What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[Hermit]

My point was that it is indicative of weakness, because in many situations it's the weak thing to do.

Lololololovely reasoning there.

[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.

What you don't get is that if you are the player who never goes down under a challenge, they will hack you to bits. It's a skill the professionals hone, to hack you just enough to stop your progress, but not to give away a free kick.

That's understandable, but it doesn't excuse faking injuries, and then diving like a Russian hockey player to the turf to try to draw penalties. If a player has legally stopped your progress, then he's beaten you. If you then make a flamboyant pitch to the turf, screaming bloody murder, in an attempt to draw the ref to make a call that wasn't otherwise justified, then it ruins the game. I played soccer from the time I was about 12 years old through college, and then as an adult on amateur adult leagues. I know how soccer works.

The other thing they are after is to get a retaliatory response from you, that will get YOU booked.
The referees can't see everything, they only have one angle, and their line of sight is often blocked by players, so very often the hackers get away with it.

It still ruins the game with all the flopping.

As a player, the only defence that you have is to go down, and make it look as bad as possible, and possibly get the hacker booked. To put some doubt in the hacker's mind, and put him off hacking at you. It's a game of wits.

So the reason that the women rarely dive isn't that they are lesser cheats, it's that they don't get hacked so much by the opponents, so they don't have to indulge in the tit-for-tat contest of hack and dive.

It ruins the World Cup. Every. Single. Cup.



In a sport where every goal is supremely precious -- one goal to nil is common. Two goal leads are nearly insurmountable. To have games decided by the best actors who can fall down and flourish a foul in the box, it's disappointing and just wrecks the viewing experience.

[Forty Two]

My point was that it is indicative of weakness, because in many situations it's the weak thing to do.

Lololololovely reasoning there.

Try to follow the entire rationale, and not just snip out a blurb.

Of course it's a sign of weakness. What else can it be? It's what people do when they break down over a stressful or traumatic event. It impedes problem solving, and suggests that a person is not capable of handling a given situation. A person who is put in position X retains composure and handles it, he is viewed as capable and strong. If another person is put in the same situation and breaks down and cries and blubbers -- how is that person viewed? Strong and capable?

[Brian Peacock]

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.

What you don't get is that if you are the player who never goes down under a challenge, they will hack you to bits. It's a skill the professionals hone, to hack you just enough to stop your progress, but not to give away a free kick.

That's understandable, but it doesn't excuse faking injuries, and then diving like a Russian hockey player to the turf to try to draw penalties. If a player has legally stopped your progress, then he's beaten you. If you then make a flamboyant pitch to the turf, screaming bloody murder, in an attempt to draw the ref to make a call that wasn't otherwise justified, then it ruins the game. I played soccer from the time I was about 12 years old through college, and then as an adult on amateur adult leagues. I know how soccer works.

The other thing they are after is to get a retaliatory response from you, that will get YOU booked.
The referees can't see everything, they only have one angle, and their line of sight is often blocked by players, so very often the hackers get away with it.

It still ruins the game with all the flopping.

As a player, the only defence that you have is to go down, and make it look as bad as possible, and possibly get the hacker booked. To put some doubt in the hacker's mind, and put him off hacking at you. It's a game of wits.

So the reason that the women rarely dive isn't that they are lesser cheats, it's that they don't get hacked so much by the opponents, so they don't have to indulge in the tit-for-tat contest of hack and dive.

It ruins the World Cup. Every. Single. Cup.



In a sport where every goal is supremely precious -- one goal to nil is common. Two goal leads are nearly insurmountable. To have games decided by the best actors who can fall down and flourish a foul in the box, it's disappointing and just wrecks the viewing experience.

There was some research carried out on 'diving' or 'flopping', which I can't find at the moment, but which basically said that whenever somebody hit the ground with their arms in the air they were faking it because it demonstrated prior knowledge of the fall that would not form part of a genuine foul or contact etc. Really wish I could find it, but this'll have to do instead...

[Forty Two]

Well, in any case, I respect the women's play, and the fact that they don't dive like pansies.

I also respect the fact that the US women are proving to be among the top class in the world. They have a chance at revenge against Japan, and to win their third Women's World Cup, out of 7 total tournaments played. The US women's team has never placed below third in the World Cup. They've been Champions twice, lost in the finals once, and placed third three times.

[mistermack]

They'd have me for breakfast as they are professionals and I'm an old man now. But if we were of the same skill level and fitness, they'd just be putting themselves at a disadvantage, as I'd keep going while they were out of the play.

So you're a soccer expert now? People who make millions running football teams know fuck-all. They need advice from some hick ozzie?

You could be right.
And Jesus might indeed love me.
It all makes sense now.

[pErvinalia]

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?

So you think females are more likely to break down and cry in the middle of dangerous situations than males? Where is your evidence for this arse gravy?

I didn't make that assertion. I said that's why crying is considered weak or undesirable.

In response to a point about women crying. So what exactly is your point?

It was in response to a post about crying as a sign of weakness. My point was that it is indicative of weakness, because in many situations it's the weak thing to do. In any situation where action is required or a problem needs to be solved, crying is unhelpful and demonstrates that rather than being capable of effectively dealing with a situation, one is instead ineffectual and in need of assistance. Stronger people need less assistance, by definition.

So, do you think females are more likely to break down and cry in the middle of dangerous situations than males?

[mistermack]

I'll tell you what makes ME cry. Not fear, or feeling sorry for myself.
It's selfless courage from really weak, harmless people. I have no idea why.

