Is man the head of the house?

[BhForce]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:14 PM, scali said:

Lol you must be single. Ask a married man it’s the other way around. Men just give up to keep the peace.

If you're talking about what color the bedsheets should be, who cares? Let your wife handle such issues. 

The point is, who is the head of the household? The man is.

[BhForce]

13 hours ago, GuestSingh said:

imo a woman deep down still feels the desire to be dominated by man - its neither control nor slavery but submission as well as dependency on the man being physically strong and mentally assertive in many aspects to seize control and become the dominant figure.

Yes.

This does not mean physical abuse, though.

[BhForce]

9 hours ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

Before I say anything, men and woman are both equal.

Bad statement. You need to clarify that much more. It's one thing for a woman to be "equal" to some man in, say, competing for a job, if they can both do it.

It's another for a man and woman married together to be "equal". What does that mean? If they have a major dispute, how do they decide? With a vote? There are 2 people voting.

9 hours ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

They both own the house

How's that? The girl leaves father's house to live with her husband at his father's house. The house is own by her father-in-law. That's patriarchy, not "equality".

10 hours ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

and are equal in position

No, they are not. The bride follows the groom. 

10 hours ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

probably make decisions together.

A formula for endless fights, and then divorce. If you don't want to follow a man, don't get married.

I'm not saying that you should not consult with each other on decisions. But on an issue where you cannot come to a decision, you have to have a way to make the decision or to defer. But if both think that they are "equal", they will keep arguing and fighting until they get divorced.

10 hours ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

On 4/3/2019 at 12:57 PM, puzzled said:

During the lavaan/phere the man walks at front and leads the way.

I think this is meant to mean that the first person if necessary to go and fight is the man, then the woman because she will raise the kids (obviously the man will too). Not sure correct and forgive me I'm wrong.

Facepalm. When a woman grabs a hold of a man's palla and follows behind him, that means they are "equal".

Do tell what it means when a man comes to someone (say the Guru) and bows before him. Does that also mean they are "equal"?

Drop the need to please the feminists, bro.

[puzzled]

13 hours ago, BhForce said:

Yes. Obviously. That is, ideally.

That's the entire reason the man is in front. The woman holds on to his palla, not the other way around. Grabbing a hold of someone's palla means that you attach yourself to him and he is responsible for you. Following behind him signifies that you see his as who you follow.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. 

Most women today would be triggered by this though 

[puzzled]

We never hear stuff like this explained in katha.

A bit too late for it now lol 

These days the females mothers don't let their daughters settle down in the in laws house. We had a case in my family where the the females mother kept ringing her daughter and crying on the phone saying she misses her, it eventually broke the marriage.

When the females mother starts interfering then you know the marriage will come crushing down lol.  

[puzzled]

Think there's to much bakwaas happening in the world,  God probably will blow everything up,  think it will be for the best  lol 

[BhForce]

11 hours ago, puzzled said:

Most women today would be triggered by this though 

The funny thing is male feminists who insist that a husband and wife are supposed to be exactly equal.

If this is true, do you think it would be OK for a woman to work and the man to stay at home? Feminists would probably say yes (though they would never want to actually support a man), but no marriage would survive like that.

[BhForce]

11 hours ago, puzzled said:

We had a case in my family where the the females mother kept ringing her daughter and crying on the phone saying she misses her, it eventually broke the marriage.

What did that old fool expect? 

[Guest]

Hi 

I would like to give my perspective on this. 

We are taught that man is the head of his home. A wife must defer to him and obey. Children must come below both parents and obey them. But man is subject to God. Therefore he cannot abuse his family. That is the structure of the Christian family. Surely this is the same for Sikhs? 

Further, the teachings of Paul the apostle in our new testament say wives should be silent in church and if they have any questions they must wait until they go home and then quietly ask their husbands. 

I tell you this because i know Sikh people see how Western people behave. The way a lot of English people behave is appalling. Nakedness, promiscuity and immorality is visible everywhere. This is because so many have lost their way. But there are a lot of church-going respectable ones amongst us. We know how to behave. At the core of it is love for God and each other. The family unit is the Foundation of society in my view. All the dreadful variations and nonsense - gay couples, single parents etc is contributing to the terrible disintegration of English society.  Godless rejection of our Biblical instructions. What on earth must Sikh people think! Watch the Jeremy Kyle show and you see the most stupid lost souls! I've never seen Indian people on such shows because they have more sense. I am ashamed of English ones who have no moral compass left. 

So what does your Holy book say about the structure of the family? From what i see you have a strong societal value. 

[MisterrSingh]

4 hours ago, Christiangirl52 said:

So what does your Holy book say about the structure of the family? From what i see you have a strong societal value. 

You've been told repeatedly to stop referring to Guru Granth Sahib as a "book" yet you continue to do so.