Women in the Vedas

I came across this answer about the status of women in Vedic society. It is very detailed, and the author is a subject matter expert on Vedic texts.

However I was intrigued by a singular claim being made in it - that Vedic Society was not patriarchal. So I requested citations for the answer, which the author graciously provided in a comment.

This is my further response to the answer.

Text of original answer	Citations in comment	My observations
Here, we should be speaking of the status of women in society, as reflected in the sūktas of Rigveda in the early Vedic period.  First, the society was presumably patrilineal (tracing lineage through male descendant) one, though not patriarchy.		In your citations you frequently quote the Rigveda, the Atharvaveda and even the Arthaśāstra together, even though their provenance is several centuries, even millennia apart. It sounds as if the culture they describe is contiguous and unchanging across those impossibly vast stretches of time. Is such comparison valid? And then there is the small matter of caste. Whom do these texts represent? Only the Brahmins and their customs? Or Vedic society at large? Do you have evidence? Because unless you prove that the Vedic samhitas are somehow representative of the entire society of that time, you don’t get to make statements about society at large.
Even then, we have some sages identifying themselves with matronymic instead of patronymic, like Dīrghatamas who is known best as Māmateya, or Suhastya as Ghauṣeya. Both mother and father are equally cherished.	Dīrghatamas refers to himself as Māmateya - RV 1.147.3, 1.152.6, 1.158.6. Gautama refers to Dīrghatamas as Māmateya in RV 4.4.13. The sage of RV 10.41 is Suhastya Ghauṣeya, the son of Ghoṣā, as per Rigveda Anukramaṇī. Ghoṣā is his mother, who is the sage of RV 10.39 and 10.40	I fail to understand how usage of matronymics translates to “Both mother and father are equally cherished”.  The correct conclusion would instead be: mother’s name was considered a valid basis for identification of individuals. Which is very cool, but in and of itself has no bearing on whether a society is patrilinear or patriarchal.
This is quite the opposite of absolute patriarchies where “G”od is imagined as father and creating a series of patriarchs in myths who act kings and propagate the mankind. To compare, in many patriarchal Indo European societies, Sky-dad was given more prominence as opposed to the Earth-mother, whereas Rigveda never does this, and whenever possible, addresses both together, in the compound form Dyāvāpṛthivī.	There is no sūkta in Rigveda dedicated to Dyaus Pitar alone, it is always invoking both - the Dyāvāpṛthivī. This is a fact.	Women are represented among deities. Divinity is considered plural, and necessarily bigendered. Impressive. Also less relevant than you think: My answer to "Why is goddess worship important for the world?" TL;DR version: "the Hindu patriarchal impulse to subordinate women is rooted in the acknowledgment that women are powerful... the task for Hindu feminists, at an ideological level, is to rescue shakti from its patriarchal prison" Source: Is Shakti Empowering for Women? Reflections on Feminism and the Hindu Goddess
This also reflects in the idea of daṃpatī (the Mister-Mistress couple) as rulers of home, rather than male.	Dampatī is almost always a dual compound present in Rigveda, that occurs in the sense of “ruling couple of house”.	Co-rulers of the home. Okay. Who has the final say in case of disputes?
	However, as I said in the answer, this is slightly different from other IE cultures where cognate of dam(s)pati is used for “the lord” of the house, and a cognate of “dams-patnī” is used to address a mistress. (Cf. déms pótis)	So does the word damspatni exist in Vedic Sanskrit? What does it mean? Is it also used in the sense of “ruling couple of the house”?
	Aśvins in RV 2.39.2 are compared to married couple taking part in religious rites, Agni is said to be anointed as Mitra (/companion) when he sets together the dampatī of one mind, etc.	So one of the Aśvins just sits around doing nothing but giving consent, and the other one does most of the job? Also the married couple is likewise being compared to a pair of twins. (Analogies are commutative, you know.) What does that mean? What were the “twin stereotypes” in the Vedic age?
