Re: Dupatta ON or OFF?
No offence Roxx but it seems you're just here to disagree w/ the posts and nothing more. Kinda annoying having to fish through your rants.
I'm of the opinion that the dupatta should be kept on.
I remember attending a pre-wedding celebration for a friend.....and several people commented that it was hard to tell which girl was the "bride to be" because she didn't really stand out. And the other girls (guests) were just as decked out as she was.
There will be other girls/aunties who will wear a ton of jewelry and really fancy clothes......and the bride should stand out as the BRIDE and not just one of the attendants. ANYBODY.....even a gora.....should be able to spot the bride instantly. That's how I see it.
I understand that bridal dupattas can be heavy. I personally like bridal dupattas to be lightweight. There can be more kaam on the rest of the clothes.
Barring the brides who actually practice hijab (including the h0jabis who practiced hijab only up until their wedding days), I haven’t seen too many Desi brides covering their heads/faces and the fact that people are arguing that a bride SHOULD wear a ghoongat/dupatta is a perplexing one. Everyone who insists brides should cover their heads bandies around one reason or another but I’ve yet to see a single argument that actually holds water, including:
A)The bride doesn’t look as good without a ghoongat/dupatta.
That may be true, if the bride is half as ugly as the Desi brides I’ve seen. That said, a brown paper bag serves the same purpose without being pretentious.
B)The bridal look is incomplete without a ghoongat/dupatta.
You’re right: contrary to popular opinion, you don’t need a bride to conduct a wedding ceremony, just a ghoongat or dupatta. Why even invite the bride to her wedding since her ghoongat/dupatta itself is more important than her presence? As long as she doesn’t try to upstage the ghoongat/dupatta, she’s still welcome to attend her own wedding (but only as a guest).
*C)Your nikkah/walima/mendhi/mayoun/etc. is the only time in your life that you will able to wear a ghoongat/dupatta. *
Why only at the nikkah/walima/mendhi/mayoun/whatever? Why not move to someplace like Rajastan immediately after the festivities, so that you and your ghoongat can never be parted?
D) A bride without a ghoongat/dupatta doesn’t look as special without it.
A unicorn without wings doesn’t look as special without them, but if I was fortunate enough to come across a unicorn, the last thing I would do is bemoan its lack of wings.
E) Wearing a ghoongat/dupatta is more traditional.
Clearly, even brides who pair ghoongats/dupattas with sleeveless cholis, Western-style bouquets and/or Firangi grooms are more traditional than the mavericks that don’t. Our tolerance is exceeded only by our hypocrisy, apparently.
F) Without her ghoongat/dupatta, I can’t tell the bride from anyone else.
The majority of the time, the groom shuffles into the hall wearing little more than a business suit and a clean pair of shoes (despite the fact that his wedding is one of the few times a man can wear a tuxedo), yet I hear few people complaining about that. Yet, there is this belief that without a head-covering, you simply won’t recognize the bride. Do you walk into the wedding hall, wondering “Who ARE those two clowns seated on the stage?”. Do you simply run to the first hijabi you see, congratulate her and hand her the wedding gift, assuming that anyone with a head-covering MUST be the bride? I prefer to see dogs wearing collars but if I saw a dog without one I wouldn’t automatically assume it was a cat; neither would I pretend a ghoongat-less bride was some random party reveler.
G) Ghoongats/dupattas make brides look more modest.
That they do. Thankfully, facial-piercings, skimpy cholis/backless qameezes and/or 10 lbs. of hooker makeup often work to undo that damage. Unfortunately, I’ve seen too many brides don ghoongats or dupattas that failed to wipe their numerous questionable Facebook outfits and escapades from my mind; skanks of the world beware: the ghoongat/dupatta can only do so much.
H) It seems like only Indians/Hindus/Sikhs have abandoned the ghoongat/dupatta, and Pakistani Muslim brides who forgo a head-covering a simply copying them.
