If you're a gamer are you going to care about a few bucks on your electric bill or a difference of 30% in frames per second?
I'm a gamer, and I don't care about a few extra bucks on my electric bill. I do however care greatly about the heat that extra power will generate. I also care about the extra noise those fans will generate trying to dissipate that heat.
Like many people here, I'm a shareholder, and I disagree with all of the points you are making. Not only that, I think they are destructive to the company and I would vote to remove any idiot from the board that proposed them. Let's watch...
Well, if you think men and women are equal, you are happy because it will decrease the gender gap
Why? What's the point? Decreasing any perceived gender gap doesn't do shit for the company value. There is no benefit. It's a social issue (assuming that you consider it an issue to begin with). If you want the PR the money is much better spent on ads and commercials for, you know, the damn products you are selling.
If you think men and women are different, you are happy because now Blizzard will have people able to make games that women like because, by being different, men cannot really understand women.
Why? If Blizzard is trying to cater more to girls, they will at the same time "un-cater" exactly as much to the boys. And where is the market? Boys have an overwhelming majority in the games business. If you were designing games for smartphones to play on the bus, there would be a point here (but not really because the company would already be aiming equally for girls then since it would be the demographic that actually purchased the games).
There is no benefit in turning away from the largest audience in favor of the smaller one when Blizzard is a dominating player there already. Why decrease profits for no reason?
The only way I can see a problem in hiring women, is if they are somehow *inferior*. But that is not in discussion is it?
No, but you seem to want to imply that it is, just like you and your kind kept on doing when the discussion was on Damore and his memo.
If they're equally good there is no reason to expend time and resources on finding them or PR on getting them to apply since the same quality can already be achieved by doing nothing at all. With that said, it doesn't seem to take into account any non-programming benefits (PR, diversity subsidies etc)
Well boy do I feel silly. I assumed you just wanted to make a counter argument but didn't have the time to post more than a link.
Anyhoo, it was a good clip, though I wish that they could have found some gender "researchers" with at least attempts at some kind of data-supported refutations.
Russia has a very strong economic incentive for individuals because there is no social security net. If you are poor in Russia you are screwed. In that it is very similar to India and China.
I can't believe this was voted as somehow insightful. This is nothing but conspiracy theories.
This. Something else went on that he's deliberately not telling us. His own memo opens with "Reply to public response and misrepresentation". Reply to what I have to ask?
What? You interpret his title, from an ongoing discussion, as evidence of a shady scheme? It's a title. That's it. What's next, Illuminati coming to steal your fridge?
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink. That's what HR deals with no matter how "Lib-rle" the alt-right thinks the organisation is, as others have said Google is a Fortune 100 company, this means HR is done properly. Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
No, CEO's get called back when media shitstorms happen, which is what happened. There's no secret conspiracy going on.
Meanwhile, Damore has been crying foul all over alt-right media but ignoring major publications without an obvious bias. What was he saying about Google's ideological echo chamber? Even the WSJ only counts as semi-legitimate having become yet another Murdoch mouthpiece.
Yes, it's crazy right? Almost as if he wants to talk to the outlets that won't try to crucify him? Almost as if he's gotten burned before by the radical lefties? Almost as if he believes that the outlets that removed his references and citations so they could lie about his claims and slander him won't give him a fair hearing?
Reading between the lines, his actual philosophies are much harsher than the memo eludes to and likely got into an argument with other employees. Something was said or done that was harsh enough for a lot of employees to make a complaint about, harsh enough that a CEO had to be called back from holiday. If this is true, trying to create a media circus will eventually backfire, especially the way he's currently doing it. The only thing saving him would be that it is illegal for Google to release the actual details on why he was fired, if he sues, this comes out.
So, what you are saying is that when you disregard what he said in favor of what you want him to have said, it's easy to believe that he has done all kinds of nefarious things "behind the scenes", but noone at Google will mention it because the people who tried to get him fired and beaten are just too kind and noble to leak whatever it was that he did? Yes, that totally makes sense. Ockham's razor and all supports you... It really does makes sense that Google would prefer to be the bad guys and take the PR hit in this scenario instead of leaking any wrongdoing on Damore's side that could justify them firing him. All companies *love* bad PR.
