Women are better astronauts than men

[Lance]

Not exactly VOY relevant, but it turns out that in a "real" Starfleet, there might be more Kathryn Janeway's than there are Jean-Luc Picard's.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/sci-tech/why-women-are-better-astronauts-than-men-1-571322

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

meh, we're never getting off this rock in any meaningful way so it doesn't matter.

 

[2takesfrakes]

God bless Valentina Tereshkova, Sally Ride and all the rest ... but I must agree that, as a whole, Humanity is on an earthly lockdown. However, all is not lost. Innerspace is as exciting and dangerous as outerspace- and there are many women involved in that endeavour, which may prove inspiring to some, like Jennifer Carter, for example:

http://www.wdhof.org/memberroster/memberroster1.shtml#A

 

[Starborn Dragon]

What a bunch of nonsense. And a hypocritical double standard too.

The best people for the best job not just because of gender. And the best people should be based on skill, experience, and psychological tolerances. Not everybody is built for space, and we need good people to be out there that represents the best of humanity.

Not this stupid hateful feminist get more women in there to displace those god awful men kebob.

What an incredibly asinine article.

 

[Draculasaurus]

Yeah, it's a little weak.
"They're a little smaller and so they crap less."

 

[sojourner]

You guys should try rereading the article. It merely goes into the medical aspect of space travel and is pretty thorough in that regard. Any "agenda" you may see in it is merely a reflection of your own fear of women.

 

[JarodRussell]

I've seen episodes of Topmodel. You surely don't want a bunch of career driven females in a closed environment for a long time.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

^Don't you have a bunch of malware to combat?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The logic of this article seems to be: "On average, women are biologically disposed to have a body chemistry more suitable for space travel. Therefore, all astronauts should be women."

Body chemistry should certainly be taken into account when manning space missions, but on an individual level, not on a gender level.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

So, this is what they call male privilege, yes?

(OMG SOMEBODY THINKS A WOMAN CAN DO SOMETHING BETTER THAN A MAN SOUND THE ALARM)

(actually it's about ethics in...)

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Space?

In space no one can hear you type. THE HORROR.

 

[T'Girl]

(OMG SOMEBODY THINKS A WOMAN CAN DO SOMETHING BETTER THAN A MAN SOUND THE ALARM

Wouldn't that be an example of "female privilege?"

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It's more a case of, somebody ran a scientific study that found a correlation between two things, then somebody who isn't very scientific minded took the buzzwords from that study and made it sensationalistic to get clicks.

"Women are less susceptible to heart conditions and men have more iron on average, therefore all astronauts should be women" is a pretty big logical leap with the clear intent to ironically invert a historical injustice and probably was in no way the intent of the person who ran the study.

Obviously, the jobs should be given to the best suited individual regardless of gender.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

There is a lot of great examples of feminists shaming tactic s in this thread.

If you can't refute the men using fact and evidence based logic and reason, make fun of them until they submit is the standard feminsit shaming tactic we see going on here.

Typical.

If the article was really about the chemical differences between men and women in space, then the article and thread title should have a better and more accurate title rather than an inflammatory one. And a better summary of it in the OP.

I really hate hyperbolic language and it always puts me off and will not encourage me to read the article.

Real science does not play stupid gender games just to put forth a political agenda.



As I've said before, the best person for the best job, regardless of gender.

 

[Gov Kodos]

There is a lot of great examples of feminists shaming tactic s in this thread.

If you can't refute the men using fact and evidence based logic and reason, make fun of them until they submit is the standard feminsit shaming tactic we see going on here.

Typical.

Of what?

If the article was really about the chemical differences between men and women in space, then the article and thread title should have a better and more accurate title rather than an inflammatory one. And a better summary of it in the OP.

I really hate hyperbolic language...

Do you, indeed?
Let's read that again.

I really hate hyperbolic language...

Just as funny the second time.

Real science does not play stupid gender games just to put forth a political agenda.

As I've said before, the best person for the best job, regardless of gender.

That's some fine tilting at a strawman, there.

 

[BigJake]

I really hate hyperbolic language and it always puts me off and will not encourage me to read the article.

So, to recap: you hate being "shamed" by "feminists" laughing at you, and your solution to this was to go off on a half-cocked rant without reading the article because you didn't like the thread title. (Even hilariously attempting to trash-talk about "real science" in total ignorance of the fact that that's what the article is.)

Can't say as I have the least bit of sympathy for you. If you don't want to be laughed at, make some effort to know what you're talking about before you jump into keyboard warrior mode.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Janeway was totes better than Archer so the science is proved.

 

[Amaris]

There is a lot of great examples of feminists shaming tactic s in this thread.

If you can't refute the men using fact and evidence based logic and reason, make fun of them until they submit is the standard feminsit shaming tactic we see going on here.

Typical.

If the article was really about the chemical differences between men and women in space, then the article and thread title should have a better and more accurate title rather than an inflammatory one. And a better summary of it in the OP.

I really hate hyperbolic language and it always puts me off and will not encourage me to read the article.

Real science does not play stupid gender games just to put forth a political agenda.



As I've said before, the best person for the best job, regardless of gender.

Women are better astronauts, and more suited to space exploration than men, says NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/content/men-women-spaceflight-adaptation/

Your argument is invalid.

 

[SPCTRE]

Janeway was totes better than Archer so the science is proved.

 

[JanewayRulz!]

There is a lot of great examples of feminists shaming tactic s in this thread.

If you can't refute the men using fact and evidence based logic and reason, make fun of them until they submit is the standard feminsit shaming tactic we see going on here.

Typical.

If the article was really about the chemical differences between men and women in space, then the article and thread title should have a better and more accurate title rather than an inflammatory one. And a better summary of it in the OP.

I really hate hyperbolic language and it always puts me off and will not encourage me to read the article.

Real science does not play stupid gender games just to put forth a political agenda.



As I've said before, the best person for the best job, regardless of gender.

Women are better astronauts, and more suited to space exploration than men, says NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/content/men-women-spaceflight-adaptation/

Your argument is invalid.

Actually... here is the commentary on the 6 working groups NASA called to investigate sex and gender differences mentioned in your link.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/jwh.2014.1515

And here is the salient point on the subject.

"While a decade has passed since the initial review and more individuals, human and animal, have participated in ground and flight-based studies and observations, there is still a paucity of data to make strong assertions about the impact of sex and gender on health outcomes."

Despite that, Teacake's data, should NOT be dismissed out of hand.

Janeway was totes better than Archer so the science is proved.

​