Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:banerjee, professor of economics, mit, and a cofounder of jameel poverty action lab (j-pal) was either thoughtless or inconsistent when he agreed with mamata banerjee that open expression of love (public dispalys of affection) between young, middle-class men and women provoke sexual assaults. to be consistent, he should also have mentioned two other obvious factors which bring home to poor, rural young men, the inaccessibility of (sex with) young women, and thus incite them into rape and other sexual assualts on women.

i am hoping that banerjee was misquoted.

i've been reading his and esther duflo's "poor economics."

Rishi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:banerjee, professor of economics, mit, and a cofounder of jameel poverty action lab (j-pal) was either thoughtless or inconsistent when he agreed with mamata banerjee that open expression of love (public dispalys of affection) between young, middle-class men and women provoke sexual assaults. to be consistent, he should also have mentioned two other obvious factors which bring home to poor, rural young men, the inaccessibility of (sex with) young women, and thus incite them into rape and other sexual assualts on women.

i am hoping that banerjee was misquoted.

i've been reading his and esther duflo's "poor economics."

What are they?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

the lopsided sex ratio for one. there are not enough women to have sex with.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

the lopsided sex ratio for one. there are not enough women to have sex with.

Then how do you explain Keral?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rishi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:banerjee, professor of economics, mit, and a cofounder of jameel poverty action lab (j-pal) was either thoughtless or inconsistent when he agreed with mamata banerjee that open expression of love (public dispalys of affection) between young, middle-class men and women provoke sexual assaults. to be consistent, he should also have mentioned two other obvious factors which bring home to poor, rural young men, the inaccessibility of (sex with) young women, and thus incite them into rape and other sexual assualts on women.

i am hoping that banerjee was misquoted.

i've been reading his and esther duflo's "poor economics."

What are they?

the lopsided sex ratio for one. there are not enough women to have sex with.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rishi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:banerjee, professor of economics, mit, and a cofounder of jameel poverty action lab (j-pal) was either thoughtless or inconsistent when he agreed with mamata banerjee that open expression of love (public dispalys of affection) between young, middle-class men and women provoke sexual assaults. to be consistent, he should also have mentioned two other obvious factors which bring home to poor, rural young men, the inaccessibility of (sex with) young women, and thus incite them into rape and other sexual assualts on women.

i am hoping that banerjee was misquoted.

i've been reading his and esther duflo's "poor economics."

What are they?

the lopsided sex ratio for one. there are not enough women to have sex with.

No, rapes in big cities are not becase of a lopsided sex ratio. Abhijit Mukherjee is right to identify these random rapists as largely the sexual have-nots. For poor immigrants from the hinterland, legitimate access to sex is impossible. No city-bred girl, even if poor, will sleep with him leave alone marry him. He lacks money, he lacks housing, he lacks the city-savvy and most importantly, he lacks prospects.

And at the same time, as if to rub salt into his injuries, he sees boys move around with girlfriends. He sees women walking around unaccompanied, flaunting their bodies. He sees them laughing, joking and shockingly, even smoking or drinking with men who are clearly not their fathers, brothers or husbands. He's bombarded by images of the Kareena Kapoors of the world flaunting their bodies enjoying getting pawed by anonymous men in the background.

So technically, it's not incorrect to say that public displays of affection or skimpy clothes contribute to rape. They do have that impact I described. Only, it's incorrect to focus on that and try to restrict women. After all, nobody tries to stop us from flaunting our wealth from economic have-nots. We don't attribute theft/robbery to the victim's wealth or excuse the robber because of his poverty. So why treat rape any differently?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rishi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:banerjee, professor of economics, mit, and a cofounder of jameel poverty action lab (j-pal) was either thoughtless or inconsistent when he agreed with mamata banerjee that open expression of love (public dispalys of affection) between young, middle-class men and women provoke sexual assaults. to be consistent, he should also have mentioned two other obvious factors which bring home to poor, rural young men, the inaccessibility of (sex with) young women, and thus incite them into rape and other sexual assualts on women.

i am hoping that banerjee was misquoted.

i've been reading his and esther duflo's "poor economics."

What are they?

the lopsided sex ratio for one. there are not enough women to have sex with.

No, rapes in big cities are not becase of a lopsided sex ratio. Abhijit Mukherjee is right to identify these random rapists as largely the sexual have-nots. For poor immigrants from the hinterland, legitimate access to sex is impossible. No city-bred girl, even if poor, will sleep with him leave alone marry him. He lacks money, he lacks housing, he lacks the city-savvy and most importantly, he lacks prospects.

And at the same time, as if to rub salt into his injuries, he sees boys move around with girlfriends. He sees women walking around unaccompanied, flaunting their bodies. He sees them laughing, joking and shockingly, even smoking or drinking with men who are clearly not their fathers, brothers or husbands. He's bombarded by images of the Kareena Kapoors of the world flaunting their bodies enjoying getting pawed by anonymous men in the background.

So technically, it's not incorrect to say that public displays of affection or skimpy clothes contribute to rape. They do have that impact I described. Only, it's incorrect to focus on that and try to restrict women. After all, nobody tries to stop us from flaunting our wealth from economic have-nots. We don't attribute theft/robbery to the victim's wealth or excuse the robber because of his poverty. So why treat rape any differently?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What about car rapes? Are these rural poor who own cars but no women, and decide to rape the flaunting girls?

Are you supporting Raj Thackerey and blaming the Bihari rural people?