Female Astronaut Sets Space Record

Raver32 writes to tell us that U.S. astronaut Sunita 'Suni' Williams has set a record for the longest single spaceflight by a woman. Breaking the previous record of 188 days set by astronaut Shannon Lucid in '96, Williams has lived aboard the space station since last December. "'It's just that I'm in the right place at the right time,' Williams, 41, said when Mission Control in Houston congratulated her on the record. 'Even when the station has little problems, it's just a beautiful, wonderful place to live.'"

Comments

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Her fellow crewmen on the ISS were heard asking where their dinner was.

Re:In other news...

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Burning karma by top-posting and not turning off the bonus, but it's worth it to ruin the jokes that are sure to come by simply saying:

Diapers.

There, now you can mod all those posts (and this one too, just wait a few hours please) redundant.

Re:In other news...

[CrazyTalk]

Troll??? Aw come on, mod parent UP as FUNNY.

Re:In other news...

[davidsyes]

And, her drink? I wonder if her breakfast of champions includes Sunny Delight.

Re:In other news...

[eonlabs]

I would be concerned if a man had achieved the "longest spaceflight by a woman"

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another crewwoman earlier performed the longest auto driving in paupers.

Re:In other news...

[CrazyTalk]

Now *I'm* a troll? This is getting out of hand!

Re:In other news...

[AoT]

Because if it were a post about a black man setting a record in space and the first post was about picking cotton no everyone would think it was hilarious.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a good joke, I sure would.

Is there some new rule that only a racist/sexist tells racist/sexist jokes or finds them funny? Because if so I'll either have to stop finding certain things funny or ditch all of my black & female friends and become a racist, sexist asshole.

Re:In other news...

[AoT]

Is there some new rule that only a racist/sexist tells racist/sexist jokes or finds them funny?

Yeah, brand new! No one has ever mentioned before how fucked up racist and sexist humor is.

By a woman?

[TheRaven64]

Are women in some way better or worse adapted to living in space than men? If not, then why is this at all relevant. Is there a record for longest single spaceflight by a blond, or a black person? What about 'longest single spaceflight by someone with the Slashdot UID TheRaven64?' That record, at 0s, is held by me. W00t!

Once you start picking subsets of humans who have achieved something, it quickly becomes meaningless.

Re:By a woman?

[CastrTroy]

If you look at the Guinness book of world records, you will see that a lot of the records are differentiated by sex. When you think about it, it's kind of odd. Women have been fighting for equal rights for so long, and yet in situations such as this, women are considered inferior, or at least, different.

Re:By a woman?

[stoolpigeon]

I can see where you are coming from - but I think that in America (she is an American astronaut) there is some value to emphasizing the possibilities to certain groups in the past that were told that they were incapable of certain things, be they intellectual or physical limitations. If you think that isn't so, just take a look at the number of jokes in this thread that are born out of a disregard for women as capable. I don't want to be all pc about this but I think it is a real issue - I guess as a father with daughters I'm more sensitive to it.

Re:By a woman?

[Timesprout]

Well I remember reading about a US Navy study some years ago that concluded that nuclear submarines would function more efficiently if they were crewed solely by women because they coped better mentally with prolonged cramped living conditions similar to those on the space station.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

What struck me upon reading the article was the passage that mentioned women in zero gravity stop ovulating after two to three months. I think this may have serious implications for long-term human space travel.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important because of sex inequality. She persevered and she succeeded.

Re:By a woman?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Insane drug and sex parties with zero-G Kamasutra moves lasting for days and days without fear of pregnancy? Is that what you meant?

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are women in some way better or worse adapted to living in space than men?

More holes.

Re:By a woman?

[CastrTroy]

If anybody has ever worked in place where the staff was mostly/all female, they will tell you that the work place dynamics were not good. Arguing over stupid little things and holding grudges against other coworkers is common. I don't mean to generalize here, but as far as I've heard, workplaces with mostly women end up being very hostile. Contrast that to the male dominated places where I worked. Arguments did happen, as they always will, but most men are able to move on and forget about so that the work gets done.

Re:By a woman?

[elrous0]

Frankly, I'm more worried about their stability back on the ground.

Re:By a woman?

