Can You Be Sikh And A Feminist Or Not?

[cool water 142]

I personally believe feminism is an anti-sikh atheist concept, which is dangerous ideology to any religious community that allows for it to grow. Atheists in governments obviously have a vested interest in seeing it flourish because they want religions destroyed and few people in power in government being everyone's parent.

However If your a person of religion you can not reconcile being a feminist with being religious. As most of the worlds biggest religions have scriptures that dictate or guide on gender specific behaviours and roles. As the ancients realised before religion, if you cant control a woman's mind with either physical or mental constraint then you wont have cohesive civlised functioning society as everyone would be free to do as they wish and your population will decrease rapidly with no one looking after the needs of a family.

Feminists believe that men and women are equal which sounds a good idea on paper until you realise what that actually entails in practical sense and how absurd that is for human civilisation, in my view because: 1) we have different physical bodies with different functional abilities so we arent born equal to seed or give birth 2) we have different emotional needs, men generally want to play the field with many whereas women usually need emotional attachment with one person 3) We claim to live in a equal society in the west yet women still want to have their own separate changing rooms, separate sports teams, separate laws to protect them. Still genders are equal? we can safely conclude no.

In Sikh scripture there are quotes that give guidance for women to cover up and dress modestly. There is also scripture quotes that praise women for giving birth to kings but we have Sikh household born females who subscribe to the feminist ideology and will only pick and chose the guidance that they like and neglect guru's advice on covering up or not to drink or not be lustful and cheat around. In feminists mind if men can do it why cant women its their body? if he can jump of a bridge why cant she? But if they were a true Sikh who were taught sikhi properly and had love for their religion over their atheist feminist main stream media brainwashing they would realise that the approval of what their Guru is saying is worth a million times more than what they are currently being told how to think and behave. And there is always a reason why Guru ji is saying things for our benefit that we dont realise until we get older or wiser.

[eduardo 193]

Here's a good one:

https://www.tumblr.com/search/princess%20sophia%20duleep%20singh

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/sikh-princess-suffragette-who-would-8476589

[MisterrSingh 4,783]

2) we have different emotional needs, men generally want to play the field with many whereas women usually need emotional attachment with one person

I see this particular argument quite often, but I really do think it does huge swathes of the male population a disservice.

Men are the most loyal of the sexes, there is no doubt about that. Fundamentally, for a certain type of man for whom promiscuity is the norm, even he will - once the headiness and foolishness of youth has worn off - gravitate towards a woman for companionship and love. A man has no ulterior motives when he finds the woman - he assumes - to be the one he wishes to spend his life with. Whereas a woman has a laundry list of needs she wants fulfilled long before love and companionship are even considered, mostly centred around status and wealth, i.e. an increase in both factors for her benefit dependent on the man in question. In fact you could argue that men are incredibly naive when it comes to these type of issues.

The modern woman definitely does not seek emotional attachment to just one person. When she thinks she has the opportunity to "trade up" (even if later she comes to realise she made a mistake) all notions of love and loyalty are discarded in an instant.

Due to these and other related issues, I've come to realise that the way the old-timers did things in our community - on balance - when it came to marriage, etc, truly was the best way to approach matters. In light of modern existence such ways are being viewed as cold and calculated, but those ways were based on a practical and unemotional view on the best criteria for finding a partner and raising a family.

Nowadays, people throw the word love around like a toy, when in fact they know nothing about true love at all; what they think is love is actually lust. And people fall out of lust as easily as they fall into lust.

But I understand that mentality is increasingly considered as antiquated even amongst Sikhs today. But we'll reap the affects of our hubris and our attachment to so-called "enlightened sophistication" in the coming decades, mark my words.

But regarding modern feminism (which I believe is a distortion of what it started out as), as one of my favourite film characters said (to paraphrase), "They were so preoccupied with whether they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Feminism just means someone who thinks women and men are equal, which is an idea in our religion..

That's egalitarian, not feminism.

