Jump to content

Is man the head of the house?


puzzled
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

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

Bro, with respect, she's not one of us, why should she be obligated to follow our norms? I called out someone on here for not putting "ji" with Guru ji's name. But he was purporting to be a Sikh.

It's like the bread they hand out at the end of a Christian service. For us, it's fine (I think) to call it a "wafer".  We could even call it a "communion wafer" to be polite.

And she did say "Holy book" instead of merely book.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Christiangirl52 said:

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? 

Yes. All 5 things you said.

But men should heed the last 2, as well: Man is subject to God, and he can't abuse his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Christiangirl52 said:

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? 

Yes. All 5 things you said.

But men should heed the last 2, as well: Man is subject to God, and he can't abuse his family.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Bro, with respect, she's not one of us, why should she be obligated to follow our norms? I called out someone on here for not putting "ji" with Guru ji's name. But he was purporting to be a Sikh.

 It's like the bread they hand out at the end of a Christian service. For us, it's fine (I think) to call it a "wafer".  We could even call it a "communion wafer" to be polite.

And she did say "Holy book" instead of merely book.

Thoughts?

She does it too eagerly and regularly for my liking, as if she relishes reminding us what we revere is just pages and ink to someone of her frame of mind. The tone is pointed and apparent to me, and I don't like it. If she's on this forum, she abides by the way we do things. I don't like the feint whiff of hostility lurking behind the manner in which she frames her questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

She does it too eagerly and regularly for my liking, as if she relishes reminding us what we revere is just pages and ink to someone of her frame of mind. The tone is pointed and apparent to me, and I don't like it. If she's on this forum, she abides by the way we do things. I don't like the feint whiff of hostility lurking behind the manner in which she frames her questions.

Hmm, OK. That's a subjective view.

But maybe @Christiangirl52, you can try to say "in your Bani" instead of "in your Holy book".

Anyways, what do you think about the substance of what she said (for us):

1. Man is the head of his home.

2. A wife must defer to him and obey.

3. Children must come below both parents and obey them.

4. But man is subject to God.

5. Therefore he cannot abuse his family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BhForce said:

1. Man is the head of his home.

2. A wife must defer to him and obey.

3. Children must come below both parents and obey them.

4. But man is subject to God.

5. Therefore he cannot abuse his family. 

Difficult to disagree with any of that. But I'd add there are many ineffectual, weak, or downright foolish and ignorant men who have no business heading anything let alone the family unit. May God protect the wives and children of such men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MisterrSingh said:

Difficult to disagree with any of that. But I'd add there are many ineffectual, weak, or downright foolish and ignorant men who have no business heading anything let alone the family unit. May God protect the wives and children of such men. 

Right, that's where #4 and #5 come in.

That there's someone else above the man. This always has to be emphasized. 

Men should understand that if they are being abusive, the woman can go to her father-in-law, other relatives, the community, or the Gurdwara.

(Yeah, I know, ineffectual.)

But still, it should ideally all be part of a system.

Total male control with no escape vale is bad. Feminization is a problem, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Right, that's where #4 and #5 come in.

That there's someone else above the man. This always has to be emphasized. 

Men should understand that if they are being abusive, the woman can go to her father-in-law, other relatives, the community, or the Gurdwara.

(Yeah, I know, ineffectual.)

But still, it should ideally all be part of a system.

Total male control with no escape vale is bad. Feminization is a problem, too.

I wish it was as simple as that. In an ideal world where both parties adhere to some form of honourable conduct even in the most inhospitable of climates, that good-natured exchange makes sense. But we know real life is a lot messier and illogical. Sometimes, good men are implicated in issues not of their making, etc. In a climate where the benefit of the doubt is more often than not awarded to the female voice in order to apparently re-address societal injustices centuries in the making, I don't feel justice and parity are always the winners in these cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I wish it was as simple as that. In an ideal world where both parties adhere to some form of honourable conduct even in the most inhospitable of climates, that good-natured exchange makes sense. But we know real life is a lot messier and illogical. Sometimes, good men are implicated in issues not of their making, etc. In a climate where the benefit of the doubt is more often than not awarded to the female voice in order to apparently re-address societal injustices centuries in the making, I don't feel justice and parity are always the winners in these cases.

You're saying it would be one side fighting according to the "rules" and the other subverting them in order to "win"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BhForce said:

1. Man is the head of his home.

2. A wife must defer to him and obey.

3. Children must come below both parents and obey them.

4. But man is subject to God.

5. Therefore he cannot abuse his family. 

i think thats how things had been in our families, but i think things started changing in our parents gen ( people who are in their 40s 50s) in that gen the women started taking over, that gen also did a crap job of passing sikhi down to their kids,  i think that generation is the beginning of the down fall.  that same generation prioritized materialism over sikhi and passed that down to their kids

i could be wrong 

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