Jump to content

Why do feminists accuse house duties as "being domesticated" , but conveniently think of men as ATM ?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/29/2020 at 11:11 PM, jkvlondon said:

Oh Ajeet,

still complaining about the Mrs ? how is the new mother?btw plenty of females do work to help with family costs  AS WELL AS doing the 'domestic' stuff , this is the modern necessity in the West because of high cost of living . But also Men don't want to hold onto old stereotyped roles and often WANT to help with the kids , help them with schoolwork, feed them, even change nappies as part and parcel of the whole 'this is my family' scenario . Not everyone wants to lord over the Other half . Remember two halves makes a whole future.

Men and women are Equal. Just as Races are Equal and Humans are Equal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2020 at 2:05 PM, MisterrSingh said:

The studies and anecdotal evidence from other sources would suggest otherwise.

In our seemingly humble little community, a young woman (with her best years ahead of her) earning £45,000 would never deign to lower herself by agreeing to marry a male making "only" £35,000. Women on £100k would only ever marry a partner with a lower salary out of absolute desperation for obvious ticking-clock related reasons. And those aren't even the types who are content to embrace the spinster life. 

No. Like I said, I’ve known plenty of women on high salaries considering and marrying men in a lower wage. One woman was married to a rich man who treated her like dirt and now considers men on a way lower wage than her for marriage. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sat1 said:

No. Like I said, I’ve known plenty of women on high salaries considering and marrying men in a lower wage. One woman was married to a rich man who treated her like dirt and now considers men on a way lower wage than her for marriage. 
 

Lol, exactly what I said: she only lowered her standards once she'd experienced hardship. So, out of desperation not to be left on the shelf she stumped for a guy who made less than her. Had she not been treated poorly and the first relationship hadn't gone sour, she would never argue for dating or marrying anyone earning less than her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Lol, exactly what I said: she only lowered her standards once she'd experienced hardship. So, out of desperation not to be left on the shelf she stumped for a guy who made less than her. Had she not been treated poorly and the first relationship hadn't gone sour, she would never argue for dating or marrying anyone earning less than her. 

No. You’re twisting my post, she was one example. Plenty of high salaried women I have known have gone for men at times with literally hardly any money. Because they recognize the men to be Human Beings, and that your work, job and money, doesn’t make your soul. 
 

Guru Nanak often times had very little money. And good souls didn’t treat him like dirt and discard him for that. Love is blind and knows no limit, plenty of women falling in love with/ marrying men with not much, for its the soul that matters, not what you have. Not every woman is as materialistic as you make out, Just as every man is not as bad as some may make out. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sat1 said:

Wow, what a civilized response. There are good souls out there, you are assuming that all women are materialistic monsters, and as a woman I am telling you that’s not true. I myself don’t care how much money a man has, as long as he is nice, kind and treats me well etc and we click properly. 

Grow up, open your mind and stop putting women into a box. Men and women are Equal. Guru Nanak called himself a lowly worm, and a sinner. He knew that all beings are Equal, that was his message, Humility , that no one is higher or lower. Do you think his sister cared about how much money a man has, or his female bhagats. Do you think that Mai Bhago cared, or any other good, unmaterialistic female in the world today cares. 

I'm not putting anybody into categories. I'm acknowledging a reality in certain cases. You're arguing those exceptions DON'T exist at all. You're denying truths because they make you uncomfortable, and shine a light on certain issues you don't want to see illuminated. Again, where's Bibi Nanaki come from in this scenario? And Mai Bhago? Were they the norm or the exception to the rule? Am I, as a normal guy without divine heritage, making my way in the world, supposed to believe every woman is a latent Bibi Nanaki or Mai Bhago, and therefore worthy of the same treatment? Would I treat every male as if they were Bhai Gurdas or Baba Bidhi Chand? You're hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2020 at 8:34 AM, AjeetSingh2019 said:

Isn't this hypocrisy ?

no wonder today's punjabi and sikh females are so spoiled . Feminists spoil everything

Aren't you the homosexual one married to a woman? I think a poor woman being married to a man who prefers men is worse than a woman looking for a man who can financially look after her...

Most of the time women who are with someone who is financially comfortable means that the woman can pick up her kids and do their homework with them instead of them sitting in after school club every day.

There are plenty of women who are the breadwinners, I was when I met my husband! We reversed roles when we had kids! It’s called partnership.

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