Comments, mine, and responses from me to some other comments, below a video of a talk posted on FB, about the Kartikeya temple entry traditionally barred to women of reproductive age:
True. But this person, while far better than those speaking on this side on Republic debates, still falls a tad short of what needs to be said and
understood, although he does probably know and understand it.
The debate against this is conducted on the premise that was uttered once by Arnav Goswamy on one of the debates, specifically, "God is not "like that"", when the argument was about the particular Shani temple in Maharashtra.
But the point is, these temples are of specific Gods, with specific and separate characteristics, and Arnav Goswamy spoke of a universally assumed kind, benevolent, etc personality of God, one assumed or professed mostly by church. (Funnily enough it's the monotheists that almost always mention fear of God while India has no fear, not even of Kaalie!)
But Shani isn't the persona God that Arnav Goswamy spoke of, nor is Kartikeya the eternal celibate son of Shiva whose existence is for a reason, which us, Victory of Gods in battle with evil forces. And an endeavour of such magnitude requires celibacy.
Requires celibacy, not because women are the problem, but because whether male or female, one that goes into a hard strife of a magnitude cannot afford to waste energy or have attention stray from the task. As the science research community understands only too well - when relationships require attention, they are the first casualty often enough if one partner is forced to choose between concentration on work vs time out for solicitous romance.
And women of certain age group, in case of the temple in question, aren't considered unclean, but opposite - like it or not, it's about power of one of certain age, ability to distract even a God.
India has legends of how heavenly maidens and even the highest Divine Vishnu in a female form Mohini for that matter, were instrumental in debilitating or distracting the opponents of Gods in a battle when the opponent was far too strong.
In case of Shani, it's about protection of the women.
One could quite fairly say one does not believe any of it. But in that case, why fight on grounds of desire to worship a Deity one cares nothing about? It isn't about right to life, or to education, work, marry and reproduce, to medical care, none of the essentials!
As for right to worship, India does not limit Divine's presence to a temple or a form, and legends about the divine forced to visit a devotee by the sheer strength of the devotion abound.
When looking for battles to fight for women, look at women unable to go to work or education without harassment on streets, or even assaults. Those are everyday facts of northern parts. Have been for over half a century.
Right of upper class to drink in pubs is a battle about profits of liquor barons.
Rights to enter a Shani or a Kartikeya temple is simply attempting to iron out Hinduism to bring it in line with - what exactly? Church, where female is equated with evil, or serpent, or satan?
Unlike India where worship of Goddesses is conducted by male priests, and worship of living females are regular, even biannual or more, community events?
Losing treasure that is heritage of India is not worth it.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page about limiting females:-
It's not about limiting to kitchen and reproduction. Saraswatie, the Deity of Learning, is after all a Goddess. So is Durga, Divine form of Divine victory. And Kaalie, Divine Power. And of course Wealth, Lakshmie.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Monalisha Behera:-
"sorry to say this guy's views are completely shit and meaningless. There is no certain method to select a so called priest to talk with the deity if that is sensible 🤣 . These all are man made rituals and people are following and forcing others to believe the same from a long time . If you believe in GOD then always believe that something which discriminates gender ,rights or any other thing among people is man made .These are my thoughts excluding the concept of misogyny and feminist ."
If "These all are man made rituals and people are following and forcing others to believe the same from a long time .", then why fight to enter the meaningless place to participate in the meaningless rituals? Or do you see men fighting to have ceremonies of pregnancy celebrated for them? If not are women less? By all means wear what's necessary and comfortable, go for education and work and career, and have rights to marry and reproduce or refuse. But rights to enter a temple you don't think is anything more than a museum? That's denying a whole culture, negating India.
Monalisha Behera "Jyotsna Gokhale and on what to wear, what to do with life its all upto an individual whether a men or women. Its completely on the person choice to decide and no body has the right to put a question mark or give their suggestion."
Monalisha Behera "Jyotsna Gokhale and on what to wear, what to do with life its all upto an individual whether a men or women. Its completely on the person choice to decide and no body has the right to put a question mark or give their suggestion."
Monolisha Behera - "nothing can stop a woman having equal rights as man as per their basic rights " - so do men have less rights, or can they enter public facilities and hospitals areas meant for females, as a right? Do you wish to force nuns to allow males to enter their private quarters at convents? Assuming no to all of the above, now to real point. Do you wish to campaign for cheerleaders and other attractive females to be present on dive bombers in war on air force planes, or even on navy ships? That is, not speaking about navy soldiers or air force pilots who might be female. Have you never experienced being distracted, or being told you are one? How do you not realise this is about power of a female to distract, not about rights? Hence the ban, limited in this temple to only reproductive age, but generally to only Kartikeya temples, not to any other God or Goddess. You may get the right to enter every place males congregate, with them cheering too, but that is besides the point. Point is, when it's a battle against evil, you are only welcome as a soldier or priest, but not as a possible distraction that may lose the war.
