Why stop there, the vast majority of rapes take place within a 30 year window, according to your calculations 100% of women have been violently raped. Hell, let's push it up to 40, women who don't even exist have been raped.

The point you're missing is that the numbers used were exaggerated to illustrate the lunacy of feminist statistics, they don't resemble anything anyone sane might imagine as real.

And feel free to ignore the rest of the comment while you're at it, including the linked paper. Call that axe grinding if you like.

Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.

So where do they come up with these moral panic inducing mountains of statistical tripe?

To understand this we have to look at the methods they use to take these surveys. Look at the technical reports. You'll find lots of stuff like:

Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved.

Terms such as rape are left out of questionnaires and it's left to the researchers (all of whom happen to be feminist trained) to decide whether or not rape took place. So if someone answered that they were verbally abused using a sexual slur or had sex while drunk, it's the researcher who decides if the women was sexually attacked.

And take a look at California's shiny new feminist inspired affirmative consent laws if you want to know whether having sex after a drink is rape or not.

This gets further distorted by the public mouthpieces, who translate these numbers into 25% of all women were raped. No, they weren't. That one in four women in modern western democracies, one in forty was raped is not a prospect that the rational mind can entertain.

This is a technique that was pioneered by Mary Koss, a feminist researcher who decided that the official unbiased government reports weren't giving her the answers she wanted, so she set up her own surveys in order to amend the statistics accordingly.

Post survey examination of the outcomes however revealed that around three quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred, and continued dating them.

So, having internalised that, now you'll have to start asking questions like "how did these flim flam artists manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for 40 years" and "why are people in power listening to them" and so on. These are good questions to ponder. While you're pondering them some light reading for you:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/...

One random guy being sent photos does not a gender issue make. If you want to talk about gender issues maybe we can talk about the actual epidemic of female teachers raping male and female students in high schools, how about that for a conversation we need to have. Because that's what happens when you create a narrative that puts people into jobs based on their genitalia instead of their merit. You sanctimonious little pricks speak only, and I do mean only, for your revolting little cult.

Nobody's ever said harassment didn't exist. It does, as does rape, murder, fraud, and pickpocketing. Usually perpetrated by psychos and disturbed individuals.

Psychos and seriously disturbed people also exist, of course - unfortunately some of them seem to think that there's an enormous epidemic of rape and harassment.

It stayed slow after re-entering the normal environment though.

They don't provide complete functionality. Instead they put you in a position where making even minor changes that the framework developers didn't foresee usually involves far more time than you had planned on spending, and likely far more skill than you possess if you're still using frameworks.

Personally I prefer to give my clients what they ask for instead of trying to convince them they don't want something that will cause me a lot of trouble to put together. I can do that because I understand the underlying code.

And for bonus points, you don't have to relearn the underlying code over and over, as you do with ever shifting frameworks, and your knowledge doesn't become obsolete when a framework falls out of fashion.

It's not even a great sales pitch, I have zero interest in what my toaster has to say.

Yeah this is the dream of a sociopath who imagines himself a god, and I'm not even using hyperbole.

Does it scare you that such a person has so much power already? Because it scares me.

Well that's half of facebook fucked.

The ascendant middle class is relentlessly plundered by the government in these countries, anytime anyone tries to get a leg up there's a queue five miles long waiting to gnaw it off. I wish I could have more faith in the benefits of capitalism in this regard but I've lived in these places, paid my dues and kept my damn mouth shut far too long to imagine it's going to end well.

Maybe you're right, but the question to ask is were there forces in the US at the time that are not present in these benighted geographical armpits today?

That's not how it works. These countries aren't poor because bad ol' whiteys keeping them down or Imperialism a century and a half ago, they're poor because they have shitty corrupt governments. The president in South Africa taking aid money to build his private palace, the looting of aid to the Philippines after Haiyan, whatever. Nothing will change until the people in these countries put an end to governmental corruption, whether that's the bent cop taking bribes to let you off a traffic ticket or the leader of the nation looting its coffers.

That's why CSS was invented.

Mm. Bottom line is that when a woman cries everyone rushes to help, when a man cries he's treated with disdain. That's both the reality and not neccessarily a bad thing for men, indicative as it is of an expectancy to solve problems and deal with personal responsibility, but the OP's dodgy phrasing merely reflects the general social and personal expectations placed on women these days, which are few and far between.

And feminism is not helping in that regard. What, you want to talk about manspreading and the Corsten report? These things do not make women stronger, they will not create Ellen Ripleys. They create generation after generation of adult children.

Sexism my ass. If anything techies love capable women and respect them, as do most men.

I prefer to not be part of the pollution myself. Toxic feminism and social justice acolytes can burn.

Bluntly, this stuff is a great deal easier than C.

Which is great right up until the client requests something not covered in the framework/library, and then hey, you're back in the trenches praying to stackexchange.

Yes, which is exactly what happens when you're faced with a requirement not part of the framework's capabilities.

Ever had to explain to a client why you could roll out this great website in a couple of days, but changing the layout of the calendar will take a week or so while you unpick the various files and dependencies? No thanks.

No, instead you're wasting time keeping up with the latest and greatest libraries and fashionable trends.

Learn the basics, feel free to use the experience of those that came before to avoid reinventing the wheel, and forget the fancy frameworks.

If someone asks do you know jQuery, tell them no, but you could write it from scratch.