We've heard Damore's side of it, I'd like to hear Google's, which is probably being parsed by some very high priced IR lawyers as we speak. As always there's three sides to the argument, your side, their side and the truth.
You haven't heard Damore's side at all, you have concocted his side all on your own and then smeared him with it.
You didn't actually check the whole video, did you? The conclusion is that the gender "researchers" are wrong, have no research to back up their claims at all, and are quite fanatical to boot.
The biologists (and the evolutionary psychologist) all present research and studies. The gender "researchers" only provide feelings and hearsay. When the gender "researchers" are confronted with the studies that show them wrong, they accuse the real scientists of "weak" research without any reason as to why, and then accuse them of being partisan because they spend "so much energy and effort trying to prove that men and women are biologically different, and why would they do that". I'm not kidding, the gender "researchers" that have actively chosen to work specifically with gender issues accuse biologists of being too focused on gender related issues!
So, to summarize, the biology side presents research and studies (using in fact the very same argument I did earlier), the culture side presents feelings and personal attacks.
Try watching the whole video, you'll have a good laugh.
Actually, 30 years ago the economy of Sweden was stronger, and the social security was even better. So unfortunately what you are saying is perfectly in line with the hypothesis.
Also, I didn't mention technical aptitude... That's the same projection that keep sneaking into the attacks on James Damore.
Quite the opposite, it supports those claims rigorously.
You see, programming is an economically sound choice in China, and the economically sound choice far overrides any personal preference in countries where being poor equals being abused to death or getting sold off into marriage (this also includes Iran, another country with a close to 50% parity). Hence, you would expect to see 50% parity in students assuming that male and female students are equally likely to pass the admission tests.
In order for this thesis to hold, we would also need to look at countries where the economical motivation is close to 0. A good choice for this would be the Nordic countries, well-known for having the strongest social security nets around. What does the distribution look like there? Let's have a look. These are the number of applicants to the various CS programs in Sweden ("datavetenskap") for the second semester of 2016. They are split into three columns: University, Number of female applicants, number of male applicants, (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong since my Swedish isn't that good)
Univ/högskola Kvinnor totalt Män totalt Göteborgs universitet 60 345 Högskolan i Skövde 38 339 Karlstads universitet 3 9 Linköpings universitet 5 50 Linnéuniversitetet 29 65 Linnéuniversitetet 1 18 Malmö högskola 111 571 Mälardalens högskola 59 408 Stockholms universitet 192 848 Stockholms universitet 40 116 Umeå universitet 28 278 Umeå universitet 33 285 Umeå universitet 4 18 Uppsala universitet 91 604 Uppsala universitet 9 52 Uppsala universitet 1 7 Uppsala universitet 5 22
A quick normalization on these two lines will tell you that in Sweden about 15% of applicants to CS programs are female. And this is from Sweden, the equality capital of the world.
So, when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms to push women away from CS (assuming there ever was), you can expect around 15% of CS majors to be female. Unless you think the women are more free and equal in Iran and China of course.
Well, at least Trump was right about America making the "worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever". Only thing he got wrong was claiming someone else was responsible for it. "Big win" indeed.
Here is a simple set of questions that will guarantee the asker will be called a racist, sexist nazi: - Do genetics have any effect on a person's biology?
Yes
- Does biology affect physical and/or mental ability?
Yes
- Does biology have any bearing on expressed gender or sex?
Yes
- Are there any biological components to racial identification (skin color, eye shape, etc)?
Yes
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in physical endeavors (running, weight lifting, etc)?
No, but this does not have to be because of biology at the group level. It is only probable.
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in mental endeavors (math, science, programming)?
No, but again, this is not guaranteed to be because of biology. It is only probable that it is.
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in physical endeavors?
No, and this is because of biology.
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in mental endeavors?