[Timesprout]

I agree, I find women in the workplace are generally polite to each other and then frequently turn around and bitch like anything behind each others back. However the office wokspace is a very different environment to a nuclear submarine where you are deployed for 6-8 months at a time in a 100m long narrow metal tube, sharing bunks, monotonous shifts etc and there is just no getting away from each other. Thats what the study concluded women dealt with better than men with improved discipline and efficiency IIRC.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a daughter who is 5. She thinks astronauts are cool, without any encouragement from me--really, she just picked it up. We've been watching this mission off and on over the past week on Nasa TV.

Every shot on TV, whether it's an interior shot of the crew or an exterior spacewalk, she asks "Is that a girl?" This is entirely without any encouragement from me or "programming" in school, she just asks. She asks the same question when she's watching sports on TV. She asks it about her doctor, her teachers, just about every profession she sees. It's a big deal to her. Society hasn't drummed anything into her head, there's no politics or agenda involved. It's clear she's just looking for people/activities she can relate to.

Sure, it's bad that we differentiate based on stuff that shouldn't matter, but it's not bad (and seems to be genetically ingrained) that we look to role models similar to ourselves, whether the similarity is superficial or not.

Re:By a woman?

[svendsen]

Can we focus more on the all female crew and "sharing bunks" please?

Re:By a woman?

[billstewart]

There are records where gender directly makes a difference - most children, for instance.

And there are records where gender influences body shape, size, strength, and therefore separate records might make sense - running fast or far, lifting weights, etc.

But then there are records like this where gender mainly influences the social environment - of those women who wanted to be astronauts when they were kids, or who kind of fell into it later after being doctors or test pilots, the percentage who could get through the prejudice of the military (who are the main source for astronauts) or the other civilian organizations that NASA deals with is going to be lower than the number of men who have that.

So it's kind of like "Record for being in space longest with one hand tied behind your back". You can either give extra karma points to the person who sets the record, or deduct them from the people who discourage women from being astronauts.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very often true. I can tell when my wife has a bad day at work, when the first thing she says when she gets home is: "I hate women."

Re:By a woman?

[stoolpigeon]

That is an awesome point. My girls do the same thing. And I find myself intentionally seeking out things that I can show them where women are excelling because I want them to see that. We watch track meets, womens soccer and we read books about and by successful women. This is something else that I can show them. Makes a nice counterpoint to the flood of media coverage on Paris Hilton or the Miss Universe pageant and so on.

Re:By a woman?

[stoolpigeon]

hot racking is not what you think it is.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

But woman are equal now, right? What is the cutoff point for special treatment? 10 generations? 50?

Re:By a woman?

[everphilski]

No, the concept of sending a ship out into space to explore our neighbors - basically a 1-way expedition spanning generations - might not be a possibility if we can't start up a second or third generation in space.

Re:By a woman?

[AvitarX]

I bet it has to do with the perception that women would not be suitable for space flight (because it would interfere with their task of baby making) that has held women back as astronaughts to a degree. It is an achievement, and shows that women are starting to be treated equally when you have multiple instnces of 6 month in space time.

I imaging that you will find many first black this and best black that in fields where race doesn't have too much of an impact (it could be argued that it impacts pretty much everything in our country though, it is amazing what seemingly reasonable people will say when they don't think you are offended by racism).

Re:By a woman?

[stoolpigeon]

I think there is ample objective evidence that institutionally men and women are not equal now. So I guess the answer to your first question is No. With that in mind I would say we can think about your second question once we have passed 1 generation.

Re:By a woman?

[cashman73]

the flood of media coverage on Paris Hilton or the Miss Universe pageant and so on.

Hmm,... that gives me a great idea! I'd like to nominate Paris Hilton as the next woman to (a) go into space and (b) break the record for longest female spaceflight. I'd like to set the duration at infinity , please. That would spare us a whole lot down here on earth! :-)

Re:By a woman?

[morgan_greywolf]

That's right. I, for one, look forward to the day when we can post on Slashdot about the longest time in space spent by a wheelchair-bound transgendered lesbian Jewish African-American/Native American mixed-race learning-disabled illegal immigrant astronaut! That day will surely go down in infamy!

Re:By a woman?

[captnitro]

+10. As of right now, every other post is not about what this person has done -- spending nearly six months orbiting the earth -- but the fact that we shouldn't be filtering on sex. I'm not sure what they're claiming -- it's not like she gets higher pay or a new car for spending more time in space. She didn't get a certificate to hang. She just gets to spend (wait for it) ..more time in space. It's just a statement of fact, so I'm not sure why every Slashdotter is suddenly concerned about equity when they've never been before.

