What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[Forty Two]

While I continue to argue that Hunt did nothing wrong, I still think he was an idiot.

An idiot to apologise, and an idiot to resign from anything.
In doing that, he was the architect of his own misfortune.

He should have just said, '' I made a joke, and you are taking it out of context '' and ''if you want me gone, you'll have to sack me''.

Why someone with his brains couldn't work that out is beyond me.

. I agree. He should have known, but I suspect he was floored by the reaction. These guys pay little attention to the various Feminist Frequencies and such. These guys actually do science, and aren't accustomed to sitting around listening to Women's Studies majors bitching about the dearth of women in STEM....

[JimC]

...and hell, you should have seen us...

[DaveDodo007]

Glad to see the fight back against the continuously offended.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... r-tim-hunt

[mistermack]

Glad to see the fight back against the continuously offended.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... r-tim-hunt

Can't stand Dimbleby, or his brother. But you gotta give him some marks for that.

[DaveDodo007]

Lol, I thought the name of the university was familiar, hypocrites.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2014/ ... -miserably

I don't have a problem with this but some lefties might.

http://www.lsnews.co.uk/london-universi ... -industry/

[mistermack]

More sexist bollocks :

England were knocked out of the Women's World Cup in heartbreaking fashion as Laura Bassett's injury-time own goal ensured reigning champions Japan went through to Sunday's final.

There was barely time for England to respond and Bassett burst into tears at the final whistle as her team-mates sunk to the turf.

[pErvinalia]

She was probably on her period...

[Forty Two]

I was just discussing the Women's World Cup the other day -- I find the soccer entertaining and the skill level is very good. The thing I like the best is that the women don't dive and pretend to injury or fake infractions like the men do. Every men's World Cup competition is ruined by the constant falling -- the pretend injuries while holding leg, only to get up immediately and run about as if nothing had happened. Every men's world cup has examples of the male players diving in the penalty box and crying like little bitches. The women don't do that. Awesome.


Crying on an own goal? I get it.

[Hermit]

Oh yes. And since when is crying a sign of weakness?

[Forty Two]

Oh yes. And since when is crying a sign of weakness?

Since almost ever, and for good reason. Blubbering doesn't solve problems, and it uses up valuable time/energy/attention that could be directed toward productive efforts. So, traditionally, men have seen crying in the face of adversity as something to avoid or discourage because it doesn't help. Everyone else has to spend time helping the crier get it back together so he can do something.

Crying after a traumatic event is not quite the same thing, because, say, crying when your wife dies is not crying in a situation where action is needed. There is nothing you can do about it. So, crying in that context has never been treated quite the same, although since flaunting one's grief doesn't accomplish anything, men have generally been or tried to be restrained in that regard or at least private about it. There's nothing anyone else can do to assuage your pain in those kinds of instances.

[Brian Peacock]

More sexist bollocks :

England were knocked out of the Women's World Cup in heartbreaking fashion as Laura Bassett's injury-time own goal ensured reigning champions Japan went through to Sunday's final.

There was barely time for England to respond and Bassett burst into tears at the final whistle as her team-mates sunk to the turf.

Surely, they should have '...sank to the turf'?

[Brian Peacock]

Oh yes. And since when is crying a sign of weakness?

Since almost ever, and for good reason. Blubbering doesn't solve problems, and it uses up valuable time/energy/attention that could be directed toward productive efforts. So, traditionally, men have seen crying in the face of adversity as something to avoid or discourage because it doesn't help. Everyone else has to spend time helping the crier get it back together so he can do something.

Crying after a traumatic event is not quite the same thing, because, say, crying when your wife dies is not crying in a situation where action is needed. There is nothing you can do about it. So, crying in that context has never been treated quite the same, although since flaunting one's grief doesn't accomplish anything, men have generally been or tried to be restrained in that regard or at least private about it. There's nothing anyone else can do to assuage your pain in those kinds of instances.

Three cheers for emotional repression.

"Hip! Hip!"
"Boo hoo!"

[pErvinalia]

Crying is for pansies!

[Forty Two]

Not cheering it. It just is. Through most of human history, you couldn't get very far as a clan or family group if you sat there blubbering when confronted with saber toothed tigers or roving bands of rapine Neanderthals. The man who was strong enough to organize a defense of the family didn't waste time blubbering, and nobody respected the guys that did and those guys got less vagina than the non-blubberers. Therefore, the non-blubberers procreated more than the blubberers.

Even today, women don't sexually select blubberers. Oh, they want a sensitive man who around them will, once in a while, show emotion and sensitivity, but they don't generally want a man who cries in the face of adversity.

[Forty Two]

Crying is for pansies!

Not necessarily, but if a disaster strikes and your family is in danger, is it better to cry about it or do something about it?