Oh, AKJ, when I read that sentence, it seemed like a cry for help. Now I feel a surge of tenderness for you.

You haven’t had it good with the ladies, have you?

There are resources that can help you. Councelors, therapists, and support groups exist for men who feel the way you do. They can also teach you inter-personal and inter-sexual skills.

You are not alone.

The first step is admission and recognition of the problem.

Just say it:

“I have a problem with women. I lack the social skills to have healthy relationships with women.”

Which can only mean: “I got beaten by a woman once. Never again”

I have little more to say other than what I wrote in my previous post. You cannot see the truth because your perception is extremely distorted by your own negative experiences and is simultaneously condoned by your social circles, and you are indeed twisting Sikhi to fit your own corrupted worldview. And when others — such as those of us on this thread, along with that link I supplied earlier — give you evidence about why your views are wrong, you dismiss it as “propaganda”. It’s circular logic coupled with self-rationalising arguments, where you manipulate Sikhi to fit your own mindset in order to give it the veneer of religious sanction and divine justification, and you are deliberately creating a Catch-22, no-win situation for yourself by your own actions.

In short, you are trapped in a prison of your own making.

And I’ve said repeatedly that, at this point in time, you are psychologically unable to see the truth because your spiritual awareness has not developed enough, and you are intellectually trapped in self-rationalising-but-tunnel-visioned linear arguments. It’s a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

Have some humility and take some damn responsibility for the fact that your own actions and ideas are significantly behind the problems you encounter. For the record, I rarely have problems in being treated decently by women (especially those who are intelligent and good-natured). Neither do most of my good friends, including Punjabi Jatt Sikh guys who have a similarly balanced strong-but-sensitive mindset. As I said before, the problem is partly your own attitude & ways of thinking, and partly the social circles you choose to mix with (both male & female).

Practise the basics of Sikhi sufficiently, reduce the extent of your contact with your patriarchal Jatt/Punjabi social circle, expand the range of people you interact with, be ruthlessly honest about your own behaviour and inner motivations, and everything will subsequently begin to become clearer to you.

Until then, it is pointless for you and the rest of us to keep going around in circles.

I think we’ve all given you enough honest feedback and advice. If you’re serious about wanting to find a way out of this trap which you are now in (and you are psychologically trapped, whether you realise it or not) — rather than choosing to continue to distort Sikhi to match your own subjective and self-centred ideas — then you know what you need to do now.

Best of luck.

I agree completely with your remarks in post #206, 209 & 210. It’s a pretty accurate analysis of the situation, and you’ve summarised exactly what I think.

**********************************8

Taj,

Well-fought, and you have my support, but I see that you too have noticed when it is time to remove yourself from this particular debate. It is possible that a professional psychotherapist is required here.

thanks.

=>”If they had sought equality – they would have taken real and positive steps to achieve it.”

They did. The SGGS is full of verses praising women and in some aspects even exalting them above men. Guru Gobind Singh selected a disproportionate number of women to lead his missionary projects. Sikh women were known to lead military forces too. I can give numerous other examples. There is absolutely nothing in Sikhism which promotes the notion of men having any kind of authority or superiority over women — both are supposed to work together in the spirit of partnership, equality and mutual respect.

I agree with him 100%. but notice there is nothing in Sikhi which says man and woman are equal either. So the natural understanding one takes is that Sikhi accepts the status quo, or at least whatever of it, as it existed during the Gurus times, with the changes implemented by the early Sikhs.

I think you can drop all the pretend arguments concerning equality; here’s the real crux – plain and simple misogyny. It’s kind of unnerving how you think this will make people agree with you; it’s also bloody hilarious at the same time.

No.

“Because it might not be that women are like this and men are like that inherently, and Sikhism accurately captures that (in your view).”

I do not need such an assumption on women in general, throughout history, to say that the Sikh tradition has never emphasised male-female equality.

“You might be irking women because you have problems with women in general, which skews your perception of them. This might result in women disliking you. And this might feed into your “women are lowly”, blah blah blah.”

I might be, but I assure you that this is not the case. I do not have any problems with women any more, ever since I stopped bothering with the ‘equality’ and ‘understanding’ stuff, and just concentrating on being a good man. Women do not dislike me! They like me, they have always liked me! They just never respected me enough as a man. But since I have become more assertive and less inclined to worry about whether or not I am ‘creating and continuing an inequality’ things have improved greatly for me. For example, I used to be conflicted when friends and relatives came to me for advice, because I had to balance my common sense opinion against the liberal notions of ‘equality’ and ‘equal rights’ which I had been told were Sikh priorities too. Now i freely speak my mind, without worrying too much about that stuff. Women are not lowly either. I have never said so. Traditionally though, men take leadership roles and that sorta stuff, and I dont disagree with this myself. This doesnt mean they’re inferior, does it?