Women often had a different world of their own, engrossed in arts - singing, dancing.		Gender roles. Start of the slippery slope towards patriarchy
They also are supposed to handle the ceremonies by custom. (And the adventurous yajña toiling is a male effort with a lesser but very necessary physical participation of females)		This reminds me of a statement in ISKCON’s Heart of Hinduism. Take a look: “the wife’s roles were centred on the home and she was not burdened with contributing towards the family income.” In both the statements, work traditionally associated with men is framed as toil or burden that women are being spared from. What is conspicuously absent from these statements is that the kind of work being described here enable men to have a huge advantage in power. Surely you can’t deny that, can you?
Rigveda also shows women did work like grinding and selling flours to earn their money, as Śiśu Āṅgirasa would suggest in RV 9.112.3.		So women could earn money. Could they keep it?
They also usually looked after household, ruled the husband’s home and protected the livestock.	Ref. RV 10.85.	Again with the home. I’m beginning to worry.
Women are also composer sages of Vedic verses, something we would never have expected in a Bronze age society, with verses being handled down through a primarily male lineage.	Even if we remove the female sages who identify themselves/are identified with legendary females, like those of Vāc Āṃbhṛṇī, the Apālā sūkta, Ghoṣā sūktas, sūkta of Śacī Paulomī are all indeed of female composers. In my knowledge, I don’t know of similar women in Zoroastrian, Greek, Norse or Roman cultures.	Allow me to point you to the Völva of the Norse peoples. Unlike the female sages here, whose existence is not corroborated by sources outside their self-identification, the Völva and their counterparts in other Germanic cultures were real women, who held actual power in society, whose presence was attested by a culture foreign to them (Romans, in this case), and whose gravesites have been found by archaeologists. It seems to me that Vedic culture is the one which has to prove itself.
And they have a high position in the society, as a complement to the masculine part of nature.	In Atharvaveda’s words (which are even used today without knowing meaning in Brahmanic marriages) the husband-wife are compared to Ṛk-sāman, Cakravākā pair, Dyāvāpṛthivī. A complementary vision.	As a complement? Why as a complement? Are not people valuable on their own? Are the men of the Vedic period also solely cherished as being a complement to the feminine part of nature? Like I said you have very low standards for what constitutes a high position in society.
The yajña requires wife of the sacrificer, without which it cannot be done. We might even have an allusion to ruling ladies, as Śyāvāśva’s patron’s wife, or Śacī Paulomī and her daughter.	A well-known fact. Every śrauta and gṛhya ritual needs one to have the consent and presence of his wife, even in classical Brahmanism. Even in the daily aupāsana ritual we perform, the husband asks the wife for consent, and the wife has to respond “please do”, so that the offering is done. This is, unfortunately getting replaced by a “temple-worship” that is heavily male-oriented and gives no role to women. The importance of wife is substantiated in many Rigvedic themes, esp. in the Mudgalānī episode, she recovering her husband through mounting the chariot of yajña (RV 10.102) and driving it to success.	What happens if wife says “Don’t?” Are you trying to argue that the wife is the mistress of the chariot and the man is the charioteer – that the woman is actually in control? Or that she even has control? That was a reference to the Kathopanishad, as I’m sure you’d have noticed. Well unless you’re trying to argue the above, all this tells me is that women’s so-called participation in yajña is mere lip service.
Most often, women appear in Rigveda as lovely, beautiful wives, sometimes as bold, choosing lovers, but one time as “heart-breaker” in the case of Urvaśī who breaks up with Purūravas leaving the latter in sadness.		Relevance?
Women also come as queens, as sages, as protectors of livestock, as speakers in assemblies, as divinities, as mothers, as nurses, as yajamānapatnīs, patrons, as charioteers, singers, dancers and so much more. Overall, the role of women was far better than the classical times.		Not impressed by women as queens – Women in Ancient Egypt Do women also appear as sacrificers/priestesses, yajamanas (as opposed to wives of one), ministers/administrators/clerks/officials (as opposed to queens), carpenters, potters, and warriors? Are they seen holding up half the sky, not in mythology, not in theory, but in everyday life?
Regarding marriages, all the three are recognized - monogamy, polygamy, polyandry. However, both polygamy and polyandry are confined to divinities (Soma mating with waters, or Maruts with Rodasī) in early Rigveda. In later Rigveda, we find a tilt towards acceptance of polygamy as a norm, but monogamy is still the ideal.		So what?
