I never said they did. To your question about whether women cry more in dangerous situations, I answered "I don't know."rEvolutionist wrote:Those links say nothing about crying in dangerous situations,
Jobs should generally pay the same when an applicant or employee has the same education, experience, and qualifications, regardless of gender. And, in the US, that is the case.rEvolutionist wrote: 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..
However, women do cry more than men, according to the studies. Whether it's worth caring about is a matter of opinion. But, the reason why it's relevant to this thread is because Hunt referenced women's propensity to cry, in his experience, when confronted with harsh criticism. Based on the information we have about why women cry, it does seem that he has a fair basis in fact, and that his statement was not false. the import of that is that it's one of the things he's being lambasted for perpetuating as a "myth." it's not actually a myth.
It doesn't mean women shouldn't be in laboratories, IMO. And, generally speaking, I don't care if women I don't know cry. But, when employees cry in the workplace, it is an issue for an employer to deal with, so it does tend to be a distraction. Any non-work-related activities in the workplace can be a distraction. Interpersonal relationships in the workplace can be a distraction, which is why a lot of employers discourage love affairs in the workplace. It's a pain in the ass for management, and exposes the company to risk (because relationships can break down and result in claims of harassment and discrimination).
Anyway -- if you don't "care" about X being true, it dos not make X "not true." Similarly, being concerned about what use may be made out of something that is true is not the same thing as that thing not being true. We need not ignore unpleasant facts, and we arguably shouldn't.