Explorations in Religious Identity (RE 300 WR)

I think that in reading the Ramayana I noticed that men are afforded more opportunity and autonomy. The women are subordinate to men in most cases. The men are the main actors in the narrative. Throughout history men have been allowed to act as though they are superior to women. It doesn't surprise me that this story benefits men. Valmiki was a man. The story is formulated and popularized by men. Similar to how, the authors of the Bible were men. The Bible is an exclusive text, as in the Ramayana. The author/s held their interest at heart when dealing with this narrative.

The Ramayana falls into the classical trend that men are the more important, heroic, and capable characters throughout history. Rama and his gang are the heroes in the story. Sita's devotion to Rama is questioned and then overlooked by him. He just neglects and turns her away. He asks her "How can a man born into a noble family lovingle take back a woman who has lived in the house of a strange man?" (490). Yet Rama is the ideal. One message that can be understood from this is that women are second to men. Their sole purpose is to support the men in their lives. If a woman does something you don't like, get rid of her because she is less than you and is not fulfilling her purpose. I suppose one positive message from this (in the interest of men) is that Rama is supposedly trying not to cast some form of shame on his "noble family." So, in that way it is dharmic. However, after accepting Sita as his wife isn't she supposed to be his family as well? Are you supposed to just forget the family you choose over the family that you are born into?