The marriage hymn for example, talks only of a couple as a religiously united one.	The marriage hymn is RV 10.85, celebrating marriage of Sūryā with Soma. In the elaboration of this sūkta in Atharvaveda (which is the foundation of Brahmanic marriages) the pair is compared to cakravāka pair (a kind of geese, known to be very faithful to each other till their death in the culture) along with other complementary one-one pairs. (Ṛk-sāman, Dyāvāpṛthivī)	Again, relevance? What does this have to say for the status of a wife? That she had job security?
This existed even in classical Brahmanism, and thus monogamy was always supported. You could have only one religiously recognized partner in Brahmanism - as a wife, if she with her husband has established the Agnihotra fire, then he cannot marry anyone else. Kings however might not have had a restriction.	Brahmanism was made with monogamy as the ideal, so a person who has married and has established the tretāgni with his wife becomes connected to his wife (whatever he offers is as per her consent and she becomes a part of his own deeds). In most of the dharmaśāstras, mentioning this instance, remarriage for a man is prohibited (unless his wife dies). (Āpastamba 2.5.11.12 for instance)	So monogamy = lack of patriarchy? How?
Mating against will of a woman (even if married or in a relationship) is highly discouraged,	In the verses, it is always “a passionate husband with his eager wife”. (uśatī) The institution of marriage itself exists for this. This is also the position of Brahmanism that bases itself on Vedas. As we might see in Āpastamba 2.1.1.18, which suggests one shall mate only when his wife decides. In Arthaśāstra, Kauṭilya warns several times, “A man shall never have intercourse with a woman against her will”. (Arthaśāstra 4.12)	Marital rape recognised as a crime! Wait, no, it isn’t. Enthusiastic consent is recognised as being ideal. True. But is rape even recognised as a crime? What are the punishments for such an act?
as Urvaśī’s taunting of Purūravas might show. The woman could break-up such a relationship.	In RV 10.95, Urvaśī explains her position that she is walking away from the relationship, by saying that Purūravas used to mate with her who “wasn’t interested in it” (RV 10.95.5, note the term “avyatyai”, “for avyatī”) That a woman could break a marriage where she perceived danger from her husband was true even at the time of Arthaśāstra and even in classical times.	Wait, wait. So Urvaśī is a marital rape survivor? Wasn’t she a “heartbreaker” a few paragraphs back? Which is it? I’m confused. And why is her dumping of a rapist considered “taunting”?
Unwed girls getting pregnant was however, not viewed positively in the society. A girl could love someone and marry her choice in public. But unwed and still being pregnant? Women didn’t want that. Women usually shunned these kids after giving birth in secret. However, Vedic sages stand with such shunned kids and their mothers to an extent, that a regularly praised deed of Indra is that he rescues the shunned son of unwed girl and uplifts him. He also takes birth himself as a shunned son of his mother, but still fights for the honour of his mother.	“Unwed girls getting pregnant was however, not viewed positively in the society.“ “that a regularly praised deed of Indra is that he rescues the shunned son of unwed girl and uplifts him. “ Recalled in RV 4.31.16, and also in 2.13.12, 2.15.7, 1.112.8. “He also takes birth himself as a shunned son of his mother, but still fights for the honour of his mother.” Cf. RV 4.17.	Classic symptom of patriarchy. Pours water all over your matronymic argument. Apparently a mother’s identity is not valid on its own.
However, we don’t see any place where there is thrashing of women or policing of women, though we have quite an interesting request to the bride to not hit her husband and be kind!	Wife is called “apatighnyā”, (not smiting husband) “śivā” (kind) and prayed to be bliss to the biped and quadruped. (RV 10.85.43, 10.85.44) This is even today “recited” to the wife faithfully as is the custom, when she enters the household, although people have no idea of what is in the verse.	This only tells me that violence by women was considered as being especially bad. As opposed to violence by men which was so normalised that it was not even mentioned.
At least some men who tasted failed relationships did exist in Rigvedic period too, and they were afraid of women. :) This is probably enjoyed by Urvaśī as she cold-heartedly dismisses off Purūravas’s request (you would understand her perspective if you see how much Purūravas was obsessed with his manliness and his charm to attract girls before) with a cold remark calling him fool, that long-lasting friendship for him is not possible with women, because women have hearts of hyenas.		Enjoyed by Urvaśī? Cold-hearted? Are these words appropriate to someone who dumped their unfaithful and rapist boyfriend?
