-3

While I understand the downvotes this answer to Feminist's claim that the Vedas, Ramayana and Mahabharata were written by male writers has received, I don't understand why the answer has been flagged as offensive and deleted. Personally, I think this is abuse of flagging privileges. Is there a way to undelete this answer?

enter image description here


This is what the answer stated before it was flagged and deleted:

[How do you go about refuting a feminist's (male or female) claim that the Vedas, epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata were authored by male persons?]

You don't. There's no reason to refute them because there's nothing wrong with men writing these scriptures or what is written. Women are called evil and less intelligent in not just Hinduism, but just about every religion on the planet. Women have invented or made almost nothing in the world. They have made almost no great contribution to anything.

The speaker in this YouTube video jokingly points out that Sita could have very well asked Rama to accompany her into the fire to prove together that their sanctity is intact.

He went to rescue her, not the other way around. He risked his life dozens of times and defeated Ravan's army for her, not the other way around. And anyway this is not a game of equality. Women are of lower birth and they must serve their husbands. They have to act as per the wishes of their husband. Even goddesses are serving gods.

enter image description here

See how she's pressing his feet? That's how a woman should be. In fact, Shiv Puraan (Rudra Samhita 54) goes further into this:

  • 19. Even when beaten by him she shall remain glad and say "I may even be killed, O lord, Be kind to me."
  • 25. If a woman wants holy water she shall drink the same with which her husband's feet have been washed. All holy rivers are present in that water.

Feminists are atheists/liberals and western men are complaining that their rights have been taken away - that they are being discriminated against and abused in society by women who are favored in every situation. Western families are almost dead. Their whole society is full of old people because men are running away from women. Men are even scared to be alone with women in office spaces. Western society is dying because of atheism.

Considering this a Q&A site created for a religion, are users not allowed to take extreme conservative positions like the above and believe in literal interpretation of scriptures? Are other established users on the site going to dictate what positions other users should take on any particular issue?

A moderator left a comment under one of the answers by the same user reminding him of the Code of Conduct but does CoC really apply in this case? Was this comment really necessary? Is the mod suggesting that the user change his views about women and rewrite his answers?

Though your answers are citing scriptures and your interpretation may also be ok but it sounds that most of your answers are just demeaning particular gender. Read the code of conduct. We should respect all. – Pandya♦ 2 hours ago

@Pandya The problem is not with his answers, he's simply agreeing with and reiterating just what some scriptures say. I don't think CoC applies in this case. The question itself was, "Why do scriptures degrade women?", so philosophically one can take the extreme position that scriptures in fact degrade women due to their nature (as described in scripture). – sv. 2 hours ago


PS. Since the user is new and may not be aware of the presence of meta, I'm arguing on his behalf.

