Why the Vast Majority of Women in India Will Never Own a Smartphone
wsj.com
wsj.com
"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.
My response was hardly disingenuous, and I don't appreciate that characterization.
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.
Not surprisingly, this has more nuance than the silly black and white options presented by people who have issues.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/20137281411...
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.
==== “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.
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.
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.
(The site will try to prevent you from reading the article if you have an adblocker, but you can bypass it by blocking all scripts.)
Or something like that.