Namit Arora- stupidest blogger on 3 Quarks

3 Quarks Daily sounds like a high I.Q type of place don't it? At first blush, that's exactly what it is. There's always some smart Sciency stuff linked to as well as desperate appeals for money- I didn't read the small print but think they burn it as a Green alternative to wife-swapping or something equally chichi.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that it gives off a sort of toney vibe and is edited by aristocratic Pakistanis who probably dress up like Arianna Huffington to bum each other. To be clear, I'm not saying that they bum each other. Just that they would dress up like Arianna Huffington if that's what they'd decided to do after mature reflection and a penis transplant.
Mention of which organ brings me to Namit Arora- the retarded Hindu monkey whom the sophisticated Pakistani editors have on a leash to fling feces at us from time to time.
What is Namit's major malfunction?
His English is perfectly serviceable. He isn't a drooling nutjob. He puts some effort into his posts.
Unfortunately, he is as stupid as shit.
This is Namit on public perception re. rape in Delhi-  'Anyone trying to analyze the issue must at least ask: who are the rapists, where do they rape, and how common is rape in Delhi? The latest 2014 data on rape from Delhi Police is a great place to start, not the least because it challenges the conventional wisdom of Delhiites and their media and politicians. It shows that, as in other countries and consistent with previous years in Delhi, men known to the victims commit the vast majority of rapes—96 percent in Delhi. These men include friends, neighbours, ‘relatives such as brother-in-law, uncle, husband or ex-husband and even father.’ More than 80 percent of them rape inside the home of the victim or of the accused. Strangers commit only 4 percent of rapes, which are also likelier to be reported. Yet so many people fixate on this latter scenario and conclude from it that Delhi is unsafe for women to go out by themselves.'
Okay, you may be saying to yourself, so our boy Namit doesn't know from Statistics. But, Namit studied engineering at IIT and has a Post Grad in something I.T related and worked in Silicon Valley!
He does too know Statistics. What he doesn't know is human beings.
Suppose the following two statements are true.
1)  99.9 per cent of all fatal stabbings in the heart are not self-inflicted.
2) 80 percent of all fatal self inflicted stabbings involve the slashing of the throat.
Can we conclude that if you want to survive a self-inflicted stabbing, you should stab yourself in the heart?
Of course not. You don't need to know Stats to decide this one. We are human beings and we have all sorts of extra information which the 2 statements given above don't capture.
For example, we know that the heart is a vital organ. Stab yourself in the fatty portion of the arm or the thigh and you are likely to survive. Don't stab yourself in the heart unless you really want to die.

The reason such a small proportion of women get raped by strangers is because women in Delhi tend to be extra careful when going out. Why are they so careful? Is it because they are all very very stupid and need Mr. Namit Arora to come from Amrika to tell them they have nothing to fear? Will Delhi turn into a paradise for women if they learn from Namit?
But what great lesson does he have for them?
Can it really be the following?-
'Instead of sleeping in your bed- where you are more likely to be raped- you should go and sleep in the street. If you see some strange men drinking in a deserted building, go and lie down next to them. They are not family members or friends or acquaintances of yours. Furthermore, you are not inside a home. What are you waiting for? Just go and lie down next to those drunken thugs. You won't get raped.'

Is it a good thing that Delhi women are afraid to go out at night? No. Delhi needs the economic power of its women. If women are safe from rape when going out there will be more economic activity and thus more tax revenue to pay for things like improved policing. Not just women, men too will be safer. Rapists who operate in public places also rob and beat men. Everyone, except a small percentage of criminal psychopaths is made better off if Policing improves in Delhi. That's why, two years ago, the whole of Delhi united in outrage against shoddy policing which led to the avoidable rape and brutal killing of a young trainee-physiotherapist.

Arora thinks the people of Delhi are stupid to have reacted like this. He says 'Strangers this year committed about 8 rapes per month in Delhi, the second largest city in the world with 25 million people. In London, a third as populated as Delhi, strangers committed about 36 rapes per month—a rate 13X Delhi’s. By comparison, Delhi seems significantly safer for women. Other Indian metros are even safer than Delhi. Could this really be true?'

