There is one thing though. You mention “I absolutely agree that for some Sikh women the dastaar is a deeply empowering decision and experience, and like you, I agree that this is a personal decision that varies by the woman.”

See, this is something I’ve been wondering for a while. What is it that makes you feel that the dastaar is empowering for “some” women?, Or that it is a “personal decision”? As a feminist, how can one reconcile the fact that for women it is just a personal decision, but for men it is a must? As a feminist myself its something I have to contend with.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one to say that in order for woment to be equal they have to be the same — far from it. But sometimes I feel like much of the tension that stems from the “woman wearing dastaar” concept, if you will, is the fact that we really want it (the dastaar) to be accepted by everyone, yet we are afraid that if we declared it to be a necessity, it would turn some women away Sikhi, because they don’t want to live up to the full responsiblity.

One of the things they say when folks take amrit, is that you have to cover your hair. Why would that possibly be the case? Covering ones head as a sign of respect for God, is prevalent only in the East. In the West, most folks would be offended if someone didn’t take off their hat in a church or during the National Anthem. I tend to wonder, whether the Guru’s in all their supreme knowledge wanted something that was so ethnocentric, or whether the real call was for a turban.

The idea of wearing a turban, a crown, is universal — no matter where you go. ALL royalty (male or female) wears a crown or crown-esque (if you will) regalia on his/her. Since we are all sovereigns unto ourselves, it seems to make sense we’d all need our crowns.

Just a thought.

-JTS

However, some of the panelists, specifically at this conference, used the argument you attribute to me (and that I paraphrased) to explain how they envisioned gender equity — as a “lack” of gender. [Whether or not I agree with this argument -- which I do not, on multiple levels -- is briefly addressed in my comments in response to Anon, above] I had hoped to highlight how this kind of argument creates a false and limited scope of options for Sikh women. It also completely fails to address issues of equity and leadership by instead focusing on “managing” female representation, dress, and beauty. There are certainly another group of problems that I did not address in this post that underlie interpreting the dastaar as a “masculinized” aspect of one’s image (which it is not). I guess I’ll have to be more careful about being clear in the future =/

You seem to state explicitly that “donning a pagri” is “de-feminizing” and “appearing gender-neutral.”
I’ve seen and read the opinions of women who cut and pluck their hair taking subtle jabs and outright making fun of women who wear turbans. This looked somewhere between a subtle jab and an outright insult.
Personally I don’t think women who wear turbans look masculine.
Sorry if I offended you with my comment, it was my initial reaction to what I thought was an insult.

maybe one place to start would be to encourage women in the process of fully realizing themselves so that they can understand their diverse interests, rather than suppress these interests or fail to pursue them because of societal expectations. Female-only conferences/support groups would allow women to first have open and honest discussions amongst themselves, which they can later share with their male counterparts.

In fact, Cynthia Keppley-Mahmood co-authored a book on the subject of dastars and women with her student Stacy Brady. The book is titled The Guru’s Gift: An Ethnography Exploring Gender Equality with North American Sikh Women.

First, I wanted to provide a translation/interpretation and explanation of the same Shabad referred to by Camille in the original post. The following was distributed and discussed at a conference held in Fresno, CA – Jakara 2006, titled “Kaur Voices: Exalt, Express, Empower.”

Kaur Voices: Exalt, Express, Empower
Over five centuries ago, the Ten Nanaks challenged the Sikhs to look beyond hierarchies and inequalities to find the Light of Vahguru within all. To a crowd of men, Guru Nanak made the following command:

Aasa Mahala Pehla
In Raag Aasa as revealed to the first Nanak

Bhand Jamiyai bhand nimeeai bhandi mangan veeah. Bhandu Hovai Dosthi Bhandu Chalai Raahu
From the Endless Givers (Women) come birth, conception, engagement and marriage. She is the soulmate. She gives the path for future generations.

Bhand muuah bhand bhaleeai bhand hovai bandhaan. So kio manda aakheeai jith jamai raajan
Men (the takers) are bound to the Endless Givers (Women). So why do you (the taking man) dare to treat her with disrespect, when she gives rise to nobility.

Bhandhu hee bhand upjai bhanday baaj na koi. Nanak bhanday baahra eko sacha soi
From the Endless Givers (Women) come the Endless Givers. Without women, there is nothing. O Nanak, only Vahguru is also the Endless Giver.

Jith mukh sada saalaaheeai bhaagaa rathee chaar. Nanak thay much ujlay thith sachai darbar
That mouth that continuously praises Women is blessed. O Nanak, in the True Court it is those that remember the Endless Givers (Women) who are radiant.

Interpretation
From woman comes all life. She is the soul-mate. She shows the path for the future. How can men, who only take, criticize the noble woman? From woman comes all, without woman there is none. Those that exalt and empower women are blessed and are recognized by their radiance in the True Court of the Divine.