Dear Everyone,
I came across this mail forwarded to me by somebody. This mail
accuses that the women in Hinduism and especially in vedas have
always been humiliated given the least rank and illtreated..Just for
your information I'm pasting the original mail from the other list.
I'd like to know your comments and opinion. Is it really true
whatever is being accused in this mail. As I understand, anyone can
accuse Hindu scripts like this, because, many hindus aren't aware of
what is exactly being written. Moreover, many scripts in their
original form have been burnt, stolen India etc.I would like to
question the validity of this claim. As I understand, though I
haven't read all the scriptures all at one go, I have read them in
parts like a jigsaw, women have been given status of mother, goddess
etc. in the Vedas. Also, it's said that for any man other than the
husband i.e brothers-in-law, uncles,cousins, even neighbours should
treat a woman like a mother. I can't believe how one part teaches to
treat a woman, like I have mentioned earlier and the other part of
the same scriptures humiliate, and berate a woman.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE FOLLOWING IS THE MESSAGE FROM ANOTHER GROUP
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From ancient times in jainism tirthankars taught giving females
equal status like males . First jain tirthankar is an ideal
example .It was Risabhadeva who first imparted education to his
daughters. This should clearly indicate the attitude of the Jains to
female education. he trained his two daughters. Brahmi and Sundari
( to whom he first taught mathematics ), in the science of letters
and the science of numerals respectively. The Brahmi script, named
after the princess brahmi had been widely used in our ancient
inscriptions. Regarding this Brahmi script, Dr. Ramdhari
Singh 'Dinkar' writes:

"All Dravidian languages have their genesis in the Brahmi Script ...
According to the well-known Jain tradition in South India, Brahmi was
the daughter of Risabhadeva. It was Risabha-deva who was the
inventor of 18 scripts of which one became Kannada." (Samskrti-ke Car
Adhyaya, p.44.)

i have simply recieved below mail & m sharing as it is without any
changes.




Women in Hindu Purans

by Abul Kasem

e mail : abul88@hotmail.com

women in Vedas

Women in Vedas Soma Sablok The Indian Constitution guarantees equal
rights to both the sexes and does not discriminate on the basis of
caste, color and creed However, despite the constitutional
provisions, do women enjoy equality with men ?
The answer is 'No'. Their condition still remains miserable.
Newspaper carry report of rape and burning of women for not bringing
sufficient dowry or their inability to satisfy the demands of greedy
in laws.


Basically, out present attitude towards women streams from our
religious scriptures which refer to women as contempt. Our oldest
book are the 'Vedas' which contain highly objectionable and
condemnable passages concerning women. Taking cue from the 'Vedas'
authors of subsequent religious scriptures referred to women in more
contemptuous form. 'Sati pratha' (custom of burning the widow with
the body of her husband), 'Dasi Pratha' (keeping the slave
girls), 'Niyog Pratha' (ancient Aryan custom of childless widow or
women having sexual intercourse with a man other than husband to
beget child), were among cruel customs responsible for the plight of
the women.


Naturally, seeking shelter under such religious sanctions,
unscrupulous women disgraced women to the maximum possible extent and
made them means of satisfying their lust. No one wanted a daughter.
As a result; female infant came to be considered unwanted. No one
wanted a daughter. Everyone was interested in having a son. The birth
of the son was celebrated, but the birth of the daughter plunged
family into gloom. This attitude still persists, even though certain
other customs have undergone changes.


'Rig Veda' itself says that a women should beget sons. The newly
married wife is blessed so that she could have 10 sons. So much so,
that for begetting a son, 'Vedas' prescribe a special ritual
called 'Punsawan sanskar' (a ceremony performed during third month of
pregnancy). During the ceremony it is prayed:

"Almighty God, you have created this womb. Women may be born
somewhere else but sons should be born from this womb" - Atharva Ved
6/11/3

"O Husband protect the son to be born. Do not make him a women" -
Atharva Ved 2/3/23

In 'Shatpath Puran (shatpath Brahman)' a sonless women has been
termed as unfortunate.

'Rig Veda' censures women by saying:
"Lord Indra himself has said that women has very little intelligence.
She cannot be taught" - Rig Ved 8/33/17

At another placein Rig Veda it is written:
"There cannot be any friendship with a women. Her heart is more cruel
than heyna" - Rig Ved 10/95/15.