Keep in mind, if the space station was a more accurate sampling of reality, we'd have a roughly equal number of women and men on board. Of course, that assumes you would have equal numbers of men and women in the armed forces, as scientists, and in other 'prereqs' for NASA. But we don't -- that's why this kind of thing is special, that's all.

Re:By a woman?

[rts008]

Wish I had some mod points for you (insightful at least), but i don't...thus my reply.

As with a lot of things in our society that need fixed/tweaked, as parents we have a LOT of power to help this along. But only if we as parents make the effort to wield that power effectively.

Most of my attitudes haven't changed a lot since becoming an adult, to which I credit to my parents doing a good job raising me.

It's kind of like building a house- no matter the $$$'s spent on fancy materials and trimwork, if it has not been built on a good, solid foundation, it may as well be a whitewashed mud hut just waiting for inclement weather to bring to the ground.

Parents: build your kids a good foundation to grow on, and a lot of our problems will dwindle as time goes on, instead of getting worse-Use that power!

Crap! What was I thinking? This is /. so I should of used a bad car analogy!

Re:By a woman?

[roseanne]

I think this particular record is meaningless, however I do see the PR value of hyping this -- she is a minority (Indian-American) and comes from a culture which has traditionally repressed women. Her achievements are certainly inspirational to a lot of women from the part of the world she comes from.

Re:By a woman?

[Waffle Iron]

a 1-way expedition spanning generations - might not be a possibility if we can't start up a second or third generation in space.

Given what has been shown to happen in just over a year on a space station, anybody who spends a decade or more in zero-G would probably end up totally physically incapacitated. Subsequent generations of zero-G dwellers would probably rapidly devolve into a gelatinous mass. Therefore, any long-term space travel would certainly have to utilize some form of artificial gravity.

Re:By a woman?

[Kwiik]

Lets tell girls _and_ boys that they are incapable of accomplishing anything more than bagging groceries

then I can keep my job when I'm 40 years older

OTOH having a plateau halfway up the mountain could be seen as a good stepping stone for any lesbian.. they're going to try and take the man down from the top no matter what, but they only have to go halfway first & then get a boost of adrenoline.

Re:By a woman?

[Mike1024]

Once you start picking subsets of humans who have achieved something, it quickly becomes meaningless.

It's a crazy world we live in - Next thing you know, for Hillary Clinton to become the first female president, or for Barack Obama to become the first African American president, will be considered somehow 'meaningful'.

Re:By a woman?

[TheRecklessWanderer]

You know it's actually worse than meaningless.

There is always the implication when saying "by a woman", of "for a woman".

It's like saying that they are not as capable as men are.

If I was a woman, it would piss me off that someone says to me "by a woman" because that is implying that {women are} being held to a separate (and under the "for" concept, a lesser) standard, which should not be the case.

why can't this person be the 4th longest flight, or the 10th longest flight or the longest flight, whatever her ranking among everybody is.

I know if I was graduating from school I would rather be X position in my class, rather than Y position in my little subgroup, even if X > Y.

Re:By a woman?

[drinkypoo]

Given what has been shown to happen in just over a year on a space station, anybody who spends a decade or more in zero-G would probably end up totally physically incapacitated. Subsequent generations of zero-G dwellers would probably rapidly devolve into a gelatinous mass. Therefore, any long-term space travel would certainly have to utilize some form of artificial gravity.

Artificial gravity is a triviality when you have enough mass to work with. You just rotate the whole fucking ship. Easy as pie and you're not flying by the seat of your ass anyway, you're flying by computer and so the direction your body is pointed (as compared to the direction of the ship's travel) is fully irrelevant.

Re:By a woman?

[maxwell demon]

Since acceleration is equivalent to gravity, this might be solved by having regular acceleration phases long enough for women to ovulate again. Or even frequent enough so they don't stop ovulating to begin with. Given the other health issues caused by zero-G, it's probably a good idea to have regular acceleration phases anyway.

Re:By a woman?

[Rob T Firefly]

Subsequent generations of zero-G dwellers would probably rapidly devolve into a gelatinous mass. Therefore, any long-term space travel would certainly have to utilize some form of artificial gravity.

Or at least a spoon and some pineapple slices.

Re:By a woman?

