Alia Bhatt's New Bridal Wear Ad Sparks Controversy - Page 15

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17_

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So - righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. - Quran 4:34

Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers. - Quran 2:224

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. - Quran 4:24

Okay so it is written in Quran that women are property. But do you really believe that all Muslim men actually believe and do like this to the women? I guess not. Right?

And you didn't mention about Christianity and Bible? So you do agree that Christians don't treat women as property. Right?

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Balya (Balaka, Balika) pre pubesents

Koumarya (Kumara, Kumari) post puberty minors

Yuva (YuvaK, Yuvati) Adults

Vriddha (A person in his her sunset years)

Kumari refers to age not sexual status.

Putri means a daughter Putra means a son. Putrika means a daughter with inheritance rights.

Kanya means a virgin girl

Brahmachari means a celibate, pursuing education.

Ideal marriage scenario was between a Kanya and a Brahmachari.

Do note Brahmachari was not donated. There was no men being donated to anyone. Adoptions used to happen and they were called Dattam not Danam.

Yes a girl was called Lakshmi meaning wealth meaning a physical asset to be donated by father and acquired by husband and means to produce sons. Hence the term Kanyaadaan. A virgin girl donated to a man to start his family.

There is absolutely no citation any where in text of Hindu scriptures Vedic and Pauranic of any schools for girls or even co education schools. Schools were only for boys.

There were female saints (monks/renunciates) like MaitreyI Gargi etc, some married Rishikas too like Arundhati and Lopamudra who have hymns attributed to them in vedas. But Gargi learned from her father. As did Maitreyi. While Arundhati (Vashishtha) and Lopamudra (Agastya) learned from their husbands

So yes very few privileged women did get education, if they were daughters of great Rishi or their wives. But they were exceptions. There was never any mass education program for women like we have today. Neither were there any schools for a girl from an average family to go and get an educatuon Like boys had.

You all can keep screaming glory to ancient vedic culture but this is a fact, girls didn't go to schools in ancient times. They learnt to read and write and studied at home and only if their fathers or husbands allowed them too.

Manusmriti didn't ruin anything for women. It was always so.

True there weren’t any schools or Gurukuls specifically for women. They learnt from their parents.

Education too was restricted to upper castes only.

Originally posted by: monu_tan

Gosh, this is a subset of collection of synonyms of word Kanya in Sanskrit.

You do know right that the text for hindi and Sanskrit are same. I hope you atleast know that.

And hopefully you know that there is a Kanya rashi in Hindu astrology which we didn’t copy from western dictionaries as they didn’t exist at that time when we defined astrology.

The symbolism of Kanya rashi is a kanya 😆

Every sign is associated with a symbol..

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

The misinformation in this post is extensive. So is the condescension, the assumption that people who oppose it haven't actually read about it.

Yeah, kanyadaan is patriarchal. As is giving away the bride. It is not giving for the bride. Or Gaudaan would be giving for the cow.

Kumari means teenager, not a virgin.

Kanya is virgin.

Parents paying for daughter's wedding and nearly going into bankruptcy is a good thing according to you? A symbol of their love?

Abrahamic faiths have many texts and one main go-to text. Actually, the Bible itself is a collection of texts. And various versions of the Bible have different contents. A lot of other religions in the world also have 1000s of texts. Just because you haven't heard, it doesn't mean they don't exist. I would recommend a free site called sacredtexts if you want to take a look.

Let me redirect your own suggestion: if you don't have knowledge about something, it's best to refrain from speaking about it.

I think concepts and traditions have been misconstrued over the centuries. The understanding 1000s of years ago must have been different for sure which may not be relevant today.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Kanya means a virgin girl

They are demeaning yes. New noway. Girls have always been expected and made to move out of parents home and live with husbands and in-laws. The grooms have always taken the bride away generally.

Is there any ritual where a son has been donated in marriage. Have you ever heard of putradaan in marriage. That should explain the patriarchy better than anything else.

So why not donate the son to bride's family. Let him take up wife's surname. Inbreeding can be prevented by putradaan just as much as Kanyaadaan but that never happened that is why the.ritual is demeaning and patriarchal.

Because there is no corresponding equivalent ritual for a boy.

It was OK in the past to not have one because woman was considered less than human, an asset, property (lakshmi or wealth)

Now it is not OK. The ad is right in pointing that out.

Kanya means virgin but it also means an unmarried girl. We have Kanya/Kanjak Puja during Navratri where nine girls are given halwa-puri-channa.

And this was not a custom in the Vedas, where consent was important and women were equal to men...its fairly new in the Manusmriti. The ritual of Kanyadaan also was said to be the parents telling the guy to take care and be good to his wife, treat her with utmost respect and love. Daan is not the literal daan that we know today...and its difficult to piece all this together after all these manipulations in customs and texts. The custom also has some links to Vishnu Bhagwan and Lakshmi Maa's union after she emerged from the Kshira Sagar...and she chose him, not the other way around.

Coming to the ritual itself, people these days either avoid it altogether, just do it as a ritual or maybe look up the history...if they are convinced then cool, or else they don't go ahead with it. Christians have a "giving away the bride" tradition, it doesn't mean the bride not longer belongs to her own family. All that regressive shit is plain wrong, irrespective of what religion.

