#the main thing is to stop using religion as a metric of behaviour. if anyone treats other people well

[blackknight-100]

Again, I think we fundamentally misunderstand each other. This is not about what Valmiki or Tulsidas wrote, or which is the most original version and which is an interpolation. These are certainly important discussions to be had in a context of true sources vs those modified to suit history, but when talking about the subject of OP's post, one cannot divorce literature from its socio-cultural impact and/or source on the basis of when it was written and whether it is the true text.

You may have noticed I kept mentioning versions in my previous reblog, and because of this very reason: yes, the older versions did not have many things the newer ones do. But that again is something you see in most literature from that period, because these were largely passed down by word of mouth, at least among the common people who did not usually have extensive access to education or books. Today you and I can read up anything on the internet, but books were hardly so widespread previously.

The point is, someone, at some period in history, felt comfortable with characterizing a cultural hero in such a manner, and enough people were willing to accept and propagate the story of the torment of an innocent woman at the hands of a righteous king. The point is that enough people accepted and propagated the idea of an abducted woman undergoing "purification", whether she was assaulted or not, in order to rejoin her husband's household. Which is not so strange when the text was written - we expect older generations to be less open-minded (ironically that isn't always true) - but is definitely strange as a phenomenon today. Enough people today think that the purification was justified, and enough people repeat the 'shadow Sita' story as a misguided attempt at preserving Sita's chastity. A frankly bewildering number of people appear to consider the fact that Sita was too pure for Ravana to touch as her crowning glory. You can do that, of course, but there is a very fine line between that and insinuating that Sita would have deserved everything that came her way if Ravana lay with her, and these people use it as a jumping rope. Enough people believe she would have burned herself to protect herself from Ravana, which is amazingly powerful characterization, but a lot of these people also believe she should burn herself if Ravana tried to touch her. This is similar to how a lot of people treat historical self-immolation by queens: she was powerful and brave to do it, yes. But that she would have been wrong not to burn herself? A painful number of people believe so. It's like that one line in the AS Ramayana show: if a woman is to be molested, she should jump into the ocean. It is an expectation instead of a choice, and that itself is very telling.

And lastly what you said: yes, exactly, that is the whole point. Someone in the society believed that Narayana and Lakshmi would bow down, however temporarily, to the cruel and unjust rules of society instead of fighting against it for each other and the good of the people, and that too is a big part of the problem.

On your tags: regional stories are religious beliefs. It is not the text only that makes Ramayana a religious scripture, a lot of people can write long stories, but it is people's faith that makes them religious. And the fact is, most local beliefs don't give a whit about the Valmiki Ramayana. My mother, my grandmother, and my father are all very religious people, and the ones to introduce me to these stories. They told me the local versions, and it was not until I was old enough to get internet access that I found out others exist. And as much as I love the Valmiki or Tulsi Ramayana, my father's stories will always remain the "real" Ramayana to me and my people, because this is a part of my culture. My culture worships Lakshmi and Saraswati as Durga's daughters, which is not something all mainstream texts agree with, but again, it is my culture and I continue to value it above the texts because it is a part of my history. So when you are talking to someone about the Ramayana irl, it is most likely that they are speaking of the Ramayana in they grew up with, and you are the one talking about the Valmiki Ramayana.

I hate how patriarchy has even ruined Hindu mythology so specifically to benefit the men.The casual jokes on family WhatsApp groups about how Mahabharat and Ramayan, the worst wars of all time, were fought because of a woman and how women bring ruin everywhere they go,as if they are the root cause of all suffering. Where in fact the women were LITERALLY the victims, one was publicly humiliated, the other kidnapped.The men have misinterpreted the stories so badly that it physically pains me, god went to war not because of women, they went to war FOR them.Because what happened to the women was WRONG,they weren’t to blame, the ones who wronged them were.

I also see a major polarisation in how a huge section of Hindus treat Sita and Draupadi, and it reminds me of the quote “a woman has to do everything right for her to be a victim and a man has to do everything wrong for him to be a culprit.”It breaks my heart at the number of times I’ve heard men say “well Draupadi shouldn’t have disrespected him,aise toh hona hi tha na fir”,first and foremost,that’s an inaccurate narrative promoted by wrong retellings who need to constantly find a reason to blame the victim,she did no such thing and you can find pretty much evidence for it everywhere.But even if she had, it does NOT make it okay for them to publicly disrobe her.This is one more example of the victim blaming culture that I see deep ingrained in the minds of so many of these dumbfuck Hindus who have absolutely no respect for their culture.So next time don’t go to ram mandirs and krishna mandirs if you can’t even truly understand and respect the relevance behind their existence.