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.

Debate 2: Round - X - Ishita

Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.

Kumar Alok,

If I may, here's what I understand your entire critique to be:

1. Feminism is a purely western ideology, and not an all-encompassing philosophy that believes in or works towards achieving gender equality because it is a rights based approach and a pro-woman stance, which is grounded in the assumption of an 'independent individual'.
2. Because of the above reasons (and more), Indian visionaries who worked for the welfare of women in India cannot be classified as feminists.
3. Dehumanization doesn't exist (and cannot exist) - it is a fiction that is propagated (if not created) by human rights activists, and feminists, in order to further their agenda (whatever that may be).

With that out of the way, let me address the critique.
1.  Logic is a branch of mathematics, i.e. it's a tool. Transposition (or any other logical operation) can neither create nor destroy information - it merely presents the various equivalent forms of the given information. If the transposed statement seems to be lacking information - it is only because the original statement didn't have much info to begin with. 'All Men are mortals' is a useless and redundant statement in a universe where all organisms and phenomena are mortal.

2. Before we proceed, a word on what rights and duties mean.

I refer you to W. N. Hohfeld's seminal analysis of these fundamental jural concepts, which is the basis of modern jurisprudence. Relevant conclusions:

a. The first thing to know about rights and duties is that they are FUNCTIONALLY INSEPARABLE. They are like Action and Reaction in Newton's 3rd law of motion - they are equal, opposite, and are exerted by and on different bodies. 

If you fail in your duties, the FIRST negatively affected party will always be somebody else. Any repercussions on you due to your failure to perform your duties is always secondary and enforced by somebody else (a court of law, or a vengeful aggrieved party, etc.)

e.g.  If you fail in your duties to take care of and respect your elderly parents, they are the ones who'll pay for it. They're the ones deprived of care and honour. You clearly never had any use for their blessings and emotional support in the first place, so you lose nothing.

It is also futile to talk about 'rights based' or 'duty based' approaches to anything - they are one and the same. It does not matter if you define crime as transgression of duty or violation of rights, the plaintiff will be the same person - but never the same as the defendant.

b. The only exception to this would the concept of a purely moral duty. A purely moral duty is based on the concept that no one has any rights (or the ability to defend them) - only the capability to perform duties, and that transgression of said duties affects the transgressor ALONE, by injuring his/her conscience. Moral systems linked to organized religion such as 'Karma' or 'Judgement Day' tend to escalate the injury to conscience into allegedly higher personal punishments. The problems with a purely moral duty based approach are that

1. It is based on a lie. As proved above, regardless of injury to conscience (or higher personal punishment), it is always a second party who is first and foremost negatively affected.
2. It removes from society the power to hold the transgressors accountable, and deprives the aggrieved of justice.
3. This is a textbook definition of an individualistic approach.

It will be interesting to note that there is no concept of rights that is analogous to a purely moral duty. A right is always a legal concept, and always correlated with a duty. A social contract emphasizing on rights can only be sustained in a scenario where everybody performs their duties.

c. The jural concept of Privilege is defined as a lack of duties on one's part. Some privileges are legal e.g. I'm not required to respect an (armed and dangerous) enemy soldier's right to life. I have the privilege (license) to kill. Like rights, legal privileges also come at a price. The license to kill has to be earned through training and loyalty, and may be used only when authorized or in extreme circumstances.

The question here is of unearned and illegal privileges. These are privileges obtained due to non-performance of duty. Ancient Vedic culture is built around Brahmin and Male (unearned) privilege. Go ahead and read the Manusmriti. You are certainly capable of evaluating evidences for yourself. You may also read this text The Philosophy of Hinduism. It was written by the Father of the Indian Constitution.

d. The Hohfeldian definition and analysis of the eight jural concepts is based on the assumption that all humans are fundamentally and undeniably interdependent. It acknowledges the fact that humans have the capability, both individually and in a group, to deny or violate the rights of other individuals and groups. It also acknowledges that the dehumanized and oppressed individuals and groups have the power to fight back for their rights.

e. Essentially, if we call any right inalienable, we are not saying that they CAN'T be violated. We're declaring that denial  or violation of that right is 'unnatural' i.e. violates natural justice, and is 'inhuman' i.e. denies the humanity of the person whose inalienable right was violated.

