• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

A Thread About Women

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

How do you feel about the recent women movement in America?


  • Total voters
    44
So that poor bastard that was falsely accused of rape won a settlement against Columbia. How in the world that school let that women and other people shame that guy for the rest of his time on campus is inexcusable. The guy was cleared by both the police and the university and this woman was praise for her bravery.

gettyimages-454693090.jpg




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/columbi...ias-suit-by-man-in-mattress-girl-accusations/
To the universities credit, they ended up in the kids side. Dean refused to shake her hand at the ceremony.

But still, fuck the University. And I'm not sure how mattress girl still has any supporters. Really scary how people can refuse to acknowledge reality for ideology

I don't think anyone can know whether or not the guy did it... There's a lot of smoke around both the accusers (there's multiple accusers here) and the guy...

If I had to guess, she was really into this dude, and he kinda wasn't really into her.. My guess would be that he wanted to fuck her in the ass, she said okay, it hurt like hell, she asked him to stop, and he didn't. He kept going...

Is that rape? Yes... Is it the same thing as literally snatching a woman out of the bushes and raping her on the ground? No.... But it's still rape.

I'd also guess that he probably did leave without saying anything, and he probably knew he fucked up... I'd also guess that she really just wanted to talk to him to say "hey, I love you, but you cannot do that.." And, he wasn't really prepared to be confronted, even if it wasn't going to be a confrontational thing .. like .. right after, she'd probably let him try it again...

But, again, my guess, would be that he partially avoided her, and only spoke to her to cover up his tracks.. but did so in such an obvious manner that she caught on.. She probably talked to her friends, they told her "omg he totally raped you," and things rapidly got out of her control and she just went with it. Not that she wasn't raped, but that she wasn't ever intending on reporting it to anyone.

I think there's a LOT of people who look at this and want to inject ideology here; and I don't see any place for ANY sort of "ideology."
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone can know whether or not the guy did it... There's a lot of smoke around both the accusers (there's multiple accusers here) and the guy...

If I had to guess, she was really into this dude, and he kinda wasn't really into her.. My guess would be that he wanted to fuck her in the ass, she said okay, it hurt like hell, she asked him to stop, and he didn't. He kept going... Is that rape? Yes... Is it the same thing as literally snatching a woman out of the bushes and raping her on the ground? No.... But it's still rape.

I think there's a LOT of people who look at this and want to inject ideology here; and I don't see any place for ANY sort of "ideology."
How do you come to that conclusion? What you described is rape and he probably would have gone down for that. The police and the university cleared him.
 
How do you come to that conclusion? What you described is rape and he probably would have gone down for that. The police and the university cleared him.

Based on both of their accounts of what happened and my own life experiences... I've fucked enough girls in the ass to know that "No, stop!" is GOING to get said...

A lot of guys simply do not have sufficient self-control to stop and to hold their hard-on.. The vast majority of guys aren't going to do enough to get a girl going for that kind of sex... And that's usually where it ends.. Woman tries it for the first time, hates it, never tries it again..

Considering she'd never done it before, and it hurts like hell the first time, I'd say there's a 99% chance that she'd tell him to stop and that'd be the point where he'd have to (1) stop, (2) get her horny enough to say "okay try again."

Based on numerous accounts of his behavior, he's compulsive when it comes to sexual encounters (with both guys and girls)... so do I think he had the self-control to stop? Probably not.

But with all of that said, based solely on HER account, I as a prosecutor would not file charges against him.... Do you see what I'm saying.. There's just no way..

Upon what evidence could you possibly convict this man? Her word? Her word is enough to lock him away for years? No.

So of course he'd be cleared, and once the police cleared him, the University acted responsibly in doing the same. I have no problem with any of that.

But again, based on what happened, according to the both of them, I think he did "rape" her, but I also don't think he can be prosecuted for it -- and I also don't think that for MONTHS she ever wanted him to be prosecuted for it.

If you took the anal-sex aspect out of this, my opinion would be the same as yours.. but with that in, and again from my experiences, it makes a LOT of sense that things got out of hand.
 
Last edited:
They exonerated him after going through her texts and fb messages. She asked to do it again.

Oh I know, I know most of the public details, AFAIK... And like I said in my first post:

"I'd also guess that she really just wanted to talk to him to say "hey, I love you, but you cannot do that.." And, he wasn't really prepared to be confronted, even if it wasn't going to be a confrontational thing .. like .. right after, she'd probably let him try it again... "


I've seen it happen before, numerous times.... Rape is a fucked up thing, but also very complicated, and there's a degree to which sex can become rape, and that happens the moment the act is no longer consensual. I think in this particular situation, the act probably became non-consensual, but she was willing to be okay with that because according to both of them, she "loved" him.

