The National Science Foundation, the federal agency that oversees the U.S. Antarctic Program, published a report in 2022 in which 59% of women said they’d experienced harassment or assault while on the ice, and 72% of women said such behavior was a problem in Antarctica.
But the problem goes beyond the harassment, The Associated Press found. In reviewing court records and internal communications, and in interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees, the AP uncovered a pattern of women who said their claims of harassment or assault were minimized by their employers, often leading to them or others being put in further danger.
Lol and people want to talk about Mars missions.
We are so fucked.
Only possible if you do an all female mission imo.
All male mission -> they kill each other
Mixed mission -> they kill the women and probably themselves after
Edit: Lmao lots of insecure men around here.
Spoken like a true redditor. Leave that mindless stupid `manhating bullshit behind there.
You must come from a different Reddit, I remember it being the opposite of that
Maybe like 10+ years ago. Sounds to me like you must have been part of the problem if you didn’t see it.
Women also suffer fewer negative effects from prolonged exposure to microgravity
Never heard of this, do you have a source?
I found this study about the differences (but it’s from 2014, please tell me if you find a more recent one) The Impact of Sex and Gender on Adaptation to Space: Executive Summary.
TL;DR female astronauts have, according to the study:
- a higher risk of cancer (a 45-year-old man has a 344-day limit in space to be safe versus a 187-day limit for a 45-year-old woman)
- more orthostatic intolerance
- more UTIs (which makes sense as women on earth are also more likely to have UTIs)
- less vision impairment compared to male astronauts (no clinically significant cases of VIIP syndrome)
- less hearing problems (men show a more rapid decline in the left ear and in general like on Earth)
Keep in mind that this data is not the best because only around 20% of people that had been on the ISS at the time were women and because male astronauts are more likely to come from a military background.less hearing problems (men show a more rapid decline in the left ear and in general as well)
Did the study mention why the left ear was more of a problem?
No, here is the relevant paragraph:
Hearing sensitivity, when measured at most frequencies, declines much more rapidly in male astronauts than it does in female astronauts. These LSAH derived data represent a wide age range of subjects (i.e., four decades) and show a more rapid decline in hearing in the left ear, for men only. Within the general population, hearing also declines more rapidly in men than in women, due in part to environmental factors or occupational exposure (e.g., construction or factory work). No evidence suggests that the sex-based hearing differences in the astronaut population are related to microgravity exposure, and the small sample size of female astronauts precludes making any definitive conclusions.
Thanks. It’s so weird that it affects the left ear of men more. Love to know what makes the left ear more susceptible to damage than the right.
Fascinating. We def need more info on this, and a bigger sample size.
How much exactly are those ‘fewer’ negative effects. Micro Gravity is but a tiny obstacle to the forces we need to overcome in terms of long distance space travel. I’d be more concerned with cosmic rays, waves, and radiation just sweeping by and lethal dosing everyone without warning.
Visual impairment mostly (visual impairment intracranial pressure syndrome). Severe cases have only been observed in men
Weirdest dysphoria ever
Spoken like someone that’s never seen a woman’s restroom.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m guessing a crew of people sent on Mars would be slightly more tested than your average man/woman. Even the requirements for Antarctica are probably minimal compared to that.
Buckingham was hired by PAE. Amentum didn’t respond to questions from the AP. Leidos Senior Vice President Melissa Lee Dueñas said it conducts background checks on all its employees.
“Our stance on sexual harassment or assault couldn’t be more clear: we have zero tolerance for such behavior,” Dueñas said in an email. “Each case is thoroughly investigated.”
Translates to 1) We thoroughly investigate and hire sexual predators and 2) We say this b.s. to protect our jobs, actually we have zero tolerance for those who complain about sexual harassment.
The report made it clear that those in charge enable sexual predators.
