Is man the head of the house?

[BhForce]

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?

[BhForce]

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.

[BhForce]

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.

 

[MisterrSingh]

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.

[BhForce]

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. 

[MisterrSingh]

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. 

[BhForce]

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.

[MisterrSingh]

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.

[BhForce]

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"?

[puzzled]

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