Jump to content

Attachment with daughter


Guest Mehar karo
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/7/2017 at 11:21 PM, Guest Mehar karo said:

The time I came in this home I feel alone as my husband don't listen to me don't understand me he is angry man... I m angry too... We both are amrit Dhari..i get frustration very soon same with my husband...

Sorry to hear that. Sounds like you both need some clam naam simran.

On 8/7/2017 at 11:21 PM, Guest Mehar karo said:

My mother in law wants her to sleep with them... Be with them... I get angry after listening this...

You know, you could have it a lot worse. You could be having to tie her up on your back while you toil in the fields, and then later forage for firewood. Instead, you've got a whole extended family of people who are falling all over themselves to take care of her, leaving you free to do your work (admittedly much easier than most women in this world have). First world problems. Let's be thankful and not ungrateful to God.

I do agree that the the MIL should not command that the daughter has to sleep with her. Rather, she should offer to have her sleep with her. In addition, she can very kindly ask you to let the child sleep with her sometimes. And I think you should agree to it. Not every single time, though. I'm assuming the girl is not nursing anymore.

By having the child sleep with her, the MIL is letting you and your husband have love time, which is very important.

On 8/7/2017 at 11:21 PM, Guest Mehar karo said:

In frustration I said I want to leave alone from joint family.... So my husband started to pull my dastar and he said don't tie this if u like to think against gurmat...

I would not recommend to anybody to pull anybody's turban off, be they even a jihadi, much less a Sikh. I understand your frustration, but you should not seriously tell your husband to leave his parents, because this is against Gurmat:

ਨੁਹੁ ਨਿਤ ਕੰਤ ਕੁਮੰਤੁ ਦੇਇ ਵਿਹਰੇ ਹੋਵਨਿ ਸਸੁ ਵਿਗੋਈ।

Now, the bride starts ill-advising the son, goading him to get separate from the parents, and consequently the mother-in-law becomes sorrowful.

ਲਖ ਉਪਕਾਰੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿ ਕੈ ਪੁਤੁ ਕੁਪੁਤਿ ਚਕੀ ਉਠਿ ਝੋਈ।

Forgetting lacs of benefactions (of mother) the son becomes disloyal and sets himself at logger-heads with his parents.

ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੩੭ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੧

 

I do think that all of you should resolve the situation in Gursikh love and give each family member his due. Wish you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2017 at 3:24 PM, Guest Guest SPeak up said:

Now you should apolozise to ur husband for wanting to move out and say that the real reason is because i am sad and depressed because I dont get to take care of my child. I do all the household work, and the one thing that brings me happiness is taken away from me. Every mother has a right to her child. 

Excellent advice. Now, why don't you sign up for a FREE account (limited time offer), and regularly dispense such sage advice on this forum, which sorely needs it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

Maybe your mother-in-law never had a girl so is overstepping into your role out of own fantasy life, maybe give her a specific role like teaching gurbani, gurmukhi or telling sakhian so she realises she is needed

Very good constructive advise. Maybe the dadi can do all this and/or Kirtan Sohila before the child goes to sleep wherever she will sleep.

4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

Men generally do not realise what is involved in overnight care as they DO NOT wake with the baby's cries unlike us , it is a physical adaptation that kicks in once you have a child and your MIL may not wake either.

Strongly agree w/ the part about men. Don't necessarily agree about the part about MIL. Regardless: what cries? One assumes the child is not nursing. If she is, she should not be with dadi in the first place, she should be with her mother.
If she's not nursing, then: what cries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

i am sorry children are not pawns

Agreed. The dadi should not throw a fit demanding that the child sleep with her in order to show her power in the household. Rather, she should offer to let the child sleep with her, in Gursikh piar, as I wrote above.

However...

4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

need their own space to sleep at night so they can develop correctly mentally and physically. The problems stored for later, will be needing to climb in your bed when they are grown, unable to settle on their own , unable to travel easily, infantile temper tantrums at school age .

Stunningly wrong for someone who usually posts good advice. Let me fix that for you:

"Children need to bond with their parents so they can develop correctly, mentally, and physically. The problems are stored for later, and they will want to climb in your bed yet be banned from doing so, unable to have a sense of being loved, unable to travel easily, infantile temper tantrums at school age due to lack of love."

This is called "attachment parenting" and "co-sleeping". Your baby needs motherly contact (best being skin-to-skin), and proximity. Your baby can smell its mother being next to it. Don't deprive her of that. Don't be like the Westerners that cruelly put their children into separate bedrooms while they cry themselves to sleep. Also don't be the people who put their baby in a cage (crib) apart from mommy.

Now, our grandparents didn't call it "co-sleeping", it was just "sleeping". You put the baby next to mother. Where else would you put her? She's not a dog that you keep off to the side. She's a little part torn off of you.

Any unmarried girls reading along, plan to keep that little jiggar da tota right next to you when you have babies. Get an appropriately sized bed for this purpose.

The biggest thing crazy thing that brainwashed Westerners will say about lovingly keeping your child with you is that you'll smother it. This mostly happens to the extremely small number of Western women whose motherly instincts have been extinguished by an artificial society. Otherwise, as mentioned above, God has already put the right instincts into a mother to be able to care for her child, even while sleeping. Being worried that you'll smother your child is like wondering how you could ever push a 5 pound baby out of the birth canal: women have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years.

Most people are deadly terrified of snakes. You are 28X more likely to die in your bathtub than from a snake. Yet have you ever heard anyone be more terrified of a bathtub than a snake, let alone 28 times as afraid? So get this nonsense about smothering out of your head.

Finally, most mothers should be thankful that the dadi offers (not demands) to take the child off of her so she can "get down to business" with dear hubby :p. Physical (and non-physical) intimacy between man and wife is extremely important. This (sleeping with dadi) can be occasionally, weekly, every other day, or even daily, depending on the family and mother's desires.

