Hard Talk Male Domination, Gender Discrimination In Sikhism

[Harkiran Kaur]

Respected Tejwant Ji,

I think he just means that it is not men’s right to give or deny women anything. If women can lead then for men to tell them they can not lead is not up to men. If women CAN lead then it was meant to be. Same with things like seva for example men keep saying women ‘can’t’ take seva as one of the Panj Pyaras. But a woman physically CAN perform the preparation and administering of Amrit so therefore it’s meant to be and not up to men to say she can’t.
I don’t think that thinking is Abrahamic. It’s not like some bearded guy on a cloud is saying you can or can’t. It’s written into existence that physically males and females can do everything save for a few biological things related to procreation. People may have different levels of ability for example some can run faster than others, some are smarter than others but we all have the capacity to run (outside of a disability) and we all can learn. So nobody has the right to tell someone ‘you are not allowed to run’ or ‘you are not allowed to learn’ but there are males around the world doing just that to females and even killing girls for simply wanting to go to school to learn.

@Harry Ji there are for sure plenty of women who for whatever self serving reasons are throwing three own gender under the bus. Or maybe they have been brainwashed to think their own gender is somehow not deserving of those privileges. Plenty of women through lack of education for example still think menstruation makes them impure.

I am sorry to say that your own name is misleading to yourself then. You are SeekingSikhi through an Abrahamic lens which is nothing but a fool's paradise that I am glad Sikhi does not indulge in.

 

[Harry Haller]

Hi Harkiran, hope you are well

no, i think it is something different to that, I think that in the collective psyche of the older Sikh female there exists an element of 'well we had to suffer all this crap, why should they get off any easier',

 

[Simranjit]

I thinks it's important to differentiate Sikhi from Punjabi culture. Sikhi doesn't promote the disenfranchisement of women, therefore one has to look at the culture in which this is happening. The same culture that promotes female fetocide cannot be realistically expected to allow women equality in all matters in the gurdwara.

Very clarifying to me, thanks a lot.

 

[Simranjit]

At least you are a male. As a female I could say the same thing, that being a female is a punishment for some past karma or something. At least you can walk into a Gurdwara and everyone will see you as a male, and not try to place limitations on you. Try being female in a religion of all male Gurus, nearly all the historical role models are male (and the ones that are female are recognized as being Mother to... wife of... etc so their fame is more related to the males they are related to - Mai Bhago aisde, all the women historical role models are meek and valued for being Mother of, or wife of...) Nearly ALL Granthis, Gurdwara Management Committees, Raagis, scholars etc are male, the first Panj Pyaras are male (and now its used to keep women from doing this seva), some sampardas tell wives they must be obedient to their husband and see and serve him as a God over her, Man leads in anand karaj, woman follows, some sampardas keep women from seva because of menstruation, darbar sahib doesn't allow women to do most seva... no kirtan, no palki sahib seva, no female granthis, no female allowed to participate in akhand paaths, no female can wash sanctum sanctorum etc. Women are always shown only in langar kitchen, as if to make a statement and stereotype that women are only good for cooking. Then we have Dasam Granth and over 600 pages of stories with the central moral message that women are evil, immoral and deceivers that men should never trust (very very few similar stories of males). I think I'd almost rather be a gay male than a female in Sikhi (or any other religion) IF any of this were correct views! I know they are not. They are just about people trying to control other people. Nobody wants to admit that everyone is equal and nobody is following Gurbani saying to TREAT everyone equally!

"As Gurmukh, look upon ALL with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained" - Seems majority have forgotten this! It's not a punishment... you have divine light in you same as everyone else. It's just who you are. Maybe its just a challenge, maybe last time you felt empathy for those in your current situation and you wanted to experience it to really understand (on a soul level). In reality gender is part of the illusion. We are all formless consciousness... and you also deserve happiness.

Having said that, I don't think you will ever be able to do anand karaj. But you can marry by civil ceremony. Try Thailand etc... Maybe Russia or Ukraine?

Thanks a lot for starting this thread. I'm reading it with most interest.

