Tulsidas and Dhol Ganwar Shudra Pashu Nari

There has been lot of condemnation of Tulsidas for past many years for the copulate 'Dhol ganwar sudra pashu naari, sakal tadana ke adhikari.' This copulet has been raised repeatedly in many forums by Dalits and women to malign Tulsidas.
Now, I am not fan of Tulsidas as a guide for worldly conduct, though I have been drawn deeply and has experienced the living and mystical nature of his poetry. But whenever I have seen the accusations based solely on this copulets by Indian intelligentia as well the responses of those assuming to be an authority on Hinduism; I have been deeply pained to realize the intellectual bankruptcy of both. Most of the defences is based on the interpretation of word 'Tadana' and the defensive arguments are extremely ridiculously contorted, that it seems probably Indians have lost their common sense. Why?
Because in Ramcharitmanas "Dhol ganwar Shudra Pashu nari.." was uttered by frightened Sea, when it was on fire, its life was on stake and had come to surrender to Rama. These parts were uttered by a character, which has been criticised by Tulsidas as well as Rama. It is important to see the preceding section where, Tulsidas calls Sea as 'jada' (means stupid) (5.57)and succeeding section where 'Kagbhushundi' calls him 'neech' means low (5.58). And in between Rama has compared sea to being shatha and kutil and Rama has condemned his arrogance. In fact in Ramacharitmanas, this is one of the rare instances when Rama has been angry on someone. So it is quite obvious that Tulsidas did not want it to be worthy of being carried out.
It is something which even a middle school student learns that in a story, if a character is making a remark it can not be attributed to be the motive of author. I am not yet convinced that my explanation would be making sense to many (so much frustrated I have been by the intellect of these university educated intelligentia and defenders of Hinduism), so let me give an example which everyone can understand. If in a movie like say ' Mr. India', the character portrayed by Amrish Puri 'Mogambo' utters some anti Indian statements, one can not charge the writer or director of the movie with having antinational feelings. It becomes important to see how the character has been treated. Does the writer or director empathises with the character? Or it can not be said based on the behaviour and something said by Gabbar Singh that the writer of Sholay is propagating armed robbery and murders.
I am not saying that there may not be instances in Ramacharitmanas where Tulsidas's prejudices against women and Shudra can be detected ( I am not saying there are either). But it surely behooves those determined on criticising Tulsidas or Hinduism to pick up the valid issues and not make mockery of themselves. It is also important for defenders of Hinduism to check out the original excerpts with proper context.
Having said that, let us remember that Tulsidas is not an authority of morality or social customs and rules. Ramacharitmanas was not written by that aim too, and Tulsidas has not claimed so also. Tulsidas had written it with no more purpose then merely as a source of joy for himself- "swantah sukhaay tulsi raghunath gaathha.." and to share his mystical insights with others. He never thought of becoming an authority, he always considered himself as a humble servant of Rama. And by making available this deep mystical experience in common dialect of the time to every one who was willing to enjoy it he has succeeded in what he was undertaking.