[Balkaar 1,339]

Feminism was great in the early 1900's when it was predicated on such matters as securing the female right to vote, but I don't see that it is of much relevance to the modern, Western woman.

Women are simply not treated as second class citizens in the developed world. If anything the system is invariably skewed in their favour - Women are favored in child custody cases, a woman receives half of her husband's property if the two should divorce, and the news of the rape and domestic abuse of a woman is something to be received with horror by all whereas the same circumstances are considered joke-worthy if their subject is a man.

Ironically, feminism has very condescending notions about the female sex, namely, that women are so stupid or impressionable that they mindlessly adhere to the subliminal edicts of the so called patriarchy It's chief concern is not emancipation, but censorship. Feminists hate jokes.

Their ideology has a place in the third world, where women are genuinely subservient to men. Not here, where a woman has the freedom to do anything she chooses. These bourgeois libtards are perpetually venerating their own psychosis.

[MisterrSingh 4,783]

Leading on from Balkaar's above post, modern feminism has done nothing - or very little - for oppressed women from minorities around the world. Neither does modern feminism have the courage to speak up against the likes of extreme Islam which truly does treat females as second-class beings. Modern feminism is for a small subset of mostly white, middle-class, western women. Hardly an ideology for the entire female gender, no matter how much they try and market it as such.

[Kira 1,437]

Modern Feminists are more interested in gaining an advantage over men than actually winning right. MisterrSingh and Balkeer is pretty bang on that their mainly white,middle class woman who feel victimized. Though there are aspects where woman do have the disadvantage, modern feminists are more about punishing men for their "misogynistic" ideals and practices.

Feminism did start to give woman equal rights, however like most philosophies it was changed and bastardized.

[eduardo 193]

I agree 100%.

Try getting a modern feminist to criticise extremist and literal Islam, they shrink away and start complaining about the question being some form of male entrapment.

Or they will make the excuse that it is disrepectful and culturally insensitive and maybe racist to criticise another persons culture and that in the end under the doctrine of multi culturism all cultures are equal under the clause of cultural relativism and that any change within the Islamic community must come from its own people.

There is only one true femanist I know of who does criticise political/ extremist/ literal/ or whatever you want to call it Islam and her name is Maryam Namazie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Namazie

"Namazie has denounced the discrimination women have to endure under the Islamic regime: “From the very fact that you are a second-class citizen, even your testimony legally is worth half that of a man's, you get half what a boy does in inheritance if you are a girl. You have to be veiled if you're a girl or a woman, and there are certain fields of education or work that are closed to you because you're considered emotional.” She compares women's situation under Islamic regimes today to the social inequalities under the apartheid in South Africa, and she cites as examples the existence of separate entrances for women into government offices and the separation of men and women on swimming areas in the Caspian sea by a curtain^"

[cool water 142]

I see this particular argument quite often, but I really do think it does huge swathes of the male population a disservice.

Men are the most loyal of the sexes, there is no doubt about that. Fundamentally, for a certain type of man for whom promiscuity is the norm, even he will - once the headiness and foolishness of youth has worn off - gravitate towards a woman for companionship and love. A man has no ulterior motives when he finds the woman - he assumes - to be the one he wishes to spend his life with. Whereas a woman has a laundry list of needs she wants fulfilled long before love and companionship are even considered, mostly centred around status and wealth, i.e. an increase in both factors for her benefit dependent on the man in question. In fact you could argue that men are incredibly naive when it comes to these type of issues.

The modern woman definitely does not seek emotional attachment to just one person. When she thinks she has the opportunity to "trade up" (even if later she comes to realise she made a mistake) all notions of love and loyalty are discarded in an instant.

Due to these and other related issues, I've come to realise that the way the old-timers did things in our community - on balance - when it came to marriage, etc, truly was the best way to approach matters. In light of modern existence such ways are being viewed as cold and calculated, but those ways were based on a practical and unemotional view on the best criteria for finding a partner and raising a family.

