Uma, I did not want to waste time responding to what I feel is balderdash. I somehow I gathered myself to put a response. I am surprised how people rush in to misinterpret things so very easily, in the name of "thinking differently". Here are only a few pointers. I can talk about this for hours.Sorry, a rather long response.
I agree with Devdutt when he says " feminists assume that monastic faiths espouse non violence and are generally pacifist, and therefore are more feminist in approach". He is right in pointing to facts that are contrary to that assumption. The best live examples that I can think of are the Asian Countries of Japan, Korea and China, where Buddhism is the overwhelming faith, and perhaps no other country can be more male dominated that these societies.
I disagree with him when he says hermits gave rise to three ideas - celibacy, non-violence and purity. Hermits of yore, those who wrote the Upanishads, like Yagnyavalka, Kashyapa, Gautama etc... were all married, had progenies and yet were detached from wordly pleasures for most part of their lives. Hinduism does not lay down anything in strict. One can go directly from Brahmacharya to Sanyasa. Or one can go through the 4 varnashramas to reach sanayasa. Our history is full of both examples. I this his narrow view emnates from comparing with theological religions. Hinduism, in reality, is way to flexible, to be straight-jacketed into one line fo thinking. However, it is a different matter that some practitioners, over the times, have hijacked people's notions on these, and made them believe that there are only certain ways to do them. Again, many of these hermits fought with evil forces which had interrupted their duties as hermits. Examples are Vishwamitra, Parasurama, etc...
I also think his analysis of women alone being seen as temptations, is faulty. In Kamba Ramayanam, Kambar says " for a man, his demeanour, character etc... needs control.... for a woman, her eyes need control". The reason? Traditionally, Hinduism has always placed the well-being of the family, and by extension, the society, in the hands of the lady. For a man to go astray, a woman's mere gaze is ( normally) sufficient. Men have very little self-control in this matter, and this is pure animal behaviour. It is the woman who normally has much better self control in this matter, and the moment she loses it, the family loses out, and by extension, the society. Hence the puranic emphasis on male celibacy. Devdutt, in my opinion, is misinterpreting this whole thing. Talk of male celibacy does not denigrate the woman in any way. Quite the contrary. In my eyes, it places women on a pedastal reserved solely for them. For, women, by nature, tended to have a lot more self-restraint, and thereby controlled the societal values. Perverted MacCaulay system of education interpreted it as subjugation of women, which is totally wrong. It is not that women dont get "those" feelings of breaking the shackles, or go lawless, like most men do. It is just that nature has gifted them with much better self control. Some western societies of today, where women try to "compete" with men in recklessness, have paid for, with their overall family and societal environments destroyed. People have started living purely for themselves, instead of for a family or for the larger society. One may argue that in the race to keep self-control, women lost out many things, including their own happiness. My argument on that is that happiness is a conditioned state of mind. It can come from anywhere. If you are conditioned to think that happiness comes only from doing "reckless" things, or " being free", then anything else will be unacceptable. If you conditioned to think that happiness comes from living for the others, most notably your family, and if in that process you lose things like personal space and freedom, then that is where you feel the happiness. Devdutt's arguments unfortunately reflect the former thought process, and to me, that is trying to judge the Indian system through a Western prism.
By the way, it is not only women who are portrayed as objects of desire. Men have also been equally portrayed as objects of desire. Vishwamitra was an object of desire for Menaka ( even if for a brief while only). Amba, Ambika and Ambalika were after one man, a hermit, by the name of Dwaipayana. Sukhracharya's daughter lusted for a man, so madly, that she insisted on marrying him and her dad had to relent. Shiva was an object of desire for Meenakshi, who penanced to get married to him. When I say " object of desire" it does not necessarily have to be sexual in nature. I am willing to argue it out with anyone who says that the Gopikas' attraction to Krishna was purely platonic. There is a bit of Kama in that too... not in a deragatory sense, but purely by looking at Krishna as the only man - Purusha ( the rest of men and women mortals are considered women only, in that context, according to the scriptures).
Devdutt talks rubbish when he insinuates the Gita as a book incites violence , when he says " ....that some academicians argue this is Brahminical gobbledygook to justify violence.". Nothing is more absurd. If you need any more proof, look no further than a Russian Court ruling, responding to a plea 2 years ago, to ban the Gita on the grounds of inciting violence, clearly ruled that it is a totally wrong interpretation of the holy book, and dismissed that petition. Pls do a Google search if interested to read more about that case.
"Vegetarianism was meant to liberate the hermit from nature and culture. " This statement again shows his ignorance. It has got nothing to do with liberation from nature. Vegetarinsiam as a way of life , it is scientifically proven, enhances the DNA, and over generations, produces far superior progency. I challenge Devdutt to dispute this. That is why vengtarianism was prefered to being non-veg. Also, Hinduism, as a way of life, was against killing any. Even plants and trees were revered. There was a prescribed way ot eating vegetables and fruits. For example, the concept of Unchavrithi. Today, Unchavrithi is celebrated as a "function" of singing in the streets and earning alms. But that was not how things originated. Unchavriti was a custom where people ate only THOSE rice grains which were incapable of growing. ("broken rice"). Similarly with fruits. People never plucked fruits first off, but waited for them to fall off the trees, the natural way. In Tamil Nadu, we call maa, palaa and vaazhai as " mukkani" ( THE three fruits). Why? What is so special about these fruits? The speciality is that The mango and jackfruits, even after eating , left those seeds intact, and even if you dicard them in the open, will germinate. Banana does not need the fruit, to procreate. So, we really respected nature and the right to life, those good old days when the scriptures were written. Ahimsa was part of this, and Devdutt cannot deny that. It is a different matter that over time, things got perverted by people who interpreted them.
His funniest nonsense, in my opinion, is reserved for "purity". What the hell does he say? Is he saying that drinking, smoking, having unfettered sex etc is civil right, and that everyone HAS to accept them??? Nonsense. He argues that purification demands lead to untouchabiility. This is nothing but perverted thinking. Let me aska simple question. If the body does NOT need purification, then firstly why take bath, or have medicine when one falls sick? Furthermore, let me challenge Devdutt, or anyone who claims that demand for purity leads to untouchability. If that is really true, why did the western societies spend billions of dollars on eradicating leprosy? Let me pose a simple question. Let there be a Justin Bieber music show today, in a stadium packed with 10000 people. All dancing away happily. Let a leper walk in, and join the crowds in dancing just as happily. Let me see how many of them embrace him physically, happiliy!!!!!!! Utter crap.... Devdutt.... I expected had better concepts from you.... maybe you wrote this article in your sleep.
http://scroll.in/article/813618/how-celibacy-non-violence-and-purity-work-to-establish-patriarchy-in-india