As for whether a dadi can fulfill this role of a mother-substitute after nursing stops, and to what extent, is something that each family will have to decide on their own, based on the child, her desires, dadi's personality, mother's desires, etc., in Gursikh love, not using the children as pawns. 

5 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

What your in-laws need to realise is that it is not healthy or helpful to make a child so dependent on company all the time.

180 degrees wrong. A child that fulfills her social needs in her own family and home will not need to look elsewhere to manmukh neighbors/"friends" or even worse Internet "friends" or possibly predators. Western children are usually lonely and starving for attention, which they get in spades from all the wrong places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I believe a key matter is to get both your husband and you to try limiting krodh before talking about situations like these, emotions will only fly everything logical either of you will say.

Agreed:

ਮਿਠਤੁ ਨੀਵੀ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਗੁਣ ਚੰਗਿਆਈਆ ਤਤੁ ॥

Sweetness and humility, O Nanak, are the essence of virtue and goodness.

ਆਸਾ ਵਾਰ (ਮਃ ੧) (੧੪) ਸ. (੧) ੧:੪ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੪੭੦ 

5 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Now I'm probably going to say something controversial for most Subcontinental ideals and I think that the child should spend more time with the parents than extended family members.

You started off with a bang and ended with a whimper. What I mean to say is that you made it seem like you were going to say something extremely controversial, and you followed up with something that's really not that controversial. All you said is they should spend more time, not 100%. That's fine, I suppose, but it will vary from family to family. The classic case is the dad who is busy at work, and the kids play with the unmarried and vehla chacha, who is happy to oblige. Again, varies upon the situation.

5 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Let the grandmother play and do stuff with her grandkid; however, people should realize that the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren is very different from parents and children

Yes, it is different. Gurbani stresses on how important the mother/father and child relationship is with multiple references. ("Mera mat pita har raia", and "Tu mera pita tu hai mera mata"). Yet it also shows the importance of ancestors (precedents of our parents):

ਬਾਬਾਣੀਆ ਕਹਾਣੀਆ ਪੁਤ ਸਪੁਤ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥

The stories of one's ancestors make the children good children.

ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਵਾਰ¹ (ਮਃ ੩) (੧੦) ਸ. (੩) ੧:੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੯੫੧ 
 

The word "baba" used here is literally what people call their grandfathers. So while love and time spent with parents attaches us to our (physical and immediate) creators, the same with grandparents grounds us with our ancestors and the link to the past. I think both are important.

5 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

You should also spend time with your daughter, and if that can't work out, then it is best for you to leave a the joint family.

As noted above, leaving the joint family is an extreme step and in general is against Gurmat, though I can't know about any family's particular situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

@BhForce, why would you need 6 different posts-back-to-back? The easier solution is to just write 2-3 that say basically the same idea? 

The reason, bro, is that I'm responding to each individual person's posts, and people probably don't want to read a book in order to know how I responded to them. Neither do lurkers, in my estimation. Just the response to @jkvlondon was 4 laptop screens long, and I had to break up a separate part of that. Having a 10-screen long post would be insane, in my subjective view. Easier to keep arguments apart when the posts are manageable. Bhul chuk muaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
33 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Agreed:

ਮਿਠਤੁ ਨੀਵੀ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਗੁਣ ਚੰਗਿਆਈਆ ਤਤੁ ॥

Sweetness and humility, O Nanak, are the essence of virtue and goodness.

ਆਸਾ ਵਾਰ (ਮਃ ੧) (੧੪) ਸ. (੧) ੧:੪ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੪੭੦ 

:waheguru:.

36 minutes ago, BhForce said:

You started off with a bang and ended with a whimper. What I mean to say is that you made it seem like you were going to say something extremely controversial, and you followed up with something that's really not that controversial. All you said is they should spend more time, not 100%. That's fine, I suppose, but it will vary from family to family. The classic case is the dad who is busy at work, and the kids play with the unmarried and vehla chacha, who is happy to oblige. Again, varies upon the situation.

If you noticed that I did mention that if it's impossible for her to live with the mother-in-law it is better for them to live separately that's the controversial part. Now average situations are exactly what you listed, and I highlighted.

40 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Yes, it is different. Gurbani stresses on how important the mother/father and child relationship is with multiple references. ("Mera mat pita har raia", and "Tu mera pita tu hai mera mata"). Yet it also shows the importance of ancestors (precedents of our parents):

ਬਾਬਾਣੀਆ ਕਹਾਣੀਆ ਪੁਤ ਸਪੁਤ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥

The stories of one's ancestors make the children good children.

ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਵਾਰ¹ (ਮਃ ੩) (੧੦) ਸ. (੩) ੧:੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੯੫੧ 
 

The word "baba" used here is literally what people call their grandfathers. So while love and time spent with parents attaches us to our (physical and immediate) creators, the same with grandparents grounds us with our ancestors and the link to the past. I think both are important.

This is where we agree, we both acknowledge that the parents and grandparents have a different relationship with the child. However, I'd also like to ask you; if the ancestors were Dera wales or Non-Sikhs, what benefit Gurmat-wise can they provide? If we really want to go far enough, most Sikhs are descendents from Hindus, but we aren't Hindus, it's because of attachment to our pre-Sikh cultures that caste and other negative things effect our Kaum today. Ancestors are good and all; however, we must be practical.

44 minutes ago, BhForce said:

As noted above, leaving the joint family is an extreme step and in general is against Gurmat, though I can't know about any family's particular situation.

Each situation is completely different; however, if it's leading to the husband abusing her and pulling her dastar, I'd go the other direction. If the relationship is leading to abuse like this and the husband calling her insulting nanes, I'd go many steps further.

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