Jump to content

Is man the head of the house?


puzzled
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

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