Makes you wonder what challenges women will face in future space exploration missions. Long periods of isolation with groups of coworkers with very little personal space. Not like a belligerent party can be ejected out the airlock (It’'ll probably happen who am I kidding)
Not like a belligerent party can be ejected out the airlock
a m o g u s
there’s no doubt that sexual predation would be a big issue and that women would be the first victims of any violence, but it’s just part of the greater concern over authority in such a small society… who is in charge, how are rules enforced and misbehavior punished… i’m not optimistic that a Mars outpost would be able to survive its own judicial system, for example… or any of the prepper compounds… they’re sort of all guaranteed to descend into really barbaric circumstances socially…
or any of the prepper compounds
You wouldn’t want to be stuck for a long time in a society made up exclusively of people with severe anxiety and personal issues who reject society? I can’t imagine why.
i’m pretty sure they’re all guaranteed nightmare scenarios… i think people build them just for the drama… so they’re all drama queens on top of it…
Not any violence. Men are the vast majority of murder and assault victims in the West, I don’t have data for undeveloped countries. Makes sense when you realize we all had “you never hit a woman” beaten into us. Even criminals would rather harm a man than a woman.
What gender is committing all those assaults though
According to the DOJ it’s pretty evenly split with a slight majority of men being the perpetrators
Future missions should be all-women teams. Problem solved.
Women eat less, use less oxygen, and weigh less than men. There’s actually no logical reason to send male astronauts anywhere.
Edit: lol @ the downvotes with zero responses
Nah that’s misandrist bullshit. We’ve done plenty of all-male space missions and they had no issues.
There are reasons to do that, women and men react differently to long-term microgravity.
I found this study about the differences (but it’s from 2014, please tell me if you find a more recent one) The Impact of Sex and Gender on Adaptation to Space: Executive Summary.
TL;DR female astronauts have, according to the study:
- a higher risk of cancer (a 45-year-old man has a 344-day limit in space versus a 187-day limit for a 45-year-old woman)
- more orthostatic intolerance
- more UTIs (which makes sense as women on earth are also more likely to have UTIs)
- less vision impairment compared to male astronauts (no clinically significant cases of VIIP syndrome)
- less hearing problems (men show a more rapid decline in the left ear and in general as well, but this is the case on Earth too)
Keep in mind that this data is not the best because only around 20% of people that had been on the ISS at the time of the study were women and because male astronauts are more likely to come from a military background.I personally think this means we should send an equal amount of both sexes (maybe more women as it would help get more data on the differences). Sending all-men or all-women missions sadly won’t fully solve the problem as sexual assault isn’t always between men and women, that said, it is less common so it’s not a bad idea.
Anyways, more investigation is required. If you find a newer/better study please tell me (or if something I wrote is inaccurate), I don’t want to spread misinformation
Sure, weight is definitely a more important factor than idk, reaction ability in danger situations or physical resistance to unfriendly environments.
Yes, it is. On a long mission, even a few kg can have big differences in fuel consumption. Also the mean difference of reaction times between men and women is around 20-30ms, which is miniscule. Idk about the differences in resistance to space, but I highly doubt that men are significantly more resistant than women.
Why is 20-30ms “miniscule”, but “a few kgs” compared to the weight of a fucking spacecraft isn’t?
I would assume a manned mission would have larger tolerances due to the unpredictability of humans and to ensure their safety
I’m not saying men are better than women in those aspects. I’m saying a very limited amount of people, both men and women, have the physical and mental fortitude to withstand a space mission, and there is virtually never going to be a situation where two people have the exact same qualifications and weight has to be the “tiebreaker”. It’s pretty much a non-factor.
But are you including or excluding trans on that??
Mwahahahaah
Oh my God you’re so clever!
Lighten up! I’m just taking the piss. Everyone’s lost their sense of humour for fear of being angry mobbed.
Ah yes, Schrodinger’s douchebag.
Ah yes, clever dick mcfucknugget. Get over yourself you fanny
So not just Schrodinger’s douchebag, but a regular douchebag as well.
Bold move Cotton
if the comments are any indication it’ll be filled with victim blamers and predators. No one can hear you scream in space means a little something extra with sexual assaulters literally on the loose. do you even engineer for a brig in space? they’d likely fill the space for food, water, fuel…There is a reason for the U.S. navy not letting women in submarines and it ain’t because of a monthly period.