'Yajur Ved (Taitriya Sanhita)'m- "Women code says that the women are
without energy. They should not get a share in property. Even to the
wicked they speak in feeble manner" - Yajur Ved 6/5/8/2

Shatpath Puran, preachings of the 'Yajur Veda' clubs
women, 'shudras'(untouchables), doga, crows together and says
falsehood, sin and gloom remain integrated in them. (14/1/1/31)

In 'Aiterey Puran', preaching of the 'Rig Veda' in harsih chandra -
Narad dialogue, Narad says: "The daughter causes pain"



Despicable

To insult and humiliate women further, the religious books speak of
women having sexual intercourse with animals or expressing desire for
intercourse with them. What further insult can be heaped on women.
In 'Yajur Veda' such references are found at a number of places where
the principal wife of the host is depicted as having intercourse with
a horse.

For example consider the following hymn:
"All wife of the host reciting three mantras go round the horse.
While praying, they say: 'O horse, you are, protector of the
community on the basis of good qualities, you are, protector or
treasure of happiness. O horse, you become my husband.'" - Yajur Veda
23/19.

After the animal is purified by the priest, the principal wife sleeps
near the horse and says: "O Horse, I extract the semen worth
conception and you release the semen worth conception'" - Yajur Veda
23/20.

The horse and principal wife spread two legs each. Then the Ardhvaryu
(priest) orders to cover the oblation place, raise canopy etc. After
this, the principal wife of the host pulls penis of the horse and
puts it in her vagina and says: "This horse may release semen in
me." -Yajur Veda 23/20.

Then the host, while praying to the horse says:
"O horse, please throw semen on the upper part of the anus of my
wife. Expand your penis and insert it in the vagina because after
insertion, this penis makes women happy and lively" - 23/21.

In the Vedic age, the customs of polygamy was prevalent. Each wife
spent most of the time devising ways and means to become favorite to
her husband.

Clear references are available in 'Rig Veda', (14/45),' and Atharva
Veda (3/81)'


Custom of Polygamy

The Aryans in those days used to attack the original inhabitants of
this place, or other tribe within their own race; loot them and
snatch away their women. Thus, militant and wicked men had more
wives. This custom of polygamy helped a great deal in bringing down
the women.

In 'Rig Ved' (10/59) it is written that Lord Indra had many queens
that were either defeated or killed by his principal wife.

In 'Aitrey Puran', preachings of 'Rig Veda', (33/1), there is a
reference to the effect that Harish Chandra had one hundred Wives.

'Yajur Veda' in the context of 'Ashva Medha' (Horse Sacraficing
ceremony), says that many wives of Harish Chandra participated in
the 'Yagyna' (religious sacrafice).

In 'Shatpath Puran(Shatpath Brahmin)', preachings (13/4/1/9), of the
Veda, it is written that four wives do service in 'Ashva Megha'. In
another Puran (Tatiraity Brahamin, 3/8/4), it is written that wives
are like property.

Not only one man had many wives (married and slave girls), but there
were cases of many men having a joint wife. It is confirmed from the
following hymn in 'Atharva Veda': "O men, sow a seed in this fertile
women" - Atharva Veda 14/1

Both these customs clearly show that a women was treated like a
moving property. The only difference between the two customs was that
whereas according to former one man had a number of movable
properties, in the latter, women a joint movable property.

'Vedas' also sanction 'Sati Pratha'

Widow was burnt at the funeral Pyre of her husband. The widow was
burnt at the funeral pyre of her husband so that she may remain his
slave, birth after birth and may never be released from the bonds of
slavery.

The Atharva Veda says:
"O dead man following the religion and wishing to go to the husbands
world, his women comes to you." In the other world also may you give
her children and wealth in the same manner. In the 'Vedas', widow is
treated inhumanly. For example it is mentioned that on death of her
husband, the wife was handed over to some other man, or to her
husband younger brother.

Swami Vivekananda opines that even at that time women used to have
sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband to beget a
child. The hymn says:
"O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to
lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is
holding your hand and who loves you. - Rig Ved 10/18/8

Apparently this shows that woman is considered to be a property.
Whenever and whosoever desired, could become her master. If the women
was not remarried, then her head was shaved. This is evident from
Atharva Veda (14/2/60).

This custom was obviously meant to disgrace her. For what connection
does shaving of widows head has with the death of her husband ? The
condition of widows was miserable. She was considered to be a
harbinger of inauspiciousness and was not allowed to participate in
ceremonies like marriage. This custom is still prevalent in some
places. She has to spend her life alone In Rig Veda therre are
references to slave girls being given in charity as gifts. After
killing the menfolk of other tribes, particularly of the native
inhabitants, their women were rounded up and used as slave girls. It
was custom to present slave girls to one other as gifts. The kings
used to present chariots full of slave girls to their kith and kin
and preists (Rig Veda 6/27/8). King Trasdasyu had given 50 slave
girls. It was custom to present slave girls to Saubhri Kandav (Rig
Veda 8/38, 5/47/6).


