From the wide array of characters from The Ramayana, I consider Sita to be the most captivating. She is deemed “virtuous” by Anusuya, a wife of a sage who is “so virtuous that she is honoured by all people” (195-96). If a fellow woman of this status applauds Sita’s behaviors, then she must truly be worthy. I find it interesting, though, how she “loved Rama twice as much as he loved her” (102). Sita follows Rama, a man that loves her less than she loves him, into the wilderness, and never complains. In fact, she barely speaks at all. The story hardly presents dialogue from Sita (except for 203-05, 231-33, and some of 235-238), yet she is such a righteous character. Rama is righteous and he receives all of the epic’s attention, but Sita doesn’t. She is just, simply, there. When she is mentioned, it’s oftentimes in association with Rama. Is she not her own individual person? Is she not a key role? Plus, it seems odd to me that the story claims Sita as the one interested in the false, golden/silver deer. Sita became infatuated by it, causing Rama to search for it. As the story says, “She had been completely deceived’ (229). Well, Rama was, too. While his searching occurs, Sita is abducted by Ravana (237). She appears virtuous, yet foolish. Did the story intentionally create this impression of her? A passage says, “I have spoken from the foolishness of being a woman” (205). This sounds belittling. I believe she doesn’t receive the respect and recognition she deserves in the narrative nor does she fully respect herself as a woman. The only character thus far to respect her actions besides Anusuya is Agastya (207). Sita does everything for Rama, making her look like a little puppet just living in Rama’s world. Is she not more?
307 words