32
  • 3
    There were many personal opinions involved and mentioning YouTube etc. What makes you support anti gender statements? Its interesting to see what will be your views if similar things are said about a race ? – Rakesh Joshi Jun 17 '20 at 3:17
  • Read my answer here on my views. I follow a simple rule: As long as an answer is addressing a question directly and backed up with sources, the answer is valid for the site. This has been stated over and over on this meta by SE Community Managers. @RakeshJoshi – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 4:50
  • 1
    Will you support an answer which supports things like racism? I would like to see which FAQ supports this. – Rakesh Joshi Jun 17 '20 at 5:22
  • I think you are still not getting it. As I already said, "As long as an answer is addressing a question directly and backed up with sources, the answer is valid for the site." That the answer indirectly supports racism or shows women are born sinful, are inferior to men, Vishnu is Supreme or whatever underlying agenda, is not a valid reason to flag answers as offensive and vote to delete them. @RakeshJoshi – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 5:41
  • 1
    His statement were like "See how she's pressing his feet? That's how a woman should be." @sv. I wonder why are you supporting it. – TheLittleNaruto Mod Jun 17 '20 at 6:11
  • 1
    more of his statement without backing up with authentic sources which is certainly targeting a particular gender: "Women are called evil and less intelligent in not just Hinduism, but just about every religion on the planet. Women have invented or made almost nothing in the world. They have made almost no great contribution to anything." – TheLittleNaruto Mod Jun 17 '20 at 6:16
  • @TheLittleNaruto Can you show me a painting of Vishnu pressing Lakshmi's feet? If someone painted that, would you buy and hang it in your living or puja room? Or Shiva pressing Parvati's feet. Now that would make an excellent case to counter this user's views in comments. Until then, the user is free to draw his own conclusions on how he sees the world. You as a fellow user have no right to dictate his views. – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 6:16
  • 1
    @sv. Don't get away from the point. His statement were clearly not right. – TheLittleNaruto Mod Jun 17 '20 at 6:18
  • What point are you trying to make? I'm not getting it. There's a picture of Lakshmi pressing Vishnu's feet. So what's wrong with "That's how a woman should be"? Where's the other picture that shows Vishnu pressing Lakshmi's feet? Why are you not trying to find it? Are you offended? @TheLittleNaruto – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 6:20
  • 1
    @sv. I am not here to discuss with you what's written in scripture and what painting is made. The way he said is clearly wrong! and it won't be allowed on this site. – TheLittleNaruto Mod Jun 17 '20 at 6:23
  • 1
    @TheLittleNaruto "The way he said is clearly wrong!" - there are no right or wrong answers. There are questions and answers with references. Simple. Read this answer. "If you want your writing on the site preserved, ... write a supported answer". – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 6:31
  • @sv. Yeah show me supported verse for this statement – TheLittleNaruto Mod Jun 17 '20 at 6:33
  • @TheLittleNaruto Did you flag the mods to add a citation banner for unsupported statements or did you flag as offensive? Seems like some users were busy trying to get the user banned. Excellent! A post ban for a few unsupported statements! – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 6:44
  • 1
    You seem to be afraid to share your views on racism. @sv. – Rakesh Joshi Jun 17 '20 at 14:39
  • 1
    You need not teach users what is offensive or not it is subjective to them @sv. – Rakesh Joshi Jun 17 '20 at 14:43
2

Yes, scriptures should not be used to demean particular caste or gender. Instead, scriptures should be interpreted properly. By observing the answer posts, it sounds that these answer posts are targeted towards the denigrating the character of particular gender. The motive or agenda behind the post can be recognized from the nature of post. Though posts are deleted, let me quote the text (from your quote itself) to explain you how is this rude and offensive:

Women are called evil and less intelligent in not just Hinduism, but just about every religion on the planet. Women have invented or made almost nothing in the world. They have made almost no great contribution to anything.

Look at the second and third sentence and you'll identify the intention. Read the half part of this post after the image, you'll identify the issue.

Citing anything from scripture is ok but the post itself should not be offensive or rude towards any gender or caste. Visit How does this SE handle questions that obviously have ulterior motives? and How to deal with the users who have an ulterior agenda?

Another thing one can notice is: Questions on which answers are posted, are looking for explanation and justification to the possible problematic sayings from scriptures and these answers, instead of interpreting and explaining things in respectful manner, had been promoting the rudeness or offensiveness (this is something like pouring fuel in the fire).

Reading the answer by OP it seems that OP has misconception that we are a feminist site and due to this misconception, OP has possibly tried to oppose it. So, this is nothing but the political agenda containing offensiveness.

That's why such posts which were flagged as rude/offensive have been deleted.

4
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "scriptures should be interpreted properly" (see Does this site have or need a “scriptures should be interpreted properly” rule?). Is this answer interpreting Manusmriti correctly? Is Manusmriti against women or the user posting the answer? As a moderator, how do you decide? – Say No To Censorship Jun 22 '20 at 20:23
  • "Women have invented or made almost nothing in the world. They have made almost no great contribution to anything." - this is factually true because women didn't have access to education for a long period of Hindu history. I don't see it as demeaning to women. He was stating the facts. – Say No To Censorship Jun 22 '20 at 20:27
  • "Citing anything from scripture is ok but the post itself should not be offensive or rude towards any gender or caste." - sure, but you only said in this answer, "You can downvote to discourage such posts/activities that spoil the site" -- Are you now suggesting to flag them as rude and offensive, after downvoting? – Say No To Censorship Jun 22 '20 at 20:30
  • "this is something like pouring fuel in the fire" - is this answer pouring fuel in the fire? Should widows continue to remain single with their heads shaven? Should I flag this (also this) as "rude/offensive to widows"? Is this "proper" interpretation of scripture? – Say No To Censorship Jun 22 '20 at 20:41
1

Considering this a Q&A site created for a religion, are users not allowed to take extreme conservative positions like the above and believe in literal interpretation of scriptures? Are other established users on the site going to dictate what positions other users should take on any particular issue?