Neither the girl gets "donated" nor does the guy... If the girl wants to take up her husband's name then fine, she doesn't then she shouldn't, and same applies to the guy. Few years ago, an Indian fashion blogger and influencer Diipa Khosla got married. Her husband and she changed their last names to "Büller-Khosla" as an ode to both their names and I thought it was beautiful. Her husband Oleg also asked her about the bride touching thegfroom's feet...when she told him it was a sign fo respect, he in turn touched hers because they were equals. And I thought that was beautiful.

And no one becomes paraya dhan after marriage. These is a stupid ideology, many of these manipulated in recent times.

The Shiv Purana has entire section in the beginning where the reader can only read the text after some daan to Shiva, feed pandits etc...and all I can think is why would the masculine energy who creates and destroys need any of this? A spiritual connection is more necessary instead of such meaningless materialistic stuff. A lot of these changes have been made by pandits over the years, including the corruption of the Varna System.

Even the Kanjak Puja for that matter, does a teenager getting periods make her less than children? No. Its not something to look down upon, but to be celebrated actually. In South India they have massive celebrations when a girl enters puberty. There is a Shakti Peeth somewhere near Bramhaputra river where people worship Maa's uterus. Talking of Shakti Peeths...the corrupted system of Sati also came from here which was forgetting the essence of the text and just added something regressive and torturous.

I don't agree with women moving into the guy's house or the guy moving into the girl's house...akele raho dono, away from families and unnecessary drama. Most customs today have been altered or given a patriarchal twist, but originally its actually either very different or have been new addition. The Manusmiriti itself has contradictions within the text...why would Swayambhuva Manu, who was the grandfather of Sati (Goddess Shakti herself, the source of energy of this (multi)verse) create such laws?

And btw, I did not comment on the ad, I only answered about the Gotra system. There's no place I've said anything about the ad.

I love this thread. Peaceful and meaningful discussions going on. This is inspiring.

Originally posted by: Softness

I love this thread. Peaceful and meaningful discussions going on. This is inspiring.

I’m here to cleanse the negativity and cure everyone’s anger. Let’s all love each other 🪔

Originally posted by: Softness

Okay so it is written in Quran that women are property. But do you really believe that all Muslim men actually believe and do like this to the women? I guess not. Right?

And you didn't mention about Christianity and Bible? So you do agree that Christians don't treat women as property. Right?

You asked about Islam and Christianity, not Muslims and Christians, there is plenty of misogyny in the Bible too. You implied that Islam and Christianity, unlike Hinduism, doesn't treat women as property, which is completely false and laughable, now you changed your argument to "do you believe all Muslims treat women like this?", do you believe all Hindus treat women as property?

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17_

You asked about Islam and Christianity, not Muslims and Christians, there is plenty of misogyny in the Bible too. You implied that Islam and Christianity, unlike Hinduism, doesn't treat women as property, which is completely false and laughable, now you changed your argument to "do you believe all Muslims treat women like this?", do you believe all Hindus treat women as property?

My bad. Okay I agree with you about Islam since you quoted Quran.

But still no proof about whether Christianity or Bible treats or doesn't treat women as property. Right? Afaik Christianity is beautiful.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Balya (Balaka, Balika) pre pubesents

Koumarya (Kumara, Kumari) post puberty minors

Yuva (YuvaK, Yuvati) Adults

Vriddha (A person in his her sunset years)

Kumari refers to age not sexual status.

Putri means a daughter Putra means a son. Putrika means a daughter with inheritance rights.

Kanya means a virgin girl

Brahmachari means a celibate, pursuing education.

Ideal marriage scenario was between a Kanya and a Brahmachari.

Do note Brahmachari was not donated. There was no men being donated to anyone. Adoptions used to happen and they were called Dattam not Danam.

Yes a girl was called Lakshmi meaning wealth meaning a physical asset to be donated by father and acquired by husband and means to produce sons. Hence the term Kanyaadaan. A virgin girl donated to a man to start his family.

There is absolutely no citation any where in text of Hindu scriptures Vedic and Pauranic of any schools for girls or even co education schools. Schools were only for boys.

There were female saints (monks/renunciates) like MaitreyI Gargi etc, some married Rishikas too like Arundhati and Lopamudra who have hymns attributed to them in vedas. But Gargi learned from her father. As did Maitreyi. While Arundhati (Vashishtha) and Lopamudra (Agastya) learned from their husbands

So yes very few privileged women did get education, if they were daughters of great Rishi or their wives. But they were exceptions. There was never any mass education program for women like we have today. Neither were there any schools for a girl from an average family to go and get an educatuon Like boys had.

You all can keep screaming glory to ancient vedic culture but this is a fact, girls didn't go to schools in ancient times. They learnt to read and write and studied at home and only if their fathers or husbands allowed them too.

Manusmriti didn't ruin anything for women. It was always so.

Really nice post !!

And quite agree on the last line. Every religion in this world has been prejudiced against women to varying degrees. My religion (Hinduism) is no different

Recently my father in law passed away, and we did Garuda Puran paath and it was so very evident how they are pushing for a male child, because without a male child your chances of passing through to the next world or attainn moksha are very very low. Even a stranger or distant relative is preferred to do your last rites as long as they are male, even if the deceased has a daughter. It was infuriating to listen to it, esp because my father in laws last rites were done his 2 daughters. My wife and sister in law were quite disgusted by the whole thing, and we vowed to never do this garuda puran recital again.