 

[Simranjit]

From my observation, this is a Punjabi cultural problem. I see less of it in the diaspora.

This is what I conclude from my readings in this forum and from my conversations with Sikhs here in Barcelona (Spain). And I'm thankful for it.

In Barcelona's Gurudwara you can see women doing kirtan. But men and women sit in different areas during the kirtan. I'd love it to change.

 

[Simranjit]

I am sorry to say that your own name is misleading to yourself then. You are SeekingSikhi through an Abrahamic lens which is nothing but a fool's paradise that I am glad Sikhi does not indulge in.

Dear Tejwant, would you mind developing further this post? I don't understand it as I agree with what Seeking Sikhi said and as I far I understood your writings so far I have the impression that we hold similar points of view about gender equality and about the role of women in men in Sikhi.

Thanks!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Respected Tejwant Ji,

I think he just means that it is not men’s right to give or deny women anything. If women can lead then for men to tell them they can not lead is not up to men. If women CAN lead then it was meant to be. Same with things like seva for example men keep saying women ‘can’t’ take seva as one of the Panj Pyaras. But a woman physically CAN perform the preparation and administering of Amrit so therefore it’s meant to be and not up to men to say she can’t.
I don’t think that thinking is Abrahamic. It’s not like some bearded guy on a cloud is saying you can or can’t. It’s written into existence that physically males and females can do everything save for a few biological things related to procreation. People may have different levels of ability for example some can run faster than others, some are smarter than others but we all have the capacity to run (outside of a disability) and we all can learn. So nobody has the right to tell someone ‘you are rnot allowed to run’ or ‘you are not allowed to learn’ but there are males around the world doing just that to females and even killing girls for simply wanting to go to school to learn.

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh,

You know that we are on the same page about this subject.

Having said that, can women be priests in the Catholic Church or in the Mormon Church?
Why not?
God gave them the rights to do so.

Please read his post #15 again. He is using god as an Abrahamic deity, again and again, hence my response to him. In one of his other posts, he used the verses from OT an NT to prove his point here.
His premise is all wrong, to begin with. It is like saying no one can stop women from breathing because god gave them the right to do so unless someone closes their mouths and noses.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Dear Tejwant, would you mind developing further this post? I don't understand it as I agree with what Seeking Sikhi said and as I far I understood your writings so far I have the impression that we hold similar points of view about gender equality and about the role of women in men in Sikhi.

Thanks!

Simranjit ji,

Please read my response to Harkiran Kaur ji.

Thanks

 

[seekingsikhi]

I am sorry to say that your own name is misleading to yourself then. You are SeekingSikhi through an Abrahamic lens which is nothing but a fool's paradise that I am glad Sikhi does not indulge in.

It's my understanding that you never STOP seeking sikhi. And, no, I'm attempting to approach sikhi from a perspective of truth, compassion, and contemplation; and if I'm being honest I don't appreciate your dismissive/disparaging response.

He is using god as an Abrahamic deity, again and again, hence my response to him. In one of his other posts, he used the verses from OT an NT to prove his point

These are strawman arguments. You're addressing the parlance rather than the point. Harikan Kaur ji understood exactly what I meant. And since when has quoting another scripture that had the message correct been frowned upon? There are many bhagats in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib that came from other traditions.

Having said that, can women be priests in the Catholic Church or in the Mormon Church?
Why not?
God gave them the rights to do so.

As a gender they are in no way unfit to fill these roles, save that the men running these institutions decided they could not. If God had not intended women to be equal, the gurus would not have fought for their equality; and widows would still be burned on the funeral pyre with their husbands.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Guru Fateh SeekingSikhi ji,

It's my understanding that you never STOP seeking sikhi. And, no, I'm attempting to approach sikhi from a perspective of truth, compassion, and contemplation; and if I'm being honest I don't appreciate your dismissive/disparaging response.

Firstly, there is nothing to get upset about. Disagreements are part and parcel of the learning process of Sikhi. I apologise if any of my words have caused you pain. That was not the intention.