Of all the explanations I’ve read so far, this one takes the cake. I’ve only ever attended Muslim weddings, where only 50% or so of the brides covered their heads in some manner, but perhaps the bare-headed look really is more prevalent among Sikh and Hindu brides. I personally wouldn’t know. I find this line of reasoning bizarre, nonetheless; from mendhis, dholkis and bharats, to sarees, teekas and matha-pattis: the fact that something is associated with or attributed to Hindus or Sikhs has rarely proved an effective deterrent to Muslims. It’s a wonder that the folks who complain about bare-hair being a primarily Sikh/Hindu trend don’t also advocate divesting themselves of all Hindu/Sikh/Indian customs entirely and adopting another culture altogether (Arab perhaps, for those of us so blessed? Persian, for those of Persian descent? Tough luck for everyone else?). Good luck with that, btw.
G) “as gori's wear veils to cover their heads, so we wear dupattas”
I compared the choice of wearing a dupatta for us to the choice of wearing veils for Western brides, but even I didn’t go so far as to compare the actual dupatta/ghoongat to the bridal veil itself! My understanding is that the western bridal veil (when it is worn) is worn during the walk down the aisle and the recitation of the vows, and then the bride is unveiled by her spouse (groom or bride, depending on preference), after which the veil is usually removed and set aside, (though I applaud any bride who chooses to dance and/or hold her reception still veiled). On the other hand, the folks on this thread are advocating the use/wear of the ghoongat/dupatta both before and after the Muslim wedding ceremony (or Nikah) itself (when a Muslim bride, ostensibly, is *compelled *to cover her hair).
Ultimately, I’m neither for, nor against, the practice of brides wearing ghoongats/dupattas, and feel there are many valid reasons why a bride would choose to do so (shyness, tradition, religious belief) or not (personal choice, fashion, comfort). Unlike other posters on this thread, though, I’m not foolish enough to suggest that a dupatta or ghoongat (or the lack, thereof) is what makes or breaks a bride. Though we all have our quirks and preferences when it comes to bridal fashion and are not afraid to share them (or even mock them openly ;) ) modern Desi brides enjoy a freedom of choice seldom seen in other cultures. We’re all welcome to praise or mock the choices of others, as long as we don’t expect to make those choices for them.
Ohmigosh people, why all this fuss over a damn dupatta??? I dont understand the dramatic special effects and the trouble being taken over something so simple!
Do you like it Roxx? No? Great! Move ON! Lets keep it simple, shall we? Thanks!
No one else is required to agree with you no matter how sarcastic you are.
I'm sorry my posts offended you. We're they not 'groovy' enough?
As for the "sarcasm/thinly veiled hostility", I don't believe hostility should be veiled (thinly, or otherwise). For you, though, I'm willing to make an exception: ghoongat, or dupatta? It's your call, SGC.
While I do agree that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, am I to take it that you are now the arbiter of 'niceness' (in addition to 'groovieness', ofcourse)? The denizens of this forum aren't exactly known for 'niceties', but I wish you much luck in your endeavor.
I also appreciate your suggestion, but I suspect that censoring posts and censuring individuals might prove easier that dictating the thoughts, feelings and (especially) opinions of others (don't worry, though: I won't take it personally, if you do; it's not as if you GupShup mods are known for your restraint, in this respect).
This is tacky.
very well said.. I dont disagree with anything you have said...
We all can agree to disagree.. as long as we are respectful of each other and dont impose our views on others...
Barring the brides who actually practice hijab (including the h0jabis who practiced hijab only up until their wedding days), I haven’t seen too many Desi brides covering their heads/faces and the fact that people are arguing that a bride SHOULD wear a ghoongat/dupatta is a perplexing one. Everyone who insists brides should cover their heads bandies around one reason or another but I’ve yet to see a single argument that actually holds water, including:
A)The bride doesn’t look as good without a ghoongat/dupatta.
That may be true, if the bride is half as ugly as the Desi brides I’ve seen. That said, a brown paper bag serves the same purpose without being pretentious.
