Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jacfsing2    1,844

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Why is there such a bad gender ratio of fewer female Amritdharis than that of male Amritdharis? Do the parents teach the daughter about the need for Amrit or what? (Also I seem to notice that some of them seem to be told off that if they want to take Amrit to wait till marriage; which only hurts this ratio more.) Is there a way to get both males and females interested, in the olden days people begged to take Amrit, now pracharks are begging for others to take Amrit. (Also if someone falls in Prem with Guru Sahib; what stalls them from taking Amrit.) Just wanted to know these questions with the answers. Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sikhni777    551

Parents do not promote amrit to their children.  Someone who wears a dastar once told me ... he does not want his son to have a handicap of dastar which will limit his swimming abilities.

Mothers are more concerned about whether their future in laws will allow their daughters to remain vegetarian and to perform path too. 

Altogether parents are more concerned about financial security of their children and consider religion to be a limitation. 

Children pick up the bits of religion out of self interest. Some or most parents step in as a discouraging factor.  Those who are forced to keep kesh, cannot wait for their parents to pass away so they can get their freedom. 

We have to educate ourselves and step above maya to realise the true purpose of our human birth and alsothe rreality and the truth which has been revealed in the SGGS.

Children currently would give English 6 days a week and 2 hours a week for punjabi, gurmukhi or santheya. Our religion should be seen as part of our day to day living...... not a necessity which elders force us into.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802

It's for the best. At least if there's less of them they're safe from guys like OP. :rofl I'm just kidding with you, Singh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,844
5 hours ago, sikhni777 said:

Parents do not promote amrit to their children.  Someone who wears a dastar once told me ... he does not want his son to have a handicap of dastar which will limit his swimming abilities.

Mothers are more concerned about whether their future in laws will allow their daughters to remain vegetarian and to perform path too. 

Altogether parents are more concerned about financial security of their children and consider religion to be a limitation. 

Children pick up the bits of religion out of self interest. Some or most parents step in as a discouraging factor.  Those who are forced to keep kesh, cannot wait for their parents to pass away so they can get their freedom. 

We have to educate ourselves and step above maya to realise the true purpose of our human birth and alsothe rreality and the truth which has been revealed in the SGGS.

Children currently would give English 6 days a week and 2 hours a week for punjabi, gurmukhi or santheya. Our religion should be seen as part of our day to day living...... not a necessity which elders force us into.

These all seem reasonable to an extent, (trying to understand both sides), but these could be easily resolved if we encouraged more general Amrit Sanchars among our youth. We need Maya, (not going to disagree), but what parent knowing wouldn't want the best spiritual way for their kids, (and they call themselves Sikhs), to be pushing Amrit away. I'm not a parent, (or even married for that matter), but after you reach a state of financial responsibility then the wealthy need goes down, (but you can't replace financial responsibility), after that you can see the actual values. 

The bigger question is: Do Parents Care About Sikhi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think women view keeping body hair as a great limitation that will isolate them socially.  I think that at least partially explains the amritdhari gender gap.  But that is only one factor.

 

In general, I think young Sikh women are less inclined to feel a connection with their Sikh heritage than young Sikh men are (even in cases where that connection does not necessarily involve being amritdhari).

For this, I blame their conflation of Sikhi with conservative Punjabi culture.  While the former is very progressive in terms of promoting gender equality, the latter is the opposite.  Let's face it: a lot of our parents (especially those from rural, uneducated backgrounds) treat their sons and daughters differently.  In some cases, the different treatment is administered with the best intentions in mind (but a lack of awareness of what is perceived to be sexist in the modern world).  In other cases, there is outright favoritism of boys. 

 

This is a dire problem, and we need to do something to increase the number of amritdhari women, and more generally, engage more young Sikh women and let them know that Sikhi is for them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Koi    271

I agree with pretty much everything said here.

Whether it's the parents, the media, western culture or personal weakness, it's hurting the ratio badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Because Amritdhari Singhs are going for non-amritdhari Women, ignoring and rejecting those with facial hair/unibrows. - so the whole idea of body hair kicks in.

2. Somehow we do not have enough of Women parchariks to get to the girls.

3. Parents lack education and fail to let their children walk on the path of sikh at an early age, choosing to equip them with worldly criteria of beauty and success.

4. Women who do tie dastars have put up an image that they are the same as all other women, except with certain eating and drinking restrictions. So women don't see the point of having to get amrit.

Edited by Khalistanisinghni
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802

I'd be very interested, from a statistical standpoint, the spread of female Gursikhs across the various jathe; or not as the case may be. I think a lot could be gained from identifying which jatha attracts the highest numbers of female Sikhs. From there you could ascertain why that is, and certain groups could take steps to correct a potential imbalance. Anecdotally i have an idea which jatha has the highest numbers of female Gursikhs, but it's just a hunch.

