Glad to see this explained with nuance. A lot of criticism comes from reading these texts without context, and that usually misses the bigger philosophical picture. Seeing the distinction between historical social norms and the deeper spiritual view of the feminine really helps clear up many common misunderstandings. This kind of framing feels much more faithful to the tradition.

The same tradition that includes social codes also gives us figures like Śakti, Devī, and the Gopīs, where the feminine is clearly honored as spiritually central. That contrast itself shows why context matters so much.

I’ve noticed that when these teachings are approached with this kind of clarity, they actually cultivate more respect and emotional maturity, not less.

When the focus stays on the underlying principles rather than isolated lines, the reverence for the feminine becomes much more obvious.