Some tiny little kid, smiling and playing while dying of cancer, for example.
It's the combination of innocence, courage, and tragedy.

Or one that ALWAYS gets me going, is the episode in ''Dad's army'' when old Godfrey lets slip that he was a conscientious objector in the first war, and everybody starts blanking him, and ignoring him, and then it turns out he won the George Cross for bravery, as a medic under fire.
I'm welling up now, just remembering it. I have to leave the room, if it comes on.

[mistermack]

The funny thing about football, is that with all the acting, diving, and ''innocence'' after horrendous tackles, it's much more interesting than all the games that are played in a straight ''sporting'' fashion.
Rugby is fucking boring, unless you play it yourself. I did, and I still find it boring to watch.
And women's football is boring too, if it hasn't got the international element of the world cup.
So is American football and ozzie rules.

They are all shite as a spectacle. That's why they need pom-poms and cheerleaders, to tell you when it was apparently good.

[pErvinalia]

It's because you don't understand them. If you opened your mind and attempted to accept novel ideas, you might be surprised.

[mistermack]

Nothing novel about rugby. I played it for years at school.

It's only any good at international level. And then it's the uncertainty of the outcome, not the actual game, that's interesting.

[Forty Two]

So, do you think females are more likely to break down and cry in the middle of dangerous situations than males?

I don't know, but they are more likely to cry in general, and they tend to cry for longer periods of time, according to studies compiled by a German Opthamalogical organization --
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... finds.html

According to the studies referenced:

Women cry when they feel inadequate, when they are confronted by situations that are difficult to resolve or when they remember past events.
Men, meanwhile, tend to cry from empathy or when a relationship fails.

"Crying is a highly evolved behavior," said researcher Oren Hasson, an evolutionary biologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "My analysis suggests that by blurring vision, tears lower defenses and reliably function as signals of submission, a cry for help, and even in a mutual display of attachment and as a group display of cohesion."

http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html - so, it seems that a "signal of submission" and a "lowering of defenses" -- is pretty darn close to a "sign of weakness," or at least that might explain why crying is seen as a sign of weakness.

As such, tears reliably signal vulnerability

Hasson suggested the use of tears could be to build and strengthen personal relationships. For instance, "you can show that you are submissive to an attacker, and therefore potentially elicit mercy from an enemy, or you could attract sympathy from others, and perhaps gain their strategic assistance," he told LiveScience.

Submissive. Mercy. Sympathy.

"Of course," Hasson added, "the efficacy of this evolutionary behavior always depends on who you're with when you cry those buckets of tears, and it probably won't be effective in places, like at work, when emotions should be hidden."

So, who knows, but the kinds of situations mentioned in the study do suggest that when placed under heavy pressure, women may be more apt to cry.

In my personal experience, women cry way more than men. I'm not sure about your "lived experience," but in mine there is not a single woman I have ever known well that is not more likely to cry than most of the men I know well. And, crying in the workplace has been an exclusively female activity in my experience over the past 30 years of being involved in workplaces. I've seen women cry at their desks, never men. So, while that's just anecdotal, I think it is in line with the experience of most everyone I know.

[Forty Two]

I'll tell you what makes ME cry. Not fear, or feeling sorry for myself.
It's selfless courage from really weak, harmless people. I have no idea why.

Some tiny little kid, smiling and playing while dying of cancer, for example.
It's the combination of innocence, courage, and tragedy.

Or one that ALWAYS gets me going, is the episode in ''Dad's army'' when old Godfrey lets slip that he was a conscientious objector in the first war, and everybody starts blanking him, and ignoring him, and then it turns out he won the George Cross for bravery, as a medic under fire.
I'm welling up now, just remembering it. I have to leave the room, if it comes on.

From what I've read, that is one of the more prevalent reasons men tend to cry -- sympathy/empathy for others. See the links I posted above.

[Forty Two]

The funny thing about football, is that with all the acting, diving, and ''innocence'' after horrendous tackles, it's much more interesting than all the games that are played in a straight ''sporting'' fashion.
Rugby is fucking boring, unless you play it yourself. I did, and I still find it boring to watch.
And women's football is boring too, if it hasn't got the international element of the world cup.
So is American football and ozzie rules.

They are all shite as a spectacle. That's why they need pom-poms and cheerleaders, to tell you when it was apparently good.

Whether a sport is fun to watch is purely a matter of opinion and not a matter of any objective characteristics of the sport. I like soccer a lot, but I can only watch a whole game if it's World Cup soccer. US-MLS or British Premiere League Soccer, which is on US television regularly (as in several times each week) -- I keep vague track of a score or something, but I cannot watch the games. British Premiere league soccer, moreover, is flat out boring to me - it's like they're slogging through mud.

For American sports, I like to attend Baseball games in person, but I cannot watch it on TV unless it is the playoffs or World Series. For American Football, I love to watch the games on TV, but I dislike attending the games in person -- mainly because it's so hard to see what's going on from a distance, whereas on TV they have great camera angles, closeups and replays. Hockey is great to watch on TV or in person, and far more fun to watch than soccer. Ossie football and rugby are so infrequently shown in the US, that it's difficult to include them in the comparison, but I used to love Ossie rules football as a kid.

[pErvinalia]

Those links say nothing about crying in dangerous situations, other than the one if there is an advantage to be gained.

So basically, who cares if women cry more? Perhaps it's just people that are trying to prove that women shouldn't be paid as much as men..