Venomous Contradictions:
‘Incel’, ‘toxic,’ ‘misogynist,’ ‘extremist,’ ‘anti-Khalistani’, ‘Hindu…’ these are just some of the glorious terms foisted on orthodox Sikh men when they criticise, question, and highlight the contradictory narratives of fifth wave self-proclaimed Sikh feminists. The retaliatory venom is expected given the fifth wave’s entrenchment in western ‘cancel culture’ and its fanatical adherence to Repressive Tolerance. After all, who values contradictions being exposed in their cherished beliefs? And the contradictions of feminism are minacious if not outright vicious.
Nature comprises wholes with their own distinctive sub-natures. Men and women retain their own distinguishing differences that are also complementary. Modern feminism absurdly argues this to be a creation of the ‘male mind’ reiterating the canards of Beauvoir and Freidan that the female selfhood has been preset by men but can be rewritten by rising even above nature. Women, it is reiterated emphatically, are free to do whatever they want but if a woman selects to remain committed to familial traditionalism she is not exercising her free will. Why not?
And now begins the innate contradictions of feminism. Women are free but not free when their choices do not conform to the delusional expectations of the fifth wavers. Women are doubly free when they conform to fifth wave degeneracy otherwise they lack the character required for liberation. Women are capable of immorality and this must be celebrated through action. In short, women must commit the same excesses as the most depraved of men while claiming to be a higher species of moral to prove not their equality but their depravity.
Currently, fifth wave feminism has declared a war on men arguing that men are responsible for historic and imagined atrocities. Intriguingly enough, it is argued that while women are stronger than men somehow women are still more vulnerable than men despite not requiring men. Summarily, men are the devil incarnate but also a necessity. Women are unequal to men somehow but must be equalised. Women must define themselves but women have a definition. These venomous contradictions conclude at one objective: the suppression of men.
In The Sikh Context:
The field of Sikh theological scholarship has unfortunately stagnated due to a lack of interest. The immersive linkage between Sikh philosophy and praxis is rarely commented upon with greater emphasis placed upon Khalistan rather than what Khalsa sovereignty denotes from a Khalsa perspective as opposed to western liberal purviews. More noticeably, this conspicuous lack of preaching has generated a vacuum swiftly being filled by regressive ideologies disguised as pathways to equality.
Unfortunately, fifth wave feminism has parasitically embedded itself into Sikh academia under the guise of fulfilling the Gurus’ cherished vision of gender equality. The situation would be comical if it didn’t retain such heavy gravitas. Revealing apparels are worn by feminists during their weddings at Gurudwaras violating traditional Sikh deportment codes with any protests dismissed as the patriarchal policing of the feminine body. Ludicrously, fifth wavers argue they are akin to the Sikh female martyrs of yesteryear. Are they?
Which of the female martyrs, they claim to revere, were misandrists or unable to distinguish between imposed prostitution and wilful degenerate prostitution? Which of them actually argued women were invulnerable but also vulnerable? Or, which one actually were more than overjoyed to dress like courtesans in the Sangat’s presence? The list is endless, but the reality stands that Sikh feminists in no way or form can be considered the heirs of the martyrs of yesteryear despite their claim to being the backbones of the Panth.
The Gurus’ Principles:
What exactly were the Gurus’ principles on gender equality? The feminist will cite,
ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥
ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥
ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥
ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਏਕੋ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥
“From a woman is a man born; within a woman he is conceived and to a woman he is engaged and wed. A woman becomes his greatest friend and through her (their) future generations come. When this woman dies he seeks another; he is bound to women after all. So then why declare her as bad when from her emperors are born? A woman births another woman; without women we would not exist at all. Nanak, only the true Creator is without women. None other.”
-Guru Granth, 473.