Nowadays, people throw the word love around like a toy, when in fact they know nothing about true love at all; what they think is love is actually lust. And people fall out of lust as easily as they fall into lust.

But I understand that mentality is increasingly considered as antiquated even amongst Sikhs today. But we'll reap the affects of our hubris and our attachment to so-called "enlightened sophistication" in the coming decades, mark my words.

But regarding modern feminism (which I believe is a distortion of what it started out as), as one of my favourite film characters said (to paraphrase), "They were so preoccupied with whether they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Good points

Feminism was great in the early 1900's when it was predicated on such matters as securing the female right to vote, but I don't see that it is of much relevance to the modern, Western woman.

Women are simply not treated as second class citizens in the developed world. If anything the system is invariably skewed in their favour - Women are favored in child custody cases, a woman receives half of her husband's property if the two should divorce, and the news of the rape and domestic abuse of a woman is something to be received with horror by all whereas the same circumstances are considered joke-worthy if their subject is a man.

Ironically, feminism has very condescending notions about the female sex, namely, that women are so stupid or impressionable that they mindlessly adhere to the subliminal edicts of the so called patriarchy It's chief concern is not emancipation, but censorship. Feminists hate jokes.

Their ideology has a place in the third world, where women are genuinely subservient to men. Not here, where a woman has the freedom to do anything she chooses. These bourgeois libtards are perpetually venerating their own psychosis.

Good points

I agree 100%.

Try getting a modern feminist to criticise extremist and literal Islam, they shrink away and start complaining about the question being some form of male entrapment.

Or they will make the excuse that it is disrepectful and culturally insensitive and maybe racist to criticise another persons culture and that in the end under the doctrine of multi culturism all cultures are equal under the clause of cultural relativism and that any change within the Islamic community must come from its own people.

Yes I found that weird too how feminists are actually facilitating the moral crusade against western liberal societies and values by making the country more ripe for an islamic agenda and eventual take over. They say not to objectify women in media yet they are quite happy for men to be objectified and deny women their rights if they wish to be objectified in the media. They say drunk women who have sex are not in the wrong if they later claim they are raped yet a man cant claim the same defence that he was drunk too, he would legally be held liable for having drunken rape sex. There are so many contradictions and discriminations that feminist agenda has facilitated that it has allowed islamic demographics and propaganda to grow and take over many of the area's that western liberal men and women once enjoyed in terms of freedom, sexuality, sexual imagery,etc,etc.

And as muslims are easier to control via mullahs and imams it suits the people who fund the feminist movement to make everyone muslim as they are easier to control and forced to conform at the pain of death if they dont. Hence why the same bankster people who fund ISIS covertly via the west -->> saudi are actually the same super rich families who funded the dangerous feminist ideologues.

[eduardo 193]

Not sure about the funding etc will have to do a bit of research but a modern white feminist would probably fight to allow a Muslim women to wear the full Burkha in public and in effect they are encouraging the mental attitude of "hey it's my right to be oppressed as long as I choose it, it is OK to be oppressed if I choose to allow it".

On the subject of oppression of women within Islam modern feminists blow a head gasket due to the mental pressure and their thinking gets proper fcked up. :stupidme:

[cool water 142]

Not sure about the funding etc will have to do a bit of research but a modern white feminist would probably fight to allow a Muslim women to wear the full Burkha in public and in effect they are encouraging the mental attitude of "hey it's my right to be oppressed as long as I choose it, it is OK to be oppressed if I choose to allow it".

On the subject of oppression of women within Islam modern feminists blow a head gasket due to the mental pressure and their thinking gets proper fcked up. :stupidme:

Check this video at around 8mins in, this movie director guy (who died in 2007 from cancer had nothing to lose or nothing to gain from exposing) was a close friend of the super rich rockafella family and he was told about the agenda of what the elitist families have for rest of humanity and how they funded the womens liberation movement to not liberate women but to control the population and break up families. These are the same bankster families that funded 9/11 attacks on america via islamic saudi agents, funded cold war with russia, funded global recession, funded depopulation schemes across the world selling drugs and weapons

[Ranjeet01 2,109]

Yes, but it's feminism too They just want to be equal to men. Which is in our dharm.

