Jump to content

Majority ignorant young couples not taking Sikh marriage anand karaj vows seriously


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, superkaur said:

Over the decade I have noticed a sharp increase in divorce rates within the Sikh community.

Another insightful and farseeing post. You continue to make great posts for the betterment of our community (other than that one belief of yours which I don't mention here because I don't want to derail this thread).

14 hours ago, superkaur said:

What we need is a 1 month course of anyone wishing to have a sikh marriage anand karaj so that they do not take the marriage as a joke or lightly and think they can divorce when ever they feel like it.

Great idea. I wish we were so united as to be able to do this and to enforce it across all Gurdwaras, too.

14 hours ago, superkaur said:

But sadly the desi/asian communities of all religions are now on par with their white counterparts.

ਮਃ ੫ ॥

ਫਰੀਦਾ ਦੁਨੀ ਵਜਾਈ ਵਜਦੀ ਤੂੰ ਭੀ ਵਜਹਿ ਨਾਲਿ ॥

Fareed, the world dances as it dances, and you dance with it as well.

ਸੋਈ ਜੀਉ ਨ ਵਜਦਾ ਜਿਸੁ ਅਲਹੁ ਕਰਦਾ ਸਾਰ ॥੧੧੦॥

 

That soul alone does not dance with it, who is under the care of the Lord God. ||110||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dissolution of the extended family in favor of the nuclear family is something I feel only hurts us all. As other posters pointed out it also contributes to marriages failing.

When my grandmother was still alive she held our family together with her old school ways. After her death things just aren't the same. The extended family gets together for made up american holidays based on fake history, but the loyalty, the teamwork, the everything of substance is gone. 

Feminism is a double edged sword. We know women are deserving of respect and equal rights. Many women, especially single mothers have to work and deserve work. Women shouldn't have to rely on a man if they don't wish. Unfortunately a side effect of women entering the workforce is it doubles the labor pool which halves the prevalent wage. So now both parents work full time for the same money the man used to make and the children have little access to either parent. Feminism served it's role, but it has gotten confused with man hating, and shying away from having any domestic aptitude. I think perhaps equality, diversity, and personal and family empowerment should take the place of feminism now that it has served its purpose. 

Media values can be blamed, but those values are strongest when other values aren't. It's a tough industry to contend with but if our own values are strong enough we recognize media as folly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TigerForce1 said:

The success of the marriages of the previous generations were down to being young and sharing hardship along the way.

Great point, bro.

It's a basic psychological truth that overcoming adversity binds you together:

Quote

"There is a strong bond created between leaders and employees, shareholders and constituencies who share sacrifices for the good of the organization."

https://majorium.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/the-bonding-power-of-shared-sacrifice-2/

 

Quote

 

What doesn’t kill us may make us stronger as a group, according to findings from new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

The research suggests that, despite its unpleasantness, pain may actually have positive social consequences, acting as a sort of “social glue” that fosters cohesion and solidarity within groups:


 

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/shared-pain-brings-people-together.html

 

People today want everything handed to them on a silver plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Unfortunately a side effect of women entering the workforce is it doubles the labor pool which halves the prevalent wage.

You do know that it's not allowed to state the patently obvious, don't you? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say this, and yet, everyone intuitively knows it's true.

5 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

So now both parents work full time for the same money the man used to make and the children have little access to either parent.

Their replacement parents are Hollywood, which says just **** every girl you see, and their teachers/professors/Marx, who says marriage is merely a oppressive institution, to be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical scenario #1 - a lot of Punjabi boys are mummys boys, who really cant do anything major outside of their families and houses and then try acting big in front of their wives. but when the wife, who comes from a liberal background, where she is used to going out, got a decent career etc, is suddenly chief enemy soon as she wants to live a similar lifestyle in her in laws house. This usually leads to the saas starting on her son, who in return switches on his wife instead of growing a pair. But also, I forgot to add, the guy himself goes out, goes on holidays (usually to mess around with hookers) etc and all is well. fact is, we aint living in the 70s anymore, where majority of the women our mothers age put up with domestic violence, alcohol abuse, cheating husbands etc due to divorce being so frowned up on.

 

Typical scenario #2 - the girl has messed around with loads of guys, meets a decent guy who usually is quite well off and thinks she will live like a queen. After the marriage hype, she gets bored and starts messing around again. this scenario actually applies to the guys too.

 

Typical scenario #3 - control freak kinda guy, seen as a good guy cus he got a good job etc, but psychologically bullys his wife.

there are loads more types of scenarios, but a common theme is tht divorce is on the increase, particularly to the point where our community is full of divorced women who are psychologically left damaged by their in laws and ex husbands. and surprise surprise, this turns them against us and straight into the arms of goreh and suleh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

You do know that it's not allowed to state the patently obvious, don't you? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say this, and yet, everyone intuitively knows it's true.