No. But this is only asserted in subconscious styles, not in complex behaviour.
We can say with certainty that male brains are wired to solve and act quickly, much like we would expect from a creature that lives and dies on the savannah according to reflexes and quick thinking. The brain is after all the "edge" of mankind over the more direct and combat-capable animals. Female brains are wired to empathize and communicate, making them better suited for fostering children and functioning in a social grouping (such as maintaining the tribe's functions).
But it is very important to note that these are *overall* patterns, and each individual differs in some way from the mean. Thinking in terms of communication or the fastest solution does not make anyone dumber or smarter, just like solving math equations can be done either directly or by dividing the problem via easier subproblems. Because there are so many ways to view and solve problems, we will likely never know which approach is *overall* better, assuming that it's even going to be xor rather than a mix of the various styles.
Everyone here should know a buttload of classic algorithms for solving problems and that these algorithms are useful in different scenarios (exhaustive search and greedy both have their uses). That is why we cannot say if anyone is *overall* better in any given profession - we can only say that women are *more often that not* well suited for communication heavy roles, while men are *more often than not* well suited for timed actions such as quick decision making or management where many decisions are needed per day. This doesn't only apply to board rooms, but quick decisions are also needed in firefighting, policework, military, stock exchange brokering, and first person shooters. Do those sound like areas mostly men *are interested* in?
As for *logic*, I don't think there are any notable differences in gender-based performances. 90% of logic is after all having knowledge of the field and applying what is known. That has nothing at all to do with either subconscious style, and hence there is no benefit for either approach. Or, if there is, it is trivial enough to not matter. IQ tests seem to validate this.
Anyhoo, to sum up the rambling with something practical, if you want to get it right every time you need to evaluate each person according to individual ability, because both men and women can differ significantly from the mold. It is fully possible to find a kickass decision makeress, just like it's possible to find a kickass murse. It's just less likely. As always, statistics mean nothing in the individual case.
Naah, only men can express themselves poorly. Women are biologically better communicators.
Just remember that it's all cultural and social though. Unless it's sexism, then it's biological. Otherwise someone might think it sexist when you blame a whole gender for your poor communication skills or when someone needs to communicate specifically with the junior members of the team and doesn't give you all the attention you feel you deserve.
Even if people didn't take the photos themselves, there have always been people trying to point cameras at beaches or up skirts and then masturbate over them.
I do consider myself a bit of a technophile but I would never masturbate over a camera.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
And yet, here you are. You are a white male yourself, and you seem not only able to "understand" the difficulties of being a minority, you also act in what you perceive to be their best interest. Yet at the same time you claim that others are incapable of doing this specifically because they are white males. How can you hold these to opposing views at the same time?
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century.
I will assume you mean politically correct, and not politically incorrect.
Second, what? Perhaps trumpists are on Damore's side, but to partition everyone that does not hold your views as trumpists says nothing about others and all about you. Liberals would strongly oppose firing Damore, part because he's well-sourced and supported by the evidence, and part because liberals do not like the authoritarian McCarthyism on display. The fact you think science is sexist also speaks volumes about your preference for fanaticism over fact. The fact you think science belongs in the 19th century is humourous, but it also makes me sad.
However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
You think he proposed to install company rules that would supersede the constitution and laws of the land to where women get killed for being raped? Wow, that's some perspective. Perhaps read at least TFS before posting next time.
Warrior on, dear internet warrior, and warrior proudly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a gamer are you going to care about a few bucks on your electric bill or a difference of 30% in frames per second?
I'm a gamer, and I don't care about a few extra bucks on my electric bill. I do however care greatly about the heat that extra power will generate. I also care about the extra noise those fans will generate trying to dissipate that heat.
Like many people here, I'm a shareholder, and I disagree with all of the points you are making. Not only that, I think they are destructive to the company and I would vote to remove any idiot from the board that proposed them. Let's watch...
Well, if you think men and women are equal, you are happy because it will decrease the gender gap
Why? What's the point? Decreasing any perceived gender gap doesn't do shit for the company value. There is no benefit. It's a social issue (assuming that you consider it an issue to begin with). If you want the PR the money is much better spent on ads and commercials for, you know, the damn products you are selling.
If you think men and women are different, you are happy because now Blizzard will have people able to make games that women like because, by being different, men cannot really understand women.
Why? If Blizzard is trying to cater more to girls, they will at the same time "un-cater" exactly as much to the boys. And where is the market? Boys have an overwhelming majority in the games business. If you were designing games for smartphones to play on the bus, there would be a point here (but not really because the company would already be aiming equally for girls then since it would be the demographic that actually purchased the games).
There is no benefit in turning away from the largest audience in favor of the smaller one when Blizzard is a dominating player there already. Why decrease profits for no reason?
The only way I can see a problem in hiring women, is if they are somehow *inferior*. But that is not in discussion is it?
No, but you seem to want to imply that it is, just like you and your kind kept on doing when the discussion was on Damore and his memo.
If they're equally good there is no reason to expend time and resources on finding them or PR on getting them to apply since the same quality can already be achieved by doing nothing at all. With that said, it doesn't seem to take into account any non-programming benefits (PR, diversity subsidies etc)
Well boy do I feel silly. I assumed you just wanted to make a counter argument but didn't have the time to post more than a link.
Anyhoo, it was a good clip, though I wish that they could have found some gender "researchers" with at least attempts at some kind of data-supported refutations.
Russia has a very strong economic incentive for individuals because there is no social security net. If you are poor in Russia you are screwed. In that it is very similar to India and China.
Russia also has very traditional views of women.
I can't believe this was voted as somehow insightful. This is nothing but conspiracy theories.
This. Something else went on that he's deliberately not telling us. His own memo opens with "Reply to public response and misrepresentation". Reply to what I have to ask?
What? You interpret his title, from an ongoing discussion, as evidence of a shady scheme? It's a title. That's it. What's next, Illuminati coming to steal your fridge?
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink. That's what HR deals with no matter how "Lib-rle" the alt-right thinks the organisation is, as others have said Google is a Fortune 100 company, this means HR is done properly. Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
No, CEO's get called back when media shitstorms happen, which is what happened. There's no secret conspiracy going on.
Meanwhile, Damore has been crying foul all over alt-right media but ignoring major publications without an obvious bias. What was he saying about Google's ideological echo chamber? Even the WSJ only counts as semi-legitimate having become yet another Murdoch mouthpiece.
Yes, it's crazy right? Almost as if he wants to talk to the outlets that won't try to crucify him? Almost as if he's gotten burned before by the radical lefties? Almost as if he believes that the outlets that removed his references and citations so they could lie about his claims and slander him won't give him a fair hearing?
Reading between the lines, his actual philosophies are much harsher than the memo eludes to and likely got into an argument with other employees. Something was said or done that was harsh enough for a lot of employees to make a complaint about, harsh enough that a CEO had to be called back from holiday. If this is true, trying to create a media circus will eventually backfire, especially the way he's currently doing it. The only thing saving him would be that it is illegal for Google to release the actual details on why he was fired, if he sues, this comes out.
So, what you are saying is that when you disregard what he said in favor of what you want him to have said, it's easy to believe that he has done all kinds of nefarious things "behind the scenes", but noone at Google will mention it because the people who tried to get him fired and beaten are just too kind and noble to leak whatever it was that he did? Yes, that totally makes sense. Ockham's razor and all supports you... It really does makes sense that Google would prefer to be the bad guys and take the PR hit in this scenario instead of leaking any wrongdoing on Damore's side that could justify them firing him. All companies *love* bad PR.
We've heard Damore's side of it, I'd like to hear Google's, which is probably being parsed by some very high priced IR lawyers as we speak. As always there's three sides to the argument, your side, their side and the truth.
You haven't heard Damore's side at all, you have concocted his side all on your own and then smeared him with it.
Thank you for defining bad faith argument for us.
Also, no you haven't taken ten different PhD programs.You don't even know what a PhD program entails.
