well Christians also preach the rule of thumb in the bible , and say that women are not meant to teach men anything when we know that Jesus appointed female parchaariks too. It's a bit one-sided

Share this post


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

yeah well Christians also preach the rule of thumb in the bible , and say that women are not meant to teach men anything when we know that Jesus appointed female parchaariks too. It's a bit one-sided

There's a quote in the Bible there one of the 13 apostles said that a woman is not allowed to speak in Church. (Don't know the exact quote, but if I ever find it this post will be edied). Honestly this is the first time I heard of Jesus female preachers. When Jesus was "shaheed", (if you want to call it that), he was betrayed by a Ghadar named Judas, it was his female followers wanting to see the body of their God, who went to see his body. The male disciples other than John left, and they were all brought to Justice by the Romans for following Jesus in the first place: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_at_the_crucifixion

(But women have played an important role in both Sikhi and Christianity, not so much in Hinduism and Islam.)

Share this post


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

There's a quote in the Bible there one of the 13 apostles said that a woman is not allowed to speak in Church. (Don't know the exact quote, but if I ever find it this post will be edied). Honestly this is the first time I heard of Jesus female preachers. When Jesus was "shaheed", (if you want to call it that), he was betrayed by a Ghadar named Judas, it was his female followers wanting to see the body of their God, who went to see his body. The male disciples other than John left, and they were all brought to Justice by the Romans for following Jesus in the first place: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_at_the_crucifixion

(But women have played an important role in both Sikhi and Christianity, not so much in Hinduism and Islam.)

Not one quote on females being quiet but many...... check out 

https://www.openbible.info/topics/women_preachers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Galatians 3:28 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

The above however contradicts what is said earlier on - these are Paul the apostles words. 

 

 

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