The brief answer is 'no, it isn't true'. Delhi women have very much lower level of social inclusion and economic participation, especially during the night or in under-policed areas, than London. Why? Because of their 'justified true belief' that large parts of Delhi are unsafe for women after dark.
If Delhi want's to stay competitive, this must change.

Arora doesn't get that human beings, unlike silicon chips, alter their behavior on the basis of expectations. In London, if there are a number of sex-attacks in an area, women change their pattern of behavior. They ensure that Policing is beefed up. Ultimately, people move out of high crime areas- they vote with their feet.

Arora thinks fear of rape in Delhi is an example of 'cognitive bias'. It isn't. An attractive woman who walks alone down the highway at midnight in Delhi will definitely be accosted. A car or a truck will pull up and she will be bundled into it and driven away at speed. Not every woman will be raped but it is high risk behavior. In London, if I see a woman on her own who appears at risk, I call the police. They turn up within ten to fifteen minutes (at least round where I live). They talk to the girl and make sure she gets home safely. What makes this possible is London's much higher police to public ratio (though this is changing).

 If all women made it a point to roam around at night- imposing perhaps a 'Nishabandh' or curfew- no doubt the problem will disappear. However, in a situation where, at the margin, the number of women economically active at night is still very small then it makes sense for Policing to be beefed up till more and more women 'reclaim the night' and the problem disappears by itself.

Arora is of a different view. He thinks the privatized media have created a non-existent problem to drive ratings. In other words, Indian women are stupid and have an irrational fear of roaming around late at night. The Media, which is 'patriarchal' plays up this fear so as to force women to remain at home where they will be raped instead of going out and sleeping in the street next to some bunch of drunken hoodlums who won't lay a finger on them because they have not been properly introduced.
This last is an important point which Namit's genius has uncovered. If you commit one rape of a stranger, you are then obligated to rape 25 of your acquaintances because otherwise the 4% ceiling is breached. This is the true reason, Delhi's women would be safer sleeping on the street than staying at home. I may mention, husbands statistically make up a large percentage of rapists. Women should never sleep with their husbands because statistically they are much much more likely to be raped by their husband than by a stranger.
'But a downside of this media coverage has been that most people not only continue to conflate the 4 percent of ‘stranger rapes’ with the whole problem of rape, they imagine its incidence to be much higher than it is. As a result, people have ended up with a heightened sense of fear for women being raped when they venture out by themselves—above and beyond their longstanding dread of women being catcalled, ogled, stalked, or groped in public transportation. The latter are the primary threats that women have long encountered in Delhi’s public spaces and they fuel a legitimate sense of insecurity; this perhaps makes it easier for the extensive coverage of ‘stranger rapes’, uncommon though they are, to unreasonably heighten their sense of insecurity.' 
Is Namit aware that the rapist typically begins his assault with verbal harassment, followed up by groping? If a woman is too terrified to fight back and if she receives no aid, Namit thinks her assailant will say 'sorry, Ma'am, can't rape you due to that would be to conflate groping/harassment with rape. There is no connection between the two.'

The odd thing about Namit's post is that the Pakistani editor of 3 quarks thinks it is 'well  argued'.
The following is from the comment section-
Kiren Bedi is a veteran police woman who knows Delhi well. She has described how Delhi can be made safer. Namit Arora is not interested in making Delhi safer. He wants to talk about 'Patriarchy'. Why?

• Saudi Arabia is patriarchal. So are most Swiss cantons. German domestic law is way more patriarchal than India's. So what?
  Do dads really want their daughters raped? Do grand-dads get a kick out of hearing their grand-daughter was brutally raped and killed? If this so called 'Patriarchy' invests money in female college education, is it because it wants educated women to be raped and killed or because it wants to boost Joint family disposable income?
  Namit thinks scolding some supposed 'Upper Caste' Patriarchy helps women. It doesn't. It is foolish. Listening to Kiren Bedi, strenghtening Aanganwadi etc. is sensible. Arora won't do it.

  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  This article is somewhat misleading. Delhi presents certain unique features

  1) the Police is not under the control of the elected Govt. but under the Centre

  2) A disproportionate level of protection is given to VIPs and this all too visibly affects resource availability and response times

  3) Police check points fall into abeyance absent a Security threat even though there is no sound reason for this

  4) Vast distances and danger of suspects escaping to bordering states

  5) Nexus between 'village elders' in newly developed areas and Station S.H.O's- i.e. 'khap panchayat' reactionary attitudes gain salience.

