Jump to content

Women, strength, liberation


Guest Women
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yet, these women in these countries consider the Western path as something to aspire to; the light at the end of the tunnel, the solution to their problems, whereas those of us living in the West realise it may begin with noble intentions and a desire to right genuine wrongs, but it doesn't end with minimising inequality and arriving at the eventual parity of the sexes. The intelligentsia, in order to perpetuate and justify their existence, begin to manufacture solutions to non-existent problems such as sexist air-conditioning, shaming men for opening their legs on trains and buses, and other stupidity that are markers of a morally and psychologically moribund society ruled by cretins. For me, I'm forced to call into question the judgement and foresight of such women who keep tight-lipped over such incredibly damaging discourse, yet continue amplifying the voices of these same people. 

If you are sitting in the centre of hell , everywhere else looks like heaven . The as the examples biggest failure of those who achieved rights in the developed world they stopped at their countries borders and failed to address oppression of women across the globe for being who they are and their natural processes.

 

the point is just as men had to call out their own sex for oppressing females the opposite has to happen now females in privileged countries have to stop the oppression of men by vicious neoliberal banshees . Freedom for both is the responsibility of both - no one side can slack on the monitoring and curbing of excesses and liberty taking  .  Yes I've seen really ridiculous guys taking up both sides of their seat on the tube and it IS a nonsense to claim THAT is necessary but I also have my lads worried that even holding their legs loosely parallel would be considering spreading  and THAT is the other side of the nonsense coin . Be comfortable fine but don't inconvenience others unnecessarily  like the first guy

.  Yes I don't think I should be paid more than my male colleagues unless I actually AM doing more quality work than them in the same time scale, but I would feel the same about my female colleagues, if they are lazy and don't produce why should I be lumped with them when pay raises are being discussed and denied ? it is all grey areas .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

If you are sitting in the centre of hell , everywhere else looks like heaven . The as the examples biggest failure of those who achieved rights in the developed world they stopped at their countries borders and failed to address oppression of women across the globe for being who they are and their natural processes.

 

the point is just as men had to call out their own sex for oppressing females the opposite has to happen now females in privileged countries have to stop the oppression of men by vicious neoliberal banshees . Freedom for both is the responsibility of both - no one side can slack on the monitoring and curbing of excesses and liberty taking  .  Yes I've seen really ridiculous guys taking up both sides of their seat on the tube and it IS a nonsense to claim THAT is necessary but I also have my lads worried that even holding their legs loosely parallel would be considering spreading  and THAT is the other side of the nonsense coin . Be comfortable fine but don't inconvenience others unnecessarily  like the first guy

.  Yes I don't think I should be paid more than my male colleagues unless I actually AM doing more quality work than them in the same time scale, but I would feel the same about my female colleagues, if they are lazy and don't produce why should I be lumped with them when pay raises are being discussed and denied ? it is all grey areas .

 

The problem is that the clamour for change isn't some organic, grassroots movement that's gained support and popularity on the ground among the common people before breaking into the mainstream consciousness. It originated as the brainchild of a particular demographic's upper-middle class academics - known for subversion throughout their entire history - which was eventually co-opted by corporations, organisations, and governments run by these same people or at least those sympathetic to their doctrine. What exactly is so radical and brave about a cause when the entire system of the Western machinery is behind it? At best, you're parroting and promoting philosophy that has done untold damage to the fabric of society on a deeper level than the superficial victories it's gained. Granted, it was a society that wasn't perfect by any means, but those leading the charge aren't interested in affecting positive change and building bridges; they want supremacy and vengeance for past grievances to be visited upon the vast majority who have never transgressed against womankind in even the vaguest way. Where do you see that ending? With Big Daddy State flexing his muscles in defense of his harem of agitators. Will it still be considered a victory fought for by women and lead by women when it'll be achieved through the overwhelming threat and power of the State looming ominously in the background?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

The problem is that the clamour for change isn't some organic, grassroots movement that's gained support and popularity on the ground among the common people before breaking into the mainstream consciousness. It originated as the brainchild of a particular demographic's upper-middle class academics - known for subversion throughout their entire history - which was eventually co-opted by corporations, organisations, and governments run by these same people or at least those sympathetic to their doctrine. What exactly is so radical and brave about a cause when the entire system of the Western machinery is behind it? At best, you're parroting and promoting philosophy that has done untold damage to the fabric of society on a deeper level than the superficial victories it's gained. Granted, it was a society that wasn't perfect by any means, but those leading the charge aren't interested in affecting positive change and building bridges; they want supremacy and vengeance for past grievances to be visited upon the vast majority who have never transgressed against womankind in even the vaguest way. Where do you see that ending? With Big Daddy State flexing his muscles in defense of his harem of agitators. Will it still be considered a victory fought for by women and lead by women when it'll be achieved through the overwhelming threat and power of the State looming ominously in the background?