As to "Let me tell you , men dont get pregnant , women get .if men had the ability , i would have equally supported celebrating the same for them. Sorry to say but I feel pity that being a woman yourself you dont understand the need for yourself", you seem to combine the Indian respect formality for age very well with your need to express your putdown for me, but it isn't working the way you want. You sound stupid in the "Let me tell you , men dont get pregnant , women get .if men had the ability , i would have equally supported celebrating the same for them. Sorry to say but I feel pity that being a woman yourself you dont understand the need for yourself". Feel free to do more of the same.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Meghan Moore:-
"Not beautifully explained. The fellow said that the purpose is to not come into contact with women that are of reproductive age which is a nice way of saying that the defining contribution that women have is reproduction, reducing women down to nothing more than a sexual desire and a baby making factory that needs to be repelled. Women are beings. They are souls. Souls should worship whomever they want. Same for men. And having dieties just for women or places where only women can go shouldn't be the main goal either but unfortunately since men are raised in a society that reduces women down to nothing more than desire-filled baby factories we have this horrible construct of genders that has to constantly be accounted for. Stop sexualizing the opposite gender. Have some fucking self-control and grow up and repeat after me, "We are not our bodies. We are souls. Souls are equal and the highest form of uncovering under the eyes of God/Krishna/Vishnu/Allah." (or whomever you worship.)"
You should see the inherent contradiction in your "the purpose is to not come into contact with women that are of reproductive age which is a nice way of saying that the defining contribution that women have is reproduction, reducing women down to nothing more than a sexual desire and a baby making factory that needs to be repelled." But nobody is dictating that, on the contrary. First, women before and after the relevant age are allowed. Second, most important, it's the women whose power is not allowed to distract the Deity, in this temple's case. Women aren't seen as "desire-filled baby factories", that's abrahmic view if anything. Have you not experienced the ceremonies - oh, but of course you haven't, you have no concept of Hindu culture or traditions.
Further response to more venom by Meghan Moore:-
Child, you are supporting more than what I said up there. You are saying Hinduism is a creation of British who put all different gods under one umbrella, which clearly shows you kniw nothing but what you read in western media. You keep harping on the temple seeing women as nothing more than baby making, which are words that would make any Indian cringe, with the disdain for women and motherhood there. And you ignore the part about experiencing worship ceremonies of women which are regular community events, because you have never dreamt of the possibility, much less experienced it. You won't understand. This isn't about the temple denigrating women. It's more akin to a navy admiral not allowing a cheerleader, or any woman of certain age, on his ship in a battle - barring those who are soldiers. What does it matter in a place of worship? This is where your ignorance of the temple and the Deity worshipped there is obvious. You can argue it's just idol and false worship, but then you cannot argue right to worship. Or you could try to understand, instead of the propaganda you are carrying on in your seeking to destroy the only living ancient culture. Bye.
Meghan Moore "Your example is misogyny once again because not allowing a woman on a ship is also saying that women need to be protected and aren't capable of handling war or battle. You keep infantizing women in every scenario and trying so hard to establish it as some form of respect when it isn't one and again assuming I've never been inside a temple and only have gotten a "western" idea. So not only are you sexist but racist and ageist as well. Bye."
No, Meghan, you are the racist, sexist, illiterate idiot with nothing but I'll will and an incredible need of bullying someone who isn't qualified by race as per your values go, so you keep attacking me without reading or comprehending. Let me help with your inability towards reading comprehension.
Which part of "those who are soldiers" translated in your language as "male"?
More relevantly, which part of women being distractions translates necessarily as "weak, in need of protection, " and your general blah blah that belong in your own mind fed with abrahmic preachings and western propaganda that seeks to destroy India and enslave women? Navy protects nations, empires, and can protect a few or a few hundred female passengers. When they have to. Distractions is different. Or have you no comprehension regarding distraction? Ever tried anything serious while someone tried distracting? Obviously, the other way seems to be outside your experience, no one seems to have told you you were distracting in any serious endeavour.
As to your "You keep infantizing women in every scenario and trying so hard to establish it as some form of respect when it isn't one and again assuming I've never been inside a temple and only have gotten a "western" idea. ", just goes to show the low level of your reading comprehension coupled with your continuous bullying of someone of non monotheist faith who obviously can't be accorded respect because of your racism.
Which part of a "need to protect a God from a woman of reproductive age" translates in your mind as infantilising the women? Women before or post reproductive age ARE allowed traditionally, which amounts to infants being ok, old menopausal women being fine, not infantilising.
As to your never having been inside "a temple", it matters not at all one way or another, since you seem to treat India as only what western and other anti Indian propaganda will say about her, with no desire to understand anything, so if you have been in a temple it's of no account whatsoever. But I wasn't referring to that.
And the fact that not all temples are same, not every Deity is the same, seems to be either beyond you or deliberately ignored by your racist view of matters beyond you.
I don't know where you come from, belong or live, but if your air force carries cheerleaders on dive bombers, strange indeed. Which does not translate to "pilots can't be women".
Go back to Jr high. Or old age home, if you think calling you child is discriminatory and prefer being called gramps.
Goodbye, and stay away from India. .
