Male Chauvinism of the Lord…

GoogleGlass · Dec 26, 2014

Male Chauvinism of the Lord…

The king was defeated and killed for abducting a queen of another king. The brother of the killed one was made the new king as the conqueror had no intention of ruling the captured kingdom. The brother benefited for switching sides, to the just side, just in time realizing that just always wins not just but emphatically, though late.

We do know which story that it is all about. It is said that a women cannot rule a land. Why is that so? If she is capable and has a council of members to guide her, why can’t she? The great conqueror erred twice or on even more occasions for different reasons.

To upkeep the law of the land, the surviving brother was married to the widowed queen and then made the ruler. Another reason said is to avoid the widowed queen committing suicide on having lost her husband.

Rules could have been re-written thousands of years ago and paved way for women’s rights if the lord in human form had wanted. But he didn't. No details about if the widowed queen was happy to marry the husband’s brother, who is already married as well. Right from those days it is all male chauvinism be it the lord.

If the women had no right to rule, then at least the law could have been changed for the brother to rule without having to marry his brother’s wife. The conqueror as the conqueror had all the powers and as the lord even more. He could have, but he didn't.

On the second occasion, having returned to his kingdom to assume the rightful rulers role, forced his wife to clear the Agni Pariksha to prove the world that she is chaste enough though having been in captivity for years at her abductors place.

There could be several views in support and against these two issues, but being a form of a lord, if needed equality could have been made to prevail.

He could be portrayed as the greatest ever single girl husband but on these two counts, he can be sued for practicing and propagating male chauvinism.

Don't you think so???

umasivasankar · Dec 26, 2014

what induced you to write this GG!!!!???

GoogleGlass · Dec 26, 2014

umasivasankar said: ↑

what induced you to write this GG!!!!???
Click to expand...

nothing Uma, just a thought crossed

Viswamitra · Dec 26, 2014

Dear GG,

Rama being the righteous divine being and a believer of living with one woman, he can't marry Ravana's wife which used to be the practice those days. Generally defeated country becomes a controlled nation but he handed over possession to his surviving brother as his intention is to establish righteousness by defeating the king who wrongfully captured His Queen. Rest of the decisions were left to Vibishana.

Rama didn't ask Sita to enter fire not because he suspected her chastity but because a citizen questioned her chastity. That doesn't demonstrate male chauvnism but shows His belief in Her purity and love.

Viswa

GoogleGlass · Dec 26, 2014

Viswamitra said: ↑

Dear GG,

Rama being the righteous divine being and a believer of living with one woman, he can't marry Ravana's wife which used to be the practice those days. Generally defeated country becomes a controlled nation but he handed over possession to his surviving brother as his intention is to establish righteousness by defeating the king who wrongfully captured His Queen. Rest of the decisions were left to Vibishana.

Rama didn't ask Sita to enter fire not because he suspected her chastity but because a citizen questioned her chastity. That doesn't demonstrate male chauvnism but shows His belief in Her purity and love.

Viswa
Click to expand...

thank you V' for the fb.

my view is if Rama wanted could have re-written the rules, re-writing rules to pave way for the better is what is expected. He could have and none would have challenged the lord. These days we keep blaming the politicians for not doing that and drag them to the streets.

He could have given a nice lecture to that citizen on trust and belief, instead of succumbing to the social practice then. JMO.

chillbreeze · Dec 26, 2014

Having always heard of Rama and Krishna as Gods from my everyone around me, that information was filed away in a corner of my mind. The epics seem just another story to me and I haven't given much thought about their divinity or actions (in human form) until now. I am not well versed in Ramayana but now I enjoy reading others views in IL so much, especially when they are contrary to the popular belief and force us to think. :thumbsup GG.

1Sandhya · Dec 26, 2014

You stopped too soon, OP! What about the third incident - throwing his pregnant (with twins) wife out on the street because of the washer man's question. You can call it chauvinism or desperate need to retain kingly credibility.... In the versions I read and remember, the Agni Pariksha was his own idea, a preemptive reply to 'what people might say'. The washer man throwing out his own wife claiming 'he is no King to take back his wife' incident precipitated the king throwing his wife out willy nilly ignoring that she was pregnant.

GoogleGlass · Dec 26, 2014

chillbreeze said: ↑

Having always heard of Rama and Krishna as Gods from my everyone around me, that information was filed away in a corner of my mind. The epics seem just another story to me and I haven't given much thought about their divinity or actions (in human form) until now. I am not well versed in Ramayana but now I enjoy reading others views in IL so much, especially when they are contrary to the popular belief and force us to think. :thumbsup GG.
Click to expand...

I too read them as just stories CB

There are many such stories that were the reasons for the social injustice till date.

chillbreeze · Dec 26, 2014

GG, most of the stories and literature were written by men. I think that's why there is a biased view in them too. We have been taught such stories right from childhood, inculcating those ideas and values deep in our mind. The same holds true for myths and epics all around the world. But glad to see that, of late people have started thinking rationally without believing and following everything they are told.

GoogleGlass · Dec 26, 2014

1Sandhya said: ↑

You stopped too soon, OP! What about the third incident - throwing his pregnant (with twins) wife out on the street because of the washer man's question. You can call it chauvinism or desperate need to retain kingly credibility.... In the versions I read and remember, the Agni Pariksha was his own idea, a preemptive reply to 'what people might say'. The washer man throwing out his own wife claiming 'he is no King to take back his wife' incident precipitated the king throwing his wife out willy nilly ignoring that she was pregnant.
Click to expand...

I knew there were many more but forgot the important one you said 1S, thank you.