When we declare something a human right (as opposed to say an animal right), we're not saying that possession of that right MAKES a person human. We're saying that a person has that right BECAUSE they're human. We're saying that Denial of human rights to some person is the same as Denial of that person's humanity, i.e. dehumanization.

The right to be recognized as a legal person is one such inalienable human right.  (see again Art. 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Even incompetents, i.e. children, the comatose, the mentally incapacitated, the unborn, etc. are not denied legal personality - their legal personality is exercised indirectly through their legal guardians.

3. Pointwise answer to your conclusions about the transposition of legal and natural personality

a. Explained above, humans have the ability to deny personhood

b. Communist or despot-ruled states need not be lawless. The difference between democracy and other political systems lies in the investiture of power and the ease of change of leadership, not in their ability to govern well and enact and enforce good legislation. Case in point: Rwanda - dictatorship and a successful model of gender equality

c. Of course it can. It is ultimately a question of 'Who will guard the guards?'.
As explained above, dehumanized people can and did fight for their rights. The citizens of India rose against the British Indian Government, as did other colonies. We didn't exactly fight a legal battle… See Civil Disobedience Movement.

d. Not a possible conclusion. See the above answers.

e.  and f.  Explained above, incompetents are not denied legal personality.

Your alleged implications do not exist.  Q.E.D.

4. Dehumanization is not just about treating people as property. As you have pointed out, property may have monetary value, and be indispensable for survival. Dehumanization is treating people worse than property. 

Apart from the legal definition of dehumanization as violation and denial of inalienable human rights, it is associated with objectification. This article by Martha Nussbaum, current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, defines objectification of persons as an action which entails one or more of the following:

• Instrumentality (using someone as a tool for another's purposes);
• Commodification (by denial of autonomy and agency);
• Fungibility (treating someone as if interchangeable with another of his/her category);
• Violability (not respecting their boundaries, treating damage to their person as permissible);
• Disposability

5. Criticisms against feminism

a. An indoctrinating ideology
As previously explained, Feminism doesn't pretend to see (or show) anything false. It is based on the stone cold reality of the worldwide inferior and despicable status of women. It traces this phenomenon to its underlying causes and tries to reverse it.

b. Originated in the West - not true, and not a valid criticism.

Feminism is about gender equality. Gender inequality is a worldwide phenomenon and must not be reduced to an East v. West debate.
Besides, as I've explained repeatedly, the philosophy that women should be socially, politically and economically equal to men isn't of western origin. As for the activism, a Western origin doesn't preclude a movement from adapting itself to Eastern outlooks.

c. Rights based approach - debunked above, all approaches are equally rights and duty based.

d. Pro-woman stance

It appears that some good people are confused about how a gender-biased approach can lead to gender equality. I have three answers:

1.  We live in a world which is in a state of gender imbalance and inequality. Here the ONLY approach to restore balance and equality is to boost the oppressed gender, until equality has been achieved. And there's no doubt about which is the oppressed gender.
2. Pro-woman is not anti-man. Restoring rights to women does not take away rights from men, it takes away the unearned and illegal privileges hitherto held by men. Again, the restoration of women's rights and removal of these unearned and illegal male privileges is the ONLY approach to gender equality.
3. Even if you include the LGBTQIA rights into the equation, you'll find that Feminism has (at least in the West) quickly evolved to include the LGBTQIA community in its fight for gender equality.

e. Not validated by Hindu scripture - Are. You. Serious?

Can any 'scripture' truly be the source and repository of all knowledge?  It is a bigoted and frankly ridiculous excuse for dismissing any philosophy.

f. "such texts place a heavy emphasis on character and a sense of right and wrong to qualify one as a human being" - and feminism does not?

The whole concept of inalienable rights revolves around humans having the basic decency to accept other human beings as fellow humans. All legal rights are ultimately tied to ethics and morality, and that's why they are called 'rights'. Feminism is after all a part of the larger human rights movement.

g. Western feminist activism is 'distinctly grounded in the assumption of an "independent individual"' - Er… No.

