Ranjeet01

Polygyny seems to something that can be done by males in apex of society. It is not something that is really possible for the average man. Even in muslim societies, I wonder how many men partake in polygyny. Very few I suspect. Ultimately, the only type of men that can do this are men who can provide resources for their wives. The only lower type men that I can think of who partake in polygyny are the mormons. I am also aware of the polyandry and it does not make me squirm.

What is also interesting is that as per Iain Dale's LBC show last night, about 60 percent of halal abbatoirs have serious hygiene issues. How many times have you heard of the health and hygiene issues from halal based muslim restaurants / take aways. The other elephant in the room for adoption of halal by mainstream restaurants is cost. I suspect that the low grade, unhygienic halal meat is cheaper and since keeping costs lower is part of most businesses.

I I suspect it also has to do with certain segment of goreh who feel guilty and think appeasing muslims (even they have not asked for halal ) makes them less racist. Interesting radio show with iain Dale on LBC regarding halal meat and as a gorah he was not backing down against muslims calling. He was saying things like , " I could not care less what your prophet thinks.." There is also a degree of laziness in part of the mainstream goreh. What happens is that if the majority are not bothered about eating requirements of a minority, it is easier for the establishment to adopt the minority 's food which is in this case is halal.

Your points are valid and the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle ) is seen from maybe some of reasons you have pointed out. However, certain traits are biologically hardwired into us and they probably impact our behaviours more than we realise. I do not disagree with your points that monogamy is best. Our ancient cultures understood very well what worked to maintain a functioning society.

Well, we live in a society where marriage is not valued, only for looking on the wedding day. We live in a society where we no longer fix things, we just throw away things once they lose their usefulness. The human gene pool shows that at least 80 percent of men historically never had children, where at least 80 percent of women did. What this means before the advent of marriage, one man would have many women to have children with. This is what happens in the animal kingdom, where the alpha male will have his share of the females. The reality is (I might sound sexist, but it is largely true). Women have sexually selected men for resources and genetic material ). What has happened is that women no longer value marriage with men because they do not require resources so for a lot of them all that is left is the Alpha stud. The vast majority of men are not alpha studs, it is a very tiny percentage. Women will always go for a man that is the highest value, even if she herself are not of the same value. Society seems to be regressing back to the pre-marital age (like back to hunter gather type society). It is very dangerous because potentially there maybe a lot of unmarried men in society. From a Sikhi point of view, we are supposed to live a ghristi Jeevan life and the regression of society means it is going to be increasing difficult.

I guess it depends on what the cloning is for. For example, if you were able to clone a healthy organ, it could be used for transplant. People will to try quote bani to justify one way or another. But I guess Sikhi would provide a framework. It's not an exact science but we would have principles in how to approach these type of scenarios.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there are biological differences between men and women and millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of culture are going to be an enforcing a lot of behaviours. Reality is yes you are correct, a cheating woman is going to be seen as expendable, there will be men that will see her as easy. A man who does cheat is not going to be the same way in this instance. " A key that can unlock any lock is seen as a master key, however a lock that can be opened by any key is a lousy lock" I don't want to get into your personal anecdotes but a husband and wife should complement each other, but the problem is that they are made to compete with another. That is a big part of the problem.

The reality is the figure is probably more or less correct. I reckon it is slightly higher maybe towards the 500k mark. It feels more because we punch well above our weight.

I suspect people in the West Midlands area say that they live in Birmingham because a lot of people may never heard of their town. The census does not count the illegals though.

There is an old adage in western society that when a man tells you his notch count divide it by three and when a woman tells you hers multiply it by three. There are plenty of women that cheat, I cannot remember what the percentage of men who are unknowingly raising children that are not biologically theirs. The millenial generation are far less promiscuous than the previous generations. The pill came around the time when there was sexual revolution. But I ask again, how much "free love" was going around? What did the pill really release? Even in the 1960s, the institution of marriage was pretty strong. I think that there were always repercussions on a woman's promiscuity with pregnancy, but it seems that the pill released something for a lot of women. Women do enjoy having s*x otherwise the human race would not have survived. The new generation of men after 50 years of feminism are extremely feminised that they do not know how to relate to women, they are placed on the pedestal. Is that you as a woman like to see in a man , a subservient doormat that worships the ground you walk on and suddenly becomes the assertive alpha male when it suits your purpose. It does not work like that.

How many men have multiple partners though? Only a small percentage of men historically have been able to do so, most men even in this contemporary age are still unable to do so. How do you think the institution of marriage came about in the first place? What are you seeing happen in society is the feral nature of people returning.

So what is the solution?

Does anyone know what the divorce rates for Sikhs are? In general in mainstream society they quote that the figure is around 40 to 50 percent and 70 -80 percent is initiated by women. In society, less people are getting married. Many men are dropping out of the marriage game because they don't see it as worth it. Women do not need men as much in the traditional sense as they used to. Men are no longer the main breadwinners. There are going to be repercussions in society.

Classic Sikh movement patterns. We always move out to the peripheries. I bet most Sikhs live outside of Birmingham in the neighbouring areas like Wolverhampton and other West Midlands areas. It seems we Sikhs tend to avoid living in bigger cities and if we do we tend to live in the suburbs. We Sikhs value space and generally don't like living in cramped terraced housing in the inner cities.