I agree. One never stops to be a student, a learner, a sikh till the last breath. I think that is what you meant not Sikhi because then we are getting into something totally different.

These are strawman arguments. You're addressing the parlance rather than the point. Harikan Kaur ji understood exactly what I meant. And since when has quoting another scripture that had the message correct been frowned upon? There are many bhagats in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib that came from other traditions.

Let's start here then. Please quote what you quoted from the Bible and let's discuss the message and compare it with the message from the SGGS. In this way, all of us can learn from each other.
I am sorry, I did not get the latter part of your statement and its correlation to, "There are many bhagats in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib that came from other traditions."
Would you be kind enough to expand on it? Thanks.

As a gender they are in no way unfit to fill these roles, save that the men running these institutions decided they could not. If God had not intended women to be equal, the gurus would not have fought for their equality; and widows would still be burned on the funeral pyre with their husbands.

I am sorry to say I have no idea what you are talking about here. Who are you referring to God here? Women were being burnt on the funeral pyre in the presence of God. I have no idea what that God's intentions were. Guru Nanak changed that concept because it was the wrong thing to do and Guru Nanak was/is no god, not even a prophet or a saint as in the Catholic realm of Christianity. He was a commoner like you and I. After giving the Guruship to Guru Angad, he went back to farming to feed his family.

Perhaps your imagery/concept/understanding of God is different than what it is in Sikhi. We can only find that out after having more interaction.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

This is what I conclude from my readings in this forum and from my conversations with Sikhs here in Barcelona (Spain). And I'm thankful for it.

In Barcelona's Gurudwara you can see women doing kirtan. But men and women sit in different areas during the kirtan. I'd love it to change.

Simranjit ji,

Guru Fateh.

I understand your sentiment but it has nothing to do with the separation of genders/sexes. My daughter, Jaskeerat has been sitting beside me since she was a little child. She is 26 today.
As we sit on the floor in the Gurdwara, unlike in the pews in the churches, many people feel comfortable in their spiritual zones by creating a space for their own and culturally, both feel that way. One more point is that the bodies normally touch each other while sitting on the floor which may make feel many women uncomfortable if the man next to them is not known to them. This does not happen while sitting in the pews.

Having said that, marital affairs that lead to divorces start in the church. Whether we can blame the pews or not is up for discussion. The same things do not normally happen in the Gurdwaras.

"As many as 65 percents of men and 55 percent of women will have an extramarital affair by the time they are 40, according to the Journal of Psychology and Christianity. A Christianity Today survey found that 23 percent of the 300 pastors who responded admitted to sexually inappropriate behaviour with someone other than their wives while in the ministry."

Why Affairs Happen

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I thinks it's important to differentiate Sikhi from Punjabi culture. Sikhi doesn't promote the disenfranchisement of women, therefore one has to look at the culture in which this is happening. The same culture that promotes female fetocide cannot be realistically expected to allow women equality in all matters in the gurdwara.

Sherdil ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am sorry to say you are painting this canvas of yours with a broad brush which is unfair to both genders. My Mum had 6 girls and 3 boys. There was/is no such culture that you mentioned above in our household and we belong to a small town called Ferozepore.

My Mum used to get the girls from the villages, train them in household chores including sewing etc and then marry them off. The same is true in my extended family. I have two kids. The first one is a girl and the second a boy. We came to know what they were after their birth. I went shopping for clothes afterwards because of this on both occasions

Many women are burnt to death by other women lovingly known as mothers in law with their husbands' consent and plans; not because the son did not marry his boyfriend but the poor girl's parents did not give enough dowry. This is the reason for female foeticide and we can blame the macho macho men for that. It is us the men who are responsible for that and it is upon us men to change this paradigm.
Women are mere pawns in this ugly game of chess.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I would say again, male leaders are the ones disallowing them, whether or not they believe God told them to do so or not. I was just agreeing with the artificial restrictions placed by humans on other humans. I can run a race but someone says no you can’t run this race because you are (insert gender, caste, etc) that’s artificial. You might not win the race but if you can physically run then it was an ability you were born with and obviously that ability was meant to be there.