Any sensible individual would rightly ask where exactly does this verse dismiss gender differences i.e. a woman’s capability to birth while emphasizing that women commit the same excesses as men? Respect is earned and not given and in no way or form does this verse condone the borderline debauchery of the modern feminist in the name of equalizing themselves with men. In short, these words are not a license to celebrate the animalistic whore. They remind women of their traditional biological roles and underscore the virtue inherent within them.
On the other hand, are women innately divine if men are transgressive? Sikhi does not believe in the notion of the original sin. Humankind is born with the faculties to acquire divinity but this is not assured upon birth ergo Gurbani’s injunction to pursue self-perfection. Noticeably then, the Guru Granth adjudges on the basis of belief and deed rather than on the genetic lottery of birth. A woman is not divine because she is born a woman. She is divine on the same basis as men, her deeds and not her gender.
The War For The Child:
Having established the discrepancies of feminism and the Gurus’ views on gender equality-an equality of differences rather than an undeserved equality of totality-let us turn to another irredeemable flaw: the war for the child. Having vilified and typecast man as the ultimate oppressor with the war cry of down with the patriarchy, the fifth wavers have simultaneously targeted children through the commercialisation of abortion. While common sense dictates abortions be allowed in extreme cases, not every case is an extreme case.
This is where the insidious aspects of modern feminism truly emerge. The byproduct of feral choice is obfuscated with compulsion to argue that abortion is the first and only choice. Again, feral choices are not easily pardoned. We reap what we sow the my body, my choice fallacy aside.
ਆਪੇ ਬੀਜਿ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਖਾਹੁ ॥
“What you sow, so will you reap.”
-Guru Granth, 4.
The cultural desensitisation to abortion as a corollary of feminist endeavors synchronizes with the undermining of the institute of marriage. The sanctity of wedlock and the preservation of one’s virginity prior to being wed in the Guru’s presence has allowed the odious turn towards bestial depravity with so-called no strings attached sex becoming an addiction in its own right. Even the term virgin has been appropriated as an insult by fifth waver simps (men who uphold its principles) signifying that traditional values are the foes of Sikh feminists.
And to top it all? The my body, my choice declaration ignores the fact that the body growing within the womb is composed of both sperm and eggs. That it cannot be used as a weapon against unsuspecting fathers just because they are men.
ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਸੰਜੋਗਿ ਉਪਾਏ ਰਕਤੁ ਬਿੰਦੁ ਮਿਲਿ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਕਰੇ ॥
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਗਰਭ ਉਰਧਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸਾਰੇ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ॥੧॥
“The (sexual) union of the mother’s eggs and the father’s semen form a new body. Within the womb it hangs upside down focused on the Creator who lovingly nourishes it.”
-Guru Granth, 1013.
Outside exigency, does this argument truly stand the test of rationality? Should the father, as a man, have no say in the future of his child? If this is a legalistic argument then surely, an alternative argument can be proposed that if the mother has such extreme control over her child’s very life then the father should not have to emotionally or financially support her in the future as he has no control over his offspring’s future. If women have the sole right to decide to destroy or keep a child, then they should have the sole responsibility for rearing it.
The Gurus And Abortion:
What was the Gurus’ view on abortions? A divine right or a necessary evil in the most extreme of cases?
ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਭਏ ਕੀਟ ਪਤੰਗਾ ॥
ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਗਜ ਮੀਨ ਕੁਰੰਗਾ ॥
ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਪੰਖੀ ਸਰਪ ਹੋਇਓ ॥
ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਹੈਵਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਖ ਜੋਇਓ ॥੧॥
ਮਿਲੁ ਜਗਦੀਸ ਮਿਲਨ ਕੀ ਬਰੀਆ ॥
ਚਿਰੰਕਾਲ ਇਹ ਦੇਹ ਸੰਜਰੀਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਸੈਲ ਗਿਰਿ ਕਰਿਆ ॥
ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਗਰਭ ਹਿਰਿ ਖਰਿਆ ॥
“A multitude of lifetimes as winged vermin, a multitude of lifetimes as elephants and fish, a multitude of lifetimes as birds and serpents, a multitude of lifetimes as a beast of burden. And now is your time to meet your Maker. After eons, this body was fashioned for you. A multitude of lifetimes among forests and rocks, a multitude of lifetimes in which you were aborted within the womb…”
-Guru Granth, 176.
