I can’t sign off today without commenting on Crygate, as Eric Spoelstra named it (for some reason). First, I have to say that I am surprised that Coach Spoelstra said anything at all. He could have very easily made his point by just saying that his players were emotional after the game. That would have been enough. But he said it and now it’s out there.
So the question obviously arises as to whether the comments since directed at the Miami Heat are a result of our perceived gender roles. I’ve heard people bring up the fact that the NBA is, to use every related cliché I can think of, the No Boys League and, as we all know that boys don’t cry, there should be no crying in basketball. Is it because these players are supposed to be tough and manly, because that is how they have been socialized and how our expected gender roles tell us that men should act? Or is it because it’s too early in the season and not an important enough reason for tears…yet?
In making fun of the Heat, other players are able to reinforce their own masculinity. Correspondents also have used odd comparisons to the tears they shed after visiting a children’s cancer ward as a way to give the Heat space for their tears. Other people, like Kobe Bryant and Mike D’Antoni, simply stated that crying doesn’t mean anything, it doesn’t challenge your masculinity, you have an emotional reaction and sometimes tears are part of that. So, what do you think? Nature vs. nurture?