The major beneficiaries of the story are definitely higher caste males. Rama determines all of the final decisions, and everyone follows suit. Laksmana even said, “I am the servant of my noble brother” (211). This story enforces men to play a superior role. Even though Rama sometimes practices adharmic acts, he is still viewed by many as a major dharmic character. It’s as though he can’t do anything wrong. Additionally, Laksmana cruelly tricks Surpanakha into thinking she “should become the second wife of” (212) Rama. The book considered this “sense of humour” (212). How is that funny? This philosophy encourages men to believe their acts are always right. On the other hand, women didn’t benefit from this story. Women played submissive or puppet-like roles, such as the “virtuous” (196) Sita. It’s as though the narrative is saying that a wife should act like Sita. The Ramayana applauds obedient wives. As Anusuya says, “Women who love their husbands no matter whether they live in the city or the forest, whether they be wicked or virtuous, are the ones that go to heaven. Even if a husband be immoral, or lustful or a pauper, he is the supreme divinity to a noble woman” (196). Women that “dominate their husbands and choose between right and wrong for themselves” (196) are looked down upon by this narrative. Women are treated as the compliant, inferior link attached to their husbands. They aren’t their own individuals, but rather their husband’s property. This irritates me, especially when Rama says, “If I looked hard enough, I would find another woman like Sita in this world” (434). Sita is irreplaceable, yet she is so “devoted to her husband” (488). Mandodari said, “I feel compassion because I am a woman” (485). This statement sounds like another instruction for women. Moreover, even if women are “virtuous,” they are still questioned. As Rama said, “I have no more use for you, Sita! How can a man born into a noble family lovingly take back a woman who has lived in the house of a strange man?” (490). This statement is so upsetting. Sita remained loyal to Rama, yet she is still treated terribly. Surprisingly, Sita defended herself at first but then jumps into a fire for Rama. Furthermore, Rama sends Sita away all due to gossip (511). Simply, she is thrown away like a piece of trash.
Sam, I really struggled with the treatment of women as well. The contradictions between what is said of Sita--describing her as irreplaceable, the best of women, and more devoted then even the great Rama--and the way she is treated were incredibly hard to accept. How could Rama, whose marriage it is said was so strong they could tell each other anything, call her replaceable and then discard her ? Was Sita not enough for him or is it simply that femininity and the female experience is less valuable to him? No woman could come away from reading this version of the Ramayana and feel empowered.
Sam,
This is some good stuff that I really struggled with as well. I like all of the instances you touched on of women being borderline property with no autonomy to speak of, which remains something very prevalent to this day. I also like what you said about women being constantly questioned despite their behavior, this seems almost counter-intuitive. I struggled with these ideas a lot, and it was nice to see them laid out the way that you did, thank you!
This is some good stuff that I really struggled with as well. I like all of the instances you touched on of women being borderline property with no autonomy to speak of, which remains something very prevalent to this day. I also like what you said about women being constantly questioned despite their behavior, this seems almost counter-intuitive. I struggled with these ideas a lot, and it was nice to see them laid out the way that you did, thank you!
Thank you! The treatment of women in this tale is honestly quite sickening. When they are not treated as puppets, like you said, they are treated as villains. Or, sometimes, they're treated like BOTH, which is even worse! I genuinely cannot comprehend how any woman could benefit from this story, but perhaps there is simply something I am not taking into consideration. I know that some cultures and religions value obedience, but the degree that the Ramayana goes to in that is rather frightening for women.
Sam, I agreed with everything you had to say about the treatment of women. They are continuously treated as objects throughout the narrative yet the men doing this are still considered to be dharmic. It perpetuates a hierarchy that is harmful to women and also seems to ignore a large part of how they describe dharma. If they are treating large groups of people as objects instead of humans is that really dharmic?