Again, I don't think this is a perfect situation, but people using this as a lightning rod for Men's Rights or whatever are just as bad as the folks raining down on this dude based solely on her allegations.. They're both injecting ideology into this, where it doesn't belong.

The reality of the situation is that we have no idea what happened in that room, but her word isn't enough to convict this guy, especially considering her account is damning but, neither provable or reliable, let alone sufficient enough to convict this guy.
 
Rape is rarely provable. The police rarely test their rape kits and take DNA evidence. It has a really low conviction rate. Yes, there are false accusations, but I would wager that more people get off from Rape by many times than are falsely accused.

I think you would have to use some really sophisticated lie detector method, which will never be admissible, to decide many of these. You would also have some instances where both people were found to be telling the truth basically due to circumstances like Gouri proposes. It is a very difficult subject.
 
Google has fired the engineer whose anti-diversity memo reflects a divided tech culture
James Damore’s sexist screed indicted all of Silicon Valley.
Updated by Aja Romano@ajaromano Aug 8, 2017, 8:50am EDT
GettyImages-152766337.0.jpg

(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Google has fired the employee who authored a controversial 10-page memo arguing for less emphasis on gender diversity in the workplace, reports Bloomberg. The document was first posted to an internal company forum on Friday, August 4, and immediately went viral among Google employees; it was then leaked to the media over the weekend, setting off a firestorm of outrage and debate while highlighting the company’s ongoing struggles to meaningfully diversify its workforce.

Titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the memo argues that the reason women are underrepresented in the tech industry has to do with "biological causes" between men and women. Its author, James Damore, was a senior software engineer at Google (a mid-level position at the company); Damore, who holds a doctorate in systems biology from Harvard and had worked at Google since 2013, has confirmed to multiple outlets that he was terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

Damore’s memo specifically criticizes the company for its ongoing diversity and inclusion initiatives, which include encouraging its employees to take classes in unconscious bias. He uses primarily stereotyped misconceptions about men and women to argue that “gender gaps [do not always] imply sexism,” and declares that “discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech” is “misguided and biased” as well as “unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”

Notably, the memo complicates an already unflattering moment for Google: The company has pledged to improve its recently updated internal diversity metrics — which paint an unsympathetic picture of yet another tech company whose employees are predominantly white and male — while also facing wage discrimination scrutiny from the US Department of Labor for systematically underpaying its female employees.

Reactions from Google employees and the public at large have been wide-ranging. Many people are utterly appalled, and have expressed outrage not only over the memo’s dangerous anti-diversity sentiments and faulty logic, but the fact that Damore felt confident posting such a screed to an internal forum for all of his colleagues to see. He even used his own name, which was quickly leaked to the press.

But Damore’s memo has also generated some support — from both inside and outside the company — and thus has kicked off a larger discussion about how far “free speech” should go in workplace environments. It’s also highlighted Google’s lack of gender parity and the tech industry’s ongoing problems with fostering safe spaces for women.

The memo’s stereotype-based arguments and cries for less empathy sparked immediate controversy
Many of Damore’s arguments are based in stereotypes and misconceptions rather than scientific research and facts. For instance, he states that women are more “neurotic” and have a lower “stress tolerance” than men, and that these characteristics — not systemic harassment, routinely being passed over for promotions, or other well-documented instances of sexism in tech culture — are the reason why women do not succeed as often as men do in the high-pressure industry.

Meanwhile, Damore argues that men have a “higher drive for status” than women, and suggests that this factor, rather than well-documented gender biases in the workplace, may be primarily responsible for the lack of women in leadership positions both at Google and in the tech industry as a whole.

Perhaps most disturbingly, Damore calls for Google to “De-empathize empathy,” arguing that “being emotionally unengaged [with the issue of diversity] helps us better reason about the facts.” He decries political correctness, discounting the veryconcept of unconscious bias and arguing against unconscious bias training for Google employees.

And though he initially states that “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes,” he later claims that “stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests,” and that unconscious bias training should spend less time focusing on stereotypes and more on “other types of biases.” (He doesn’t specify what kinds of biases he means, but throughout the memo he frequently mentions Google’s perceived political bias toward the left, which he argues has “shamed [views like his] into silence.”)

Unsurprisingly, the memo has been met with plenty of anger and concern. Many people who’ve discussed it publicly or in conversations that have since been leaked to the press seem to agree that its arguments are faulty and dangerous. Furthermore, many Google employees find it particularly troubling that Damore felt empowered to widely share such harmful views of gender on the company’s internal employee forum.


One engineer reportedly wrote that the memo had caused “irreparable harm … to 1000s of Googlers,” and that “going forward, I cannot — and I will not — work with James Damore.” He went on to detail the ways in which he would not engage with or interact with Damore, his code, or his product development.

On Saturday, Danielle Brown, Google's recently appointed vice president of diversity, responded to Damore’s memo and the backlash it generated via an internal memo to employees. Brown unequivocally dismissed Damore’s arguments, noting, “Like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I'm not going to link to it here as it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.”

Declaring that Google is “unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company," she went on to assert that all employees with “alternative views, including different political views, [should] feel safe sharing their opinions.” “But,” she added, “that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”

When contacted by email, a Google spokesperson also shared a response to Damore’s memo written by Ari Balogh, Google’s VP of engineering:

I’d like to respond to the "pc-considered-harmful" post. Questioning our assumptions and sharing different perspectives is an important part of our culture, and we want to continue fostering an environment where it’s safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful.

Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.

But neither Brown’s nor Balogh’s responses did much to allay the outrage and concerns shared by many of Damore’s fellow Google employees. “There are certain ‘alternative views, including different political views,’ which I do not want people to feel safe to share here,” one engineering manager reportedly wrote in response to Brown’s memo. Several employees openly questioned whether Damore would be fired. One employee reportedly wrote that if Google’s human resources department did not discipline Damore, she would seriously consider leaving the company.

On Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email titled “Our words matter” to Google staff noting that while the company “strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate,” Damore’s memo had violated parts of the company’s Code of Conduct “and cross[ed] the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Pichai continued:

To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. ... The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree — while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct.

The range of reactions to the memo raises questions about the role of free speech in creating safe work environments for all employees
After Damore’s memo was made public, many people echoed the appalled feelings of Google employees who’d spoken out against it. The faulty logic behind the memo dominated the discussion, as did explanations of why Damore’s decision to post it was so inherently damaging.



In a lengthy open letter to Damore, Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee who only recently left the company, shared his views from the perspective of having been a distinguished engineer — an extremely high-level position at Google. Zunger noted that, “despite speaking very authoritatively,” Damore “does not appear to understand” gender, engineering, or “the consequences of what he wrote, either for others or himself.”

Zunger, who wrote as is if he were still working at Google and had been tasked with handling the situation internally, addressed Damore directly to explain not only why the beliefs outlined in his memo are so dangerous, but why writing and posting the memo was such a terrible judgment call:

What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful. You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas. And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?”

I need to be very clear here: not only was nearly everything you said in that document wrong, the fact that you did that has caused significant harm to people across this company, and to the company’s entire ability to function....

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

But not everyone was unified in their opposition to Damore’s memo. A set of informal polls that reportedly circulated internally among Google employees and were subsequently leaked online show a more divided set of reactions, ranging from strong agreement with its position to strong disapproval:

google5.jpeg

It’s important to note that, as indicated in images above, fewer than 300 of the Google’s thousands of employees responded. But the results do hint at deeper underlying ideological differences at Google, and suggest that at least some of the company’s employees agree with Damore’s claims that his views are seen as anathema to a productive workplace and thus should be shamed into silence.


Both inside and outside Google, Damore’s memo has garnered him open supporters, with one blogger calling him “the only set of balls left at Google.” Meanwhile, Motherboard spoke to an anonymous Google employee who described the reaction among his fellow employees as “a mix of women saying, ‘This is terrible and it’s been distracting me from my work and it shouldn’t be allowed;’ Men and women saying ‘this is horrible but we need to let him have a voice;’ and men saying ‘This is so brave, I agree.“

The ensuing debate over his memo and subsequent firing has inevitably touched on issues of free speech and whether any workplace should allow such harmful ideas to safely be voiced. And one overarching theme of that debate has been the argument that free speech cannot and should not be an excuse for employees to spread and legitimize harmful ways of thinking or encourage the dehumanization of other people — especially when the dehumanizing arguments are linked to bad science.

Had Google been willing to tolerate the posting of the memo in the spirit of supporting free speech, such tolerance would undoubtedly have been a deal breaker for many of the company’s employees who were unsettled by the notion that it could embolden more of their co-workers to advocate for sexist or racist views.

