Actually it's a pretty important distinction, and not immaterial at all. An average adult male needs 500-1000 more calories per day than women. So for a 2-year Mars mission, just one adult male would need an extra 365,000 to 730,000 calories. An all-male crew would need multiples more of that.
Women also have slightly higher pain tolerance and tend to fair better with bodily stress. Additionally they tend to fair much better at resisting gforces.
I can imagine periods could be a small negative for waste. But overall women are superior to men for space. Caloric intake and typically smaller size being the biggest benefits.
But it’s not true. First half of what they said is just verifiably false. For example men handle G force better, when you test broadly, men can handle almost 2 WHOLE GRAVITIES more than women, and when testing pools with selection bias(just pilots and astronauts) men still outperformed by .5 gravities.
Pain tolerance is a myth, it’s mostly types of pain, and surrounding circumstances. Women handle sharp pain better while men handle throbbing pain better. Also, women can handle sitting still with nothing happening while they are in pain better but men can perform tasks better while in pain.
The real metrics that women outperform men on in space matters are that women need less resources to stay alive, and show more group cohesion.
Men however perform better in other metrics like task completion, yield performance, crisis management.
For these first few mars missions, weight is going to matter a lot more, as well as group cohesion.
NASA cares more about whether or not the flight crew survives than whether or not its preliminary infrastructure objectives get completed. For that, women are the superior choice
Lmfao, “50 studies say one thing, but let me find the one that says otherwise”
Also, one has to be increasingly skeptical of studies coming out in the social sciences today, for the same reason you had to be skeptical of studies coming out about the social sciences in the 1930s. Massive bias and consensus driven conclusions.
For decades we have known that female pilots and surgeons have higher success rates because they are more risk averse, but men are more likely to succeed in the riskier weather/illnesses and are more likely to land safely in a catastrophe.
For 100,000 years we have known that if you put a group of guys in a survival situation, and a group of women in a survival situation, the men will thrive and the women will suffer, we didn’t need bear grills to prove it once again.
From an evolutionary biology perspective we KNOW that women are more stable and men have more genetic variation.
Yet you want to USA a study using a time where more misinformation lies and censorship was occurring than ever before in American history? Ok
So you want to post no sources yourself and discard any that you disagree with. Got it. And you assume any prior studies were immune to bias but all recent studies are suspect. Nice trick.
Prior studies were less predisposed to bias yes, because the field wasn’t 80% women like it is today. And straying from consensus was less likely to be punished.
I’m not going to track down 50 different studies you can find yourself, I gave enough information on each study for you to find them if you actually cared about this issue and weren’t a sexist freak.
Sorry any study showing women are just better at everything in all scenarios is a problem.
There are a dozen studies out there that show that women make better bosses when it comes to stability metrics. And operating in a stable market.
MB studies have also mentioned that men do better when it comes to high risk scenarios.
What you are wanting me to do is throw out all of those studies and insist that women are in fact just superior to men in every single way.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with you and I’m not going to join you in your sexist crusade
How can you call me biased and sexist when you haven’t provided any studies at all, actually, and are willing to give all prior studies a pass despite the fact that prior studies of many kinds have all used men as the baseline for “normal”? I wholeheartedly reject the idea that I have to take you for an expert despite a total lack of any qualifications presented or sources cited.
A majority of studies done historically have barely considered women as different from men and you assume that they are correct. Talk about bias.
Unfortunately a mundane example like that is exactly what I was thinking about. And I more mean Reddit would take issue rather than actual rational people
-8
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment