Women as astronauts -- past, present, and future

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:37:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:"Mary Pegg" wrote in message
...
: Stuf4 wrote:
:
: It's like analyzing why having three chicks racing Indy this year is a
: big deal. Shouldn't it be closer to half of the pack?
:
: Why?
:
:
:Arguably it should reflect to some extent the makeup of the population at
:large.
:
: Nonsense.
:
: On what basis?
:
:On the basis that there's no fundamental physical or physiological reason
:that any activity with large numbers of people shouldn't reflect the general
opulation at large.
:

Preposterous. There are very real fundamental physical and
psychological reasons why any activity might not reflect the general
population at large.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Mary Pegg" wrote in message
...
: Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
:
:
: No amount of pretending that women and men are identical will make the
: Y chromosome go away. One thing it **seems** to code for is both over-
: *and* under-achievement. Here in the UK, men get more first-class
: degrees [1].
:
:Hmm, funny enough here in the States, that number is starting to tilt
:towards women.
:

We don't have the same degree system here.

:
:Perhaps it says more about the Y chromosome in the UK.
:

Wrong. The reasons you see that in the US are social and cultural.
When you start looking at the top folks in their fields, most of them
wind up being men.

This is precisely for the reason that Mary points out. For example,
when math ability is tested for, the mean for women is slightly higher
than that for men. However, the standard deviation for men is much
larger.

What this leads to is that when you start looking at the top of the
combined group, you find that men predominate. When you start looking
at the bottom of the combined group, men predominate there as well.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 11 May 2007 20:55:58 -0700, in a place far, far away, Borderline
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


On the basis that there's no fundamental physical or physiological reason
that any activity with large numbers of people shouldn't reflect the general
population at large.

But there are fundamental physical reasons why there would be
disparities between men and women in auto racing, just as there are in
aerobatics, or other sports. While there are certainly many women
capable of doing it, there are many more men, and the current ratios
of the sports support that notion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL I dont know about auto racing but I bet I know a darn more about
flying then you do and that statement is uniformed. Peggy Wagstaff
could outfly me in a prop plane doing aerobatics (I dont get to do it
that much in a prop plane) and yet I am pretty sure in a weight
lifting contest I would outlift by about 100 pounds.

Of course she could. She's probably in much better shape than you,
since she works out muscling an airplane around the sky at high gees.

I am certian she would outfly you.

Who said she couldn't? Of course she can. Do you have anything to
say that's pertinent to what I wrote?

There are no fundamental physical reasons that stop women of "average
build" from flying the shuttle, combat airplanes, or high performance
demo acro.

I didn't say there were. I just said that on average, more men than
women would be able to do so. The sport reflects that. As does auto
racing.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 11 May 2007 20:55:58 -0700, in a place far, far away, Borderline
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
There are no fundamental physical reasons that stop women of "average
build" from flying the shuttle, combat airplanes, or high performance
demo acro.

I didn't say there were. I just said that on average, more men than
women would be able to do so. The sport reflects that. As does auto
racing.

Yes, you said that, and repeat that with no supporting evidence.


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
On the basis that there's no fundamental physical or physiological reason
that any activity with large numbers of people shouldn't reflect the
general
population at large.

Careful here. There are *a few* activities where physiological issues do
rear their heads in important ways. For example, given that *on average*
women are smaller than men and have less upper-body strength, one would
expect relatively few women to qualify for elite military units with
demanding physical requirements. (One would expect *some* to qualify --
individual women, like individual men, vary a lot, and a few would meet
any sane specification -- but the percentage would be smaller than in the
general population.) The weight of weapons, equipment, etc. does not
scale much with body mass; bigger people simply can do that job better,
in general.

Moreover, there can be cultural reasons for numeric imbalances -- being
capable isn't the same as being interested. Given an absence of
discrimination, aside from the rare situations noted above, one would
expect the percentage of women in an activity to be roughly the same as
the percentage of *interested* women in the general population. But there
are (on average) real differences in interests between men and women;
whether those are cultural or built-in or both is a difficult question,
but they definitely exist.

(A non-gender example of this: if memory serves, the professional part of
the Swiss military is disproportionately German Swiss, with French Swiss
seriously under-represented compared to the general population. It's not
a matter of discrimination, but of cultural differences between the two
groups -- the military is simply a more respectable profession on the
German side of the population.)

Either way, you would expect to see some women, but it's naive to say that
the numbers *ought* to match those of the general population -- there are
legitimate reasons why the proportions could be significantly skewed.
Deciding whether there is really something wrong with the numbers for a
given occupation can be a hard problem requiring professional statistical
effort; it's not nearly as simple as it might seem at first glance.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
On the basis that there's no fundamental physical or physiological reason
that any activity with large numbers of people shouldn't reflect the
general
population at large.