It’s no secret that Google (to say nothing of the tech industry at large) has a diversity problem. The company’s most recent workforce representation data revealed that, despite its various ongoing diversity initiatives, 69 percent of the company’s total workforce is male, while 56 percent is white. (At many other leading technology companies, these numbers are far worse.) In turn, Google acknowledged that, “While we’ve made progress in recent years for both women and people of color, there are areas for improvement across the board” — and insisted that it is actively working to hire more women engineers and people of color.

In her weekend memo to employees, Brown argued that Damore’s memo is an unfortunate reaction to Google’s progressively changing culture. “Strong stands elicit strong reactions,” she wrote. But the kind of bias and resistance to change implied by the memo seem to fall in line with the endless accounts of harassment and a deeply embedded “bro culture” that’ve been well-documented by women across the tech industry, and indicate that Google might need to take a much stronger stand in order to make a real difference.

By firing Damore, the company has made it clear that such hostility won’t be tolerated. But Damore’s memo, and the support it has received from some, has also made it clear that the tech industry’s undercurrent of sexism and resistance to change is deeply embedded. And firing a single employee won’t solve that problem anytime soon.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo
 
Glad he was fired.

That kind of shit has no place at a company like Google.

As someone in the field, sexism in IS/IT is overt and rampant... You'll find misogynists and sexists where you least expect them.
I didn't read the entire manifesto, but at first glance it seemed pretty moderate. He wanted to improve the work place for everybody without resorting to discrimination. He also voiced what seems to me well valid concerns over opposing ideas being silenced. Seeing as how he was fired for this that seems to be accurate.
 
So the guy wants to have an open dialogue. Criticizes googles echo chamber culture and silencing of other opinions. Is promptly fired for having a difference of opinion.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read the entire manifesto, but at first glance it seemed pretty moderate. He wanted to improve the work place for everybody without resorting to discrimination. He also voiced what seems to me well valid concerns over opposing ideas being silenced. Seeing as how he was fired for this that seems to be accurate.

You didn't read the manifesto...

Most folks who have an opinion on this topic have neither read the manifesto or actually worked in IS/IT.

What he was saying was nonsensical. Men are less prone to anxiety? Women are biologically more prone to show an interest in men and "things," and this somehow prevents them from doing design, code, and administration as effectively as men?

Then he lied about Google's mentoring programs as being discriminatory, when in reality, they're offered to everyone. He lied about Google's hiring practices, practices I'm familiar with as several colleagues of mine work for Google and I helped one of them land a job there.

And even after all of this, he claims that Google should address discrimination not against women and minorities but against "conservatives."

I get some of you will have preconceived opinions about this based on your own ideas about women and minorities, as does a large segment of the population; but trying to promote this screed of complaints as some kind of moderate take that was somehow wholly appropriate within the corporate atmosphere of a company like Google, in the realities that Silicon Valley companies have faced recently (see: Uber), is more than just a bit absurd.
 
Last edited:
So the guy wan'ts to have an open dialogue.

Google's campus is not the place for an open political dialogue about pet eugenics theories and hypothetical biological cognitive differences between men and women.

Google's campus is a place to get your fucking work done.

You do not have freedom of speech at work.

Criticizes googles echo chamber culture

Google has anything but an echo-chamber culture. It is a predominantly liberal (not-progressive) environment.. It is also a company that is trying it's best to create an inclusive environment mostly focused towards the inclusion of foreigner workers and women.

and silencing of other opinions.

The only political opinion that matters at Google, is Google's.

Is promptly fired for having a difference of opinion.

No, he was fired for releasing the manifesto which violated the terms of his work contract.

This isn't hard to understand.

You cannot do what he did and expect to keep your job.
 
Google's campus is not the place for an open political dialogue about pet eugenics theories and hypothetical biological cognitive differences between men and women.

Google's campus is a place to get your fucking work done.

You do not have freedom of speech at work.



Google has anything but an echo-chamber culture. It is a predominantly liberal (not-progressive) environment.. It is also a company that is trying it's best to create an inclusive environment mostly focused towards the inclusion of foreigner workers and women.



The only political opinion that matters at Google, is Google's.



No, he was fired for releasing the manifesto which violated the terms of his work contract.

This isn't hard to understand.

You cannot do what he did and expect to keep your job.
Google has encouraged this type of behavior in the past. His manifesto was to improve the work place and promote diversity through non discriminatory practices. So apparently you can challenge the company to improve working conditions, but only if you're being pc.
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top