Actually Feminism sees itself being superior to men.

[MisterrSingh 4,783]

Yes, but it's feminism too They just want to be equal to men. Which is in our dharm.

No, they want to grind our bones to dust and hear our mothers' anguished lamentations.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Yes, but it's feminism too They just want to be equal to men. Which is in our dharm.

I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from Feminism is anti-male

[jkvlondon 5,664]

I personally believe feminism is an anti-sikh atheist concept, which is dangerous ideology to any religious community that allows for it to grow. Atheists in governments obviously have a vested interest in seeing it flourish because they want religions destroyed and few people in power in government being everyone's parent.

However If your a person of religion you can not reconcile being a feminist with being religious. As most of the worlds biggest religions have scriptures that dictate or guide on gender specific behaviours and roles. As the ancients realised before religion, if you cant control a woman's mind with either physical or mental constraint then you wont have cohesive civlised functioning society as everyone would be free to do as they wish and your population will decrease rapidly with no one looking after the needs of a family.

Feminists believe that men and women are equal which sounds a good idea on paper until you realise what that actually entails in practical sense and how absurd that is for human civilisation, in my view because: 1) we have different physical bodies with different functional abilities so we arent born equal to seed or give birth 2) we have different emotional needs, men generally want to play the field with many whereas women usually need emotional attachment with one person 3) We claim to live in a equal society in the west yet women still want to have their own separate changing rooms, separate sports teams, separate laws to protect them. Still genders are equal? we can safely conclude no.

In Sikh scripture there are quotes that give guidance for women to cover up and dress modestly. There is also scripture quotes that praise women for giving birth to kings but we have Sikh household born females who subscribe to the feminist ideology and will only pick and chose the guidance that they like and neglect guru's advice on covering up or not to drink or not be lustful and cheat around. In feminists mind if men can do it why cant women its their body? if he can jump of a bridge why cant she? But if they were a true Sikh who were taught sikhi properly and had love for their religion over their atheist feminist main stream media brainwashing they would realise that the approval of what their Guru is saying is worth a million times more than what they are currently being told how to think and behave. And there is always a reason why Guru ji is saying things for our benefit that we dont realise until we get older or wiser.

Feminism is not just a women's issue but a Men's issue as both have to agree and act on the idea that women and men should be afforded equal political, social and emotional voices and parts. The people who think that this is absurd are being narrow minded as Khalsa is made of Singh and Kaur not just SIngh , all the rules of conduct apply equally, the requirement for dastar is equal (only humans have created a dhil in this arena look up Akal Takht Jathedar Gurmukh SIngh and what he did and why) Mata Bhag Kaur was a mahaJodha and bodyguard to dasmesh Pita . Women have been called the conscience of man by Guru Teg Bahadur ji who would not be qualified as Sant sipahi ? They have been strategists, leaders and expert rajnitiks e.g. Mata Sada Kaur ji What makes Sikh men doubt is due to their schizophrenic need to compare their women with others and The need to bring up the next generation with SIkh khialan . STOP expecting Us to be acting like MEMSAHIB and expect and support us to be the true daughters of Dasmesh Pita ji and you will understand what true equality is ... the whole of humanity striving towards DEG TEG FATEH.

Women and Men are taught to dress and act modestly , think kacchera is for both not just women. Bothe are taught to be self-reliant , think KIrpan is for both and the hukam KIrt Karo, Vand Chako, Nam japo ...

Western feminism has failed because it has still not broken the females out of being objectified , of being paid less , or having less representation in higher decision-making positions ...what will work is the way Guru ji taught his daughters accept yourself , improve yourself in the Sikhi prescribed manner and duniya will be at your feet none such person would exist to scare or overpower your mind or soul.

I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from Feminism is anti-male

well then veera it is not feminism ... it would female chauvanism the twin of male chauvanism