Careful here. There are *a few* activities where physiological issues do
rear their heads in important ways. For example, given that *on average*
women are smaller than men and have less upper-body strength, one would
expect relatively few women to qualify for elite military units with
demanding physical requirements. (One would expect *some* to qualify --
individual women, like individual men, vary a lot, and a few would meet
any sane specification -- but the percentage would be smaller than in the
general population.) The weight of weapons, equipment, etc. does not
scale much with body mass; bigger people simply can do that job better,
in general.


Umm, I don't watch much NASCAR Henry, but I don't think there's too many
gun-racks in the back of the cars. ;-)

Note we were discussing a fairly specific range of activities and for those
activities, I have yet to see any evidence given that there are physical and
physiological reasons that prevent women from being represented in numbers
propotional to their total numbers. I will certainly agree that there are
activities that prefer one gender or the other in terms of numbers.


Moreover, there can be cultural reasons for numeric imbalances -- being
capable isn't the same as being interested. Given an absence of
discrimination, aside from the rare situations noted above, one would
expect the percentage of women in an activity to be roughly the same as
the percentage of *interested* women in the general population. But there
are (on average) real differences in interests between men and women;
whether those are cultural or built-in or both is a difficult question,
but they definitely exist.

And this is exactly what I was getting at. That for the most part, the
reasons for the numerical disparity is cultural or other. And those aren't
fundamental laws of natures. Again, unless German Swiss are so genectically
different from French Swiss. :-)


(A non-gender example of this: if memory serves, the professional part of
the Swiss military is disproportionately German Swiss, with French Swiss
seriously under-represented compared to the general population. It's not
a matter of discrimination, but of cultural differences between the two
groups -- the military is simply a more respectable profession on the
German side of the population.)

Either way, you would expect to see some women, but it's naive to say that
the numbers *ought* to match those of the general population -- there are
legitimate reasons why the proportions could be significantly skewed.

Well, I for one do think that when the numbers are skewed so so
significantly for apparently cultural only reasons, one does have to look at
the basis.

It's sort of like looking at the number of CEOs and the number of women and
shrugging ones shoulders and saying that it's purely cultural. Sure, but
that doesn't mean there isn't an issue.

Deciding whether there is really something wrong with the numbers for a
given occupation can be a hard problem requiring professional statistical
effort; it's not nearly as simple as it might seem at first glance.

Henry, I would certainly hope you don't think a single post reflects my
entire thinking on the topic. ;-)

--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
(A non-gender example of this: if memory serves, the professional part of
the Swiss military is disproportionately German Swiss, with French Swiss
seriously under-represented compared to the general population. It's not
a matter of discrimination, but of cultural differences between the two
groups -- the military is simply a more respectable profession on the
German side of the population.)

That's because the German side doesn't have the same history of surrender.

On May 12, 4:26 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message

...

(A non-gender example of this: if memory serves, the professional part of
the Swiss military is disproportionately German Swiss, with French Swiss
seriously under-represented compared to the general population. It's not
a matter of discrimination, but of cultural differences between the two
groups -- the military is simply a more respectable profession on the
German side of the population.)

That's because the German side doesn't have the same history of surrender.

What history is that?
Do you even know the condition of the French army post WWI?
Think any other contemporary army would have done better?

Fred J. McCall wrote:

This is precisely for the reason that Mary points out. For example,
when math ability is tested for, the mean for women is slightly higher
than that for men. However, the standard deviation for men is much
larger.

There's some sort of irony here in that to understand this, you need a
fairly high level of maths.

Unfortunately I get the feeling that a lot of public policy in the UK
is formulated by people who can barely grasp the difference between
mean and mode, let alone this tricky Gaussian stuff.

What this leads to is that when you start looking at the top of the
combined group, you find that men predominate. When you start looking
at the bottom of the combined group, men predominate there as well.

--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Note we were discussing a fairly specific range of activities and for
those activities, I have yet to see any evidence given that there are
physical and physiological reasons that prevent women from being
represented in numbers propotional to their total numbers.

Well, AIUI, one thing you need to become a military test pilot (which
seems to be the only route into the left hand seat of a Shuttle) is a
high level of mathematical ability. And as has been discussed, if you
select the top 5% of the general population for that ability, it's not
a "balanced" population.

It's sort of like looking at the number of CEOs and the number of women
and
shrugging ones shoulders and saying that it's purely cultural. Sure, but
that doesn't mean there isn't an issue.

There's more male bums and layabouts too. It's the same issue.

--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".