In the story of Draupadi from the Mahabharata and its comic version, the idea of the hero is strongly connected to gender roles. The male heroes, like the Pandavas, are supposed to protect honor and justice. However, in the court scene, when Draupadi is humiliated, they remain silent. This moment challenges the traditional image of the male hero. They have power, but they fail to act when it is most important.

Draupadi shows a different kind of strength. She does not stay silent. She questions the men in the court and demands justice. This is important, because women in these stories are usually expected to be quiet and obedient. Draupadi breaks this role. She speaks with courage, even when she is alone. This changes the idea of the hero. The hero is not only the one who has power, but also the one who dares to speak against injustice.

The language of the original Mahabharata is formal and serious, and it reflects a culture where male authority is strong. The comic version uses simple words and powerful images, which make the scene more emotional and easier to understand. It highlights the injustice more clearly and makes the silence of the men feel even stronger. This shows how modern versions can question older values and reveal the limits of traditional heroism.

Overall, this story shows that gender defines who is expected to act and who is expected to suffer. But Draupadi’s voice challenges this idea and forces us to rethink what a true hero is.

In the Ramayana and in Sita Sings the Blues, the idea of the hero changes because of gender. In the original text, Rama is shown as the perfect hero. He follows duty, honor, and social rules. Sita is expected to be loyal, quiet, and pure. Her role is not to act, but to accept. This shows a strong patriarchal view, where the man is the hero and the woman must support him, even if she suffers.

In Sita Sings the Blues, this idea is challenged. The story gives more attention to Sita’s feelings and pain. We start to question Rama’s actions. He is still “the hero” by tradition, but emotionally he feels distant and even unfair. Sita, on the other hand, becomes stronger in a different way. She does not have power, but she endures pain with dignity. This changes the definition of a hero. The hero is no longer just the one who has control, but the one who survives injustice.

The language and style of each version are very different. The Ramayana uses formal and traditional language, which supports the social rules of its time. It presents gender roles as normal and correct. In contrast, Sita Sings the Blues uses simple language, humor, and modern music. This makes the audience think more critically. It exposes the unfairness in the story instead of hiding it. The modern style breaks the authority of the old text and shows how culture and time can shape what we accept as “heroic.”

This comparison shows that the idea of the hero is not fixed. It depends on gender roles and on the time in which the story is told. What was once seen as honorable can now be questioned. In this way, Sita’s silence in the past becomes a strong voice in the present.

Draupadi was far more intelligent than her husbands. When Yudhishthira messed up in the dice game, she had to take matters on her hands. She questioned her husbands, their cousins, uncles and everybody who witnessed the game about their morality and humanity. She vowed not to tend to her hair so that her husbands would be reminded of the injustice that she had to go through just because of them. In a sense, it was her way of getting justice herself that her husbands ignored.

Draupadi was born from the fire along with her brother. She was far more than a capable and knowledgeable woman, more than what all the five Pandava brothers deserved. It could be said that her character had been less mentioned so that she would not outshine her husbands or other male characters. Saying that the story more shifted towards the masculinity and shadowing the importance of feminism in the society.

If I got humiliated because of my husbands does not mean that others/ my enemies' wives deserve the same. It is their husbands who need to be punished and suffered, not their wives. It kind of feels unfair to me.

If he knew what was going to come, then why did he even do it? If playing the game of dice was his karma to gain dharma, then it does not make any sense at all. Personally, I do not wish to have a husband who's going to put me and his brothers through a lot of suffering just because he wanted to take a risk. And him advising Bheema to be patient is very hypocritical at this moment. I would like to comment that he failed as a husband and also as a brother, the moment he agreed to Shakuni's game knowing that he would be dishonest.

Draupadi's revenge was finally addressed in the epic battle of the Mahabharata. The Pandavas won the war and got their rightful kingdom back from the Kauravas. And Draupadi once again became the queen. Draupadi's sufferings motivated the brothers to be unified and fight against them. Draupadi always made sure that they were reminded of their wrongdoings towards her and fight for her, fight against those who did wrong to her. At the end, good won against evil. It makes me happy to know that even though it was late, she as able to see the demise of those who attempted to sexually harm her, she got justice at the end. It can be understood that they expected Draupadi to go through all that but not raise voice against it at all. She was supposed to be a voiceless girl who dared not speak against unjust done to her. Likewise, her husbands and their cousins were right to abuse her physically, mentally and even sexually. Nevertheless, they were neither accused of the wrongdoings nor prosecuted for that. It seems that what ever they did was absolutely fine. And her voice was not even heard when she did so, meaning that, powerless Draupadi's words were not even considered worthy to be listened.

My focus is on the dialogue that follows this quote; “Each one of them seems to be keen on winning the chaste Draupadi at the Swayamvara.” This quote is referring to the traditional ceremony where a princess can choose a husband from a group of assembled suitors, but the actual power dynamics are a lot less liberating than they appear. Like saying “Keen on winning” places Draupadi not as a human being with free thinking thoughts but as a passive prize that can be won. Like an object that can be obtained without objection or choice.

To me the real hero of the story is not Gilgamesh but Inkidu. Gilgamesh full of human vices despite being a demigod. But Inkidu was the reason why Gilgamesh started to live. Gilgamesh would have being nothing without his partner, he would not have suffer in like without Inkidu's death, and would have not turn his life around either. This is why Inkidu is the hero. CC BY-NC-ND

In this older version , the translation is clear and more explicit. While in other versions these actions are cover under a bunch of metaphors and wordiness. So it looks like when we, ourselves, became more civilize the amount of censorship we created for ourselves also grew. Just think about that Inkidu and Gilgamesh were lovers, and this was not something new, other cultures also practice this. But later became taboo with the help of Christianity. It is just now that we are starting to accept that everyone does not have the same sexual preference, everyone should be free of choosing a partner regardless of sex. Uncivilized does not mean close minded. CC BY-NC-ND

The story of Gilgamesh dates back to thousands of years but it was first written between 2150 - 1400 BCE. Gilgamesh is narrating his dream to his mother so that she could later interpreted. He says that something like a meteor fell him. This dream would become his reality when he encounter his complement , Inkidu.However, when we see the translation by Stephen Langdon, the thing become a person. Why is this? CC BY-NC-ND

In the modern version of Gilgamesh the women who civilizes by having intimacy with Inkidu is now a prostitute (harlot) not a priestess. What does this says about our current relation with sexuality? CC BY-NC-ND

In the old Babylonian version what fell from the sky was something not a person. But yet, in this 18th century translation by Langdon says "He". We later know that, that he was Inkidu but Langdon takes all of the excitement and mystery out of it. Maybe is because during that era people were not as imaginative and patient. CC BY-NC-ND

Here again, the notion isn’t to go beyond stereotypes but to replace one stereotype with another. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/19/-sp-barbie-can-be-a-computer-engineer-but-only-with-help-of-a-man

Gender differences in self-assessments of technological skills are a well-known phenomenon, but it remains tricky. Brenda’s approach works really well, in no small part because of her own skills and personality.