Rama's treatment of Sita (fwd)

[Guest guest]

> Re: Rama's treatment of Sita

> You have a point there. I am by no means a feminist, but I strongly

> believe that in both the Hindu epics (as well as in religions that

> branched off from Hinduism like Buddhism etc) a woman is not at all

> treated with respect. On one side, a woman is idolised as "Ma Kaali" and

> on the other she is definately treated infinitely inferior to a man.

> Take the Mahabharath for instance. Ok, agreed that polygamy was a rule

> of the day (a necessity even, for Kshaatriyas) but Draupathi was

> considered a, well, something of a prostitute, for having 5 husbands.

> And when Karna calls her so, there is no defence for her. The reason for

> her having 5 husbands is that she wanted a husband with 5 of the greatest

> quallities possible and it was "wrong" for a woman to desire such traits

> in her man. And Arjuna could go town after town and marry as many women

> as he pleased. (And so could Krishna, although "bhakti" would have been

> the reason to be given to Krishna's romances, for which i have no

> objection.). A woman is always considered a temptress (during times she

> is not considered Maa Kali). That reflects badly, not on the woman's

> fidelity, but on the man's lack of any self control or morality.

> Sorry, if that was a strongly feministic argument, but I could go on and

> on, about Vali just abducting Tara, Gautama rishi cursing Ahalya for no

> fault of hers, Draupadi being accused as the reason behind the war,

> inspite of the ultimaate insult to womanhood that she faced-derobing, not

> including the not-technically-Hindu stories of Gautama Buddha totally

> abandoning the woman he had promised to protect all her/his life etc etc...

> Lakshmi Gopal.

>