Their replacement parents are Hollywood, which says just **** every girl you see, and their teachers/professors/Marx, who says marriage is merely a oppressive institution, to be destroyed.

err Men get paid still the same wages despite women working ... and often as is the way the penny pinching of corporate accountants at board's behest means there is a policy of keeping pressure on the men and women so they either leave to allow for cheaper inexperienced staff to be moved in their stead or just made redundant . The reason why there are so many women working is not purely feminism it is the constant undermining of worker's pay and rights meaning to cover family bills they HAVE to work . It is nigh on impossible to run a household on one income these days if you are a blue collar worker even lower end white collar .

this second wave of automation may mean loss of 300 million jobs worldwide  so it is not just male-female politics but corporate vs individual.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

The reason why there are so many women working is not purely feminism it is the constant undermining of worker's pay and rights meaning to cover family bills they HAVE to work

OK, well, how do you think it is that companies are able to apply downward pressure on wages? Answer: there are more workers, so companies have more leverage.

1. Do you mean to say that the laws of supply and demand operate in all other circumstances than in the influx of women into the workplace?

I'm not even saying women shouldn't work. I'm asking why you think it is that supply and demand don't work in relation to doubling the labor force. 

I do agree the doubling did not take place overnight. I hope you will also agree that the decrease in effective wages also did not take place overnight.

Furthermore, you don't have to actually decrease wages to cut them. Inflation cuts wages by a few percent every year automatically. A packet of milk doesn't cost the same as it did when your father was 18, does it?

Finally, I would be interested in knowing your answers to these questions:

2. If, in a given year, the wheat harvest doubled the quantity of wheat available, would the price of wheat go up or down?

3. If, in a given labor market, the same number of people as currently in the market came into that market (i.e., number of workers double via immigration or whatever), would wages go up or down?

4. And, if your answer to #3 is "down", then why would wages not go down in response to labor supply increasing via women entering the workforce?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BhForce said:

OK, well, how do you think it is that companies are able to apply downward pressure on wages? Answer: there are more workers, so companies have more leverage.

1. Do you mean to say that the laws of supply and demand operate in all other circumstances than in the influx of women into the workplace?

I'm not even saying women shouldn't work. I'm asking why you think it is that supply and demand don't work in relation to doubling the labor force. 

I do agree the doubling did not take place overnight. I hope you will also agree that the decrease in effective wages also did not take place overnight.

Furthermore, you don't have to actually decrease wages to cut them. Inflation cuts wages by a few percent every year automatically. A packet of milk doesn't cost the same as it did when your father was 18, does it?

Finally, I would be interested in knowing your answers to these questions:

2. If, in a given year, the wheat harvest doubled the quantity of wheat available, would the price of wheat go up or down?

3. If, in a given labor market, the same number of people as currently in the market came into that market (i.e., number of workers double via immigration or whatever), would wages go up or down?

4. And, if your answer to #3 is "down", then why would wages not go down in response to labor supply increasing via women entering the workforce?

1. the workforce is not a fifity fifty split never has been ( I mean women were only part of the main workforce from second world war ) and in certain sectors there is female dominance e.g. childcare, nursing , primary teaching etc  due to them being traditionally the only viable professions for a decent woman.

The main reason why it doesn't translate quite so neatly as you think is because industry is constantly shedding jobs to enhance shareholder dividends. and in the public sector the additional funds pumped in are absorbed by a new level of management mostly men instead of paying for more low level ground workers e.g. NHS  trust managers vs. nurses,cleaners and porters .

I agree the workers are being ripped off by inflation faster than the employers but still the prices have to be compared against the wages of that time period e.g. my Dad buying a washing m/c back in 70s compared to us buying one now  would be cheaper now in that comparison.

but people have skillsets required to qualify for jobs , if the calibre is not there the wages will not drop just like that the wage will stay the same but people would have to develop themselves to be of the correct skillset/calibre to be eligible.

2. depends where you are talking of in India the farmers will get ripped off any how , in Eurozone they take the surplus and store to artificially keep prices up because supply would exceed demand .

3.  and 4 . sometimes down in unskilled labour jobs but mostly stay at the level currently at for skilled jobs . Like I said before jobs are a bit more complex than potatoes or peas . A lot of the women may not have the skillset or experience due to taking time out to do family rearing . i mean I know if I tried to go back now to prgramming I have to take a much more junior role than my age and previous experience would indicate nad that's fair enough . However if my friend has been at the workplace all this time I would expect her to get a higher wage and more senior role .same with the Guys , as far as I can see my male peers have all done well and have progressed immensely compared to even the career minded females from our course . It's the hidden differences we cannot discount. I know in the eighties women were the last to get jobs and if of colour then the very last it would go primarily to white dudes then dudes of colour then white  women then the rest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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