4 ms·

Don't have a subscription to read it. Would be glad if anyone can summarize the article here.

mikeash 10y ago
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.
- sbierwagen 10y ago
  Web link didn't work for me
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Try an incognito window. I hear that WSJ is setting cookies once you see their paywall and showing it every time after that regardless of referer.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      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.
realo 10y ago
One of the sentences at the beginning: ==== “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.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  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.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - zubat 10y ago
    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).
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      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.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Interesting. Is this a well-known theory? I'd be interested in reading more about it.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      To my knowledge it has not been elsewhere summarized as such. This is my personal synthesis of what I've read.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        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.)
cpncrunch 10y ago
Just do a google search for the title, and you should be able to read the full article for free.
- spaceandshit 10y ago
  Why does this work?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - cb18 10y ago
    Because the WSJ wants Google to index their articles, but Google will penalize sites that show different content to a regular user vs a crawler. Or something like that.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    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.
ddinh 10y ago
Non-paywall link: http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/why-the-vast-majority-of-women-in-india-will-never-own-a-smartphone-116101401144_1.html http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/why... (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.)

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.

sbierwagen 10y ago
Web link didn't work for me
- mikeash 10y ago
  Try an incognito window. I hear that WSJ is setting cookies once you see their paywall and showing it every time after that regardless of referer.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    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.

realo 10y ago

One of the sentences at the beginning: ==== “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.

Ericson2314 10y ago
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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zubat 10y ago
  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).
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    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.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Interesting. Is this a well-known theory? I'd be interested in reading more about it.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    To my knowledge it has not been elsewhere summarized as such. This is my personal synthesis of what I've read.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      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.)

cpncrunch 10y ago

Just do a google search for the title, and you should be able to read the full article for free.

spaceandshit 10y ago
Why does this work?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cb18 10y ago
  Because the WSJ wants Google to index their articles, but Google will penalize sites that show different content to a regular user vs a crawler. Or something like that.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  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.

ddinh 10y ago

Non-paywall link: http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/why-the-vast-majority-of-women-in-india-will-never-own-a-smartphone-116101401144_1.html http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/why... (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.)