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh,

You know that we are on the same page about this subject.

Having said that, can women be priests in the Catholic Church or in the Mormon Church?
Why not?
God gave them the rights to do so.

Please read his post #15 again. He is using god as an Abrahamic deity, again and again, hence my response to him. In one of his other posts, he used the verses from OT an NT to prove his point here.
His premise is all wrong, to begin with. It is like saying no one can stop women from breathing because god gave them the right to do so unless someone closes their mouths and noses.

 

[seekingsikhi]

I apologise if any of my words have caused you pain. That was not the intention.

Apology accepted, and I would ask you measure statement like those more carefully in the future.

Disagreements are part and parcel of the learning process of Sikhi.

Absolutely. Here's my issue with our back and forth. You told Harkiran Kaur ji that you and she are on the same page regarding women. She and I are on the same page regarding women. So what're we disagreeing about? Pointless minutia and parlance. This will probably be my last post; as anything beyond this just starts to look like a {censored} contest.

Please quote what you quoted from the Bible and let's discuss the message and compare it with the message from the SGGS.

Matthew 7. The following translation is from the New International Version of the bible (Why there needs to be 20+ different english translations of the bible is beyond me).

3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

While a somewhat crude image, I would say that the greater message goes along well with SGGS; one of improving the self rather than focusing on the failings of others. Likewise, we can hardly encourage other faiths and peoples to treat women as equals if we ourselves keep them bound to traditional indian/punjabi/irish catholic roles of cooking cleaning and baby-making; and keep them down when they try to strive for more. As to the point of my original post, men (as a group) have no right to stop women (as a group) from doing anything; and there are men in the panth who have forgotten this and the guru's teachings on gender equality.

"There are many bhagats in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib that came from other traditions."

Sheikh Farid comes readily to mind. I'm not suggesting we include bible quotes in SGGS, but if Muslims like Farid are included than it hardly seems fair to outright dismiss a philosophically applicable bible quote purely for its source.

I am sorry to say I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I'm honestly not sure where the confusion is here. Women were seen as possessions that nobody would want after their husbands died and so they were burnt on the funeral pyre with him. The gurus put a stop to this practice, stating that women were equal to men and deserved equal treatment. If women were intended to be burnt with the bodies of their husbands, something in our biology would turn them to firewood after he died.

Perhaps your imagery/concept/understanding of God is different than what it is in Sikhi.

Not at all. Only my parlance. My referring to God and saying "God wanted" doesn't mean I ascribe to the idea of some Mr. God sitting on a cloud raining judgment down on nonbelievers. It's just the words I'm using. English is an inferior language for these kinds of conversations, but I don't speak Punjabi; so I can either spend all my time wrestling to get the english exactly right and never actually finish a post or I can use what's available to me and hope people don't get hung up on the specific words I'm using; choosing instead to look at the larger message.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Respected Tejwant Ji,

I think he just means that it is not men’s right to give or deny women anything. If women can lead then for men to tell them they can not lead is not up to men. If women CAN lead then it was meant to be. Same with things like seva for example men keep saying women ‘can’t’ take seva as one of the Panj Pyaras. But a woman physically CAN perform the preparation and administering of Amrit so therefore it’s meant to be and not up to men to say she can’t.
I don’t think that thinking is Abrahamic. It’s not like some bearded guy on a cloud is saying you can or can’t. It’s written into existence that physically males and females can do everything save for a few biological things related to procreation. People may have different levels of ability for example some can run faster than others, some are smarter than others but we all have the capacity to run (outside of a disability) and we all can learn. So nobody has the right to tell someone ‘you are not allowed to run’ or ‘you are not allowed to learn’ but there are males around the world doing just that to females and even killing girls for simply wanting to go to school to learn.

@Harry Ji there are for sure plenty of women who for whatever self serving reasons are throwing three own gender under the bus. Or maybe they have been brainwashed to think their own gender is somehow not deserving of those privileges. Plenty of women through lack of education for example still think menstruation makes them impure.

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

Then he is claiming that women are weak hence it is not men’s fault that they are.

He also admits, God, whichever he follows is powerless rather than being omnipotent and omnipresent.

A very macho macho man attitude and this makes the whole thing even worse for the women by his own admission.
What a shame!
BTW, have you taken any gatka classes lately to overcome this weakness of yours?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Seekingsikhi,

Guru Fateh.

This raises a point that I've had trouble reconciling on my own. I came to this issue over voting "rights" once. Men do not have the power to grant to women something that should have been theirs all along; so saying women "won" the right to vote, or were "given" the right to vote, etc. isn't accurate and is a little condescending. Maybe I'm splitting hairs a bit, but I would rather have some appropriate terminology. Do you have a preferred term, Harkiran Kaur Ji?

What do you mean by the above? It seems to contradict itself.
Who refused women the right to vote and why in your view they did not 'win' that right to vote?
Whose fault is it you reckon?

Absolutely. Here's my issue with our back and forth. You told Harkiran Kaur ji that you and she are on the same page regarding women. She and I are on the same page regarding women. So what're we disagreeing about? Pointless minutia and parlance. This will probably be my last post; as anything beyond this just starts to look like a {censored} contest.

Not the way I see it. You as a man are defending another macho in this affair in your posts.

Matthew 7. The following translation is from the New International Version of the bible (Why there needs to be 20+ different english translations of the bible is beyond me).

3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

While a somewhat crude image, I would say that the greater message goes along well with SGGS; one of improving the self rather than focusing on the failings of others. Likewise, we can hardly encourage other faiths and peoples to treat women as equals if we ourselves keep them bound to traditional indian/punjabi/irish catholic roles of cooking cleaning and baby-making; and keep them down when they try to strive for more. As to the point of my original post, men (as a group) have no right to stop women (as a group) from doing anything; and there are men in the panth who have forgotten this and the guru's teachings on gender equality.

No, you are wrong from the get-go. Abrahamic religions are based on commandments etched in stone, literally, which order the followers what they can and cannot do - dos and don'ts- otherwise, Hell and Heaven are waiting for them, depending on their obedience, a scare tactic in the name of love. Whereas Sikhi gives us the tools to germinate the seeds of inner manifestation which create wills and won'ts, unlike in the Abrahamic ones which create external impositions.

Yes, men have claimed the right to suppress women. The world history is the proof. And your pious proclamation,"Likewise, we can hardly encourage other faiths and peoples to treat women as equals if we ourselves keep them bound to traditional indian/punjabi/irish catholic roles of cooking cleaning and baby-making; and keep them down when they try to strive for more," makes no sense.
Do you have a uterus?
You may be a cook but a bad one. So what is your point above? You talk a lot but say nothing.
Who gave these roles to the women that you all of a sudden realise are not the right ones?

Sheikh Farid comes readily to mind. I'm not suggesting we include bible quotes in SGGS, but if Muslims like Farid are included than it hardly seems fair to outright dismiss a philosophically applicable bible quote purely for its source.

Well, I have no idea what you know about Christianity but I am sure you have very little knowledge if any about Sikhi.

Allow me to expand on that.

1. Sikhi is an idea based not commandment based, as the Abrahamic religions.
2. There is no god in Sikhi as seen in other religions.
3. Matthew is one of the 4 apostles who wrote about Jesus many years after his death and the sad part of all this is that many of them had had not even met Jesus. Despite all being a hearsay, they quoted him directly which takes a good pair of cajones.
5. The fact is that what "Jesus said" is in doubt. All Jesus' words are second-hand quotes by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. This Son of an omnipotent, omniscient God who could confound the wise men of the temple never wrote his own gospel.

Therefore, comparing Sheikh Farid who was born about 3 centuries before Guru Nanak with the 4 apostles of the NT is nothing but a folly.
Here lies the biggest difference. I hope you understand the stark difference a bit better now.