However, that would only work if the female takes amrit before marriage. I might be way off target here, but I'm assuming a female is expected to follow the same rehat as her husband, so i suppose she has less choice in her adherence to a certain jatha's rehat, than a female who decides not to wait to see which jatha her husband belongs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

I'd be very interested, from a statistical standpoint, the spread of female Gursikhs across the various jathe; or not as the case may be. I think a lot could be gained from identifying which jatha attracts the highest numbers of female Sikhs. From there you could ascertain why that is, and certain groups could take steps to correct a potential imbalance. Anecdotally i have an idea which jatha has the highest numbers of female Gursikhs, but it's just a hunch.

However, that would only work if the female takes amrit before marriage. I might be way off target here, but I'm assuming a female is expected to follow the same rehat as her husband, so i suppose she has less choice in her adherence to a certain jatha's rehat, than a female who decides not to wait to see which jatha her husband belongs to.

I agree a bibi should answer the call to Amrit as soon as possible before marriage because otherwise she would not have developed enough depth of abiyhass to discern potential hazards to her sikhi by prospective families . Plenty of oppressive in-laws out there without the complication of control of jatha rehit . 

A Gursikh is a Gursikh there is very little difference in rehit , maybe some do more i their nitnem others less  but we are told by Guru ji to always look to increase , the jatha amrit sanchar is just the launchpad  the swim is ahead of us .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Maybe it's because men and women become amritdhari for different reasons.

 

men I think do it for status if they are immature but most hopefully because of love of the Guru

Women for the love of guru firstly because so many oppose her  but some do only  for family 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802
7 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

I agree a bibi should answer the call to Amrit as soon as possible before marriage because otherwise she would not have developed enough depth of abiyhass to discern potential hazards to her sikhi by prospective families . Plenty of oppressive in-laws out there without the complication of control of jatha rehit . 

A Gursikh is a Gursikh there is very little difference in rehit , maybe some do more i their nitnem others less  but we are told by Guru ji to always look to increase , the jatha amrit sanchar is just the launchpad  the swim is ahead of us .

The reasons for taking amrit would need to identified and confronted (for both sexes), even if that means facing up to a few uncomfortable truths that have never, or rarely, been discussed. Because looking around at the state of the panth today in the West (beyond the dazzle of the surface), do you not wonder about certain individuals, "What is it about Sikhi that drew YOU to take amrit, you poor excuse for a human being?" We could flap our gums and pay lip service whilst ignoring the hathi in the room, or we could get serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,844
6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I'd be very interested, from a statistical standpoint, the spread of female Gursikhs across the various jathe; or not as the case may be. I think a lot could be gained from identifying which jatha attracts the highest numbers of female Sikhs. From there you could ascertain why that is, and certain groups could take steps to correct a potential imbalance. Anecdotally i have an idea which jatha has the highest numbers of female Gursikhs, but it's just a hunch.

However, that would only work if the female takes amrit before marriage. I might be way off target here, but I'm assuming a female is expected to follow the same rehat as her husband, so i suppose she has less choice in her adherence to a certain jatha's rehat, than a female who decides not to wait to see which jatha her husband belongs to.

Personally I'd not be too interested in a Jatha-fanatic to be spreading Gurmat, especially since each Jatha has it's Pakhand. We all know the Jatha which inspires the most women to take Amrit from before marriage, (not going to directly name it as some Jatha-fanatic would be complaining about it), and even that Jatha has it's personal problems. Keeping Rehat and taking Amrit are both wonderful things; however, if your not willing to comprimise on controversial issues especially when your side and the other Sikh persons views are radically different don't mention it, and don't try going to a Rishta if you view it important to you. Also we all hopefully remember that girl that married the Mahapurukh and just starting complaing that he wasn't wordly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kcmidlands    64
8 hours ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

 

1. Because Amritdhari Singhs are going for non-amritdhari Women, ignoring and rejecting those with facial hair/unibrows. - so the whole idea of body hair kicks in.

 

This is interesting because i know of a few Amritdhari Singhs who married non-amritdhari women and 2 of them have take Amrit a few years after they got married (one of the ladies even ties a dastaar) but their husband's still drop hint's about removing any excess hair and "shaping them eyebrows", double standards a-plenty from the men.

It take's a strong man, both in mentality and spirituality to accept his wife if she has taken amrit and her appearance doesn't "comply" with the norms of society but it takes an even stronger woman to take amrit reject the norms of society and follow Guru sahib.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097

The crux of this particular issue is in the context of hair.

Hair all over the body is seen as a masculine trait. Therefore, it is seen as acceptable for an Amritdhari male. 

However, in society hair outside the head area is not seen as a feminine trait.

The problem is Amritdharis are seen as somehow above being human and are enhanced spiritual beings. They are still humans and humans are going to human.

Several years of Amritdhari ness may not be enough over-ride thousands of years of hardwired biology.

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

    • Very nice post. 
    • Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?     
    • The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs.  I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery.  Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous.  Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro.   An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only).   
    • The passage reads: Vol I, Life of Guru Nanak, p51
    •   This is indeed a good post.     
×