I am surprised by what you wrote. So, you obviously think that if a person writes 90% of correct stuffs, and 10% of wrong stuffs, we have to focus on 90% of correct stuffs. But in reality, a man has to write 100% correct stuff. Even if someone is inserting 1% of her biased stuff among the correct stuffs, he is a fake person, and his dishonesty has to be denounced.
-> Are you saying that you are not biased at all?

Another thing is, to make statements like " I think the women's situation in Nepal is very much connected to the cultures and faith we carry." is easy. In fact, it is obvious. But it has nothing to do with Swasthani per se. In our own culture, brothers have to 'dhog' their sister, parents give money to their young daughter but not to young brother in religious ceremonies and several girls are often considered deviko awavatar. We can't pick things selectively to denounce our heritage.
-> How can you absolutely say that swasthani has nothing to do? There are obviously many good things including the ones you wrote in our culture, but there are many as she wrote. Isn't understanding and debating is the way in the right direction?

This woman has plainly written that "Swasthani needs to be rewritten" . Go and read this article. What do you mean by rewritten? Then she goes on to say why this thing is unscientific or that thing is unscientific. Find me a culture that doesn't have unscientific, unbelievable things written in their scripture of those era. This doesn't mean we have to erase or rewrite those things.
-> I agree with this part. I would be concerned on correcting in the present as rewriting is not going to change. But one thing I would like to point is that many of us still have blind faith in what is written. Many still do fasting during swasthani even for a month long and I doubt if they would give roti to their daughters.

bekar ko bahas.
-> I won't call it bekar ko bahas.

1. Women rights issues are different issues from your heritage issue. Yes, women rights are important. If you saw a husband beating a woman, a woman not getting her rights inside her family, a daughter being kept at home but son being sent to schools, etc etc, these are women rights issues. We must address these issues seriously.
-> Some of these things are very much connected to the cultures and stories we believe absolutely (e.g. swasthani).

2. Once you start looking for 'scientific basis' in old works--as Nirmala Sharma does-- or once you start judging old works based on what zeitgeist is, then you will have to destroy a lot of things. In fact, since modern science started only in last 100-200 years, you will have to destroy or rewrite everything of the past that precede 200 years. This is a really stupid idea that this author has advanced.
-> I agree about not making sense about rewriting.

Khoikkhoik and danphe,  
you guys are nuts; did you even care to click the page 1 at the bottom of this thread?