Intercourse without marriage

A slave girl was called 'Vadhu' (wife), with whom sexual intercourse
could be performed without any kind of marriage ceremony. These girls
belonged to the men who snatched them from the enemies, or who had
received them in dowry, or as gifts. Only the men to whom they
belonged could have sexual intercourse with them. But some slave
girls were kept as joint property of the tribe or the village. Any
man could have sexual rlations with them. These girls became the
prostitutes. The 'Vedas' also talk about 'Niyog', the custom of
childless, widow or woman having sexual intercourse with a person
other than her husband to beget a child.

In simple words 'Niyog' means sending a married woman or a widow to a
particular man for sexual intercourse so that she gets a son.
Indication of this custom is available in 'Rig Veda' In 'Aadiparva'
of 'Mahabharata' (chap. 95 and 103), it is mentioned that Satywati
had appointed her son to bestow sons to the queens of Vichitrvirya,
the younger brother of Bhishma, as a result of which Dhratrashtra and
Pandu were born.

Pandu himself has asked his wife, Kunti, to have sexual intercourse
with a brahmin to get a son (Aadi Parva, chapters 120 to 123).


Chastity of woman was not safe

In the name of 'beejdan' (seed donation), they used to have sexual
intercourse with issueless women. This was a cruel religious custom
and the chastity of the women was not safe. The so called caretakers
of the religion were allowed to have sexual intercourse with other
man's wife. From 'Niyog pratha' it csn be inferred withouth fear of
contradiction that women were looked upon as mere child producing
machines.

In 'The Position of women in Hindu Civilization' Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
writes:
"Though women is not married to man, she was considered to be a
property of the entire family. But she was not getting share out of
the property of her husband, only son could be successor to the
property."

Gajdhar Prasad Baudh says: " No woman of the Vedic age can be treated
as pure. Vedic man could not keep even the relations brother-sister
and father-daughter sacred from the oven of rape and
debauchery/adultery named 'Niyog'. Under the influence of
intoxication of wine, they used to recognize neither their sister nor
their daughter and also did not keep the relations with them in mind.
It is evident from their debauchery and adultery what a miserable
plight of women was society in then. (Refer 'Arya Niti Ka Bhadaphor'.
5th Edition page 14).

In the 'Vedas' there are instances where daughter was impregnated by
her father and the sister by her brother. The following example of
sexual intercourse is found between father and daughter in the 'Rig
Veda':
"When father had sexual intercourse with his daughter, then with the
help of earth he released his semen and at that time the Righteous
Devas (deities) formed this 'Vartrashak (Rudra) Devta' (Pledge keeper
diety named Rudra)" - Atharva Veda (20/96/15).


Women: Low grade creatures

From the aforesaid account, it is clear that in the Vedas women have
been considered to be low grade creatures. It is high time we expose
scriptures, preaching such inhuman teachings so that they lose their
credibility. Only then can there be a hope on women's liberation, and
of equality between sexes which is guaranteed by Indian constitution.

Last changed: January 02, 2001

.

===================================================================

Published in Muktomona ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-
mona/message/589 )

Note from Author : Dear All, If you thought that only Islam mistreats
the women, perish that thought. Here is how Hinduism treats women. I
did not publish this for a long time not to offend many Hindu
readers. But the time has come to expose the misogynist nature of all
religions. Please feel free to comments. Hindu fundamentalists,
please prove that what is written in this bombshell article is wrong.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
END OF MESSAGE
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I'm a hindu, I've never seen women being treated this badly. I don't think they would have been in those old days, I just cannot digest this theory. Hope someone here might throw some light on here.

Quote:

---

Hope someone here might throw some light on here.

---

Dear; light you are looking for as well as motive behind, is contained right in this article itself;

"... so that they lose their credibility."


Padma

You know, judging a system worked for different age, time with our present day laws and social faiths will always makes us feel Hinduism treated woman bad.

Manu smrti is most controversial to such interpreters who can not understand the context, time and society for which manu laws are applicaple. I wrote one message regarding the manu smrti.

