Will Sita ever look at Ram ? - Page 3

Originally posted by: TOTAL-ROMANTIC

Yes well said, Asmita😉 I know eyes, I wanted a Deep eye contact, there must be a reason & that reason would be that ...Now they are engaged So till the marriage according to Ayodhay as Siya once said to urmila that u are nt even supposed to meet , its a maryada , while all the time till swayamvar etc they were not officially connected so it was allowed, even Lakshman if you have seen during the Bhojan scene was not looking at his bhabhi directly, but before he was not bothered , he was looking at her , its that RESPECT, which will be official after marriage dears.. don't you all worry..!!

Originally posted by: willina

👏

the most beautiful explanation in this entire thread, thank you!

👏

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

It's not that I have anything against modern values, but I do feel the definition of feminism is skewed today and I definitely have a problem in the popular belief that women who are not assertive, who do not look men in the eye, and who are quiet and introverted are any less than women who are outspoken, question everything and rebellious.

There is nothing wrong with the character of Sita that she needs to be changed for the younger generation to relate to. In fact, the younger generation should learn that true feminism is accepting a woman for who she is instead of having to change her to suit our current sensibilities. Sita was a soft woman by nature. She was not rebellious. She did not question everything. She was not insecure of herself. She did not have an innate desire to be assertive in every other conversation. And yes, Sita was shy. So what? What's so wrong with shyness? Does shyness diminish the value of a woman?

I definitely do have a problem with the skewed definition of feminism today that demands and expects women to be assertive, outspoken, rebellious and even aggressive. Any woman who does not fit that bill is deemed weak, regressive and a doormat. Is that feminism? Isn't feminism about accepting, valuing and respecting women for who they are?

Why does Sita need to be changed? So that women like Sita, who are shy and quiet by nature are made to feel that they should be another way?

Instead, why can't we teach our generation the true meaning of feminism and encourage them to respect Sita for who she truly was, instead of molding her character into the popular definition of "feminism". This is actually not feminism, but rather similar to chauvinism, where a woman is not valued for who she is and is forced to be another way to become accepted by the "current" society.

Why does Sita need to be changed to give value to her character? She was in no way regressive or weak in any way whatsoever! She is one of the strongest characters of our epics and he strength rested in her patience and endurance. There was nothing weak about her in the epics that we should feel ashamed of portraying her character how she is.

Originally posted by: loveleen12

I am a bit confused because this is exactly what I was saying. My problem is that people on this forum keep on complaining that Sita is too outspoken and rebellious as if that is a bad thing for a woman to be. I live in the U.S. and am fully aware of.the faux feminists that go around preaching feminism. I don't believe that being shy is a bad thing, definitely no because I myself am a mixture of a shy and outspoken girl. But I do not think that if Sita is shown to be an assertive person then that is bad. THAT is my issue.

Why is being rebellious as a woman considered a bad thing? My problem honestly wasn't even with what was being shown in the show. I disliked the way this topic was going towards an ideology that seems to claim that soft-spoken women are better.