[good soldier svejk]

she is a minority (Indian-American) and comes from a culture which has traditionally repressed women. Her achievements are certainly inspirational to a lot of women from the part of the world she comes from.

I agree that American culture has historically repressed women and I am sure that women from Eastern Massachusetts will find her achievements inspirational. She is certainly an impressive woman. Of course other cultures have their own impressive women to inspire them. India for instance had, Phoolan Devi, and a certain Prime Minister, for better or worse.

Re:By a woman?

[merikari]

I'd like dispel this myth, but sadly I have to confirm it. I have worked in two different workplaces where 95% of the staff was female, and there was a lot of veiled hostility. I have also noticed that this seems to be the problem especially at workplaces where the women have worked for several years, even decades (nice way of trying to avoid being called "agist" as well as misogynist).

Now, on the other hand. A 50/50 mix seems to be close to ideal. It could be something like 60/40 to one way or the other just as well. There's enough interaction between the sexes and also sexual tension. I think sexual tension is ok at the workplace, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with sex (as in sex sex).

Re:By a woman?

[multipartmixed]

Wow, you're, ah, quite the Anti-Semite, aren't you???

Re:By a woman?

[Doug Neal]

I'm more intrigued by this "office wokspace" thing. I've always been a strong supporter of woks, and would love to see how they can be put to use in the office.

Re:By a woman?

[CastrTroy]

it's interesting that you would call a country that has had a female prime minister as being repressive to women.

Re:By a woman?

[evildarkdeathclicheo]

Well, women are better/worse at bobsledding, skiiing, water polo, tennis, and a host of other things that seem rather silly to classify by gender. I guess we as sheeple are just used to things being explained to us in this simple way. -W

Re:By a woman?

[multipartmixed]

> it's interesting that you would call a country that has
> had a female prime minister as being repressive to women.

Um, Hilary hasn't been elected yet!

Oh wait, also, the USA has a "President", not a "Prime Minister". Next time, pay attention in civics! Yeesh!

Re:By a woman?

[Lumpy]

This is 100% true. The drama and angst at my wifes accounting firm is incredible. (she works for a all woman Accounting company) it's so bad she is already putting in resumes at other firms around here, actually looking for one where the number of men outnumber women.

She absolutely hates working in a "hen house" as she puts it.

Re:By a woman?

[WindBourne]

women are considered inferior, or at least, different.

Oddly enough, some ppl will consider them inferior for floating in space? But that is actually funny. For the same reasons that females are considered to be better suited to flying, they are also for being space.

1. smaller size means less resources i.e. food, water, and oxygen.
2. Ability to withstand larger stresses.
3. And for space, even better suited for being exposed to radiation( male sperm is always growing so exposure to radiation is harsh).

Heck, I suspect that the first colony to mars or other planets will be mostly women with frozen sperm sent along.

Re:By a woman?

[Brett Buck]

With video, preferably?

Re:By a woman?

[SlashV]

women are considered inferior, or at least, different. Do you suggest that they're not different ? Have you ever seen one ? Boy is this Slashdot ;D

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

What struck me upon reading the article was the passage that mentioned women in zero gravity stop ovulating after two to three months.

There's no such passage in the article. You must have been reading some other site.

Re:By a woman?

[Afrosheen]

Uh, you *do* know that a woman has a finite egg supply right? All the frozen sperm in the world wouldn't produce a child in a handful of barren women astronauts, whose eggs were laid to waste after years of space radiation. Meanwhile, a man creates millions of fresh little swimmers daily. So you damage the first 365 batches. There's a new one tomorrow!

Re:By a woman?

[jammo]

It's not possible full stop. To bear children in space is sick, they would never grow leg muscles to start with. Probably be breaking human rights laws of some sort. And if they did survive to grow to the age of 10 they's most likely do everything in their power to turn the ship around.

Re:By a woman?

[everphilski]

They'd never land on earth again: they would have all the muscles they would need for existance in space. And then some, if they have an exercise regimen. Plus, if they are accelerating, they will have a fraction of gravity which will passively build muscle and reinforce bones.

And if they did survive to grow to the age of 10 they's most likely do everything in their power to turn the ship around.

Says who? Many children and their parents colonized and pioneered in the past centuries with little if any human interaction outside their own families. They did all right... we are here today, aren't we?

Re:By a woman?