If you apply laws made in 1947 for our current life, you know how pathetic those laws might be. 10 Rupee fine for food adulteration sounds ridiculous but 10 rupees was such a big money in 1947. Laws can not be understood with out understanding the context. But, the bitter truth is, it is only islamic rule in india which taught all sorts of perversion and woman abuse to indian society and nothing else. I think hindustan was the only place where physical relation didn't judge the social status of man or woman. The art of male female relationship is now spoilt and ruined totally and with such disease in mind, it will not be possible to understand the men and woman of vedic times.

Lakshmi, Sarasvati and Parvathi are woman form and no other world religion have such place for woman forms including christianity where Mary is seen as just a God mother.

Thanks a lot Padma. I've always believed Hinduism cannot treat women like that. With my limited knowledge of World religions, I've always found Hinduism the most rationale, not like, so and so have died for us that's why you should follow him. I go to a church b'se my husband is a christian(I feel it's my duty to go with him, being a hindu wife, though not a hindu's wife). All that I find in the church is, People keep boasting about how JEsus was mistreated by other of his era, how he died and resurrected again..etc..They never concentrate on much of Jesus's teachings. I go to a religious place to get some light and brighten up my soul and mind. But, all that I return back with is depression, thinking I've wasted another hour in my life. No wonder church attendence is decreasing gradually.Ofcourse this might not be the dcase with all countries and churches, there must be good preachers and churches too. I don't mean to criticize christianity, I feel they should concentrate on JEsus's teachings rather than how He died.I apologise if I have written something out of context.

HareKrishna

Namaste mkl

I admire you, holding onto your beliefs and embracing his as well. Don't know how I could ever do it!
I know what you mean about the disappointment and depresion after church worship. Sadly, it just seem hollow and superficial to me, of course thats just my own feelings and like you say, there are most likely very good churches and preachers out there. And sincere devotees too, like your husband I'm sure. It is good to know, some christians are also accepting of other's beliefs.

Best wishes to you
Padma

Bhaiya,

True words.

I also read your Manu Smriti article commenting on this phenomena and it is in agreement with my views and understanding as well.
And now I have read a logical reason why it was forbidden for some classes to have access to the scriptures, which I had never quite come to terms over. It is a new way to see it and I'm grateful.

Padma

1. Many of the passages of the Rig Veda were written by women seers. Infact, hinduism is the only religion [except sufism to some extent] where a significant contribution in writing the scriptures has come from women.

The author of the mail is obviously biased, and we can easily refute his allegations, one by one;

1. Regarding sati pratha : sati was never a popular custom, and was entirely voluntary where, out of love for the husband, a woman might enter her funeral pyre and not be seperated from him for a moment.
The incidence of sati increased manyfold during the mughal invasions, when rani padmini along with 75,000 other women committed mass sati to avoid being captured and used by Alaudin Khilji. Many such incidents have been recorded.
It only highlights the greatness of these women, who had such strength of character, and personal purity.

'Rig Veda' itself says that a women should beget sons. The newly married wife is blessed so that she could have 10 sons. So much so, that for begetting a son

->> From time immemorial, the masculine form has been used to signify, humanity. Words like manliness, have recently become taboo, because of feminist movements, but they imply no negative sense. The word son has to be seen, meaning children. One has to remember, that the vedas are NOT the composition of a single person; if one of the seers, had a prejudice for sons, let be it. It is nothing to lose sleep about. Moreover, the sex ratio in those days was always favourable to women. Because, the borders were never safe, and because of frequent invasions, men had to die. Thus, there may have been some obvious preference for sons, but to extrapolate it to mean that daughters were not wanted, is untrue. Infact, the modern conception of marriage is given in the initial verses of rig veda. A wife being deemed as an equal partner of the husband is proof enough, that women were not ill-treated. No vedic sacrifice can be carried out without the presence of both husband and wife.


'Rig Veda' censures women by saying:
8/33/17
Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline,
Her intellect hath little weight.

->> Again, a prejudice of a seer, even today many men might have such opinions...male chauvinism is not dead, is it? It has nothing to do with religion.

Almighty God, you have created this womb. Women may be born
somewhere else but sons should be born from this womb

->> women may be born somewhere else, the author might already have had daughters, so desired a son.....finding one hymn which is somewhat anti-woman, in the entire yajur veda having thousands of hymns; really how does it matter?

In 'Shatpath Puran (shatpath Brahman)' a sonless women has been termed as unfortunate.

->> The indian family system was based on the joint family system. Sons were entitled to take care of their parents, and a lonely women without a son, would have missed of this social security measure. Hence, that a woman without a son, was unfortunate is indeed practically true.


