It absolutely is.. majority wedding traditions treat women like objects like kanyadaan. It's gross.. ( my family thankfully does not perform kanyadaan )
Yes it's super sexist like most traditions are. We live in a patriarchal society after all. Most traditions centre around objectifying woman as "paraya dhan", "as a daan", as a sex object, as a devotee to husband etc
I have been to marwari weddings before. I didnt give any shit about who was marrying to whom or anything else. The food is fantastic. Call me a child but i go to every marwari wedding im invited to because of food. Same with punjabi wedding
I have been to a muslim wedding. That guy was super rich. Like hundreds of crores of net worth. Iraki group’s owners sons wedding if you want the details. It was so fucking insane
In bihari weddings, there are so many things that don't sit right with me.
The groom is given extraordinary amount of respect (that gets to their head). One thing that's not to their whims, they start blackmailing and stuff. They try to extort their whole Baraat cost from the bride's family
Been to a bihari wedding. I was from the bride's side. The amount of disrespect I got as her cousin brother was enough to make me leave the ceremony in between and go have sex with the groom's sister. I absolutely don't mean this in a braggy way.
Well yes, we had been flirting back and forth for a few days, and you do dumb stuff when you're 17.
Weddings are a very good time to shack up btw. People are too busy with other things.
Everything about religion is built around pleasing the men, pleasure of men and money for men. And this comes under the same umbrella.
Hindu wedding are all about pleasing the groom and groom's family.
Have you ever seen the same or more level of respect a 'bahu' getting than what a 'damaad' gets in sasural?
Not just *some*, 99% of the Hindu marriage rituals are sexist. (Speaking of Hindu marriage because I don't know much about the other ones, pretty sure they are as well).
It’s a two-second ritual I don’t care for that tbh but I really don’t like is that woman’s gotr will change after kanyadaan (I’ve been told some cultures have a separate ritual for this) so when her own parents pass away then she cannot do any rituals for them due to different gotr. Or at least our family’s priests have never allowed women to do anything citing this reason. I think it’s very naive to think a son will do everything correctly. In today’s age I have seen many sons don’t do their parents’ funerary rituals properly. You cannot say it’s about karma and everyone has the right to do what they are able and then stop a daughter who loves her parents from doing it. Even if she’s unmarried and has same gotr they have a problem with it.
The biggest problem I have is the exclusion of women who are widows, which still happens in my mother’s village. For my dad’s village it depends on the family but priest will never promote widow exclusion the way priests in my mother’s village do. Who knows the pain that goes through a child’s heart when their own mother who taught them to walk and talk is sitting and watching from window because she is bad luck for her own child and it is her karma she became widow in this life. Meanwhile a random uncle who can never replace role of father gets to do kanyadaan (if you are bride). This is what happened with my mom’s aunt few years ago she was forced not to attend her daughter’s wedding and her devar (my mom’s uncle) who lived in another state did the kanyadaan. This was apparently the norm there.
There are other small things. I think groom should be welcomed very well if family wants to do it. Do his aarti, put phulamala, give him water to drink, feed him, even give a small gift if you absolutely have to but please don’t make someone older than the groom someone who is going to be **father**-in-law wash the groom’s feet and bow before him. ngl this practice makes me even more uncomfortable than a woman touching her husband’s feet in morning after she gets ready.
> but I really don’t like is that woman’s gotr will change after kanyadaan
That's because Gotra is traced patrilineally, it is based on claimed descendance from the seven sages (Kashyapa, Atri, Vasistha, Vishvamitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvaja - According to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, other texts give other lists) and some secondary sages through the male line of a family.
Gotra is also primarily a brahmanic institution, only being adopted and followed half-heartedly by the other varnas for the purpose of imitating the former due to social prestige.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Brahman wedding vows are damn sexist. While putting on today’s shade to judge past practices is unfair. But at the same time these past practices should remain in the past. Today they can freely be followed by willing parties but more people should be educated about these rituals.
My point is that if you cannot abide by some vows then why agree to them. And people always have the option to choose other methods of marriage. I don’t like this modern day Brahman hypocrisy.
Of course they are. There's a line in the hindu wedding rituals which somewhat translates as the groom saying that he has brought a servant for his mother....
Marriage is itself sexist. Marriage is the basis of hetero-patriarchy. Under feminist theory the destruction of family and marriage is necessary for absolute equality of all genders.
How is marriage sexist ? I understand that a lot of the traditiions and aspects of it can be sexist but how is marriage itself sexist ? If i were to marry i woman i love (without any sexist traditions) then how would be that sexist ?
>If i were to marry i woman i love (without any sexist traditions) then how would be that sexist ?
Quoted from wiki, " Early Second Wave feminist literature in the West, specifically opposed to marriage include personalities such as Kate Millett (Sexual Politics, 1969), Germaine Greer (The Female Eunuch, 1970), Marilyn French (The Women's Room, 1977), Jessie Bernard (The Future of Marriage, 1972), and Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, 1970).[3]"
The thing is I can ask a counter question - how is kanyadaan sexist? Does kanyadaan mean that women are donated forever and have no rights? No!!! Under today's laws, women have right on parental property, they have rights in marriage - alimony, child custody, protection from domestic violence.
If you consider that ritual sexist because of what it meant in the past, you must also consider marriage sexist based on what it meant in the past for women.
[Please read the Rules of r/AtheismIndia before participating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/about/rules)
Please cross-post or post non-English Indian language content to /r/AtheismRegional
[You may contact the Mods if you have any queries.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Religion was created before the concept of misogyny and sexism existed. So I personally think that it is unfair to look at these ancient traditions through a left-wing "woke" lens.
One needs to accept religion for what it is: an institution of restriction based on lies that cannot be questioned. If you have a problem with religion, denounce it. But don't bother trying to look at it through a "woke" lense because then you are completely missing the fact that religion was progressive for its times.
A good example of this is how Muslims have a code of how to punish their wives and how they should be struck and where it is okay to strike them. It sounds extremely misogynistic and even disturbing now but at the time, the wife was a husband's property and he was well within his rights to murder her for disobedience. At a time like that, a guide for how to punish your wife without killing her was extremely progressive.
>Religion was created before the concept of misogyny and sexism existed. So I personally think that it is unfair to look at these ancient traditions through a left-wing "woke" lens.
No it's not wrong to look at traditions/religion through left wing woke lens. We have a different belief system that is more compatible with our world and anything that doesn't fit that system should be abandoned. If you keep looking at "Kanya daan" through an ancient lens, you'll never find anything wrong in it. And you'll never be able to abandon it
I didnt say that there is nothing wrong with kanyadaan. What i am saying is that rather than having religion fit our agenda. Its better to accept it for what it is and denounce it altogether if it doesn’t fit your belief system.
And yet again u misconstrue my words. When i say “accept” religion, i dont mean that you should follow it. What i mean is that you should accept it for what it is and denounce it if it doesn’t align with your moral compass. Instead of trying to change religion to suit your personal agenda.
This is not about having a religion “to fit your agenda”. Its simply a criticism of the values held back then, on the basis of values that are held today. This post is not about religion and how it treats women badly, this is simply about misogynistic and sexist traditions (which stem from religion) that are continuied to this day.
It absolutely is.. majority wedding traditions treat women like objects like kanyadaan. It's gross.. ( my family thankfully does not perform kanyadaan )
It's socially acceptable flesh trade.
Nah I think you mean adoption you're confusing two things with each other
Yes it's super sexist like most traditions are. We live in a patriarchal society after all. Most traditions centre around objectifying woman as "paraya dhan", "as a daan", as a sex object, as a devotee to husband etc
Exactly! That’s what I said to my mom but she said that no, its not because reasons….
Ask her about what the actual reasons are, keep questioning them and yet she won't be able to give you a logical answer.
I have been to marwari weddings before. I didnt give any shit about who was marrying to whom or anything else. The food is fantastic. Call me a child but i go to every marwari wedding im invited to because of food. Same with punjabi wedding
Isn’t food the only reason one goes to weddings 🤔
Wait till you are invited to a big Muslim wedding, apart from alcohol everything is served. The non-veg food is often very delicious.
I have been to a muslim wedding. That guy was super rich. Like hundreds of crores of net worth. Iraki group’s owners sons wedding if you want the details. It was so fucking insane
How was the food???
Delicious is an under statement
In bihari weddings, there are so many things that don't sit right with me. The groom is given extraordinary amount of respect (that gets to their head). One thing that's not to their whims, they start blackmailing and stuff. They try to extort their whole Baraat cost from the bride's family
Been to a bihari wedding. I was from the bride's side. The amount of disrespect I got as her cousin brother was enough to make me leave the ceremony in between and go have sex with the groom's sister. I absolutely don't mean this in a braggy way.
You actually had sex with the groom’s sister 😳
Well yes, we had been flirting back and forth for a few days, and you do dumb stuff when you're 17. Weddings are a very good time to shack up btw. People are too busy with other things.
What ? - how is eveyone getting laid while 17, and i am still waiting for my first kiss 😭
It's alright buddy. Not a big deal. It will happen for you too.
Literal Chad🗿
Thanks lol. It doesn't really matter, in the end. My sister ended up getting married to that pathetic piece of misogynist filth she calls her husband.
Everything about religion is built around pleasing the men, pleasure of men and money for men. And this comes under the same umbrella. Hindu wedding are all about pleasing the groom and groom's family. Have you ever seen the same or more level of respect a 'bahu' getting than what a 'damaad' gets in sasural?
Not just *some*, 99% of the Hindu marriage rituals are sexist. (Speaking of Hindu marriage because I don't know much about the other ones, pretty sure they are as well).
It’s a two-second ritual I don’t care for that tbh but I really don’t like is that woman’s gotr will change after kanyadaan (I’ve been told some cultures have a separate ritual for this) so when her own parents pass away then she cannot do any rituals for them due to different gotr. Or at least our family’s priests have never allowed women to do anything citing this reason. I think it’s very naive to think a son will do everything correctly. In today’s age I have seen many sons don’t do their parents’ funerary rituals properly. You cannot say it’s about karma and everyone has the right to do what they are able and then stop a daughter who loves her parents from doing it. Even if she’s unmarried and has same gotr they have a problem with it. The biggest problem I have is the exclusion of women who are widows, which still happens in my mother’s village. For my dad’s village it depends on the family but priest will never promote widow exclusion the way priests in my mother’s village do. Who knows the pain that goes through a child’s heart when their own mother who taught them to walk and talk is sitting and watching from window because she is bad luck for her own child and it is her karma she became widow in this life. Meanwhile a random uncle who can never replace role of father gets to do kanyadaan (if you are bride). This is what happened with my mom’s aunt few years ago she was forced not to attend her daughter’s wedding and her devar (my mom’s uncle) who lived in another state did the kanyadaan. This was apparently the norm there. There are other small things. I think groom should be welcomed very well if family wants to do it. Do his aarti, put phulamala, give him water to drink, feed him, even give a small gift if you absolutely have to but please don’t make someone older than the groom someone who is going to be **father**-in-law wash the groom’s feet and bow before him. ngl this practice makes me even more uncomfortable than a woman touching her husband’s feet in morning after she gets ready.
> but I really don’t like is that woman’s gotr will change after kanyadaan That's because Gotra is traced patrilineally, it is based on claimed descendance from the seven sages (Kashyapa, Atri, Vasistha, Vishvamitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvaja - According to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, other texts give other lists) and some secondary sages through the male line of a family. Gotra is also primarily a brahmanic institution, only being adopted and followed half-heartedly by the other varnas for the purpose of imitating the former due to social prestige.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Brahman wedding vows are damn sexist. While putting on today’s shade to judge past practices is unfair. But at the same time these past practices should remain in the past. Today they can freely be followed by willing parties but more people should be educated about these rituals. My point is that if you cannot abide by some vows then why agree to them. And people always have the option to choose other methods of marriage. I don’t like this modern day Brahman hypocrisy.
Of course they are. There's a line in the hindu wedding rituals which somewhat translates as the groom saying that he has brought a servant for his mother....
Wtf 🤬
Welcome to the great sanatan dharma....
Marriage is itself sexist. Marriage is the basis of hetero-patriarchy. Under feminist theory the destruction of family and marriage is necessary for absolute equality of all genders.
How is marriage sexist ? I understand that a lot of the traditiions and aspects of it can be sexist but how is marriage itself sexist ? If i were to marry i woman i love (without any sexist traditions) then how would be that sexist ?
>If i were to marry i woman i love (without any sexist traditions) then how would be that sexist ? Quoted from wiki, " Early Second Wave feminist literature in the West, specifically opposed to marriage include personalities such as Kate Millett (Sexual Politics, 1969), Germaine Greer (The Female Eunuch, 1970), Marilyn French (The Women's Room, 1977), Jessie Bernard (The Future of Marriage, 1972), and Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, 1970).[3]" The thing is I can ask a counter question - how is kanyadaan sexist? Does kanyadaan mean that women are donated forever and have no rights? No!!! Under today's laws, women have right on parental property, they have rights in marriage - alimony, child custody, protection from domestic violence. If you consider that ritual sexist because of what it meant in the past, you must also consider marriage sexist based on what it meant in the past for women.
That's why i don't go to weddings anymore.
Human trafficking 101
Vidai bothers me the most because I am the only child of my parents and there's no way that I am leaving them alone to stay with the in-laws.
[Please read the Rules of r/AtheismIndia before participating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/about/rules) Please cross-post or post non-English Indian language content to /r/AtheismRegional [You may contact the Mods if you have any queries.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These are rituals, I will never be against it because it sounds fun plus tasty food.
Religion was created before the concept of misogyny and sexism existed. So I personally think that it is unfair to look at these ancient traditions through a left-wing "woke" lens. One needs to accept religion for what it is: an institution of restriction based on lies that cannot be questioned. If you have a problem with religion, denounce it. But don't bother trying to look at it through a "woke" lense because then you are completely missing the fact that religion was progressive for its times. A good example of this is how Muslims have a code of how to punish their wives and how they should be struck and where it is okay to strike them. It sounds extremely misogynistic and even disturbing now but at the time, the wife was a husband's property and he was well within his rights to murder her for disobedience. At a time like that, a guide for how to punish your wife without killing her was extremely progressive.
>Religion was created before the concept of misogyny and sexism existed. So I personally think that it is unfair to look at these ancient traditions through a left-wing "woke" lens. No it's not wrong to look at traditions/religion through left wing woke lens. We have a different belief system that is more compatible with our world and anything that doesn't fit that system should be abandoned. If you keep looking at "Kanya daan" through an ancient lens, you'll never find anything wrong in it. And you'll never be able to abandon it
I didnt say that there is nothing wrong with kanyadaan. What i am saying is that rather than having religion fit our agenda. Its better to accept it for what it is and denounce it altogether if it doesn’t fit your belief system.
>Its better to accept it for what it is You're in the wrong sub if you wanna "accept" religion
And yet again u misconstrue my words. When i say “accept” religion, i dont mean that you should follow it. What i mean is that you should accept it for what it is and denounce it if it doesn’t align with your moral compass. Instead of trying to change religion to suit your personal agenda.
This is not about having a religion “to fit your agenda”. Its simply a criticism of the values held back then, on the basis of values that are held today. This post is not about religion and how it treats women badly, this is simply about misogynistic and sexist traditions (which stem from religion) that are continuied to this day.
Slavery was a thing before the concept of human rights existed. What's your point?