More on Ramayana

Ok that fire testing thing- way out of line.
Permeates the Indian male (and female) psyche that men can have many wives gladly but women must not even think of other men

- more cruelly - Sita who is a goddess can walk thru fire and emerge unscathed

The mortal woman- chaste or unchaste- will burn in fire.

Fundamentally devising tests for the chastity of women and not men is biased and not fair

Granted though - Ramayana here does not factor in Sita or women at all- sita is property of Rama and the pain to Rama at having to put her thru such a test and his pain in living separated from her subsequently is the point- that a good leader has to sometimes suffer great personal cost for good of the country.

Leading with a statue of Sita - to me is the most damning for the relationship between women and men- it suggests that men cannot deal with the flesh and blood reality of a woman - the woman in flesh and blood presents a threat - constant frightening - she can be coveted by others she can herself willingly 'transgress' or be forced to transgress . Dealing with the reality of Sita is too much even for supreme lord Rama- ruling with a statue, everything runs smoothly for 11,000 years!
Women are only needed for procreation and bringing up children, which sita does in the safe obscurity of a forest under care of sages.

What do we say to this?

Thought about it some more- possible that the way sits is treated and how it comes to represent things for women is just an Accidental by product of the book. The real story there is the struggle with kingship- kings often have to make all kinda of personal sacrifices for good of the people.

Take queen Elizabeth! She gave up the chance to marry men she loved and have children in order to rule England well and what a ruler she was! If she had married she would had to give up the rein of power to the man but she truly had heart of the people . Plus she couldn't marry anyone the public rejects even if she loved him.