I'm honestly not sure where the confusion is here. Women were seen as possessions that nobody would want after their husbands died and so they were burnt on the funeral pyre with him. The gurus put a stop to this practice, stating that women were equal to men and deserved equal treatment. If women were intended to be burnt with the bodies of their husbands, something in our biology would turn them to firewood after he died.

Thanks for admitting that "Women were seen as possessions that nobody would want after their husbands died and so they were burnt on the funeral pyre with him. The gurus put a stop to this practice, stating that women were equal to men and deserved equal treatment. If women were intended to be burnt with the bodies of their husbands,"

So as per your own admission, it was we, the men who repressed women, which was a common practice in all religions. Guru Nanak, a different man than the men of OT, NT and others changed this.
So, it was not the women's fault. Right?

Not at all. Only my parlance. My referring to God and saying "God wanted" doesn't mean I ascribe to the idea of some Mr. God sitting on a cloud raining judgment down on nonbelievers. It's just the words I'm using. English is an inferior language for these kinds of conversations, but I don't speak Punjabi; so I can either spend all my time wrestling to get the english exactly right and never actually finish a post or I can use what's available to me and hope people don't get hung up on the specific words I'm using; chooseing instead to look at the larger message.

Well it the Abrahamic God that repressed women. I thought you knew that. Here are just a few examples:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-36

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands. 1 Peter 3:1

so, what is God for you? You do not need to know Punjabi to respond that so each of us can understand where we are coming from.
Thanks.

 

[Original]

Harkiran Kaur Ji,

Hope you are well and spiritually high.......

One of the commentators [Sherdil] above had correctly identified the genesis and the growth of the institution 'male domination' to one of culture and not religion. Attributing it to Sikhism is therefore, unsafe. I think what might help advance your argument would be to differentiate between sex and gender. That is to say, sex refers to the most basic physiological differences between men and women and gender, to the culturally specific patterns of behaviour, actual or normative, which may be "attached" to the sexes. When talking about sexual differences, we are distinguishing between males and females; when speaking of gender, we are distinguishing between masculine and feminine. The content of the male and female distinction is genetically determined and is largely [so I believe] universal, whereas, the content of the masculine/feminine is culturally determined and is considerably variable.

Moving on to the "ubiquity of male domination", that is, an attempt to construct a workable theory/explanation to elucidate and trace, on the one hand, the diversity of ways in which men exercise power over women and on the other, the course of sexual antagonisms hasn't quite crystallised as yet [stand corrected]. There are however, disagreements as to whether the male oppression of women has been characteristic of all human societies, or whether, an egalitarian sexual division of labour characterised the simplest human societies with male domination only emerging under certain conditions.

As you can see, it isn't Sikh per se, but human homogeneous that has the hallmarks of social rather than religious evolution. Moreover, these considerations point to the conclusion that the systematic subordination of women in advanced capitalist societies are characteristic of a patriarchy society, and not "Sikh" society.

Good night !

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

One thing Original missed is that Sikhi talks about equality as it is based on it, whereas other religions are based on inequality as designed by their god.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-36

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands. 1 Peter 3:1

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Tejwant Ji I am well aware of the Christian subordination ofnwomen and know all those passages well. I am still disturbed that I grew up in that religion (well, I realized at age 8 the inequality and quit Sunday school shortly after LOL). Christianity basically equates women as a ‘gift’ to men as a helper meaning it objectifies and subordinates women from the beginnjng and ownership of a gift implies authority over right from the get go. Christianity sees women as lesser beings , designed for helping (domestic servant) the man. Because the bible also says women should be ‘keepers at home’ and teach the younger women to be obedient and ‘love’ their husbands.

Gurbani in the other hand says we are to see all with a single eye of equality... that Akal Purakh IS both the male and the female. It says all humans are equal.

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

One thing Original missed is that Sikhi talks about equality as it is based on it, whereas other religions are based on inequality as designed by their god.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-36

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands. 1 Peter 3:1

want Ji

 

[Harry Haller]

She is crazy like a fool, What about it Daddy cool. BoneyM 4:15