I have a feeling people picked for those types of missions will be vetted harder than “Hey, want to see some snow”
“you wanna be shot millions of miles from society where the nearest call for help would require another monumental operation to launch and by then it’ll be like coming up on the Event Horizon Ship after everyone went bonkers.?” -( slaps intergalactic space ships hood a couple of times to show you how sturdy she is)
Just FYI that username may get you some hostility. It’s far too close to Ace of Bass which is a band from the 90s that were neo-nazis. The Base of Aces was a Nazi submarine base in WW2. I’m not assuming anything here, the lead singer and guitarist both confirmed separately that was what their band name was referring to, just before they lost all their fans.
Used this username for years; it’s a pun on the famous suit of playing cards the Ace of Spades. While I appreciate the warning, please go touch grass.
Sorry I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but grass is another word for weed, and historically antimarijuana propaganda was used to oppress blacks.
It’s much more likely to be a play on the much better known “Ace of Spades”?
I’m not completely ignorant on Nazi dog whistles, but this is not one I know.
Yeah, that’s stretching it a little (probably based off the Cracked article from a while back). Ace of Base was named after Ace of Spades (a song by Motorhead) as a reference/homage, anything beyond that is purely speculation as the band have categorically denied it.
And yes, Ulf was indeed in a band that wrote some pretty heinous stuff but he has both repeatedly apologised for that, made clear he no longer believes in any of this, and made explicitly clear that Ace of Base never shared these ideas.
Sources for those wanting to read up on it: Original article in Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/rm35nr/ace-of-bases-secret-nazi-past Speculation laden clickbait Cracked article that spawned a bunch of unfounded and unconfirmed theories about the origins of the band’s name, meaning/readings of their lyrics, etc: https://www.cracked.com/blog/how-90s-pop-band-secretly-sold-nazism-to-america Follow-up in Huffington post: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ace-of-base-nazi-past-lyrics_n_3148797 and https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/26/ace-of-bases-ulf-ekberg-addresses-neo-nazi-allegations-_n_3161454.html
I had a female friend/coworker that had previously served in the Navy, on a carrier as a communications specialist. She told stories of endless harassment. She said ultimately some of the women crafted partnerships with other female sailors and convinced everyone they were lesbians in order to just survive the job. It meant they had to spend lots of time together and play the part. She also said they had to work the jealousy angle because nobody wanted to be attacked by an angry lesbian girlfriend.
The male sailors assumed a lot of the women were lesbians because of the masculine nature of the work, or, as she put it, because they couldn’t believe the women weren’t attracted to them. It turned out if you gave them a plausible explanation you could fake your way through it. Without a plausible explanation, they could become resentful and dangerous. I asked if claiming to be married and/or have kids would work, she said it wasn’t as effective and you ultimately needed female allies anyway. She also said that actual lesbians would pretend to “date” hetero women in order to protect them. She kind of described it as leveraging the power of rumors.
I told her it sounded a lot like what happens in prison. She said in some ways, it was a prison.
This. This is why humanity cannot have nice things.
Because humanity is not a nice thing?
Eh, humanity has a lot going for it.
Just not all of it.
Well, it seems like every army is a prison
One of them carrier a hammer held by her bra. Wild.
That’s just stupid, they have ice climbing picks that would hang far more comfortably from a belt. And be easier to reach when needed.
Yeah, as a woman, I’d be real hesitant about taking a job out there, or any place thats more wild-west in nature (very few people and very lax regulation of any laws) and I’d sure as hell take gun tactical training before going, and always have a firearm on me.
You have to fly through New Zealand so I’m guessing no guns are allowed.
Don’t even have a gun and you shot down all of us 🤣
I’m sure guns are flying through no problem, just not in your handbag. Most likely in a checked bag and probably requiring a gun license.
NOPE. You cannot bring guns to Antarctica.
Well, what I said still stands, you can fly guns through NZ no problem.
But knowing I couldnt bring one in to Antarctica is just another reason why I wouldn’t go as a woman, personally. Unable to protect myself if I need to.
Well, what I said still stands, you can fly guns through NZ no problem.
Not to antarctica.
But knowing I couldnt bring one in to Antarctica is just another reason why I wouldn’t go as a woman, personally. Unable to protect myself if I need to.
knowing you would require a firearm to feel safe probably indicates you wouldn’t be invited in the first place, so this is less of an issue.
