Like the Black Hole of Calcutta, Siege of Cawnpore, Lucknow etc .... oops, they were 'illegal and horrifying things' carried out by the Indians.

There are examples in Western history where the women were given a handgun to shoot themselves rather than be captured.

The British tried to protect the Palestinians from the Israeli terrorists, many British soldiers died including those murdered by the Israeli terrorists like the two Sergeants.

I threw in a vote for Anita tonight .Not least because she remembered Mahindra

The various kingdoms fought religious wars and also had sectarian problems within them. There never was a period of peaceful coexistence. There were just basically pauses in ongoing conflict and a few rulers who practised tolerance - but were often frowned at by the religious elites. There were several population movements because of religious conflict. It was much like the religious wars in Europe.

Because we shouldn't be getting involved in other people's quarrels. We shouldn't have sanctions against other countries because of how they treat men or women - it is up to them how they live. If they want to change then liberation (if that's the right word) must to come from within, it can't be imposed upon them.

Life is cruel and harsh, always has been and always will be - it isn't a Disney movie.

You have to look at it from their cultural perspective - you can't (or shouldn't) judge people from the 1940s, living on another continent who have a different view of life from you in the west in 2015.

He may well have agreed with the decision but I suppose we'll never know. As you say he wasn't there so reasonable point.

The point is, it was against the male Samurai wishes but they still allowed it to happen, anyway. Unlike the Sikh men who didn't allow their wives/daughters to defend themselves.

The men had the power to stop them, but didn't, and as you dislike the Sikh men for what they did you should praise the Samurai for what they did (or didn't do).

For me, the point is the men thinking they had the right to decide for the women.

I think it should be the woman's right to decide for herself.

Men have never held all the cards. As an American Tory once said (his name escapes me) "the rich have always ruled and always will." Rich men and their families rule, working class and middle class men have always had nothing or very little. If they refuse to fight in a war they get shot or hanged, this never happened to women.

As for parity, as soon as women ask for 50% of all soldiers on the field of battle to be women and 50% of all dustmen (sorry, dustpersons) to be women then I might listen to you, until that day comes I dismiss your arguments.

Women have always been a privileged caste within society and still are. What they want now is to get all the cushy jobs but miss out on the nastier ones men have always had to do.

She is not the only lackey - they are all lackey's (male or female). If she said anything the editor or owner didn't like she would be out on her ear.

As I said in another post the male samurai had the power to stop them if they wished but didn't. If you dislike Sikh men for what they did then you should praise the Samurai for what they did (or didn't do).

Men have always had to fight for the community to survive, grow and develop from the earliest cavemen days to the present. Women have always approved and expected them to do this, from tribes of men fighting one another with their wife and children watching cheering them on, tending to their wounds then urging them back into battle. Spartan women saying to their men to come back with your shield or on it. Confederate women calling their men a disgrace and cowards because they lost to the Yankees (even though they fought very bravely indeed). Or suffragettes handing out white feathers to shame men and boys (even those too young to fight) to go to be slaughtered in WW 1.

I don't judge these women by modern standards but according to you I should (race, creed and era being irrelevant).

All those cushy traditional jobs for women like nursing, caring for the sick, cleaning, cooking, serving and prostitution and all without the right to keep their own wages. What a privilege.

Just been reading Children's Voices of World War 2' - memories and diaries of people who were young during the 2nd World War.

One British girl said her father pointed to the shotgun hung on the wall and said that if Germany invaded England (in 1940) that he would shoot her and her mother.

The girl said she thought 'You won't get me!'

I just watched this episode and wow
Glad that she was able to share this. Very good and thought provoking episode.

I think it's a bit late to answer all the issues you raise so I'll just say that many of those jobs are mundane but not difficult and men had to do more difficult and dangerous jobs.

Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, it is the male that normally dominates in the animal kingdom but I take your point.

I don't agree with what they did but if you expect modern western values from Sikhs in the 1940s Punjab, I'm afraid you are going to be sadly disappointed.

That's an interesting story - possibly the father was thinking of the anti-German propaganda from WW1 as well as the war they were fighting in. Interesting point though.

Perhaps your enemy within comment allied with reading another post on another thread made me think you were talking about men today in the west as well as then.

Your male work colleagues have no control over what men from a different culture did on a different continent in the 1940s. Neither do they have any control over what men on another continent do now.

Goodness it appears to have taken 2 weeks for someone to scrape together enough dross from the remains of their pity party to post such utter rubbish.
Anita in SCD is doing well, not as well as some of her admirers claim as she remains messy not finishing her lines and her legs have a bit of a tendency to be bandy.
I, however, remain very well disposed to her because of her indignation over Mahindra.
She appears to be a little martyr for the time of partition.

But she shouldn't be because we shouldn't judge what happened to her against her times and place.

That's ok then because Jack the Rippers victims can now be seen as asking for it as they were only prostitutes, only funnily enough they were regarded as humans to whom something evil had happened.
Funny that, women being regarded as humans all that time ago should we judge the attitude to them against their time and place?
I could go on, however, suffice to say, I think that one poster has let their feelings towards women in this time and place be known, there is nothing anyone can do to stop their pity party. Presumably his mummy didn't cook him him enough cup cakes and make enough homemade lemonade so that others wanted to come to his party.

I don't agree with what they did either.

I'm not trying to change history, just stating that I think they were wrong.

In Ancient Sparta women had a much more equal role in society and had status much closer to the status of men, even though they had different roles, so the idea of equality existed a long time before - just wasn't being applied in most cases.

It's still the case today, of unfinished business. It's not to treat men and women the same, just treat them equally.