You didn't actually check the whole video, did you? The conclusion is that the gender "researchers" are wrong, have no research to back up their claims at all, and are quite fanatical to boot.
The biologists (and the evolutionary psychologist) all present research and studies. The gender "researchers" only provide feelings and hearsay. When the gender "researchers" are confronted with the studies that show them wrong, they accuse the real scientists of "weak" research without any reason as to why, and then accuse them of being partisan because they spend "so much energy and effort trying to prove that men and women are biologically different, and why would they do that". I'm not kidding, the gender "researchers" that have actively chosen to work specifically with gender issues accuse biologists of being too focused on gender related issues!
So, to summarize, the biology side presents research and studies (using in fact the very same argument I did earlier), the culture side presents feelings and personal attacks.
Try watching the whole video, you'll have a good laugh.
If you feel that Russia is a bastion of equality and financial safety, then I don't think you are open to being convinced of anything different.
Actually, 30 years ago the economy of Sweden was stronger, and the social security was even better. So unfortunately what you are saying is perfectly in line with the hypothesis.
Also, I didn't mention technical aptitude... That's the same projection that keep sneaking into the attacks on James Damore.
Quite the opposite, it supports those claims rigorously.
You see, programming is an economically sound choice in China, and the economically sound choice far overrides any personal preference in countries where being poor equals being abused to death or getting sold off into marriage (this also includes Iran, another country with a close to 50% parity). Hence, you would expect to see 50% parity in students assuming that male and female students are equally likely to pass the admission tests.
In order for this thesis to hold, we would also need to look at countries where the economical motivation is close to 0. A good choice for this would be the Nordic countries, well-known for having the strongest social security nets around. What does the distribution look like there?
Let's have a look. These are the number of applicants to the various CS programs in Sweden ("datavetenskap") for the second semester of 2016. They are split into three columns: University, Number of female applicants, number of male applicants, (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong since my Swedish isn't that good)
Univ/högskola Kvinnor totalt Män totalt
Göteborgs universitet 60 345
Högskolan i Skövde 38 339
Karlstads universitet 3 9
Linköpings universitet 5 50
Linnéuniversitetet 29 65
Linnéuniversitetet 1 18
Malmö högskola 111 571
Mälardalens högskola 59 408
Stockholms universitet 192 848
Stockholms universitet 40 116
Umeå universitet 28 278
Umeå universitet 33 285
Umeå universitet 4 18
Uppsala universitet 91 604
Uppsala universitet 9 52
Uppsala universitet 1 7
Uppsala universitet 5 22
A quick normalization on these two lines will tell you that in Sweden about 15% of applicants to CS programs are female. And this is from Sweden, the equality capital of the world.
So, when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms to push women away from CS (assuming there ever was), you can expect around 15% of CS majors to be female. Unless you think the women are more free and equal in Iran and China of course.
While the factory was heralded as a big win for President Trump and Governor Scott Walker
If he claims responsibility then the snark should be directed at him.
Also, "Literally everything in your post is wrong."? You are the reason the word literally was changed to mean its opposite.
Well, at least Trump was right about America making the "worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever". Only thing he got wrong was claiming someone else was responsible for it. "Big win" indeed.
Actually, I'm for unions and labor protections, I'm for the NLRB, and I'm for Damore in this fight (though he may or may not be an asshole).
Oh, and I'm a liberal.
As a biologist , I would answer the following -
Here is a simple set of questions that will guarantee the asker will be called a racist, sexist nazi:
- Do genetics have any effect on a person's biology?
Yes
- Does biology affect physical and/or mental ability?
Yes
- Does biology have any bearing on expressed gender or sex?
Yes
- Are there any biological components to racial identification (skin color, eye shape, etc)?
Yes
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in physical endeavors (running, weight lifting, etc)?
No, but this does not have to be because of biology at the group level. It is only probable.
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in mental endeavors (math, science, programming)?
No, but again, this is not guaranteed to be because of biology. It is only probable that it is.
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in physical endeavors?