Since almost of all us are conforming to scriptures to some extent & have been expressing the same through questions, answers, comments, etc. with particular interpretations, then if a user appears & follow scriptures verbatim in the full extent & expressed through questions, answers, comments, etc. then it shouldn't be problem simply because he has got different 'extent'.

There is no common consensus (about the extent of scriptures that must be followed today) enough to impart us with rational agency to render us capable to decide whether one has inappropriately or unhealthily conformed to scriptures or not.

But the mistake of the user could be in being blunt, unpleasing, unsophisticated, highly undiplomatic & probably offensive (?). I also don't believe in modern interpretations of equality, etc. but I would have answered in some diplomatic or pleasing tone as sanctioned by Manu,

सत्यं ब्रूयात् प्रियं ब्रूयान्न ब्रूयात् सत्यमप्रियम् । प्रियं च नानृतं ब्रूयादेष धर्मः सनातनः ॥ १३८ ॥

satyaṃ brūyāt priyaṃ brūyānna brūyāt satyamapriyam | priyaṃ ca nānṛtaṃ brūyādeṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ || 138 ||

He shall say what is true; and he shall say what is agreeable; he shall not say what is true, but disagreeable; nor shall he say what is agreeable, but untrue; this is the eternal law.—(138)

And Kṛiṣṇa,

अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत् | स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते || 15||

anudvega-karaṁ vākyaṁ satyaṁ priya-hitaṁ cha yat svādhyāyābhyasanaṁ chaiva vāṅ-mayaṁ tapa uchyate

BG 17.15: Speech that does not cause distress, are truthful, inoffensive, and beneficial, as well as the regular recitation of the Vedic scriptures—these are declared as the austerity of speech.

11
  • OP cites this verse from Shiva Purana to support his view: "25. If a women wants holy water she shall drink the same with which her husband’s feet have been washed. All holy rivers are present in that water." Is OP violating Manu 4.138 and BG 17.15 or Shiva Purana itself? I think if OP simply quoted from Shiva Purana without endorsing the view, only then will their answer be ever accepted on this site. – Say No To Censorship Jan 26 at 19:26
  • 1
    'probably excepting you' - was this really necessary? The question was not about me & my views. And how do you know how many users here are really leading their private lives "conforming to scriptures" and to what extent? – Say No To Censorship Jan 26 at 19:32
  • 2
    @sv. This didn't start here. This is the result of you being sarcastic with others like calling others "not mature enough", "obsessed with rape" and many other such statements i.e, as I see, unfortunately, resulting in an "odd man out" situation. Better to control ourselves than pointing others, if one really expects to have a healthy discussion. – Mr_Green Jan 27 at 5:20
  • 1
    @Mr_Green Yes, As the saying goes, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Jan 27 at 5:40
  • "This didn't start here." - you are right, the mudslinging probably started here, here and here. And there is no sign of it ever ending, as one hand you are editing this post to remove the text targeting me and yet continue to do the same in the comments. So I'm genuinely confused, what was the intention behind editing this post? You should've just left it as it was. @Mr_Green – Say No To Censorship Jan 27 at 20:00
  • "calling others 'not mature enough'" - when you're cherry-picking others' comments at least have the decency to leave a link to it or provide the full context. Seems like you are referring to this comment? If you had any objections to my comment why not continue the discussion there? I don't understand why you are constantly cross-linking comments and that too without context. @Mr_Green – Say No To Censorship Jan 27 at 20:10
  • Besides, you & a few others are voting-to-close questions on the main site even when an issue is still being discussed on meta. Is this what you mean by "a healthy discussion"? @Mr_Green – Say No To Censorship Jan 27 at 20:10
  • 1
    @sv. Not targeting you, just stating the fact as I believe. I didn't comment there because you weren't discussing but being sarcastic. I commented here because now you feeling the same. "few others are voting-to-close questions on the main site" - We had meta-discussion to close such questions. Now, you will get back with another thing that has already been discussed. We will round in the same cycle. – Mr_Green Jan 28 at 5:56
  • 2
    @sv. You might be trying to explain or discuss some things but keeping a wagging tail to the end of the statements is making it pointless. – Mr_Green Jan 28 at 6:02
  • "but keeping a wagging tail to the end" - why do you keep holding to the wagging tail ('responding to tone')? Is it because you don't have a good refutation/counter-argument? Maybe you should try to move up the pyramid? @Mr_Green – Say No To Censorship Jan 28 at 22:06
  • "Now, you will get back with another thing..." - some users are objecting to closure of some posts. This is what happens when few users decide between themselves and start executing a plan. @Mr_Green – Say No To Censorship Jan 28 at 22:13
-4