B)The bridal look is incomplete without a ghoongat/dupatta.
You’re right: contrary to popular opinion, you don’t need a bride to conduct a wedding ceremony, just a ghoongat or dupatta. Why even invite the bride to her wedding since her ghoongat/dupatta itself is more important than her presence? As long as she doesn’t try to upstage the ghoongat/dupatta, she’s still welcome to attend her own wedding (but only as a guest).
*C)Your nikkah/walima/mendhi/mayoun/etc. is the only time in your life that you will able to wear a ghoongat/dupatta. *
Why only at the nikkah/walima/mendhi/mayoun/whatever? Why not move to someplace like Rajastan immediately after the festivities, so that you and your ghoongat can never be parted?
D) A bride without a ghoongat/dupatta doesn’t look as special without it.
A unicorn without wings doesn’t look as special without them, but if I was fortunate enough to come across a unicorn, the last thing I would do is bemoan its lack of wings.
E) Wearing a ghoongat/dupatta is more traditional.
Clearly, even brides who pair ghoongats/dupattas with sleeveless cholis, Western-style bouquets and/or Firangi grooms are more traditional than the mavericks that don’t. Our tolerance is exceeded only by our hypocrisy, apparently.
F) Without her ghoongat/dupatta, I can’t tell the bride from anyone else.
The majority of the time, the groom shuffles into the hall wearing little more than a business suit and a clean pair of shoes (despite the fact that his wedding is one of the few times a man can wear a tuxedo), yet I hear few people complaining about that. Yet, there is this belief that without a head-covering, you simply won’t recognize the bride. Do you walk into the wedding hall, wondering “Who ARE those two clowns seated on the stage?”. Do you simply run to the first hijabi you see, congratulate her and hand her the wedding gift, assuming that anyone with a head-covering MUST be the bride? I prefer to see dogs wearing collars but if I saw a dog without one I wouldn’t automatically assume it was a cat; neither would I pretend a ghoongat-less bride was some random party reveler.
G) Ghoongats/dupattas make brides look more modest.
That they do. Thankfully, facial-piercings, skimpy cholis/backless qameezes and/or 10 lbs. of hooker makeup often work to undo that damage. Unfortunately, I’ve seen too many brides don ghoongats or dupattas that failed to wipe their numerous questionable Facebook outfits and escapades from my mind; skanks of the world beware: the ghoongat/dupatta can only do so much.
H) It seems like only Indians/Hindus/Sikhs have abandoned the ghoongat/dupatta, and Pakistani Muslim brides who forgo a head-covering a simply copying them.
Of all the explanations I’ve read so far, this one takes the cake. I’ve only ever attended Muslim weddings, where only 50% or so of the brides covered their heads in some manner, but perhaps the bare-headed look really is more prevalent among Sikh and Hindu brides. I personally wouldn’t know. I find this line of reasoning bizarre, nonetheless; from mendhis, dholkis and bharats, to sarees, teekas and matha-pattis: the fact that something is associated with or attributed to Hindus or Sikhs has rarely proved an effective deterrent to Muslims. It’s a wonder that the folks who complain about bare-hair being a primarily Sikh/Hindu trend don’t also advocate divesting themselves of all Hindu/Sikh/Indian customs entirely and adopting another culture altogether (Arab perhaps, for those of us so blessed? Persian, for those of Persian descent? Tough luck for everyone else?). Good luck with that, btw.
G) “as gori's wear veils to cover their heads, so we wear dupattas”
I compared the choice of wearing a dupatta for us to the choice of wearing veils for Western brides, but even I didn’t go so far as to compare the actual dupatta/ghoongat to the bridal veil itself! My understanding is that the western bridal veil (when it is worn) is worn during the walk down the aisle and the recitation of the vows, and then the bride is unveiled by her spouse (groom or bride, depending on preference), after which the veil is usually removed and set aside, (though I applaud any bride who chooses to dance and/or hold her reception still veiled). On the other hand, the folks on this thread are advocating the use/wear of the ghoongat/dupatta both before and after the Muslim wedding ceremony (or Nikah) itself (when a Muslim bride, ostensibly, is *compelled *to cover her hair).
