The "web" link worked for me, for what it's worth. The brief summary is that an extremely conservative culture gives men power, and causes husbands and fathers to forbid their wives and daughters from having smartphones.
This is it. Click the "web" link with incognito, the top link (likely) is the Google search result, follow that, then you can see the article.
If you don't use incognito and visit WSJ first and hit the paywall, your browser will have cookies that the site will see and block you even if you arrive via the Google link.
====
“They start talking and the next thing you will have a love marriage or she will run away with a boy,” said Mr. Balbi.
====
Oh the horror! A love marriage? No no no... we cannot have that here...
And then the last 2 sentence of the article say it all, really:
====
Lakhan Singh Arya said it was a father’s duty to protect his daughter because someday she would marry into another family. “A daughter is someone else’s asset,” he said. “They must be more cautious, and we have to go an extra mile to protect her honor.”
====
I have trouble imagining a human being as an "asset"... but maybe it's just me.
The key to understanding many traditional cultures around the world is that men are valued as agents, but not assets, and women are valued as assets, but not agents.
Agent/asset also explains related attitudes including homophobia(blurring lines between agent and asset), culturally accepted abuse(instrumental to asset control), and honor culture(no room for expression outside the agent hierarchy).
Yes, I beleive too often abuse is described in the language of violence, which either ubjustly narrows the definition abuse or expands the definition of violence in ways that illicit confusion or resistance.
Thanks; very insightful. I understand the other three cases, but how are males not assets?
Also, I believe females are often seen as being the liability side of the balance sheet (which is perhaps what you meant). You have to pay another family (pay a dowry) in order for them to take on the woman.
(In case there is any doubt, I strongly believe that every woman is a person who should decide for herself who she wants to be.)
This leads me to beleive that the transaction direction is somewhat arbitrary, and the main purpose is the ritual of negotiating with the other family and then establishing s financial bond to match the matrimonial one.
-----
Social Psycologists would argue that men are more expendable because their low marginal contribution to the reproductive capacity of a society. Indeed there is genetic evidence that the distribution of children was less equal, with many kings with harems on one hand and childless low-status on the other.
Colloquislly, we have memes of "<harmed> even women and children" and "women and children" getting on lifeboats. Male subcultures tend to emphasize competition and unequal outcomes rather than care and cooperation.
Many of the most dangerous jobs skew male, but that could do more with them requiring brute strength.
No its not just you. This is a common behavior in the villages where education is rare and religion heavily influences the lives of people.
Its very depressing to see this exist in 2016 and the govt is busy inciting communal riots against minorities in the name of nationalism.
But there are many Indians who live only in the cities and constantly deny these things as allegations to defame the country and stuff like that. In reality they have never travelled to a poor village or seen their lifestyle.
In most villages that I have visited the men of the house send their women/daughters inside the rooms away from outsiders' eyes!! Yes it happens.
I really hope these things change sooner.
The WSJ journal wants to charge people for access, but it doesn't want to lose prominence in google and the traffic that that provides. However, google isn't going to index information that isn't available to searchers, so they have to leave things entirely open.
Having a smartphone is not a right, but the article does highlight a bunch of stuff that we in the Occident take for granted in terms of equality of rights:
"In parts of rural India, village councils, which effectively dictate community norms, have issued decrees barring unmarried women from possessing cellphones"
"In India, millions use smartphones to find jobs, bank, study, order train tickets, interact with the government and more. Offline options require freedom of movement not available for many women, and extra time and cost in traveling, standing in lines and filling out forms"
It would be unthinkable for modern western countries to segregate as described in the article.
Yeah, we're all about the more subtle behaviors, such as not bothering to study female animal models for a majority of pharmaceuticals over decades, or fighting various aspects of reproductive rights.
To be honest, as someone who literally runs a chat room for people who self-identify as social justice warriors, so will I. Doesn't mean we can't improve. Though this is off-topic for the discussion at hand, so let's get back to it?
The original comment said: "It would be unthinkable for modern western countries to segregate as described in the article."
You replied with: "Yeah, we're all about the more subtle behaviors...."
There are two possibilities: either you think that these more subtle behaviors are at least as bad as the overt segregation discussed in the article, or they're not as bad. If the former, then that's the false equivalency. If the latter, then your reply was pointless.
I think it's different, but I think if you have to waste part of your (I believe) only life fighting for basic human rights, it's wrong. It's especially wrong when those issues so often touch on matters of health, with contribute to an early and unnecessary exit from that life.
Not surprisingly, this has more nuance than the silly black and white options presented by people who have issues.
> such as not bothering to study female animal models for a majority of pharmaceuticals over decades
I thought gender/sex was a social construct and had no rooting in reality. /s
> fighting various aspects of reproductive rights.
Like the inability of a man to abort a child without any input from his partner? Shouldn't a man be able to disavow any paternal and financial responsibility if he doesn't feel like being a father?
Instead of name calling, lets try to create a productive discussion and define some general goals on what reproductive rights should be as human rights, rather than women rights or men rights.
1# No person should be handed responsibility to create or support a offspring without their consent.
2# No child should be without enough financial support to live and grown into an adult.
Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world. In every case there isn't, that is a problem we as a society should try to fix as best we can without causing too much harm to either the unwilling parent or child.
I appreciate you taking the time to find something worth responding to in the mess I seemed to have touched off. I agree with all of your points, but I'm also careful to suggest that if raising a child is something you're unwilling to do, you need to restrict your sexual activity accordingly. That can just mean protected sex with someone you trust, and know would be willing to terminate an unexpected and accidental pregnancy.
What happens when the condom splits and someone changes their mind on termination when the rubber meets the road? Who gets the final say? I do not expect you to have the answer, just that regardless of every precaution taken, shit can get complicated once their is a fetus in play.
The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say, and both parties going in knew that was a possibility. You can't honestly be shocked that sex can have consequences, including some you might not foresee. If you can't afford, under any circumstances including the very unlikely, to have a kid? Don't. Screw.
I agree in the final say being with the woman carrying the child however the father should be able to renounce all rights and responsibilities pre-birth if they do not want the child. Sex can lead to pregnancy and pregnancy leads to kids, both parties know the potential outcome so blaming it on one party seems a bit silly.
It's not blaming anything on one party, two people made a baby, two people have to pay. Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? Again, pregnancy is a known potential complication of sex, and both parties knew that going in.
I doubt that you're confused, so much as confusing the issue for a reason, but what the hell. "No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists. Needless to say, you'll find some inequalities in situations which are unequal, and where one person assumes all of the biological burden, they get the call in regards to their own body. So yes, I clearly support abortion, and I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child. To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest.
Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.
> No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists
The existence is chosen by a woman, who is presumably aware of the fact that it's going to be 9 months of difficult physical changes, followed by 18 years of life changes.
> I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child.
Why do you support that notion? So basically a woman gets to choose to bear a child, but a man has to abide by that decision?
> To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest.
That is a logical fallacy. You've already carried the child to term, now you're roping another unwilling participant into this? When you've already had the choice (easy and affordable) of choosing a difficult path?
> Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.
I don't see how any of my other posts would counter my position of confusion. There is no "hollowness" there. My point has always been that if a woman can terminate a pregnancy, a man should be able to renounce all parental rights and responsibilities.
Remember, your original post referred to reproductive rights. Shouldn't men have those as well? Instead of just being told not to screw?
> The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.
> Don't. Screw.
Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.
>>The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say
>You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.
Either you misunderstood what I said, or you think that there is something to be gained from harping on semantics. Either way... no thanks.
>>Don't. Screw.
>Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.
Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences, like having a child, or having to provide for a child. I have to say though, that in general this conversation does not seem to center around the impulsive choices of children, for the obvious reasons you've outlined. The usual way I see this issue framed is:
Condom broke.
-or-
"Conniving" woman poked a hole in the condom.
Sex is precursor for reproduction, but since recreational sex is not only common but (in my view) the majority, I don't find it a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction. Just because a woman got a unwanted pregnancy through consenting sex doen't mean she should be forbidden to take an abortion. Both women and men can and do have consenting sex without consenting to be a parent.
The issue is how to deal with those cases, and make sure that everyone is treated in a fair way. Society should make rules that reflect a balance that respect people as much as it possible while doing as little harm as possible. I could suggest solutions here (like say, the government stepping in when there is only one consenting parent involved), but I don't claim to know what the perfect solution is. My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. We need to start by defining common grounds and then ask how we can best reach those.
> I don't find it [sex] a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction
Excellent point; thanks for the insight.
