Indian Village Bans Unmarried Women And Girls From Using Mobile Phones
from the sexist,-moi? dept
It's fairly widely accepted that the key digital device in the future will be the mobile phone, not the desktop computer that has had such an impact on Western society for the last few decades. That's partly a question of cost -- if devices are to reach even the poorest in emerging economies, they must be very cheap. But there are also other factors, such as the mobile phone's small size and portability; its rugged design and ability to cope with intermittent power supplies; and the built-in Net connectivity that more or less comes as standard.
But not everyone is delighted at the prospect of this powerful technology becoming pervasive. Here, for instance, is a depressing tale from India:
A village council in the state of Bihar this week prohibited unmarried women and girls from using mobile phones, saying that they promote extramarital affairs and unsanctioned marriages and erode the moral fabric of society. Married women will be allowed to use them only indoors and in the presence of a relative.
Well, perhaps mobile phones have indeed contributed to affairs, but logic dictates that there was probably a man at the other end of the conversation, and it's quite likely he was using a mobile phone too: why not ban all unmarried men and boys from using them, and only allow married ones to make calls under supervision of their relatives? The answer, of course, is that this is not about "eroding the moral fabric of society", but about power, and in particular the erosion of traditional male power in the village:
Many villagers, male and female, attended a village meeting Sunday about the ban, and most favored it, particularly older people, Mr. Alam said. He presided over the meeting. The panchayat [unelected council], which is made up entirely of men, also barred women from bathing outdoors, at water pumps or in ponds or canals.
Moreover:
The village's top elected official, Shamina Khatoon, a woman, was not invited to the panchayat’s meeting on Sunday.
Which is pretty strange, since she is both the top official in the village and a woman, and so might be expected to offer a useful perspective on the proposal.
Other comments from the New York Times article indicate that Indian officials are investigating the matter, which at least offers some hope that the ban will be rescinded. Whatever happens, this incident confirms that one of the best ways of empowering women and weakening the grip of patriarchal power is to help them acquire them mobiles cheaply. Moore's Law and mobile companies eager to sell phones and contracts to anyone, whatever their gender, will make sure that happens whether the village elders like it or not.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: discrimination, india, mobile phones, women
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOSDD
Seriously, same shit, different day. Never ending cycle, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's 2012.
Sincerely,
teh interwebz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll send postcards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respnse to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 5th, 2012 @ 1:53pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL ! Sounds like the GOP are now in India.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Define "ban".
The American Taliban have attempted to enact much more draconian measures than this, perhaps you missed those news snippets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they sexist? or prepared?
Of course the Yurimnars and Yorgps of Techdirt wouldn't understand the true intentions of the google L'serbauns. They have already been enslaved by the google mental network, preventing those just like these commenters from connecting the dots and seeing how Google is truly enslaving the human race one techdirt story at a time. It's a common tactic on calling these village elders sexist, when we should be thanking them for having the spiritual insight of seeing straight through the google conspiracy and protecting their women from the vile influence of Google. It is comforting to know that even people halfway around the world are taking measures to protect themselves from the various Google arms that are stealing portions of our lives, bit by bit. When the great yarmpnt happens and we become little more than slaves to the reptile elder gods who permeate time and space, the only ones left with a free spirit will be the hoarders of tin-foil, me, and the women of Bihar.
REMEMBER THAT MIKE MASNICK IS NO MORE THAN A FLESHY PAWN OF THE SCALY GOOGLE ELITE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they sexist? or prepared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are they sexist? or prepared?
i've been trolled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they sexist? or prepared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they sexist? or prepared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enter your zip code here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bihar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, they are sexists. So what?
What's so new about it? Go to Africa and see tribes hunting with spears and/or praying to totems. Or go to some muslim countries and see local Inquisition version in action.
In short - give them 100 years and they will change many of their ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, they are sexists. So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, they are sexists. So what?
There's no law of nature that says "every culture must be preserved forever".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's asshole men like this....
A little respect goes a long long ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Feel Too 'Holier Than Thou'
(I loved using that word here.)
Lets we forget, we're the country of "legitimate rape", mandatory internal ultrasounds, and other such fundamentalist fantasy.
We may be ahead of Sunderbari Bihar, on an evolutionary scale, but not by much.
Now, what I say we do to solve this problem is to send Kevin Bacon into their town, and baby, just start danciiiin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]