Meghan Moore "I'm in India right now you idiot and I was taught by an indian scholar on Hinduism, not indoctrinated by mommy and daddy which you obviously were and India has the worst track record against women out of all countries. It's a proven fact. But nice try assuming I'm western based on skin color. Continue to be a racist misogynistic infantizing ageist bigot. Good day."
Your being in India seems to give you no comprehension. Ever tried a place where you couldn't have survived long enough to war on the local religion, or even show your face? Calling me abusive names is your low culture, low level of breeding imparted by your ancestors and your racism. Abusing India is your racism. When you say "racist misogynist ageist infantilising bigot", you speak of yourself. You are incapable of learning, thinking, understanding, growing anything but old hateful racist.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Ayush Chattoraj:-
"Last few sentences are very whattabout-ish and are obviously nonsense.. the rest of it.. I'm not sure if I'm with him fam, because of all of these things set precedents and I wouldn't want that to be the case across the board. If being of a certain age makes something "not sexist" does differential treatment of lower castes or minority races of a certain age make it "not casteist" or "not racist" ?"
" If being of a certain age makes something "not sexist" does differential treatment of lower castes or minority races of a certain age make it "not casteist" or "not racist" ?" That's just plain silly. Age has nothing to do with race, and no one ever changed race due to age. Reproduction is limited to age for women, and you haven't heard him but merely continued your blinkers about this being about discrimination. You incidentally cannot enter a nunnery, and that is not discrimination, nor feminist battle against males. It's not the same, it's parallel.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Atharv Joshi:-
"Following his line of thinking, I imagine the response to that would be - 'is there an underlying reason that is backing up the belief that leads to differential treatment? If yes, is that reason a case of positive discrimination, and is it widely accepted by members of the practicing religious group? then, article 25 wins over article 14.
I know this line of thinking has issues - it can be used to justify something hateful, it is difficult to draw the line between valid and invalid discriminatory belief... but the way he begins his argument is quite convincing and the way he reframes the image of the 'unclean impure menstruating woman' into 'pious man living a life of rule-based faith' (even tho the former image is what is internalised by people and encouraged by the practice) is a masterclass in mental gymnastics."
"...the way he reframes the image of the 'unclean impure menstruating woman' into 'pious man living a life of rule-based faith' (even tho the former image is what is internalised by people and encouraged by the practice) is a masterclass in mental gymnastics."
You are sticking to an incorrect assumption about the reproductive years being associated to hygiene and nothing else. It's about power of a female to disturb a God, especially one who is eternally celibate for reasons of his existence. As for purity or otherwise, if you were familiar with really old traditions, you would know that in a kitchen you aren't allowed unless you are in state of purity satisfactory enough, never mind whether you are a king and the cook of whichever gender is extremely poor. It's in principle not different from ICU.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Bhagat Chaitanya:-
"According to traditions just like how women with certain age group are not allowed to enter Dalits who constitute 25 percent of indian population are not allowed to enter. But you are against this tradition and support that women no entry tradition. Why hippocracy ?"
Would you force nuns to allow male entry into their convents, or ob-gyn to allow very stray male to enter and observe? This is similar on a different level.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Venkatappa Ramasamy:-
"Its quite funny that this guy is raising the same argument that got thrashed by supreme court,1) celibacy of lord ayyappa- how can you place the burden of his celibacy over ladies, he himself have to responsible for that , like hanuman or bhishma..."
You are arguing for sake of it, rather than trying to see the difference between the three celibates.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Manjunath Venkateswaran:-
"If such a God does exist who can't shower his kindness on a menstruating lady then it's time to change your deity. I know Mallus will lynch me on this topic but a spade is a spade"
Your argument makes the issue clearer doesn't it, it's about doing away with this Deity, that temple, Gods and Goddesses of Hindu pantheon, limiting finally to one supposedly kind but always to be feared as per abrahmic tradition, and then what, see female as evil?
Manjunath Venkateswaran:-
"Yes isn't avoidance better then?"
So who stops those of this opinion avoiding the temple? Hinduism has no enforced attendence! No, your intention is to kill the culture if india, while pretending you arent an outsider.
Responding to a comment below the original fb post on Sidharth Kini page by Manu S:-
"Tradition, culture, practices what ever it is there z pure gender discrimination.... Is there any difference between deities and human??? If you believes that Lord Ayyappa lose his naishtika brehmacharya behalf of a woman!!!! You r simply abusing Ayyappa.... if you are prohibiting women why dont adult men who has the same problems over 365days a year??? This is a mockery practiced by the predominated patriarchal society.... no more significances. Court had already passed through such arguements and the conclusion was the judgement. Rest are vested to pure politics."
Not adult women, only those of reproductive age, who can distract a celibate warrior in the battle he fights for Gods, which is the reason of his existence; this is akin to, do you insist on cheerleaders and other distracting personnel on air force dive bombers during a war, or on navy ships? That is, excluding the navy soldiers and air force pilots who happen to be women. No you dont. And yes, this does amount to saying, that a woman of the right age might have the power to distract a God. And if that God was intended to battle against evil, why it simply won't do!
https://www.facebook.com/sidharth.kini/posts/2140753989276181