Irrespective of the debate over whether this refers to evolution or reincarnation, this verse conclusively points to the baseness of abortion and establishes its sinful nature if done without a just cause. It was akin to infanticide in the traditional Sikh Rehatnamahs and is not found within Sikh history. An equally heinous act was that of post-birth homicide the consequences of which underlined what abortion could potentially entail frightening even the most liberal of couples. Two stark incidents from Sikh history highlight this.
Jassa Singh Ramgarhia (c.1723-c.1803) was accused of infanticide in 1748 resulting in him being excommunicated from the Khalsa fraternity until his sanguinary penance during the desperate siege of the Ram Rauni fort. Despite being pardoned by the Panth, the accusation blemished his reputation until his dying day. The second incident is that of the legendary Sukha Singh Shahid whose wife and parents slew his adolescent daughter in retaliation for his conversion to Sikhi. Despite his innocence, the Khalsa still made him undergo penance.
The penalty for abortion would have been more dire. The contention it was not prevalent at the time is imbecilic given that even the Srimad Bhagvatam, which predates the Gurus, criticises the practice due to pre-marital indulgence in sex. Within the same text Krishna orders Draupadi to cease mourning for her fallen son in battle given that even her husband is silently grieving and by accusing him of cold-heartedness she is rebuking the divinity bestowed upon the role and status of the father.
The Father:
The father is a divine gift to the child. He raises his daughter to wed the right male knowing the innate strengths and weaknesses of the male from his own experiences. He raises his son to be the best archetype of maledom possible. To argue consistently that the father is a burden and a mother alone can raise virtuous children is a catastrophe. The amount of weak males plaguing Sikhi in the west are a direct outcome of feminist reductionism a majority of the times.
ਜੈਸੇ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਬਿਨੁ ਬਾਲੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥
“Just like there can be no child without the mother and father.”
-Guru Granth, 872.
The above is not a biological observation but a fact. A child cannot be complete without a mother and father coexisting with their different natures to wholesomely complete it. Our modern-day feminists and simps despite their airs to the contrary are anything but the progenitors of future Khalsa warriors. Nor can they rightfully claim to be the descendants of those valorous mothers who had their babes hacked and their meat garlanded around their necks. They laid down their lives, our lot can barely lay down their sex lives for a day.
So Singhs remember and remember well, the fifth wavers who claim to be the backbone of the Panth today have neither religion nor righteousness. Their Sikhi is only ancillary to their main loyalty towards the feminist creed. Under the guise of the valorous Kaurs of the past, they have slowly derailed the Sikh purview of gender equality with that of radical misandrists. For all their ravings against patriarchy, they are still unable to furnish a successful matriarchal civilization.
Indeed, without women we would not be born. But nor does this confer any divine prerogatives upon women to entertain the same depravity as the most predatory of males just as being born a male does not allow degeneracy. Consider what we are incentivizing in the names of the Gurus in our Gurudwaras and in our homes. What might seem virtuous externally, is often venomous internally. Men have yet to realise that war has been declared against them. It is high time they confront the misandrist aggression and restore equilibrium.
Being born a woman does not make one the divine feminine just as being born a male does not make one the divine masculine. Only deeds achieve that.
“They laid down their lives, our lot can barely lay down their sex lives for a day.”
Wow! Mic drop.
Deep Kaur once stabbed a Turk to death who tried to touch her as a married woman. Are we to think she'd be "ok" with her sisters doing the things she'd really kill and die to avoid?
Obviously we aren't in a situation of anarchy and war like in those days, but she acted for a reason- we should meditate on why that is.