> My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction.
While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.
There is unlikely to be anything like a perfect solution, and placing the burden on the taxpayer anytime a parent decides to brush the kid off seems unfair as well. A good guideline though, is that you can't force people into medical procedures, or force them not to get one they want/need. Given that life is unfair in that way, or at least not equal, the law is going to reflect that inequality to some extent.
In general I'd agree with you, but there are adults who really could benefit from medication but refuse to take it to their detriment and to the detriment to others in society. So I think, while I agree to a great extend with your above opinion, I think there are cases where professionals should be able to coerce people to take their meds.
Yes, I know abuse is possible, but given the alternative, I'm willing to take that risk, unless this kind of person has someone else who will be responsible and can be responsible for this person.
I have to be honest, the history of making people take medication has been an ugly one; I'm not sure if we've really moved past it either. If we had perfect medications without grievous long term adverse effects, I'd agree with you in any case though.
Do we then say that men should not have the right to decline parenthood because its too expensive for society, while at same time say that women should have the right because its a fundamental liberty?
We could, but it is not a good sound bite when calling for gender equality and reproductive rights. It also sound as there is more, maybe smaller steps that we could do to minimize the difference in rights and responsibility when it comes to reproductive rights.
> men should not have the right to decline parenthood because its too expensive for society, while at same time say that women should have the right because its a fundamental liberty?
Yes. It's an interesting philosophical point, but there are real differences between men and women and this one is pretty straightforward.
Markov chains are bad at understanding context, and so is the GP. This post is about village women's rights in India, how did we get a thread several comments deep about the rights of wealthy white men? Oh right, we are on HN I forgot...
Perhaps what you should be seeing is the forest and not the individual trees. It was not too long ago that women in the west did not have the vote, I'm sure they would not have been allowed cell phones if they existed back then. Now however they have equality with men in the eyes of the law and are in the main treated as such. Yes there are some areas where improvements can still be made but would you prefer to be protesting for women to have the right to make their own decisions (as opposed to them being made by their husbands, fathers or brothers) or that pharmaceutical trials paid more attention to gender differences?
The point is that in the West we have made significant improvements in the equal treatment of women and we are continuing to improve. Yes it should be both but to compare the treatment of women in Muslim countries to the suggestions you made is disingenuous at best.
On the other hand, look at the dating "markets" in China, which stemmed from the one child policy. It's certainly interesting to see how different countries handle the same problem (more men than women). In China women have gotten a lot more "negotiating power" in that women can be choosier and pick from the men with the most money/car/house.
This piece, which I found interesting, argued that the One Child Policy actually had a sort of "feminist" effect and was not exactly to blame for the gender imbalance:
> Besides, there were benign aspects of the one-child policy, especially for girls. Traditionally females were used as domestic help, birth machines or clan assets to marry off or trade. Women didn’t go to school, and were encouraged to internalise the saying that ‘a woman without talent is virtuous.’ Illiteracy was their proper condition: they were there to clean, farm, and above all to give birth to a male heir. They could not dine with men at the same table. Even today in many rural areas, all the family resources are invested in the male heir. The one-child policy forced people to review many of their assumptions, and at least try to treat girls as they would boys: parents, after all, were not able to choose their child’s sex, and had to come to terms with whichever they got. The policy also ended the nonsense that having a girl put paid to the family line. I have only one male cousin on my father’s side (regarded as the precious ‘trickle’ of the family bloodline), but when he had a girl, our family promptly abandoned their absurd talk about the male line. Cheers.
> Western scholars and human rights activists are inclined to blame the one-child policy for forced abortions, female infanticide, the under-reporting of female births and so on. These issues were deadly serious but they resulted less from the policy than from the nature of Chinese patriarchy, which the policy threw into sharp relief. People were willing to break the law, to pay a fine to have a second go at having a boy, even to murder or abandon female babies. Paradoxically the one-child policy undermined the atavism of tradition, even while seeming to encourage it. I grew up in Hefei, about 500 km west of Shanghai, where I remember a striking young girl from the countryside who attended a private violin class; she was the daughter of peasant parents who spoke poor Mandarin. Without the one-child policy, her father would have tried fanatically to conceive a second, third, fourth child, until the family produced a male heir. His daughters would have led miserable lives. Instead, he invested in his only child’s violin lessons.
reply