[Alomex]

One possible explanation is that we men have similar misguided instincts. To give an example, we have as a natural tendency to resolve things via fistfights, but over hundreds of years of workplace culture we have learned to difuse things before they reach that state (modulo the occasional fight in the Taiwanese parlament or pistol/fencing duels a mere 200 years ago).

Women in contrast, being new to the workplace, have yet to learn the habits of a successful workplace collaborative culture.

Re:By a woman?

[jammo]

Granted, if there were anywhere worth actually going in space, which may one day be possible I concede. It's probably inevitable given a few hundred years of advances in technology and that, I do remain optomistic that a ways in the future it might happen.

Re:By a woman?

[Barryke]

no. Heck, even toilets are still unisex. Good times the romans had indeed..

Re:By a woman?

[WindBourne]

radiation strikes MUCH harder on a cell that is undergoing mitosis and/or mieosis. In the case of a women, they have all their eggs from when they were a child. That means that when they are in space, the majoirty of the eggs are just sitting there akin to normal cells. Obviously, when ovulation occurs meiosis occurs, but those eggs are discarded if not fertilized. OTH, our little sperm is busy undergoing LOADS of mitosis/meiosis. As such, males can NOT withstand anywhere near the radiation that a women can (in terms of reproduction). The real problem is that the sperm will undergo large amounts of mutation, whereas the stable eggs undergo mutation. And the amount required to bring about mutation in eggs WILL kill the women. The amount of radiation to permantly mutate the sperm is a fraction of that amount.

In fact, in the USA air force survival manuals from the 60's through the 80s, it addresses this by talking about how to handle a bomb shelter. Basically, if anybody is to be exposed to radiation, it old ppl first (none reproductive), then females, then males, finally children.

But you knew all that, right?

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason Sunita's gender matters is because NASA depends upon positive public relations for continued congressional budget support. That's why everything NASA does has to be a "first" or set some new record. Pay attention and you'll see them do this on every single mission.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother! I am about to "do away with a batch of swimmers" right now ;-)

Re:By a woman?

[dwater]

so, we they'll need some tin foil underwear? ...and tin foil duvets.

Re:By a woman?

[WindBourne]

Actually, that is a mistake as well. You get secondary radiation (scatter). Instead, the suggestion back then was to use LOTS of lead, dirt AND WATER. For space, there are areas on ISS where the *onauts can take refuge from a radiation burst. In addition, new fabric has been created which does a good job of absorbing radiation without generating scatter. That same fabric is being used on Bigelows.

Re:By a woman?

[QuantumG]

Women are more political than men.

That's not sexist. That's the truth.

Re:By a woman?

[QuantumG]

Much better off just developing fully automated artificial wombs. Aka birthing pools. Aka human decanters.

Then you can just send the genetic material in a nice frozen form and when your probe finds a suitable planet, it just dumps the humans out.

You'll need some robots to raise the humans of course. Teach 'em an appropriate language.

Throw in a VCR and tape on Earth and a copy of Wikipedia.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are more political than men.

So if everything really was fair and equal, you'd expect more women in politics?

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a record. If I hold the record for holding my breath underwater for ten minutes and a woman comes along and holds her breath for seven minutes - she doesn't have a record. And honestly, in the year 2007 can't we please stop referring to everything as a "first" or a "record", just because this time it was done by a woman? Or a teen? Or a grandmother? Or a polyponesian tribeswoman with carpel tunnel syndrome?

If this news story highlights anything, it's that women are NOT as good as men. If they were, why would they need a special news story to celebrate being second best in something... to a man?

Re:By a woman?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I don't know about you, but I'm not leaving this planet unless there's some space orgies promised to me in writing first.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you suggest that they're not different ? Have you ever seen one ? Boy is this Slashdot ;D

  Well of course! I HAVE one.
  I have to guard her very well, tho!
  If I go out, mom sometimes comes downstairs and deflates her.
  (but I think that's just 'cuz she's suspicious of my dad...)

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is kind of noteworthy. Yes, it's a little bit meaningless, but going into space is still pretty special and it's nice to celebrate small milestones. It's not somehow denigrating women, it's just celebrating another small, if meaningless, marker on our (also sometimes a little pointless) quest to send more and more people into space.