There cannot be any friendship with a women. Her heart is more cruel
than heyna" - Rig Ved 10/95/15.

->> Most probably a jilted lover......

In 'Aiterey Puran', preaching of the 'Rig Veda' in harsih chandra -
Narad dialogue, Narad says: "The daughter causes pain"

->> Out of context, the conversation before and after is required to get an insight into the dialogue

To insult and humiliate women further, the religious books speak of women having sexual intercourse with animals or expressing desire for intercourse with them. What further insult can be heaped on women.
In 'Yajur Veda' such references are found at a number of places where the principal wife of the host is depicted as having intercourse with a horse.

->> Absolutely not....it is a total distortion of the sanskrit texts.....

Regarding polygamy -> In some cases, it may have existed, and was probably in existence but to a much lesser degree than in other civilizations. Also the manu smriti clearly states 'that a married man cannot marry another woman, unless they have no offspring for 7 yrs, and that also with the permission of his first wife, if she has been chaste, or is sick.

O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is holding your hand and who loves you. - Rig Ved 10/18/8

The actual translation;
Rise, come unto the world of life, O woman: come, he is lifeless by whose side thou liest.
Wifehood with this thy husband was thy portion, who took thy hand and wooed thee as a lover

->> This glorious verse extolls the widow, to go back to the world, for her husband is now dead. She is not to weep in sorrow, or lament over the loss. She can re-marry another man if she wishes to. Only the parochial mullahs, can see offence to it.


Two wagon-teams, with damsels, twenty oxen, O Agni, Abhydvartin Cayamdna,
The liberal Sovran, giveth me. This guerdon of Prthu's seed is hard to win from others.

->> If someone can comprehend, this verse let me know. It certainly does not imply slave girls were being raped.


5/46/6

For him they lenghten prayers and acts of worship: the Mothers weave garments for him their offspring.
Rejoicing, for the Steer's impregning contact, his Spouses move on paths or heaven to meet him.

->> ???

About sexual intercourse or the system of niyog: In ancient india, chastity was more a feeling of mind, rather than a mere physical one. A woman, who got herself impregnated for a son, was considered chaste, if was passive and didnt enjoy the act. It was also, the prerogative of the woman whether she wanted, to underdo niyog, but perhaps, in royal families, the pressures for a heir made her undergo this act. All said and done, even in this act, one can clearly see that women were always heralded as pure creatures who could never be tainted. The reason ascribed to it is the act of menstruration, where at the end of the cycle, the impurities would be rid off via the drained blood.


Read these 2 articles;

www.vedah.com/org/literature/essence/women&Rishikas.asp
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Women_in_Hinduism.htm

Hi,
I am new to this website/forum, so hello to you all! I was scrolling down through the various discussion boards, and was fascinated by this one. I am an Ancient History student, and was reading about women in ancient Indian philosophy and life when I came across something eminently relevant - There is increasing consensus about the practice of Sati. It is perhaps best to direct you all to a recent book: 'The Indian Historical Review' - Volume XXXII Number 1 (January 2005) 'India and the Graeco-Roman World' by the Indian Council of Historical Research.

pp. 84-6 are of especial interest.
Essentially:

- Thracians also practiced sati, as did various tribes of North America, Africa, Oceania, China, Japan and Korea.

- in India, it appears to have come from Scythia through the north-west - hence it is not actually an indigenous 'Indian' practice.

-the early ancient Indian texts, e.g., the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanisads, Astadhyayi, Arthasastra, Mansmrti, Yajnavalkyasmrti et al, do not even mention the practice.

-the sati by Vedavati's mother in the Ramayana is more legendary than historical.

-the Mahabharata mentions Madri of the north-west becoming a sati voluntarily, and Sairandhri being forcibly burnt with Kicaka. These are, however, exceptional circumstances because we do not find any of the Kaurava widows becoming sati.

the Visnudharmasutra, fourth century AD, is the first legal text which mentions sati, but it does not regard it as a reglious custom.

-Brhaspati refers to the custom but does not mention it as binding.

-the Visnu Purana, Padma Purana, Bhagavata Purana and Brahma Purana cite instances which indicate that that institution was slowly emerging between AD 400-600.

-The only epigraphical evidence during the period comes form teh Eran Pillar inscription AD 510.

-The custom, though introduced and practiced, was not religiously sanctioned and was vehemently opposed by a strong section of intellectuals.