That might be the case now, but read up about the suffragettes - Anita Anand's book on Princess Sophia is a good introduction because you get a bit of Sikh historical knowledge as well.  Them lot weren't messing about, and most of the white male society of the time was against them. They did prison time for their cause, got force fed,  they were properly active unlike most men today who are too timid to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

That might be the case now, but read up about the suffragettes - Anita Anand's book on Princess Sophia is a good introduction because you get a bit of Sikh historical knowledge as well.  Them lot weren't messing about, and most of the white male society of the time was against them. They did prison time for their cause, got force fed,  they were properly active unlike most men today who are too timid to be. 

force fed similarly to BHai Sahib Randir Singh ji, beaten with coshs, mowed down by police horses , shopped by husbands and co-workers , beaten and threatened with loss of home and children ... to have a legal status as citizens , to be legally recognised in their own right (husbands had to sign work contracts on their behalf)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jkvlondon said:

force fed similarly to BHai Sahib Randir Singh ji, beaten with coshs, mowed down by police horses , shopped by husbands and co-workers , beaten and threatened with loss of home and children ... to have a legal status as citizens , to be legally recognised in their own right (husbands had to sign work contracts on their behalf)

Some husbands supported their wives though! 

These are the words of one the husbands:

'I admire the rebel against injustice, man or women, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due.'

Frank Sproson

 

Some husbands who supported their wives were also vilified and targeted too. Some apna pajama blokes could learn a thing or two from these women, who seem a helluva lot tougher than them. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dallysingh101 said:

Some husbands supported their wives though! 

These are the words of one the husbands:

'I admire the rebel against injustice, man or women, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due.'

Frank Sproson

 

Some husbands who supported their wives were also vilified and targeted too. Some apna pajama blokes could learn a thing or two from these women, who seem a helluva lot tougher than them. . 

it is understandable that most husbands were not because they would lose the property rights they had wrested from their wives . True that there were  honest souls who could see the hardships and unfairness of it all  not denying but the majority view was biblical that a woman was property of the husband , That she should only defer to her husband and not speak counter to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Some husbands supported their wives though! 

These are the words of one the husbands:

'I admire the rebel against injustice, man or women, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due.'

Frank Sproson

 

Some husbands who supported their wives were also vilified and targeted too. Some apna pajama blokes could learn a thing or two from these women, who seem a helluva lot tougher than them. . 

A lot of suffragettes were upper class women and were pis*** when men from the lower classes got to vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

it is understandable that most husbands were not because they would lose the property rights they had wrested from their wives . True that there were  honest souls who could see the hardships and unfairness of it all  not denying but the majority view was biblical that a woman was property of the husband , That she should only defer to her husband and not speak counter to him.

I don't doubt that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

The problem is that the clamour for change isn't some organic, grassroots movement that's gained support and popularity on the ground among the common people before breaking into the mainstream consciousness. It originated as the brainchild of a particular demographic's upper-middle class academics - known for subversion throughout their entire history - which was eventually co-opted by corporations, organisations, and governments run by these same people or at least those sympathetic to their doctrine. What exactly is so radical and brave about a cause when the entire system of the Western machinery is behind it? At best, you're parroting and promoting philosophy that has done untold damage to the fabric of society on a deeper level than the superficial victories it's gained. Granted, it was a society that wasn't perfect by any means, but those leading the charge aren't interested in affecting positive change and building bridges; they want supremacy and vengeance for past grievances to be visited upon the vast majority who have never transgressed against womankind in even the vaguest way. Where do you see that ending? With Big Daddy State flexing his muscles in defense of his harem of agitators. Will it still be considered a victory fought for by women and lead by women when it'll be achieved through the overwhelming threat and power of the State looming ominously in the background?

it had to be a revolution not an organic process because of the overwhelming and intrenched mindset of the populace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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