We are a canary in the coalmine community. I agree in part of what you say. But there are particular mechanics of how muslim communities move into areas where there are Sikhs. There is always a section of the muslim community that looks to what Sikhs are doing. They will notice where the Sikhs are moving to. They seem themselves as better off than other muslims but they do not want to live amongst other muslims, because they are very aware that "Pa*** f*** things up". They do not say these things in front of other muslims but will privately admit these things. They will move into areas where there are Sikhs but what follows after is a deluge. An example I can provide is that Sikhs in Slough are moving into South Bucks, places such as Farnham Common, Farnham Royal, Iver, Stoke Poges, Gerrards Cross. These areas are now to Sikhs as to what Langley in Slough used to be for Sikhs 25-30 years ago. When I look at Langley now, it has turned into a complete dump. It used to be a more affluent area. There are a parade of shops on London Road (where there is a Fire Station), these shops have been replaced by a grocery shop with all fallen fruit and veg (it's a complete mess), there is a very popular Punjabi restaurant and right next to it is a halal kebab shop. It's like muslims sniff out where the Sikhs are and then try to stamp their halal mark. Very parasite like behaviour. I suspect these greener affluent areas around Slough to become the same given 10-15 years from now. There are a parade of shops in Farnham Common. It's quite nice, it's got a couple of pubs, a Tesco and Sainsbury shop, a Costa Coffee place and a couple of restaurants. I despair what that area is going to become like. Once some i****t decides to open up a grocery shop, just watch how with the pin point accuracy , some Pakistani guy decides to open up a halal based business and watch how the goreh move out and the area go seriously downhill. UK Sikhs will prefer goreh because the instinctively know it is the goreh that are the glue the hold things together, once they are not there things begin to unravel. I know that I am saying some unsavoury things but I have had to look at the hard truth. We are not good at maintaining standards. We turn into the 3rd world animals that we are when we are in a large numbers. I am also a 3rd world animal. These are just my opinions and things I have had to reconcile in my head.

Let's hope so. My observation is that inside, our houses are immaculate with all the mod cons etc but the outside is urghh. With the old goreh, their gardens are immaculate but their houses are stuck in the 1950s with old fashioned furnishings and decorations with no central heating. Quite the contrast.

10% seems to be the golden number for the proportion of Sikhs living in towns and cities. It never really seems to be larger than that. Sikhs have a natural propensity to not over ghettoise themselves. You won't find our people in the UK to live in areas where there is 40-50 percent Sikhs for various reasons: 1. We don't have a siege mentality like muslims. 2. We don't have an us v them attitude like muslims. 3. We instinctively understand that it is better to integrate than to segregate. 4.Anywhere there is a large community of Sikhs attracts muslims like bees to honey and the area goes downhill very quickly. 5.Any large proportion of Sikhs means that our people start to get very greedy buying up houses to put on rent. Lodgers mean that there are less owner occupiers which means the neighbourhood goes downhill very quickly with the riff raff. 6. Any nice green areas we move into get scorched and become the drab concreted, crazy paved uneven driveways with weeds growing out of it. In other words, any area where our people move into eventually become complete dumps.

You do have a point there. Muslims are more tribal and have "us v them" mentality. We are less tribal but we have an inverted tribal system, where place the needs of the "other " above our own. It takes a heck of a lot for our people to unite, it tends to be from existential threat and where we have some skin in the game. The problem of unity stems from the lack of trust in our people.

There are plenty of people of a Sikh background that back up Sikhi even if they don't follow Sikhi. I don't understand where this perception comes from. In the end of the day we are a quam, no matter what jatha or how religious or not you are.

It is dowry by any other name. Your final paragraph, all the above. Do they want to make the brides life easier - yes. Do they want to make the groom's family happy - yes. Could they be using this as a way of currying other favours in the future - possibly. Should you express your disatisfaction regarding this - you can possibly tell your wife that you might not be happy with this. However , the caveat is her Indian thinking might think that you are jealous because your sandu is getting cash and prizes and you and your family got diddly squat. You cannot stop your in-laws giving cash and prizes but if you express your disatisfaction it may not be well received or appreciated.

Those Gujerati women should be commended. Though it does feel very uncharacteristic. Our bibian were magnificent according to my dad. From his recollection, our bibian linked arms to form a chain around the gurdwarae so that they were protected. Some of our "community leaders" the uncles were sh****ng their pants hiding in the gurdwarae. If you remember that there used to be a show on Channel 4 called the Bandung Files, I do recall seeing footage on the riots where a bazurg had an NF guy in a headlock and proceeded to punch the NF guy in the head. There was great bravery and some great cowardice with some of our uncles. I do not know much about the black sisters, I never got to question my dad on his opinion.

Brave and Gujerati are not two words you would put together normally. My dad got caught up in the riots. Beating up goreh wasn't a thing only in the 1970's, it was happening in the 60's as well. My dad in the 1960's was a Featherstone boy and he used to go to fight some of the white boys in Dormers Wells. Being jumped by 7-8 white boys was not unusual. Even my grandfather's generation were not particularly passive either. They were a hard working, hard drinking and hard living bunch. My grandfather and his cousins got into many alterations (they used to play hockey and those sticks came in handy.) Though my dad was not a big fan of the Southall Black Sisters, he thought they were a bunch of trouble makers. That was a different era and different type of people. That was in the days when there used to be a community spirit.

I wonder if Trudeau gets offended if he met Mandeep Singh because it's got word 'man' in it. Should be called Peopledeep.

He'll make a better PM than Trudeau. At least he won't be interrupting women who use the word mankind and replace it with peoplekind.

Strong Sikh men being strong Sikh fathers. There has never been a greater need.