-Many well known ladies of ancient India, Prabhavati Devi, Mayanalla Devi, Karpura Devi, Alhana Devi, did not practice sati but were greatly respected on coutn of devotion of their husbands.

I think that the moral of reading such, frankly, biased articles such as the one which you quoted above, is that one has to understand history, and also understand that Hinduism is a mix of people, religion and culture - all are not the same, as people are not all the same. There will always be moments when culture goes one way whilst relgion requests another path.

It is also very important to bear in mind that some, not all, Indians particularly in the north west of India began to pratice sati under the influence of another culture - it was certainly not developed within India itself. India was also not alone in the practice of sati.

I look forward to hearing from you, and to posting more replies in the future!

Best wishes,
Samachar

The ancient Hindus had utmost regard for women. Any quote belittling women must be a concoction. Keeping this in mind, I verified all the references given by the maulana, and they all proved to be fake. Hence be alert in future before being disturbed by some bad quote etc. coming from the mouth of some naughty person. Here is the summery of my research:

{'Rig Veda' itself says that a women should beget sons. The newly
married wife is blessed so that she could have 10 sons. So much so,
that for begetting a son, 'Vedas' prescribe a special ritual
called 'Punsawan sanskar' (a ceremony performed during third month of
pregnancy). During the ceremony it is prayed:

"Almighty God, you have created this womb. Women may be born
somewhere else but sons should be born from this womb" - Atharva Ved
6/11/3

"O Husband protect the son to be born. Do not make him a women" -
Atharva Ved 2/3/23}

The whole of the foregoing is a clear and mischievious concoction. The Atharva Vedic hymns are referred to only by two numbers, like 5.13 or V.13 etc. All the references sited by this author claimedly belonging to the Atharva Veda are of 3 numbers and are hence fake. Secondly, he starts mentioning the Punsavan Samskara in the Rig Veda by gives reference number of Atharva Veda. Simply imbecile! Stupid!!

{In 'Shatpath Puran (shatpath Brahman)' a sonless women has been
termed as unfortunate.}

There is no reference and clearly it is a concoction. Moreover, those who are daughterless, they are also unfortunate—if thoroughly searched this also can be found in the Vedic literature.


{'Rig Veda' censures women by saying:
"Lord Indra himself has said that women has very little intelligence.
She cannot be taught" - Rig Ved 8/33/17}

Here also the meaning has been distorted, and also placed out of context. This is wods of a Brahmana who is performing a prayer-ritual to please India dressed as a woman. There were rituals exclusively meant for women. If a man wished to perform them, he had to wear feminine garment and behave, think, speak and act as a woman. The actual words are:

R.V. 8.33.17 Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline,
Her intellect hath little weight.
18 His pair of horses, rushing on in their wild transport, draw his car:
High-lifted is the stallion's yoke.
19 Cast down thine eyes and look not up. More closely set thy feet. Let none
See what thy garment veils, for thou, a Brahman, hast become a dame.


{At another placein Rig Veda it is written:
"There cannot be any friendship with a women. Her heart is more cruel
than heyna" - Rig Ved 10/95/15.}

The exact words are different:
R.V. 10.95.15 “Nay, do not die, Pururavas, nor vanish: let not the evil-omened wolves devour thee. With women there can be no lasting friendship: hearts of hyenas are the hearts of women.” These are the words of consolation uttered by Pururava’s friend when Pururava tries to end his life after Urvashi has deserted him. Pururava is in deep depression and these words are just to convince him so that he does not end his life. It is important to note that these are words uttered by a man, and not a divine commandment or words of God commanding following by believers. Moreover, the 10th Mandala is a late interpolation.

{'Yajur Ved (Taitriya Sanhita)'m- "Women code says that the women are
without energy. They should not get a share in property. Even to the
wicked they speak in feeble manner" - Yajur Ved 6/5/8/2}

This is again a clear concoction as the Yajurveda (Krishna) or Taittiriya samhita has only three numbers for reference, one for Kanda, second for chapter and the third for verse.

{Shatpath Puran, preachings of the 'Yajur Veda' clubs
women, 'shudras'(untouchables), doga, crows together and says
falsehood, sin and gloom remain integrated in them. (14/1/1/31)}

Concocted due to above mentioned reasons.

{In 'Aiterey Puran', preaching of the 'Rig Veda' in harsih chandra -
Narad dialogue, Narad says: "The daughter causes pain" }

Again no reference! Abogus quote.

I am ashamed to find that thug posted such baseless allegations and none of us the highly enthusiastic Hindus bothered to check / verify whether the allegations leveled actually exist or not.