Ohhh, the “it doesn’t happen, and if it does, it doesn’t matter anyway,” type argument. Love those.
Also, the user above was saying NZ would be the stopping point. Do you just have a hard time deciphering these things?
the entire premise of the discussion was for the purpose of mythical people thinking they needed firearms to serve imaginary time on antarctica. someone said they’d take their gun, I pointed out no guns in Antarctica, someone said they could bring it through newzedland, and that’s true, but still not to antarctica, the subject of the discussion.
funny enough, you probably still can’t bring firearms to new zealand it turns out - https://www.customs.govt.nz/personal/prohibited-and-restricted-items/firearms-and-weapons/#:~:text=You need a New Zealand,by the New Zealand Police.
What part of the premise are you having trouble with sparky?
But that narrative doesn’t support the anti gun ideology. they want everyone disarmed so the strong can once again shuffle the weak in any direction they choose. it makes them so mad that they have to think twice about sexual assault or else they get blown away. its like a condom, those convincing you that you don’t need one, means you really really need one.
edit: so mad 😎
triple digit mad lets fucking Goooooo! 🤣
Your downvotes mean you like women undefended and unprotected. that’s kinda sorta a bunch fucked up. please find peace in your lives where you aren’t afraid of guns because you just want to rape unopposed.
what’s the slow down? Let’s hit 4 digi mad!
Oh yes, how they shuffle the weak in the UK and Australia. Just weak people being shuffled around by the strong all over the place.
Are you really trying to use the UK and Australia as bastions of society? lol throwing stones from a glass house.
I’m really trying to use the UK and Australia as places where people have as much freedom as they do in the US but no guns. Or do you think they’re totalitarian police states or something?
i was simply enforcing the fact that women need guns to prevent men from raping them. UK and Australia are dumpsites just like America. do not pretend that objects in a room make the world shitty. its what people do with those objects. ‘Mens Rea’
Maybe instead of arming women to stop men from raping them, we start teaching our men that masculinity does not equal sex and sex does not equal power?
We do teach that. Men (and women) who rape know raping is wrong and still do it anyway.
sure. but until that day comes…we just hope? wing and a prayer that we dont become victims?
Rape doesn’t occur by strangers. Statistically speaking, it’s a family member raping a family member. Or it’s a close acquaintance. Staying strapped at all times to prevent SA isn’t reasonable.
So how did you want to solve the rape thing? get rid of the guns first, then?
bueller?
Your downvotes mean you like women undefended and unprotected. that’s kinda sorta a bunch fucked up.
guns are much more likely to be used to commit sexual violence than stop sexual violence. this entire premise is fucked up.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/
https://jaapl.org/content/early/2020/02/05/JAAPL.003929-20
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/guns-and-violence-against-women/
The impact of gun violence against women goes beyond fatal encounters. A 2016 study found that nearly 1 million women alive at that time had been shot by an intimate partner, and 4.5 million women had been threatened with a firearm.4 Firearms have long been used as a tool of power and control to instill fear and inflict abuse on women—with women of color, people in the LGBTQ community, and women with disabilities being disproportionately affected.5
I get that you think you’re some righteous crusader for women’s safety but the more guns solution hasn’t worked - there are more guns than people in the US; how many more guns do we need until you admit your hypothesis is wrong? What’s the number, 500 million?
20 per person? Keep in mind, the more guns there are in the population, the more domestic abusers will use them to intimidate and violate their victims. So when do we get to safety through guns?
Make it make sense.
I’m not surprised by this but it makes me wonder how many women in these instances had a gun on them. Are men more likely to have a gun than the woman? You seem more familiar with the topic than I. Is that stated in any of the articles?
make humans nature to kill makes sense? ill meet you half way if you do.
so if it’s human nature to murder, we should make sure more people have access to easily available tools with which to murder people?
come on, you’re half way there…
you are scared as hell about the world you live in and how cheap life truly is with the tools humans have created. i feel sorry for you .
you are not the gun lorax you do not speak for the trees. you can die mad about it though. that’s not an insult. that’s a hard reality we both live in a world with guns. stop getting mad and actually achieve your goals with action. tell us how you plan to remove guns?
ignorant fuckwits like you assume people are scared when they disagree with arms being spread amongst the populace.