Western society places a high premium on 'individual achievement'. This is not to say that it does not recognize or devalues 'interdependency'. If anything, they have a better sense of collectivism than anyone in the planet. You can read about it Swami Vivekananda's epistles where he praises the social systems in the USA. Or look at how all the Scandinavian and other highly developed European countries are also highly unionised. Or see how modern jurisprudence is organized.

There are societies who actually do not put a premium on 'individual achievement'. Ancient Vedic culture wasn't one of them. Modern Hinduism certainly isn't. The Varnashrama dharma is all about the (Brahmin and Male) individual's achievement of Moksha. As explained above, the law of Karma is also essentially individualistic. So this criticism is both false and moot.

Simply put, Misogyny and Misandry are the extreme opposites, feminism stands squarely in the middle. So yes, every talk of gender equality IS feminist.

6. Regarding Swami Dayanand Saraswati. A few basic facts.

a. Swamiji was a reformer. A radical reformer, in fact. The crux and origin of his reforms was the notion that all non-Vedic scripture is a deceitful construct promoted by people with vested interests - namely the higher castes and men.
Basically, he figured out that the non-Vedic scriptures were wrong (and the Vedas were ineffable) because they denied people their basic humanity (and the Vedas didn't). He wasn't following scripture, he was following basic humanity and ethics.
b. He did not even spare the very Vedas which he considered ineffable - he rejected the Upanishads and Jyotisha (Astrology), one of the six Vedangas, and considered the 'eyes' of the Vedas. His most revolutionary reform was to make the Vedas accessible to Women and people of the lower castes. This is in direct contravention of the Manusmriti and the Varnashrama Dharma. The latter is undeniably Vedic in origin.

Essentially, he was a kite that rose against the wind, not with it.

b. Swamiji rejected the notion of hereditary caste based and male privileges. He worked actively to provide women the rights denied to them by 'corrupted Hinduism'. Clearly, a pro-woman stance and a 'rights based' approach.

All these evidences prove that Swami Dayanand Saraswati was very clearly a feminist. And he wasn't the only one.

What would you wish for?

Me: I believe, that the things that belong to me and the people that belong with me will find their way to me eventually, and I to them. I have nothing to wish for.

Him: You may not wish to acquire, but you might want to reject some things and people. Wouldn’t you wish for that choice?

Me: I don’t believe in duality, dear friend. Darkness in my opinion, isn’t even the absence of light – it is just the inability to see it.

Dialogy... KPJ

Well, one learns something every day. So here's an excerpt from KPJ's reply.

karan.p.jani: well

  first I added that link on facebook so that entire world can read! :d

  specially the ones who know me!

 me: m honoured

22:56 karan.p.jani: I am pretty sure hardly anyone understood it as the article was too technical

 me: was it?

 karan.p.jani: I followed it only because

 me: u asked for it

 karan.p.jani: a) I was interested to know what you wanted to say

22:57 b) Because I am reading Sartre et al. which are much much more complicated then this!

 me: ah! of course!

 karan.p.jani: but I like the way you proceeded your argument

 me: he argues otherwise?

 karan.p.jani: the rational logical argument approach!

  no its hard to understand first of all what is he arguing for!

22:58 me: hahaha

 karan.p.jani: nevertheless coming back to the blog

 me: ya

 karan.p.jani: my honest opinion

  let me first write it completely

  and then you reply

 me: ok

22:59 karan.p.jani: I found your language usage different then your regular tone

  your arguments were true

  but for some unknown reason it wasn't you

  it wasn't your thoughts

  as if it was a mosaic

  of other people's thoughts

23:00 I know that you once said me

  "Man is the most unoriginal creature"

  and I agree with that

  but your "human" part was missing in the argument

23:01 you were logical, rational, might be even scientifically accurate but you weren't Ishitia

  I read it and was admired that you took the effort to write a whole blog for me

23:02 but I am sure if we had a conversation the argument would have proceeded in a different way

  like you could have created examples and situations that would have been sufficient for me to get the direction

  well... sorry if you felt disappointed but I really dont intend to hurt you

23:03 it was a friendly critique

 me: not at all

 karan.p.jani: thats it!

  now shoot!

 me: u are a very fine observer

23:04 and m not disappointed