that's wrong in every mythological or historical story it's not said that male has to protect female or Only sister can tie rakhi to brother or he will have to consider her his sister because of a rakhi. That became a thing when rani karnavati sent rakhi to humayu... Rakhi is more ancient thn that.
sanchi (wife of Lord Indra) tied it to her husband's wrist for his wellbeing in war. It's not like now onwards she will be his sister and it's nowhere mentioned that he will protect her now onwards same with kunti Abhimanyu... It was for protection of thr male and not of thefemale.... Because they used to go to the wars and not the females.... So sisters used to tie rakhis on brother's hand...And then time changed and women were being assaulted so the narrative changed and it was the female who needed the protection and rakhi become promise of brother to protect his sister at any cost. now again the time has changed and we don't need to protect each other in that sense anymore so it has become the fastival of love and care as you said.
And people can follow and choose not to follow whatever they like... But calling something patriarchal without knowing it's orgin or the context is wrong.
you are right, probably I didn't read in depth as you have. Which rises the question, if Rakhi isn't about protection of women in its origin at all, rather more about protection of the men, why are radical feminists getting their panty twisted.
0