JAI SITA RAM. I will be happy to provide more scriptural references that support just about everything I am saying if that's what you are worried about. As for "that's how a woman should be" in India this is how we consider the ideal woman. Even a court judge had said that women are supposed to be like mata Sita! How can I not say that women should be like the supreme couple - Goddess Laxmi and Lord Vishnu?

But we all know this is not about references or real religion. It is an information war launched against us by liberal feminist terrorist who want to becomes like ATHEIST WESTERN COUNTRIES at the cost of destroying Hinduism because feminism is their real religion to which they adhere 100%.

Before 20th century women were not allowed to leave the house much in western countries. Nor could they own property. Husbands could hit their wives and so much more. Almost all the great Christian saints have condemned women saying the same thing as Sanaatan scriptures. Just one example:

  • St. Albert the Great (Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q. 11): "Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison with his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she herself cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil.... In evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good."

In fact the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12) itself says:

  • But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Please write "we are a feminist site" in the CoC and specify that religion is only allowed as long as it is within the boundaries feminism if you have any honesty and don't want to restore my answer. Else restore it and I will provide more references.

Thanks. JAI BHOLENATH.

23
  • 1
    Thanks for posting an answer. We are worried because of the way you put the content in the answer which clearly is not looking good. Talking about feminism is more like a political thing which is imo inappropriate for this site and not in the scope. Also while writing answer we should write in such a way that the answer or the question should not hurt a certain group, gender etc. On a site like this, where nobody talks face to face and can not see the expression, in such cases, words matter a lot. I hope you would agree with that. – TheLittleNaruto Mod Jun 17 '20 at 11:16
  • 2
    Thanks for your reply 1) It's not looking good only for feminists like white atheists 2) Religions are deeply connected to politics and always has been because they cover things like "how to behave", "how should a society be" etc. This question was also specifically about feminists 3) The intention is to give religion based answer not to hurt. Many things in religions would "hurt" lesbians, trans-sexuals, children, atheists, non-vegetarians, people who eat garlic and onions... So we cannot give religion-based answers? If you want more references I will be happy to provide them as said earlier. – user21018 Jun 17 '20 at 11:51
  • 1
    And nobody will dare to say this in public especially in western countries because they will be abused, attacked and possibly even lynched by feminists. This is how people are terrorized. – user21018 Jun 17 '20 at 11:58
  • 1
    If you stick simply to the scriptural references, without editorializing them and adding opinions, then it can be accepted. Yes, one of the signs of Kali Yug is that women dominate over men, men are hen-pecked, because Shukra (Venus) is in ascension. But that doesn't mean we have to hate them. We just have to be aware of the direction the world is going, and neither fight the current, nor flow with it, but just step aside. – mar Jun 18 '20 at 5:22
  • @RaajVyavastha explain: यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तंत्र देवताः। explain जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरियसी। and countless more – Archit Jun 18 '20 at 7:04
  • @Archit, so what? there are 2 opinions about women given in scriptures. both of them can be correct and applicable to different types of women. If you say only your opinion is right, others can also say the same. – mar Jun 18 '20 at 18:23