Ultimately, I’m neither for, nor against, the practice of brides wearing ghoongats/dupattas, and feel there are many valid reasons why a bride would choose to do so (shyness, tradition, religious belief) or not (personal choice, fashion, comfort). Unlike other posters on this thread, though, I’m not foolish enough to suggest that a dupatta or ghoongat (or the lack, thereof) is what makes or breaks a bride. Though we all have our quirks and preferences when it comes to bridal fashion and are not afraid to share them (or even mock them openly ;) ) modern Desi brides enjoy a freedom of choice seldom seen in other cultures. We’re all welcome to praise or mock the choices of others, as long as we don’t expect to make those choices for them.
Re: Dupatta ON or OFF?
a bride doesnt look like a bride if she doesnt have dupatta on her head!
Ohmigosh people, why all this fuss over a damn dupatta??? I dont understand the dramatic special effects and the trouble being taken over something so simple!
Do you like it Roxx? No? Great! Move ON! Lets keep it simple, shall we? Thanks!
In a word: yes.
No one else is required to agree with you no matter how sarcastic you are.
Nor would I want them to; I can't imagine that anyone who comes to Gupshup *expects *'agreement', let alone **requires **it.
This is tacky.
I am flattered.
I'm sorry my posts offended you. We're they not 'groovy' enough?
As for the "sarcasm/thinly veiled hostility", I don't believe hostility should be veiled (thinly, or otherwise). For you, though, I'm willing to make an exception: ghoongat, or dupatta? It's your call, SGC.
While I do agree that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, am I to take it that you are now the arbiter of 'niceness' (in addition to 'groovieness', ofcourse)? The denizens of this forum aren't exactly known for 'niceties', but I wish you much luck in your endeavor.
I also appreciate your suggestion, but I suspect that censoring posts and censuring individuals might prove easier that dictating the thoughts, feelings and (especially) opinions of others (don't worry, though: I won't take it personally, if you do; it's not as if you GupShup mods are known for your restraint, in this respect).
yes, consider us mods the "arbiters of niceness" around Weddings and behave. if you don't or can't, then we'll deal with it accordingly- but you already know this.
as for dictating your thoughts, feelings and especially opinions, i have zero interest in that- i'm just interested in making sure they're expressed **politely **and since you've said you appreciate my suggestion, you shouldn't have any problems in following through on it, should you? please and thanks.
Re: Dupatta ON or OFF?
wow, who knew something like this could be such a big deal to some people. Really need to get your priorities straight.
Anyway, at a few weddings I have been to recently there've been a lot of girls wearing their old wedding lenghas. Personally I think that it's unfair to the bride, especially since these women were wearing their giant jewellery sets and full makeup etc.
I prefer ghoongat-not the long droopy ones in the posted pics, I mean you WOULD want to be able to see your own wedding!
I'm a hijabi, I'm going for dupatta all the way. Some of my friends who don't practise hijab want the dupatta, and some don't. I think whatever you're comfortable with.
Re: Dupatta ON or OFF?
I've never seen a bride without a dupatta on any day...
Do you seriously have some sort of problem with me or are you just extremely hostile towards everyone who disagrees with you? Why is this the second the forum that your unnecessary comments follow mine?
Thanks for the tip about taking hijab, however, I can’t really take it seriously coming from somebody who only seems to know how to judge and criticize people for their warranted and rightful opinions. We’re in the wedding forum? Tell it to somebody who cares in the religion forum.
And thats the reason why mayouns don’t happen that early. They take place usually the day before…sheesh! So to answer your irrelevant question.. No, I won’t be sitting all mayoun weeks prior to the wedding.
Good grief…
I'm going to lock this thread until people can relax and discuss this in a calmer manner.