  The result is that Delhi is indeed unsafer than Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, Kolkatta, but also Patna and Lucknow- not to mention Ahmedabad where young girls are free to ride scooters and meet their friends late at night. Of course, Delhi has always been a collection of cities with vast empty spaces interspersed. In many ways, rapid development has filled in those spaces but Policing levels have not responded.

  Criminologists and senior Police officers have put forward a sensible plan which can eliminate a lot of such crimes. However, so long as the Centre retains control of Policing in the Capital, bureaucratic red-tape and 'turf wars' will prevent sensible steps being taken.

  Women only Police Stations and 'Aanganwadi' cells in poorer neighbourhoods are vital.

  Namit Arora asks 'If we do the math, Delhi still registers a lower incidence of rape than most of the 76 U.S. cities in the DoJ list. Indeed, why aren’t the Americans nowhere near as fearful of rape in their public spaces as Indians are in theirs?'. If he has visited Delhi he would know the answer. Delhi women don't venture out into 'public spaces' after a certain hour. In other words, Delhi has lower rape because the likelihood is higher and women act rationally. The former Chief Minister of Delhi herself confessed that her daughter did not venture out at night because she felt unsafe in Delhi. Yet, her friends in Ahmedabad would think nothing of getting on their scooters to meet up for a mid night snack.

  Is Modi's Gujerat a matriarchal paradise compared to Delhi? No. Policing is under the control of the elected Govt. and the people don't want vicious rapes occurring on their streets.

  Arora ways- 'if Delhi’s public spaces are unsafe, it’s not due to the likelihood of rape.' Clearly he has discovered a concept of 'Likelihood' far different from that of standard Bayesian analysis. A place is unsafe if rape can occur there. Lack of safety is highly correlated with crimes of violence.

  Suppose Delhi's public spaces were both unsafe and had low likelihood of rape. Then it must be the case that the people whose criminal conduct makes Delhi unsafe are not interested in forcible sex. Perhaps Arora believes that Delhi's criminal element are all eunuchs. They enjoy beating and robbing people but have no interest in forcible sexual intercourse.

  Is this a reasonable belief?

  One might say 'the Indian male is a purely spiritual being. He considers all females as his mothers and sisters. Even when he beats and kills people- thus rendering a public space unsafe- he would never dream of raping anyone until and unless the ' caste patriarchy of Delhi’s mainstream media and politicians—including the liberal ones' somehow brainwashes him.'

  Is Arora a particularly reactionary member of a 'Hindutva' organisation? Does he believe 'rape never happens in 'Bharat' (traditional India) and only occurs where the 'liberal' media has influence?

  Arora says 'Groping and other harassment are serious issues that need to be dealt with, but it doesn’t help to conflate them with rape'. Is he right?

  The fact is groping and harassment are the initial stages of rape. If you can prevent a person groping you, no rape can occur. If people are locked up for harassment, including stalking, their capacity to rape is curtailed.

  Arora thinks we should blame 'Patriarchy'. Why? Do fathers really want their daughters to be raped? If women are seen as property, is it not also the case that Patriarchy does not want that property to be coercively trespassed upon?

  Arora quotes Adrienne Rich ‘The woman’s body is the terrain on which patriarchy is erected.’ In patriarchy, the female is not only seen as property—first her father’s, then husband’s—her sexual sanctity and propriety become central to these men’s izzat, or dignity and honor.

  In other words, Patriarchy is highly incentive compatible for rape prevention.

  The Brahmin Agraharam is more patriarchal than the Tribal Gotul. It has less rape. Why? Patriarchy minimises opportunities for rape- which is an opportunistic crime. No doubt, it permits marriage and other types of prostitution which, twisting words somewhat, one may classify as rape. That is a different discussion.

  The fact is women in Delhi face greater likelihood of sexual harrassment, groping, rape and murder, than their sisters in most other metros. The Indian public acted rationally in pressuring the Govt to implement changes advocated by senior Police Women, like Kiran Bedi. Their ire led to the election of a Third Party candidate who promised to make the Police answerable to the elected Govt.

  Empty talk of 'caste based Patriarchy' is a red herring.

