Russian: MEN WILL BE FIRST TO GO TO MARS

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:27:41 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : It's not a mistake, in my opinion, to expect people to act like
: : : professionals, and not sexist pigs who think that women were placed on
: : : earth solely to sate their desires..
:
: : Well said, Rand. Every once in awhile you're not you're typical self.
:
: Can't even compliment him and get a mere "thanks". Imagine that?

: You expect thanks for a back-handed compliment?

: Just how socially clueless are you?

You're right. Compliments are lost on folks like you as you don't know the
difference between good work and bad work.

Eric

wrote:
: Excuse me, a woman got angry and upset because she was unwantingly got
: kissed by her fellow crewmate and people kept asking on why women are
: NOT allowed aboard?

: Look, why not just send a group of a women into the mouth of a volcano
: while we're at it?

: Not allowing them of course would be a bad thing.



: As for "a few 'fragile and delicate creatures' go up to his office and
: kick the living daylights out of him".

: A group of creatures lacking in intelligence probably can be
: manipulated into doing such bad thing by such comment.



: Anyway. Men and women exceed at their own expertise.

Equality by default.

: There are reasons on why women made good telephone operators and men
: made lousy telephone operators.

: While it's good to combine the two, there are certain places on where
: they shouldn't be combined.

Sports teams?

: Then again, there's always people would kept pusing a round peg into a
: square hole or vice versa and kept wishing for it to work.

: Round peg into round hole, square peg into square hole, it's as simple
: as that.

I think both sexes are guilty of the lack of simplicity that you speak of.

Eric

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:41:40 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : It's not a mistake, in my opinion, to expect people to act like
: : : professionals, and not sexist pigs who think that women were placed on
: : : earth solely to sate their desires..
:
: : Well said, Rand. Every once in awhile you're not you're typical self.
:
: Can't even compliment him and get a mere "thanks". Imagine that?

: You expect thanks for a back-handed compliment?

: Just how socially clueless are you?

You're right. Compliments are lost on folks like you as you don't know the
difference between good work and bad work.

No, I enjoy compliments.

"Well said, Rand," full stop, is a compliment.

But you couldn't stop there. The next sentence that immediately
follows it is an insult (though not a particularly clever, or valid,
or grammatical one).

Even after many years of reading your brainless posts, I'm boggled at
the stupidity of someone who thinks that they should be thanked for
being insulted.

wrote:
Excuse me, a woman got angry and upset because she was unwantingly got
kissed by her fellow crewmate and people kept asking on why women are
NOT allowed aboard?

Look troll:

Why is your focus on the woman, who did nothing wrong, and not on the man
who showed he was grossly incompetent and as immature as you appear to be.

If she had NOT complained she'd be unfit - the fact that she complained
indicates she was competent while the men involved showed their
incompetence for any task involving long duration travel.

Look, why not just send a group of a women into the mouth of a volcano
while we're at it?

Why employ men who are clueless and socially inept?

The problem is cultural and your trolling and blindness to the actual
problem indicates you are part of the problem.

No trips to Mars for you!

Jim Logajan wrote:
Why is your focus on the woman, who did nothing wrong, and not on the man
who showed he was grossly incompetent and as immature as you appear to be.

I don't put any blame on anyone. That experiement was exactly to study
human nature in such conditions. It outlined problems of human nature.

How old must a male/female be before libido is no longer high enough to
result in unwanted advances or innuendos on other crewmates ?

Would they have to select crewmates with 0% tolerance for sexjokes, or
would they have to select crewmembers for whom the threshold for "sexual
harassement" is much higher ?

In that russian experimemt, how many females were there ? If there was
only one, should there have been more ? (perhaps with multiple females,
males would fear more all females protecting each other from male
advances).

If there were multiple females in that experiment, what was it that drew
the advances on that one female ? And what differences in
behaviour/appearance/body language existed to draw the advances onto one
female and not the other ? (or did both get advnaces, but the other
female not respond negatively) ?

Denying that humans have biological and phychological needs is stupid.
One can temporarily hide those issues through "professionalism", but
eventually such problems will arise.

One could compare with the experience in submarines. But there are
significant differences. First, subs thend to have more than 10
crewmembers. And they have definitive authority figures and strictly
enforced laws.

Another area of study should be the stations in Antarctica where they
have more varied crewmembers than on subs. But isolation of a few months
at a time are still not the same as over a year.

If she had NOT complained she'd be unfit - the fact that she complained
indicates she was competent while the men involved showed their
incompetence for any task involving long duration travel.

Define "incompetence" ? Would someone whose apetite for food is greater
than average be declared "incompetant" ? One has to define a living
environment that is reasonable for such a long expedition. You may find
some people are incompatible with such an environment, but it doesn't
mean that they are incompetant.

Not everyone is fit to work in a submarine. With current space vehicles,
not everyone is fit to work in a space vehicle. But the long term goal
should be to make space travel provide an environment in which more and
more people can be compatible.

Understanding the limitations of current environment and how to solve
those limitations is an important aspect. Restricting space travel to
only priests isn't a way to solve relationship problems in space.

Why employ men who are clueless and socially inept?

I am more worried about a male who doesn't flirt with a unattached
female than one who does. So your definition of "socially inept" is not unanimous.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Rusty" wrote:

:If Europe and the U.S. take part in a joint first spaceflight to Mars,
:using a mixed crew, the first person to step on Mars might be a woman.

It might also be a toddler.

Wonder if they'll pack a toddler-sized spacesuit just in case? ;-)
--
Malcolm Street
Canberra, Australia
The nation's capital

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:25:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

Jim Logajan wrote:
Why is your focus on the woman, who did nothing wrong, and not on the man
who showed he was grossly incompetent and as immature as you appear to be.

I don't put any blame on anyone. That experiement was exactly to study
human nature in such conditions.

No, it wasnt.

It outlined problems of human nature.

No, it outlined problems of Russian culture.

I am more worried about a male who doesn't flirt with a unattached
female than one who does.

This is not about flirting. It's about shoving one's tongue down a
woman's throat uninvited. It's about boorishness.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
It's not a mistake, in my opinion, to expect people to act like
professionals, and not sexist pigs who think that women were placed on
earth solely to sate their desires..

I'd also like to add that the sex of the offender and offended really aren't
the issue. You can still have unwanted sexual advances in an all male
environment.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that the crewmembers keep these urges to
themselves on a Mars mission. If you start your reasoning with that
expectation, there isn't any reason to bar women from Mars flights.

One has to wonder what the reaction of Anatoly Grigoryev would have been if
a man in that simulation had started making unwanted sexual advances on
another man.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Feb 2005 11:29:11 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Excuse me, a woman got angry and upset because she was unwantingly got
kissed by her fellow crewmate and people kept asking on why women are
NOT allowed aboard?

French kissed. Yes, she had every right to be upset.

How many men would get angry and upset if another man French kissed them?
How many women would get angry and upset if another woman French kissed
them?

Clearly, the sex of the offender and the offended aren't the issue here.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:

Excuse me, a woman got angry and upset because she
was unwantingly got kissed by her fellow crewmate
and people kept asking on why women are NOT
allowed aboard?

Look troll:

Did you happen to notice that nothing in this post made
any sense, nor do any of his posts make any sense.

He's the human equivalent of a travesty generator.

http://www.eskimo.com/~rstarr/poormfa/travesty.html
http://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/community/postmodern.html