(hyenas symbolize self- security, self-sufficience, parenting)	This is the case in Rigveda, especially when Indra himself is shown as a hyena with his thousand cubs in his mouth in RV 10.73.3.	Nice to know.
It is interesting to see that Rigveda has no instance of force afflicted upon women except for Indra’s exception when he fights Uṣas. Conjugal rights were conferred upon women, as we see even in the earliest dharmasūtras of BCEs. It is this right that Lopāmudra evokes to make her ascetically inclined husband realize the worth of a wife in the completion of human existence. This is also the matter related to Mudgalānī, who through being the charioteer of her husband’s sacrifice, revives him. Indra, Soma and even Brahmā sage become women in Rigveda. Whatever the males think of females in that period, all the females in Rigveda are bold and outspoken - they are quite direct, precise.		By conjugal rights I hope you don’t mean the right of either party to demand sex at will. Because that’s just a license to commit marital rape. The fact that women hold such license is not an indicator that the system is not patriarchal. “realize the worth of a wife in the completion of human existence” Not only classical patriarchy, but an example of how patriarchy harms men. “Whatever the males think of females in that period” So it’s not evident is it? Just from the Rigveda. Glad you acknowledge it. How then, did do you make the sweeping statement before? That the society was presumably patrilineal (tracing lineage through male descendant) one, though not patriarchy.
It is not surprising that the vivāha sūkta, the marriage hymn (Rigveda 10.85) that has withstood the test of time, is from a woman’s perspective.	The impression it has on us. Even following the tradition, the sage is also “Sūryā Sāvitrī”. You are free to disagree.	I don’t need your permission to disagree. But thanks. And I do disagree.
Finally, it is interesting to see how in Rigveda and Atharvaveda, the sage specifically consoles the young widow who lies herself beside her husband, and commands her to “return to the world of life, be the mistress of the progeny and legacy left by her husband”.	RV 10.18.8, elaborated in Atharvaveda. Quite opposite to the picture of an “obedient” daughter-in-law, the Rigvedic bride is asked to become the “supreme queen” over her husband’s household (saṃrājñī bhava …, RV 10.85.46). At least Śacī Paulomī’s self-praise sūkta in Rigveda gives a vision of a woman who took pride in her power and success.	Why? Why is a household being treated as a dominion, as opposed to a domicile? Homes and households are supposed to be places free of power struggles, where people live in peace and comfort. They are supposed to be the ultimate neutral ground. What does it say about the society when it treats the home as a battleground?
This is to be specifically contrasted with post-classical India where Satī became a known practice.	Based on whatever I have said as in Vedas and agreeing orthodox Brahmanic scriptures, I have presented my conclusion. I believe it would be an appeal to Presentism to not see the obvious fact that women as envisioned in the Vedas are quite different from what the idea of an oppressive patriarchy demands. Or what became in later India.	Holding human beings accountable to standards of basic decency (the strong not trampling the weak, people having equal rights and opportunities irrespective of their gender, caste or other station in life) should not have to be an “ism”. And it sure as hell is not a fallacy. In fact a refusal to do so either means you don’t think historical people are fully human (Bigotry of low expectations) or that you condone their actions. And while you do know a lot about the texts you have quoted, you don’t know a lot about what patriarchy means. Patriarchy is a system in which society is organised to benefit the handful of men in power, the male gender as a whole, and people of other genders and classes who uphold the system, in that order. It is not defined by oppression, it is defined by power, just as a dictatorship remains a dictatorship no matter how benevolent it might be. I could not find any conclusive evidence in your citations that women wielded any power in the economic, social, legal and religious spheres. The home was their sole domain, it seems, and power in this sphere was also shared, as it should be. Your citations and the corresponding conclusions you draw from them raise a lot of questions, and in many cases actually prove the opposite of your central claim – that Vedic society was not patriarchal.  That it was better than later societies in – wait, which way again? Matronymics – countered by stigma against unwed pregnancy. Marital rape discouraged (only discouraged, mind you) – countered by conjugal rights (whatever they might be). So perhaps you should revise your claims, or at least reconsider them.