No, and this is because of biology.
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in mental endeavors?
No. But this is only asserted in subconscious styles, not in complex behaviour.
We can say with certainty that male brains are wired to solve and act quickly, much like we would expect from a creature that lives and dies on the savannah according to reflexes and quick thinking. The brain is after all the "edge" of mankind over the more direct and combat-capable animals.
Female brains are wired to empathize and communicate, making them better suited for fostering children and functioning in a social grouping (such as maintaining the tribe's functions).
But it is very important to note that these are *overall* patterns, and each individual differs in some way from the mean. Thinking in terms of communication or the fastest solution does not make anyone dumber or smarter, just like solving math equations can be done either directly or by dividing the problem via easier subproblems. Because there are so many ways to view and solve problems, we will likely never know which approach is *overall* better, assuming that it's even going to be xor rather than a mix of the various styles.
Everyone here should know a buttload of classic algorithms for solving problems and that these algorithms are useful in different scenarios (exhaustive search and greedy both have their uses). That is why we cannot say if anyone is *overall* better in any given profession - we can only say that women are *more often that not* well suited for communication heavy roles, while men are *more often than not* well suited for timed actions such as quick decision making or management where many decisions are needed per day. This doesn't only apply to board rooms, but quick decisions are also needed in firefighting, policework, military, stock exchange brokering, and first person shooters. Do those sound like areas mostly men *are interested* in?
As for *logic*, I don't think there are any notable differences in gender-based performances. 90% of logic is after all having knowledge of the field and applying what is known. That has nothing at all to do with either subconscious style, and hence there is no benefit for either approach. Or, if there is, it is trivial enough to not matter. IQ tests seem to validate this.
Anyhoo, to sum up the rambling with something practical, if you want to get it right every time you need to evaluate each person according to individual ability, because both men and women can differ significantly from the mold. It is fully possible to find a kickass decision makeress, just like it's possible to find a kickass murse. It's just less likely. As always, statistics mean nothing in the individual case.
THAT'S DISCRIM..... wait, they're both dudes? Then this won't get me any virtue points. I'm out...
Naah, only men can express themselves poorly. Women are biologically better communicators.
Just remember that it's all cultural and social though. Unless it's sexism, then it's biological.
Otherwise someone might think it sexist when you blame a whole gender for your poor communication skills or when someone needs to communicate specifically with the junior members of the team and doesn't give you all the attention you feel you deserve.
Do the Irish count as white? Because they just might disagree with you.
Even if people didn't take the photos themselves, there have always been people trying to point cameras at beaches or up skirts and then masturbate over them.
I do consider myself a bit of a technophile but I would never masturbate over a camera.
I look down on both. Why? How do you usually do it?
Not since they fired Damore.
Actually, reasonable precaution matters in both of those crimes, and even more so when it comes to replacing the stolen items through insurance.
It seems he never completed is PhD, according to Harvard.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
And yet, here you are. You are a white male yourself, and you seem not only able to "understand" the difficulties of being a minority, you also act in what you perceive to be their best interest. Yet at the same time you claim that others are incapable of doing this specifically because they are white males. How can you hold these to opposing views at the same time?
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century.
I will assume you mean politically correct, and not politically incorrect.
Second, what? Perhaps trumpists are on Damore's side, but to partition everyone that does not hold your views as trumpists says nothing about others and all about you. Liberals would strongly oppose firing Damore, part because he's well-sourced and supported by the evidence, and part because liberals do not like the authoritarian McCarthyism on display. The fact you think science is sexist also speaks volumes about your preference for fanaticism over fact. The fact you think science belongs in the 19th century is humourous, but it also makes me sad.
However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
You think he proposed to install company rules that would supersede the constitution and laws of the land to where women get killed for being raped? Wow, that's some perspective. Perhaps read at least TFS before posting next time.
Warrior on, dear internet warrior, and warrior proudly.
Perhaps the very things that were written in the memo? Seems like an odd way to point out that you didn't RTFA. Is that why you're posting as AC?