I come across many people saying "but sindhoor is patriarchal-", "but mangalsutra is patriarchal-" I heard historically that mangalasutra beads were also worn by men on their wrists. And sindoor was more about healing for women, but if I were to say people might go "but it's your current culture and culture is affected by religion so.." Also those fasts like karva chauth were women mostly do the nirjala fasts. What do you think about it?
Also what are your thoughts on manusmriti? Because almost every time I praise hinduism I am told "but manusmriti-" And apparently it has misogynistic things despite being first book of law?
I've read many views on this that it was tampered or it was something manu endorsed or smrits were different.
I'd like to have your insight on this!
Thank you! ^^
For the first question, I think there comes a point where one needs to really think if sindoor, mangalsutra etc. are 'patriarchal'. Hear me out. Quite a few feminists say that certain marital symbols are not a choice, for example, in rural areas, where there often are a neighbourhood watch type of situation where they do judge people who don't conform to the norms of their society. It's just a simple fact that those are the symbols of marriage in Hinduism. There's no way to change that. There are regional differences of course. But in general, the incessant fight against sindoor, and likening a mangalsutra to a dog collar is veiled Hinduphobia. Do these people have as much problem with a wedding ring? That too is a marital symbol in the west. Isn't that too a symbol of patriarchy? In the west, if you don't wear your wedding ring, people usually assume that your unmarried and free in the dating pool. There is also a real health hazard in a ring. Yearly, hundreds of people deglove their fingers due to rings. The standard answer to this is that men and women both wear the ring so it's not as 'patriarchal'. But this is essentially it, these people are holding the western culture as a measuring stick. This essentially stems from colonial consciousness. If the argument is that many women in India don't have choice but to wear those symbols because otherwise the gossipers with gossip then that doesn't mean that sindoor and mangalsutra are inherently "patriarchal". Now, if the argument is that why don't men wear a marital symbol too, then the answer to that is that men definitely carry marital symbols traditionally. Toe rings and janeu and other threads. Imagine if the Kashmiris thought that their long, heavy Dejhoors are "patriarchal" and collectively gave up on wearing them for maximum equality. That would be an entire culture and heritage lost. It's just so sad that people are not seeing these ancient alamkaras, symbols of marriage, through any other lens except the Western exceptionalist one.
Also about Karva Chauth and other vratas, I do agree that it is unfair if the in-laws demand the wife to keep a nirjala vrata. These things should never be forced, and they should always be genuine choices. Men too have Ekadashi fasts in traditional Hindu households. These type of hodgepodge households where all demands of keeping up traditionalism befalls on the women are unfair, and there's not a single Hindu scripture that allows this. Both men and women have their own nityakarmas. Karva Chauth is a beautiful tradition that comes from Karaka Chaturthi. Women fast together and collectively sit in a circle and do the puja as a community, and it is rooted in praying for longevity of their husbands. All in all, in the conversations around Karva Chauth, people completely disregard the historical and cultural significance of these traditions and only boil it down to patriarchy. It's not like Hinduism as a religion is incapable of evolving. There is not a single book or clergy that demands that only women must follow these. As I wrote before, both men and women have their svadharma and nityakarmas. 
Manusmriti is another straw man argument by certain people whenever one talks about Hinduism. Because the imagery of burning Manusmriti has been etched into the minds of Indians, it has been normalised that trashing Manusmriti is okay. What next then? Mahabharata? Vedas? Mahabharata has the story of Ekalavya, which has been misrepresented in independent India for decades. Read here more details about Ekalavya. Vedas have the Purusha Sukta, which has often been accused of being the root source of the "caste" system, which is false. We've been taught at schools in the world religion classes or sociology about the "caste" pyramid or the image of Brahma where the head is Brahmin and feet are Shudra. Read here why it is demonstrably misleading and outright wrong. Also, read here more about Manusmriti. Usually, people always come up with that "molten lava in ears if low caste hear Vedas" - argument, and they can never substantiate their claim. All they got is a catchphrase they read somewhere on the internet. Education in ancient India was required from everyone, regardless of caste. Here's Dr. Satyan Sharma's post on it, with references. Here's a post on the education system in ancient India, Scottish merchant William Macintosh notes how ALL "CASTES" had access to education, wherever he travelled in pre-colonial India. And the class rooms were not segregated to any class or caste. Leopold von Orlich, a German officer participating in the English Army wrote that schools in Bengal had children from all castes and sects. These accounts were from European travellers from pre-colonial India. Manusmriti itself has several verses that are opposite of misogyny. All that said, Manusmriti is just one smriti among many, and Hindus don't need to follow that. It's not a book that if you don't follow it then you will go to eternal hell. I would say that take the claims of "tampering the texts" and "later interpolation" with a grain of salt. Usually, apologists like to say that whenever the argument becomes too difficult to explain. Instead, find authentic sources. For example, lately I shared a post about the origin of Hanuman, this particular verse in the Rigveda appears vulgar, as if Hanuman were a lecher. But that is not it. Shachi uses poetic language to describe her features and taunts Vrishakapi, the English translation sounds vulgar because it's a crass language, but the original verse is quite playful. A similar notion carried to Ramayana as well. If one looked at the mere translation and declared Hinduism as pervert then what can one say. This is why Adhyayana - the study of Vedas takes a lifetime.