Besides, I don't think anyone was saying this really meant anything, it's just one of those things you notice. It ups the number of press releases and news stories from NASA. Anyway, space travel started out as a very largely male-dominated field, so this could also be seen as a small indicator as to how things have evened up, which is also a nice excuse to celebrate.

It would seem odd to purposely ignore it because it might be seen as differentiating and therefore insulting women - it'd be nice to just relax about these things. Women aren't men, they shouldn't have any limits placed upon their lives because of this but there's some variety in the species and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. Sex is definitely something people notice, so that in itself makes this something people are interested to hear about, which is what makes it a new story and not an attack on anyone's gender..

Re:By a woman?

[Poromenos1]

Not only that, but the title says "Female astronaut sets space record", and then the record is "longest single spaceflight by a woman". How exactly could a man have set this record?

Re:By a woman?

[morgan_greywolf]

I guess you saw the word 'Jewish' and missed the entire point of my post.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to consult the blacks on that one.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are different to men. Equality is not about pretending that different types of persons don't exist.

Re:By a woman?

[raddan]

It's not true in my case. I work in an environment that has 8 men and roughly 150 women. All of us who work here are committed to getting our jobs done, and we work well together. True, being the only man in a meeting with a dozen women is certainly a different dynamic than being in a balanced or male-dominated environment. But I'd rather work with people who might go overboard to treat me like a human any day than work with a bunch of mouth-breathers who think calling each other 'cocksucker' and bragging about their drinking habits is funny. Thank God I don't work with the meatheads next door. If the 'bitchy' behavior happens here, I'm not seeing it.

Plus, about a quarter of our employees are girls straight out of college. I don't at all mind the eye candy.

Re:By a woman?

[multipartmixed]

I didn't miss the point of yours -- in fact, I agree -- but I think you missed the point of mine.

It's more zen than blatant, though. You may need to reflect to achieve enlightenment.

Re:By a woman?

[Trogre]

I'm interested in this whole body in space degrading over time issue. Can you please point me to some literature on the topic?

thanks

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are records where gender influences body shape, size, strength, and therefore separate records might make sense - running fast or far, lifting weights, etc.

So does distance running offer an advantage to women or men?

The world records for quintuple ironman and deca ironman are held by a woman. Records for double, triple, and quadruple are held by men, as is the 15x.

Re:By a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting theory, but both men and women have the same opportunity, generally, to learn the lessons of the past. No man alive now was around 200 years ago to see Hamilton vs. Burr and carry that lesson directly forward to today.

Be it nature or nurture (or both), women definitely act differently socially, and veiled hostility somehow seems to crop up a lot in groups with high concentrations of women. I went to a school that had an all-girl dormitory. Except for the nerds, who kept to themselves more, almost all of the girls were dying to move into one of the co-ed dorms or off campus because of the discord in the hall. I lived in an all-guy dorm. Most people got along pretty well.

You might try as an alternate theory the idea that men tend to think in binary, so it's either "we're cool" or "I'm gonna beat the crap out of him." With a declining acceptance of beating the crap out of people, that leaves men generally harmonious, but I think I could find plenty of flaws in that theory, too.

heh

[stoolpigeon]

my initial reaction was that they shouldn't make a big deal over it based purely on sex - but the more I think about it, I hope that this is something that inspires more women to be involved in engineering and other male dominated fields. I think it would be beneficial to all of us.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the world record for the number of consecutive times a man remembered to put the toilet seat down?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sally Ride celebrates the anniversary of her first space flight today. Sally Ride was the first American woman in space (not the first woman, however). She has a certain stature in the science community. Her popularity as an astronaut has allowed her to gain more mainstream support for her activities that encourage children, especially girls, to seek careers in science and engineering.

Re:heh

[turgid]

Ha cha cha cha.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that this is something that inspires more women to be involved in engineering and other male dominated fields. I think it would be beneficial to all of us. In what way? Other than that there are now more women working in those fields. Diversity for diversity's sake isn't something I would consider beneficial. Because then you end up with scenarios where a person gets a job, not because they are better at it, but because the workforce needs to be more diverse culturally, ethnically, or sexually. It's almost like polite rascism.

Re:heh

[meta coder]

just imagine a woman between men for a long time without have sex, obviously it's a record

Re:heh

[turing_m]

It would actually be better for those women to have some children with another smart guy if they are at all on the fence about deciding on such a career. There aren't many of them, and it's about time we stopped eating our seed grain.

