Actually on those days, padivratya was maintained by the sumangalis in three distinct ways. One is dying before her husband, second is dying at the second after hearing husband's death (like mandodari in ramayan), and this third one is what you mentioned sati. Sati on that days, is not a forced act. If you are going to take the example of matri, The legend goes like this only. Kundi and matri fight between each other to go along with their husband pandu and serve him in heaven. So, it is very clear that it is not a forced act that days. Also, there are many characters said whom lived as widows. Why not we take an example of aryamba???
So, Sati is not at all needed. Some women who actually doesn't want to live in this world after his death, started this kinda culture supposed to be, which at a stage turned out as a compulsary act. Even, this is treated as a cheap kind of death. In bhakta vijayam, Padmavathi (jayadev's wife) says to the queen, on hearing the death news of her husband, the lady should give up her life out of their true love at that second itself. If not, what is the reason in dying by sati???
At the sametime, the sati of rajputs are not like that. They did so, only coz of their love. Noone has compelled them to do that.
Unfortunately at this time, I accept the truth that no men has died in myths and legends for his wife like this. At the sametime, we cannot say this custom as male chauvinism, which at a stage turned like that with the help of many females (like mamiar, nathanar, oor peria mamigal).... Somehow, it got abolished.
Thanks to rajaram mohan roy.
I even consider SATI is ok. The torchers they gave to the widows were like that. Wearing sandal sari, with cleanshavenhead, always saying rama rama alone, not waering any kinda jewels, leading an isolated life. I always feel pity for mottaipattis. This society has luckily changed to some extent now. When considering these living widows leading nonliving life, I consider SATI was better.
Pranams