Die mad? What’s got your panties in such a bunch lil dude?
We both live in a world with Australia too. Read some fucking history you bellend.
And points - big ones - for being so afraid of taking guns back that the solution to the mass murders occurring ALL THE FUCKING TIME NOW is - wait for it - MORE GUNS!
Goddamn that’s stupid.
you are really upset that you can do nothing about firearms. i see that now.
Uhhh, please clarify. How to make nature kill and why you say you are ill?
Who’s mad again? Lol
the down voters obvi~
Not the ranter in favor of dead children tho
And making his way into the ring, weighing a steady 350 pounds after training on Stardew Valley, vegan Oreos and Mountain Dew, it’s The Agenda Pusher!
Here to derail any meaningful conversation on any topic and make it all about his pet political issue, he’ll topple you with his signature move, The Forum Slide, where in one post he’ll turn any discussion into a shit-flinging flame war where everyone will forget what they were originally talking about in the first place!
cue theme music
cue applause
Contrary opinions are harmful to discussion
BoTh SiDeS
that escalated quickly. 0-100 who said anything about dead children?
Ah yes, the idea that mass shootings are aided by guns is just unthinkable
god forbid anyone uses any other means to kill someone though. focus on the guns. focus on the guns.
2A propaganda. “Anti Gun Ideology”? That’s not something being discussed anywhere in the US. There is no anti-gun ideology. Some people just want it to be harder for criminals and mental health patients to acquire full auto rifles. Generally the 2nd amendment chest beaters only come out after mass shootings, of which there were like 3 this past weekend. So while you didn’t mention dead kids, that is the general outcome of Republican obstructionism on all issues related to 2A.
this is about women getting raped in isolated places and what they would likely need to do in order to survive unscathed from sexual predation…i appreciate your stance on firearms but, one rabbit hole at a time yeah?
You’re a fool if your don’t think anyone in America wants all guns banned.
edit: so mad 😎
They get mad when reality disagrees with them. Big mad. As in to say most of the time
they get mad because it’s bullshit. a stupid hypothesis backed by a bunch of fearmongering and frothed spittle.
riddle me this, gunman: how many guns until we’re ‘safe’?
we’ve got more guns than people. so what’s it gonna take? 4 per person? 10? Do we need six billion guns so every american can count 20 in their home arsenal? Does that get us to safe?
pretty fucking stupid premise.
What should we do about rape?
good question! do you think more firearms would make the rapists less likely to have a gun, or more likely?
I’ll wait over here while you figure this out.
quick with the twisting of the knife. “ill wait” idk who hurt you. but you should probably talk to someone you can confide in. Guns are not going anywhere in your lifetime l, keep denying it and raging at it till the bitter end and then when you die and i die. guns will still be here. ill wait while you figure this out?
aw, got your feelings hurt? poor baby.
we’re all gonna die you schmuck, you’re probably just going to go in a ‘cleaning accident’.
Your downvotes mean you like women undefended and unprotected. that’s kinda sorta a bunch fucked up. please find peace in your lives where you aren’t afraid of guns because you just want to rape unopposed.
LOL. no, it doesnt.
yeah. it does :/
I agree. I’m glad to have one.
She specifically said “training”, which on its own immediately goes against whatever insane ideology you’re selling.
protection of ones own safety is insane? who is responsible then for my safety? and how should i go about protecting myself? and since my wife carries. you think i should deny her a firearm? because of school shootings?
We’re just ignoring the sign that damn near reads “McMurder Station”?
Being alone in the middle of a literal ice desert with a lot of male nerds so socially awkward that they rather be in the middle of an ice desert sounds like an absolute disaster.
deleted by creator
Same goes for women in Elmo Musk’s factories.
you are too worried about the objects in a room. removing guns is like chopping the leafs off a tree expecting to kill it. you need to stop looking at the gun tree and see the forest of human evil. objects in a room cannot hurt you, unless what? a human wills that object for.good or bad. if guns didnt exist youd be up in arms about bows and arrows
Guns would only make the situation worse.