  • @ram ji you are completely right, but kaliyuga is even in Indian towns and villages. Kaliyuga existed 50, 100, 200 even 5000 years ago. There is supposed to be a good period as well and there are other sayings in scriptures undisclosed. So no need to sit back and let feminists win. Archit जननी - गरियसी। Mother is the only relation in which women are good. That's why they have no business outside the house. The Vedas say there is no friendship with women because their hearts are like those of house-wolves. A house-wolf or hyena female will also take care of its own child, no doubt about this. – user21018 Jun 18 '20 at 19:31
  • Manusmriti says we should honor women in the section regarding rules for marriage. Women’s happiness is linked to prosperity. Now that is only a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the story which atheists / feminist non-Hindus will never tell you. They will hide as if they are full of deceit and cunning. Manusmriti does not mean women are equal or good. Manu says women are to be happy in their SUBORDINATE POSITION. Now ready for the full story? And don't read any english translation after 1950-1960 or any desi translation from the 21st century.Reading medieval commentaries by ancient sages is the best. – user21018 Jun 18 '20 at 19:37
  • I am posting 3 sholks and rest you can read on your own. The translation is accompanied by a medieval commentary of Medhatithi available on wisdomlib.org. नास्ति स्त्रीणां क्रिया मन्त्रैरिति धर्मे व्यवस्थितिः । निरिन्द्रिया ह्यमन्त्राश्च स्त्रीभ्यो अनृतमिति स्थितिः (WOMEN ARE FALSE)... भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च प्रेष्यो भ्रात्रा च सौदरः । प्राप्तापराधास्ताड्याः स्यू रज्ज्वा वेणुदलेन वा (WOMEN CAN BE BEATEN)... शय्याऽऽसनमलङ्कारं कामं क्रोधमनार्जवम् । द्रोहभावं कुचर्यां च स्त्रीभ्यो मनुरकल्पयत् (WOMEN ARE EVIL), 9.3, 4.43, 8.371, 5.145-162 (all the verses in between) to name a few more. – user21018 Jun 18 '20 at 19:43
  • @ram ji there are no 2 different opinions. All classes of scriptures have the SAME OPINION that women are evil, should be completely obedient/subordinate and be kept happy at the same time. Women are supposed to find happiness in subordination and service to their husbands. There is no contradiction. – user21018 Jun 18 '20 at 19:47
  • @SV Indian constitution says no such thing as they are claiming. There is freedom of speech but it is socially restricted by feminist terrorists in west and indian big cities – user21018 Jun 18 '20 at 20:02
  • the 2 different opinions are that women must be respected, and women are evil. but they refer to different women, not the same women. of course there is only 1 scripture, so there is only 1 opinion, but it is divided into 2 categories depending on the type of women. once again, if you take feminists head on, you won't win, because that's the nature of men supporting feminists these days, but there is a better strategy - the tree that stands tall in face of wind breaks, but a bamboo bends, and once wind passes, it gets back up. – mar Jun 19 '20 at 0:50
  • right now, public opinion is like wind. should not stand up straight and yell. rather we should bend i.e change women at family level, make them understand that whatever rules are laid down for women, the rules for men are 10 times more strict. prove to them that shastras don't give a crap about either man or woman because they only care about Atma. If Atma happens to be in man's body, follow X rules, if it happens to be in woman's body, follow Y rules. today a man might be a woman tomorrow, and vice versa. doesn't matter, follow the rules given for you. – mar Jun 19 '20 at 0:50
  • some might say that is cowardice. let them. even krishna ran from battlefiled to kill kalayavana and bless muchukunda. if we fight in public, what will happen is that 1. we will lose, 2. they will also lose, because they will hold on to feminism even stronger. our goal is to help them win by following shastras. to do that, we can bend a little. – mar Jun 19 '20 at 0:54
  • 1
    10 years ago there was no voice against feminism. Today feminism has become like a dirty word. A lot has changed, please stop trying to shut men up and demoralize men. Also you are ignoring the fact that the verses about respecting women are significantly less than those about their subordination and evil behavior. There are ENTIRE CHAPTERS on women's evil nature and subordination. A few verses here and there cannot cancel these out. – user21018 Jun 19 '20 at 15:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .