I was in the midst of the reading for Hinduism, specifically in Introduction to World Religions, and I came across the term sati two times during the reading. The first was a general statement, as sort of a back-up point to prove the author's previous point. It read, "Even practices such as sati have been extolled by fundamentalists..." (Partridge 163). The second instance was a tad more engaging: "Ram Mohan Roy's campaign against sati resulted in the banning of this practice" (Partridge 164). In both cases however, it never explained what sati was or why it was considered to be wrong. I researched what it was and found this article that goes deeper into the issue.
According to Hindu scriptures, a widow is required to mount the funeral of her dead husband and be cremated along with his corpse. If the husband dies at a distant place, the widow is nonetheless to be burned alive on a pyre by herself. A widow who burns herself to death this way is called sati. The guiding force to motivate Hindus to practice sati is the instructions given in their scriptures. Some of these are as given below [ 1 ]:
"It is proper for a woman, after her husband's death to burn herself in the fire with his copse; every woman who thus burns herself shall remain in paradise with her husband 35,000,000 years by destiny."
"The wife who commits herself to fames with her husband's copse shall equal Arundathi and reside in Swarga (heaven)."
"Accompanying her husband, she shall reside so long in Swarga as the 35,000,000 of hairs on the human body.
"As the snake-catcher forcibly drags the serpent from his earth, so bearing her husband [from hell] with him she enjoys heavenly bliss."
"Dying with her husband, she sanctifies her maternal and paternal ancestors and the ancestors of him to whom she gave her virginity."
"Such a wife adorning her husband, in celestial felicity with him, greatest and most admired, shall enjoy the delights of heaven while fourteen Indras reign."
"Though a husband had killed a Brahman, broken the ties of gratitude, or murdered a friend she expiates the crime."
I couldn't believe that this was under the subtitle, The status of women in modern Hinduism, as the banning of sati only came about in the 20th century. It is shocking . As Partride writes, Hindu mythology emphasized the image of a domesticated and subservient woman; figures such as Sita, the "virtuous and long-suffering" wife of Rama, were held up as precedents for all women. Even though modern Hindu women are in the workforce and are asserting their independence over the traditional family system, films such as Monsoon Wedding by Mira Nair capture the dilemmas of women even today. I watched the film a while ago and found minute ways in which Hinduism has reached into the daily lives of young women, even women who read Western magazines (Vanity Fair) and watch American television. Such women in the film constantly had the pressure of marriage by their joint families, and often joked about how the"virtuous virgin" look would please someone they were interested in. Among right-wing Hindu groups these films were very controversial.
Sunday, September 23
Thursday, September 20
Egyptian Football Players: What is Haram
This is an article that I found that I found intriguing partly because El Futbol es Vida for me, :) , but also it presents vital questions often forgotten in the football world. Such as, if all women were allowed to play the beautiful game, how many great footballers would we have? Infinitely more I am inclined to think.
Women’s Soccer, Egyptian Men, and What Is ‘Forbidden’
By Jeff Z. Klein
Tags: Al Jazeera, Egypt, Womens World Cup
It’s one thing to discuss the effect of women’s soccer on prevailing social attitudes in the United States or various countries in Europe or East Asia. But it’s quite another to consider how it affects attitudes in other parts of the world, where the rights of women can be more of a life-and-death matter.
In today’s Times, Michael Slackman reports from Egypt on the genital cutting of pre-adolescent girls, a widespread practice in that country that is encountering increasing opposition from activists and the government. One Egyptian government survey found that an astonishing 96 percent of Egyptian women had undergone the procedure, and Slackman and his photographer Shawn Baldwin found many men who proclaimed that they were in favor of it, or, as one tea shop owner put it, “We support circumcision!” As Slackman writes, “It is a challenge to get men to give up some of their control over women.”
Some of that same attitude is on display in this remarkable seven-minute Al-Jazeera report on women’s soccer in Egypt. As a women’s team practices on a city field, a male player nearby tells the camera: “If my fiancee wanted to play football, I would forbid her. I only respect men playing. It could also distract her from her home. In Egypt we believe the woman should look after the home.” Another says of a female player: “She cannot wear a headscarf and play. This is against religion. Football and sports are haram — forbidden.”
Reports like these remind us of the extra dimension to women’s soccer, one that men’s soccer does not have. In a lot of countries around the world, it takes guts simply to play the game in the first place. In those places, the sight of a woman on a soccer field, the very thought of it, is in itself subversive and dangerous. That’s an important thing to remember as we watch the Women’s World Cup and wonder, if girls everywhere were completely free to play, how many more great female footballers there would be.
Women’s Soccer, Egyptian Men, and What Is ‘Forbidden’
By Jeff Z. Klein
Tags: Al Jazeera, Egypt, Womens World Cup
It’s one thing to discuss the effect of women’s soccer on prevailing social attitudes in the United States or various countries in Europe or East Asia. But it’s quite another to consider how it affects attitudes in other parts of the world, where the rights of women can be more of a life-and-death matter.
In today’s Times, Michael Slackman reports from Egypt on the genital cutting of pre-adolescent girls, a widespread practice in that country that is encountering increasing opposition from activists and the government. One Egyptian government survey found that an astonishing 96 percent of Egyptian women had undergone the procedure, and Slackman and his photographer Shawn Baldwin found many men who proclaimed that they were in favor of it, or, as one tea shop owner put it, “We support circumcision!” As Slackman writes, “It is a challenge to get men to give up some of their control over women.”
Some of that same attitude is on display in this remarkable seven-minute Al-Jazeera report on women’s soccer in Egypt. As a women’s team practices on a city field, a male player nearby tells the camera: “If my fiancee wanted to play football, I would forbid her. I only respect men playing. It could also distract her from her home. In Egypt we believe the woman should look after the home.” Another says of a female player: “She cannot wear a headscarf and play. This is against religion. Football and sports are haram — forbidden.”
Reports like these remind us of the extra dimension to women’s soccer, one that men’s soccer does not have. In a lot of countries around the world, it takes guts simply to play the game in the first place. In those places, the sight of a woman on a soccer field, the very thought of it, is in itself subversive and dangerous. That’s an important thing to remember as we watch the Women’s World Cup and wonder, if girls everywhere were completely free to play, how many more great female footballers there would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