Guns make EVERY situation worse. Statistics have shown that.
how did you plan to remove guns from the world?
you’re fighting a crusade that wont end with removal of one killing object. you’re not wrong walter. you and i will never see the end of firearms. that’s a harsh reality you cannot keep denying
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“Men will be men” just excuses the behaviour and ostracizes men who don’t do these things. It has less to do with their sex and more to do with how we raise men.
Toxic masculinity as a defence mechanism of patriarchal society is the main problem and “feminine”, “emotional” or “weak” men, or those not subscribing to heteronormative sexuality are targeted by the same types to uphold their status.
Yup. It boils down to power imbalances that are systemic in a world where men still control almost everything.
I had always hoped we’d move past this but it seems we may not get the chance now (with climate change raging around us).
Where some men still control almost everything.
Ofc it’s not all men, but it’s enough men that make everyone’s lives harder. So instead of arguing “not all” maybe focus on the some that are the cause of the problem.
I feel like the primary complaint here is that the parent commenters very much want to focus on the some that are the cause of the problem, rather than simply stating that men are problematic.
Yup. If men as a group policed their own there would be a change. But as it stands they don’t seem to want to do that all the time because it’s easier to just let the bad ones slide through.
What’s there to police? It’s not like most aggressors are openly grabbing people in their genitals for all to see. These people know that they are wrong and so they hide it. What am I, as a man against this behaviour, supposed to do about other men?
If men as a group policed their own there would be a change.
This is actually a great idea! To make things simple perhaps we can give these policing men like… some form of identification, like a badge or a uniform so people know who to trust. This is the game changer we needed.
deleted by creator
I love people that demand respect but can’t even give it.
Men will be men is for where men do stupid shit like attach a motor to a merry-go-round and see who can sit on it for the longest or dig holes at the beach because hole.
It’s sad and sickening to see it be used to try and excuse sexual harassment and assault.
Boys will be boys is something frequently said by mothers. But of course that’s fact doesn’t fit the “patriarchy” narrative.
are targeted by the same types to uphold their status.
Or sometimes targeted by their mothers. At least this happened to me. I had one long fingernail(on middle finger, you guessed why) and my mother complauned about it almost every day to the point where she came to dad and complained to him. He said “why do you even care?”, but she continued anyway saying “this is not how men do”.
This happened in post-Soviet society where average family with children is mother+grandmother, so it has nothing to do with “patriarchality” of society. I think it is just manifestation of much broader problems: virtual majority and I can’t translate it, but basicaly “you should do it this way because I said so”.
Bro. I’m a man. I have hormones. I also know how to control them.
“Men will be men” is an unfair generalization.
Removed by mod
Because we have allowed this behavior to be acceptable, we have excused it with cute phrases like, “men will be men.”
It is not always men. I am a man and I have been sexually assaulted by a woman.
Nice to see everything is moving over from Reddit.
deleted by creator
Still its a fucking low amount of men. Its not men at large. It’s these specific criminally abusive individuals.
Which one is it? Always men, or not always men?
Statistically it’s men like 90% of the time.
Source?
Here’s an ABS nedia release that claims 97% of sexual assault offenders are male: https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/97-cent-sexual-assault-offenders-are-male
So i’d say it very reasonable to say gender is the #1 indicator for whether someone will commit sexual crimes. (Also note that if you look into murder, assault, child abuse etc, all of these are similarly one sided. It’s mostly males who do these things.)
Welk, that sucks :/
This screams “all lives matter”
No it doesn’t. The term “Black Lives Matter” doesn’t exclude other people’s lives from mattering so responding with the term “All Lives Matter” is weird.
In this case we are blindly labeling billions of people as being problematic when there is obviously some nuance.
I really hate the “men will be men” argument. Real men don’t rape or sexually harass people.
men will apparently just be men.
this thinking removes the sexual harasser’s & rapist’s responsibility for their crimes and moves it to their gender/DNA.
When criminal conduct is enabled, crime will escalate.
And saying not all men gives every man an excuse in their mind as to why they don’t need to do anything about the problem with their peers.
Yes! It absolves men of their responsibility to make their society/community safe and it ensures that if they become a problem then other men will not stop them.
Removed by mod
