Instead of asking the lady herself, Tous and Giwe insisted on asking Kay-Kavous about who she belongs to. And Kay-Kavous was attracted to her beauty and ended up having her all by himself. In conclusion, nobody thought that it was appropriate to ask it to her itself. It shows that they did not regard her opinion or whom she wanted to partner up with, since she was a woman. Her voice was not even heard. She was barely an object, an eternal source of beauty and entertainment for them. It can be said that females were not given any leading roles neither their decisions mattered at that time. It was a full on patriarchal society where it was the gender role of the men to decide the fate of women whom they had never even had any interactions before.

This incident serves as evidence of valiant bravery, as well as the unavoidable tragic outcome. Kay-Kavous's order for Siyavash to endure such a cruel test exposes the harsh and frequently nonsensical nature of the Shahnameh's legal system. Rather than resorting to dialogue or a fair trial, Siyavash is made to prove his innocence through a life-threatening trial by fire. In doing so, he displays an unshakable belief in his own virtue and submits to his father’s command without resisting. As he seeks purity before his father, his prayer to God prior to going into the flames demonstrates his strong belief in divine justice. Even though he is innocent, his entry into the fire represents the extent he will go to in order to protect his honor. This moment in specific reveals the inherent absurdity of the test, as Siyavash’s need to prove his virtue through such a drastic and senseless act speaks to a broader societal issue in which virtue is judged by unrealistic, and impractical measures. The irony is obvious that even though Siyavash lives unharmed, his good deeds and pure heart will not ultimately spare him from the fate that awaits him. His role as a tragic hero, virtuous and innocent yet still chained by a system which demands complex proof of his worth, is preserved as a testimony by this trial. Additionally, as a piece of the general story, the passage reflects traditional gender roles, and in this case it is the way masculinity is defined and/ tested in the context of heroism and honor.

If Siawosh is the hero then Soudabeh can be considered the villain since her lies led him to go through a lot of pain. She is illustrated as a woman who harbors intimate feeling for her step son and spreads ill things about him when he did not comply with her feelings. Since Kay-Kavous liked her dearly, he could not go against her. However, he never made an effort to ask his son and clear all the misunderstandings there and then. Or it could be that men were supposed to prove their innocence through illogical tests and strengths rather than simply answering the questions honestly. Likewise, had he failed and died during the process, would an innocent person be branded as a criminal? And why was Soudabeh not questioned? How can words enough to prove that she was innocent yet his son was not?

This passage captures the divine nature of Sita’s devotion, as she follows Rama—her husband—into the heavens, symbolizing her loyalty and the spiritual journey she undertakes with him. The phrase “most noble name and race” refers to Rama’s royal and divine heritage, positioning him as the ultimate hero, while Sita’s role as his devoted companion further emphasizes her sacrificial and idealized feminine qualities. The image of “pure celestial stream” descending from the Himalayas invokes a sense of divine purity and transcendence, reinforcing her role not just as a wife but as a goddess-like figure.

In the tragedy of Euripides, Hippolytus is our hero in the story who rejects the concept of woman entirely, he devotes himself entirely to the goddess Artemis and is chastised. Phaedra, his stepmother, is manipulated by Aphrodite and is made to fatally fall in love with Hippolytus. She accuses him after he refuses sheer. The gender roles in this Greek tragedy, while following a similar theme of the heroic and virtues man rejecting the tempting woman, there is a much heavier and thought-provoking concept of Hippolytus and his masculinity being defined negatively due to his anti-woman and sheer arrogance towards them entirely.

Linguistically, the dialogue shows the fragility of humans and the unyielding power of impulsive gods, Greek langue is full of tragic diction and figurative langue that shows the male virtue and one female's guilt and shame that on both ends of the spectrum can either be heroic or destructive. The tragedy critiques patriarchal norms with Hippolytus’ downfall being his hubris and rejection in something such as feminine human nature, and in comparison, to all four stories, Hippolytus has the most critical views of gender among them all.

Enough is enough. Draupadi had to go through a lot because of the cowardice of her husband, Yudhishthira in particular. Thanks to Bheema, the problem of Keechaka had been resolved. Had it not been for him, Yudhishthira might have just watched her being disrobed again and again without even trying to help her.

It was very wrong of her to try and set Draupadi with her brother even though he had forced her to do so. She should have denied the request and alarmed Draupadi instead of this. It is really sad to see a woman not understanding other woman's sorrow. Looks like a woman is a woman's true enemy.

Friends in need are friends indeed.

If she wanted, she would have chosen the life full of riches but she chose not to do so. If not for her love, and responsibilities as a wife, I do not know what else it is for.

This kind of shows Draupadi's love and loyalty towards her husbands even though they literally were about to destroy her life.

I would say that she was the bravest among the braves present in the room. Nobody thought that it was the best to interrupt the game when a woman was objectified and nobody questioned Duryodhana and Shakuni's play. They were all there for their petite entertainment. And when Dhritrarastra realized that it was wrong, it was too late and wanted to cover up the incident by fulfilling three of her wishes.

What he said eventually came true. However, I believe that he had the power to stop all this from happening by just advising his brother that it was enough when he bet Draupadi in the game. Where did his conscience and bravery go when Draupadi needed it the most?

Words of elders were taken as absolute.

Even though the deal was to get Draupadi married off to anyone who won the contest, king Panchala and his family still should have conducted some kind of background check of every contestants present. The life of his daughter depended on it. I do not know if it is a good thing that the Pandavas were fated to get married to her however, being a father, he could have at least shown interest to this matter for the safety and security of his daughter. Whatever the leading male figure in the family says have to be followed by the women in the family and this tradition is still prominent in my society even though it is a misogynistic point of view.

Looks like Draupadi was interested in Arjuna at this time, even though she did not know who he was just because he came in there as a Brahmin. Had Karna been there instead of him, would she still be interested on him?

Nobody till now knows that Karna is in fact lord Surya and Kunti's son, thus he is of a noble birth. However, it can be seen that Draupadi humiliated him based on his caste/last name. Even though she was a woman of great knowledge, she should have still not discriminated others based on their caste. The whole caste system was formed to assign people work based on their family name. However, there is no rule that one must stick to the profession that he/she does not like. And even today, we can often see racism based on the surname. If you are born in a Suta family does not mean that you are a lesser being. Had she be born in Suta family instead of the noble family, would she say the same to the guy from the noble family? Nevertheless, she should have been mindful about Karna's feelings and he even a noble at that time since Duryodhana made him a king.

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.

https://histoire-geographie.ac-dijon.fr/spip.php?article1092

Examples would really help. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would care about this. As was pointed out in the comments, making minor corrections to a CC BY-SA work would not enable anyone to reshare that entire work with corrections under a new license. So the case here is if someone wanted to share minor corrections to a work independently of the work itself and license those minor corrections differently? For example: Here are my typo corrections to a published work, outside of the context of that published work? Example please...