Anyway.

Jai and Jagdeep:

Uncle e-mailed me today and he confirmed that it is indeed called Akhand Paath. So I stand corrected.

Wonder who told me that it was called “Granth Paath,” then.

I hate to break it to you, but those quotes I extracted don’t work in their context, either. Precisely why I pulled them up.

But I’m continuing to read your comments, and a thought occured to me: you have, in a series of posts, talked about women in general, in ways that I find are irrelevant to the initial discussion, ie not showing “too much affection” to them or they don’t “respect you back,” women liking men to be patriarchal, etc.

You’re not transposing your difficulties with women onto religion, are you? Because it might not be that women are like this and men are like that inherently, and Sikhism accurately captures that (in your view). You might be irking women because you have problems with women in general, which skews your perception of them. This might result in women disliking you. And this might feed into your “women are lowly”, blah blah blah.

A self fullfilling prophecy– but not a divine prophecy.

They are not just superficial. They are real, pervasive and significant! One cannot think otherwise without deluding oneself and living in some imaginary world where those things do not exist. They do, and they matter. They have a real effect! You cannot deny this surely. It makes a real practical difference whether a person you meet is a man or a woman.

Here is my alternative approach, Jai. Recognise those things matter, and they exist, and be aware of them, and still try to ‘see the good’ in a person. See how these two approaches differ? One forces you to ignore things that matter, and pretend they arent there – and the other one fully accepts those things exist and matter.

“Women are not a separate species to men — try to put yourself in women’s shoes and understand the other party’s experience & point of view (it’s not necessarily as difficult as you may think).”

Yes they are a different species to men. And the less I try to understand them, the better! I am sick of trying to see it from their POV, or putting my shoes in their heels. My feet are far too big for one This is what I refuse to do any more. Emphathise, grovel, ‘understand’ with women – what a waste of time it has been. I know for example, that as much as I love my sister, if i show her affection often, the less she respects me, and my cousin, who never does, she respects him much more. My cousin is your typical man – I am ‘sensitive’ and ‘caring’ (he is too, but he doesnt show it.) I have done exactly what you have said Jai – you can even talk to women about being a ‘good man’, and all you will end up with a feminine model of a man – or what is the same thing, a girl. They will never respect that – never.

If you reply instead that it is perfectly possible to be a man and be caring and sensitive and so on, then I would say yes, it is, but it is very difficult to juggle them. And one will succeed only when he manages to keep a close handle on how much of that sentitivity he shares with others.

“This is a purely subjective assertion — and your definition of “liberalism” is also questionable. You are stating personal opinions and claiming them to be objective facts condoned by Sikhi, which is not necessarily the case.”

Nahi Veer, it is not subjective. Sikhi is concerned with good society. I have studied liberalism and the main axiom of liberalism from which all the other things are derived is that of ‘the Autonomy of the Individual.’ Maximising the autonomy of the individual is the goal of liberalism. It has side-effects of liberal ideals of equality, tolerance, plurality, free expression, gay rights, animal rights, etc.

Sikhi is not concerned with these things. Far from it. It is concerned with good society. I keep saying this that it has become tiresome, but that is what Sikhi is about. Sikhi loves good people, even those from different faiths, from different races, and castes, etc. It is a faith that embraces humanity – and specifically the good in humanity. Those things are not liberal things like the freedom of the individual to have gay sex, or to say anything no matter how offensive through free speech, or the freedom of the individual to do whatever he likes, so long as it does not hurt anyone. Sikhi disagrees with this because it about responsibility and about being a useful, productive and responsible member of society. I can expand this further, but surely you agree with me on this?

“I only care about what is right, not whether it is “liberal”. ”

Excellent! So put down your ideals, which though you love dearly are not justified, and take an objective look through Sikhi. Ask yourself how closely Sikhi matches the goals of liberalism – and if it does not, why should you accept (some) liberal goals as being the same as that of Sikhi. When I say this, dont start by understanding that Sikhs in the past were not enlightened enough to act on True Sikhi – and that is why we have never truly had male-female equality. This is unacceptable to me, because the weight of experience is what I recognise, not what you can freshly interpret from Sikhi.

” purely academic understanding of Sikh principles is pointless. So is blindly following customs because they are “tradition”. ”

Mate that is what i have been stressing. Turn to experience. Turn to reality. See how Sikhi has been practised in the past. See whether or not it encloses the goals of liberalism – as is today thought of Sikhism.

“And yet, that is exactly what a believer in the ideals of the Khalsa is supposed to aspire to. Guru Gobind Singh — indeed all the Gurus — certainly behaved like this. It is an ideal which all committed Sikhs are meant to aspire to.”