  Matriarchal or matrilocal communities in India have far higher incidence of opportunistic rape and trafficking. Compulsory ritual prostitution was and is a feature of purely Female power structures.

  Arora says 'Only in a society saturated with caste patriarchy do certain rapes by strangers, and not other violence against women, generate calls for killing the offenders.'

  Is he correct?

  Suppose what he writes is true. Then Evolutionary Biology- Hamilton kin-selection, the Price equation etc- is false. A stranger comes along and rapes and kills one of our women. We don't revenge ourselves upon him so as to send a signal, because... well, we didn't really evolve by natural selection at all.

  God made us in his image. Someone rapes and kills your daughter. You offer him a nice pakora and cuppa tea. Everything is hunky dory. Then some evil 'caste patriarchy of Delhi’s mainstream media and politicians—including the liberal ones' brainwashes you. Suddenly you snatch the pakora out of his hand and start baying for the fellow's blood.

  What, oh what are we to do?

  The answer is, we should study the writings of Namit Arora instead of demanding proper accountable policing in Delhi.

  Will women in Delhi be safer if we implement Arora's proposal (as opposed to Kiran Bedi's)?

  No.

  Rape is linked to sex-trafficking. Even if everyone is properly sensitivised, women will be raped- if they fight back they will be killed, clearly such women are not merchandisable- and then, once their spirit is broken, they will be sold on.

  What if we have compulsory 'Gender sensitivity' training. It may cost about half of India's GNP and take 25 years to properly implement but once it is up and running will rape disappear?

  No. Sociopaths will continue to exist and if the domestic supply falls short, foreigners can fill the gap. So much for Arora's first suggestion- viz. '(1) changing minds through efforts like better gender and sex education in schools, more public debate and cultural conversation on gender equality, deeper reflection on the magnitude of our obsession with ‘stranger rape’ versus our apathy to the more pervasive structural violence of female foeticide, child marriage, and trafficking.' I may mention that only Arora is obsessed with 'stranger rape'. Everybody else just doesn't want their daughter or wife or work colleague or whatever raped by anyone at all. That is why rape is considered a crime. It would be a waste of resources to devote resources to changing minds when only one mind, that of Namit Arora, holds a perverse and mischievous view.

  What of his second point? viz.-'(2) reforming our civic institutions—the police, the courts, legislative bodies, and the media—so they’re more efficient, responsive, and friendlier to a wider cross-section of women in India.'

  For a reform to be better than what went before, the reformer must be at least as smart and knowledgable as those who currently wield power. However, Arora's prescriptions are based on the notion that

  1) Human beings did not evolve by natural selection
  2) Bayesian Likelihood Estimators are false.
  3) Delhi, unlike any other metro, has a uniquely evil 'caste patriarchy of... media and politicians—including the liberal ones' with magical powers to brainwash its people.

  
  
  • 
    

    In conclusion, women want an end to sexual violence NOW. The tax revenue working women in Delhi contribute to the exchequer more than makes up for the extra cost. Women are not asking for some special favour. The facts speak for themselves. Industry needs female labour power 24/7. Delhi is not an agricultural region nor are its expenses defrayed by levies on the feudal hinterland. On the contrary, the working women of Delhi pay for Village development.
    Protecting women from rape also helps men. The gang that rapes also robs. There is a nexus between career criminals and corrupt politics.
    Everybody in Delhi already knows this. The people acted rationally by taking up the 'Nirbhayya' issue. Arora projects something that only exists in his own mind onto the 'great unwashed' of Delhi- whose English may not be as elegant as his, but whose thinking is actually much more progressive.
    Back in the Sixties, we often used to hear that Gender issues were irrelevant to the Struggle. 'Come the Revolution' everything would be peachy. Women needed to take a back-seat and provide comfort to the 'comrades'.
    The Feminists of the early Seventies were derided as evil harridans. Shulamith Firestone went mad. Germaine Greer- who had been raped but didn't feel able to report it (nor did Jill Craigie who was raped by Arthur Koestler)- did a volte face in the Eighties (Sex & Destiny).
    The suffering of women of such calibre, whatever their personal shortcomings, was not lost on the generation which came of age in the Eighties and Nineties.
    I regard this post by Mr. Namit Arora to be unconscionably retrograde, ignorant and condescending.
    Why has 3Quarks published this?