Impressive words Jai. I think you’ve got a very romantic conception of our Gurus. I do too, but yours is dripping with pregnant sentimentalism. This sort of thing is a misleading vice, for it allows us to imagine all sorts of things that might not have really existed. We should only deal with the facts, not our interpretations and sentimentalisms. Jai, do you honestly believe at some point in our history, sikhs actually believed man and woman were equal? If so, when did things change – and how come there is not a single salt of evidence of such an attitude to be seen in our society. Why is this?

“It’s not just a matter of “following Guru Gobind Singh’s dictates”; you are supposed to push your own spiritual development so that you ultimately become as enlightened as he was, with the same awareness of God, the same bravery, the same intellectual clarity, the same degree of compassion and fairness.”

I do not emphasise this because it gives you a free reign to conjecture and invent ideals and reasons for why Guru Gobind did the things he did. It encourages you to depart from obvious and unavoidable facts, into a world where you are free to imagine whatever you like, despite contradicting reality.

“You may take this stance. God does not. If you are serious about Sikhi, then you should be aspiring towards God’s stance, rather than allowing yourself to be dragged down into how much of the rest of humanity behaves.”

I disagree with this because I would be wasting my time if i started worrying about every single problem people have outside my own community. It is best to worry about your own backyard instead of trying to sort out someone elses problem, miles away. I am saying – the whole of humanity is not my issue, only the people i am in contact with. The Gurus did not try to solve all the problems of the world, did they? It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect or believe this. One makes practical choices. So did our Gurus.

“It does indeed say the latter, but it also says that the same divine spark is present in both and that a Sikh is supposed to try to increase his/her own spirituality so that he/she becomes tangibly aware of this. It is exactly for this reason that one is not supposed to behave in a cruel or unjust way even if one can allegedly find some kind of self-righteous reason to justify one’s actions. It is the reason behind Guru Gobind Singh’s battlefield strategies. It is the reason why he did not assassinate Aurangzeb, and why the words of the Zafarnama were so well-chosen. It is the reason why medicine and water were given to “enemy” troops even though there was a risk that they might recover and attack the Khalsa again, along with why the Guru attached gold ingots to his arrows. It is the reason why violence is only permissible as a last resort, and even then only under extenuating circumstances. It is the reason why Sikhi rejects the concept of “might is right”. It is the reason why actions committed in the name of rage or revenge are condemned. It is the reason why I have not been hurling verbal abuse and expletives at you in this thread.”

I agree fully with what you written here. You have recognised that one is not forced to act good, but a Sikh should try anyway, because that is a Sikh-thing to do.

“Doing something because “tradition” dictates it is futile; you will only truly be on the path of Sikhi and following the ideals of the Khalsa if your actions are considerably driven by your own inner spirituality and a literal awareness inside your heart of your common humanity with all (including women). These things become natural, automatic and intuitive. Not just because the Gurus said we should do this or because it is “tradition”.”

False. Good actions are good, regardless of your ‘awareness’ of them. So too, good actions taken because they have been traditionally taken. I think morality is traditional too. One does good or bad, and tells it apart because of tradition. Tradition is not dirty, it is beautiful, and it is beautiful because it is true.

I am familiar with the idealised romanticised version of Sikhi – Sikhism that you have shared with me. I do not believe in such a thing because I know a) Sikhs are not super-heros, b) when Sikhs fought, they bled, c)when sikhs fought sometimes they lost, d)sikhs made mistakes, e) the sikh history is not a picture perfect portrait as Sikhism presents it. f)Sikhs did not always act like the idealised Sikh (Banda Singh’s revolution comes to mind sharply). In fact Sikhi is all the more remarkable because of those things, because it doesnt require a belief that those were super-heros, they were ordinary men and women who did great things, and this made them great people. It recognises the capacity of human kind to survive some of the most difficult circumstances, and to surmount them. I do not start by ignoring these things – I start by accepting them, and turning to them for guidance. Because that is Sikhi to me – the Sikhs who lived accordingly. Not some fashionable ideals that were dreamt up by some pervert with a fetish for individual freedom.

–”All of my zimbabwean mates have white girlfriends, who are intelligent, attractive and independent women. Why they chose these men is a mystery, unless I understand things the way I have according to my own experience.”

–I think as long as one does not treat women badly, then it is fine to continue the unequal tradition. ”

These three phrases are so full of loaded bullshit, that I ask myself: “why even bother?”

AKJ, do you realize that you have littered this thread with such bullshit that you are just digging your hole deeper?

After reading all of your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you are basically using Sikhism and Punjabi-ness–defined by you, of course– to justify and validate your own beliefs about inequality and misogny. Your assertions are not a reflection of Sikhism but a reflection of your own chauvenism.

But keep posting comments that go nowhere and everywhere. Clearly, you don’t realize how far off the mark you are. But this just serves as good entertainment for some of us.