Re:heh

[stoolpigeon]

More women coming into those fields wouldn't be diversity for diversity's sake. Simple math tells you that there are plenty of women who could bring something valuable to the table who are not there.

Obligatory

[wampus]

She also set the record for the most number of orbits with the turn signal on.

Re:Obligatory

[$RANDOMLUSER]

She also set the record for the most number of orbits with the turn signal on.

No. That would be John Glenn, age 77 on STS-95, Nov. 1998.

Re:Obligatory

[everphilski]

No, John Glenn set the max number of orbits with his hazards on doing 40 on the interstate.

Re:Obligatory

[megaditto]

Well, come to think of it, they did have the Shuttle all scratched up, and some of the computers went down for no apparent reason.

"...by a woman"

[Hatta]

Does it seem a little demeaning to anyone else that this is just the longest spaceflight "by a woman"? It makes it seem like the girls are playing "Me Too!" Who cares if it's a woman or a man. Just let me know when the longest space flight by a person of any gender occurs, that will be note worthy.

Re:"...by a woman"

[stoolpigeon]

In this country, and as I understand it - in many others, women are not treated equally and are still considered by many to be less of a person than men. In that environment I think it is completely appropriate to point out that people who hold such opinions are completely in the wrong.

Re:"...by a woman"

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't giving woman special treatment not helping? "Ok missy, we'll give you special training and extra help. We know you woman need extra recognition after all."

Re:"...by a woman"

[Belial6]

Of course, in this case, the report is by someone who thinks that women are inferior, and thus need to be congratulated for coming in second in a two gender race.

Re:"...by a woman"

[stoolpigeon]

I am unaware of this special treatment that she has been given? Would you like to share your knowledge of it?

Re:"...by a woman"

[dharbee]

"In that environment I think it is completely appropriate to point out that people who hold such opinions are completely in the wrong."

And you do such an effective job of that by pointing out that the woman's record is significantly less than the men's record.

Pure genius.

Re:"...by a woman"

[Deliveranc3]

It was that crazy russian guy and will be for a long time, he had serious medical reprecussions and they won't be doing it for a while.

In 50 years it'll be "longest american football in space."

Re:ever wonder.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to experience it fo yoself, we be happy to accommodate.

Signed,
The Gay Niggers from Outerspace

Hmmm

[Hognoxious]

Am I the only one wondering how much, you know, hygeine products she got through?

Re:Hmmm

[dr_dank]

Am I the only one wondering how much, you know, hygeine products she got through?

Probably equal to the number of dictionaries you have.

Re:Hmmm

[Hognoxious]

Four? Must be the reusable kind.

Neat, so when do we stop.

[ushering05401]

I know many fem rights activists as my sister is an advocate for the cause (Berkeley based). Many of those ladies get offended by the constant separation of female achievement from male achievement.

So the question is when do we stop. Previously a woman spent 188 days in space. This woman broke that record. Another woman will break the new record. I get the feeling that people are holding up these records as some sort of validation that we now treat women equal to men.

Reality is, we are treating women equal to men when they are judged by the same criteria. The day that I see a story on the /. front page that a woman holds the *overall* record for time in space is the day I will start believing that humanity has come to terms with equality between the sexes.

Then again, my experience conversing with fem related activists shows me that as many women would disagree with this point as might agree.

Just something to think about. In my mind this story is kinda equivalent to the old example of hidden racism... the one related to calling a black person 'well spoken'... which is apparently offensive to many black people (for several reasons) but thought of as a compliment by most white people. If you are unfamiliar with this concept ask a sociology grad to explain it, as I do not have links to the studies.

Regards.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[Hatta]

You're 100% correct. I think that dividing sports teams into men's and women's divisions is sexist as well. The rules are the same whether you're a man or a woman. The fact that a woman soccer player may not be as strong or as fast as a professional male soccer player is irrelevant. *I* am not as strong or as fast as a professional soccer player, I don't get my own league. The whole point of competitive sports is for people to succeed or fail on their merits.

I think if they're going to have women's leagues because they're physically disadvantaged with respect to men, then they should have white basketball leagues since they're physically disadvantaged with respect to black people.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[CastrTroy]

*I* am not as strong or as fast as a professional soccer player, I don't get my own league.

You mean to tell me they don't have amateur leagues and semi-pro where you live? How is that any different from a women's league? It's not like the players in the women's league get as much money or TV coverage as the men.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[greginnj]

I know many fem rights activists as my sister is an advocate for the cause (Berkeley based). Many of those ladies get offended by the constant separation of female achievement from male achievement.

Just out of curiosity (this isn't a troll, I'm really curious) does your sister (and/or her colleagues) support the efforts of female golfers to compete in (men's) PGA tournaments? (e.g. Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie). If so, do they similarly support the elimination of the LPGA in favor of a single non-gendered professional golf association?

I raise this question because there seems to be an implicit assumption that a certain level of gender segregation is the 'right' amount to have, and I'm curious as to how people explain their judgments on this issue. (There's a side issue, more contentious but no less interesting, about whether allowing women to enter men's events should be matched by allowing men to enter women's events, or whether some sort of affirmative-action goal is being served by allowing LPGA golfers to play in PGA tournaments, but not allowing Tiger Woods to play in LPGA tournaments).

Whatever its other failings, the 'total segregation' position is at least consistent, as is the 'zero segregation' position. Most people, however, hold intermediate positions with less clear justification.

A few for-instances: Why, in the Olympics, are the equestrian events gender-integrated, but Curling is segregated? Why is competitive chess gender-segregated, but not competitive poker?

Before we go around cheerleading or decrying a particular incident or situation, it might be smart to discuss what principles and values we would bring to bear on designing our wished-for end state of appropriate gender equality.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[ushering05401]

There are so many things wrong with your post it is insane.

Regards.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[kabocox]

Reality is, we are treating women equal to men when they are judged by the same criteria. The day that I see a story on the /. front page that a woman holds the *overall* record for time in space is the day I will start believing that humanity has come to terms with equality between the sexes.

I wouldn't even really be excited by that. I'd be excited by not even really knowing/caring about it. What's the freaking deal about the gender of a record holder? I know that's one of the first thing we do to group ourselves. We seperate ourselves by age, sex, race, and other traits. I don't really care what physical traits that a recorder holder may have other than those that lead them to be the record holder of said comptetion. I don't even care about the longest time in space or what ever. Why I can spend $1-2K and spend a weekend in space, then I'll care about it. Until then, space per se really doesn't matter to me. ;)

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[CastrTroy]

I watch a lot of golf. I have no problem with women in the PGA as long as they are hitting from the same tee position. From reading stuff like this article, it seems like women still don't have the necessary strength to keep up with the men's tour. And with the men's tour constantly getting longer to keep up with the longer shots men are capable of making (witness the 300 yard par 3 on last weekend's US Open, which the men still birdied), I don't think women are going to catch up very soon.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[CastrTroy]

Oh, sorry I left this out of my post before, but the reason I feel that equestrian events are gender integrated is because the horses are the actual athletes, not the people riding them. I'm not sure why equestrian is an Olympic event. At that point, you might as well add auto racing.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[Hoi Polloi]

Reminds me of how in Boston years ago there was a big stink about how a weightlifting gym had a seperate section for woman. They screamed until they dropped the distinction (can't dig up a link). Now there is a chain of gyms called Healthworks that is only for woman. For some reason THAT is ok. Gotta love double standards.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[rts008]

The Olympic Games started out as a celebration of the normal everyday skills of soldiers. Think of it as the old-time Club Med Martial Arts Competition.
  (just like USA's Rodeo celebrates some of the work skills of the Wild West era cowboys/ranchers)

As time went on, the Games became more popular, battle tactics changed (cavalry) new events were added, such as Equestrian events to reflect cavalry.

In more modern times it started reflecting more sports related events.
My guess as to why relates to my seeing sports taking a bigger place in competing with other places without resorting to actual battle to prove your prowess.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[Hatta]

Such as?

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[Hatta]

Well, I guess they do. I just want to see people at the same skill level compete, whether they're male or female.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[jcnnghm]

Would the majority of women be satisfied to live in a world where their achievements are overlooked because they are unable to compete on the same level as men, for whatever reason?

There is a double standard here, if a woman is the best, the record is listed as the best person at x, if a man is best, then records are usually listed as best male and best female at x.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[multipartmixed]

> If you are unfamiliar with this concept ask a sociology grad
> to explain it, as I do not have links to the studies.

A recent episode of Boston Legal dealt with this. Captain Kirk called a job applicant "Well Spoken -- Like Obama".

It was freakin' hilarious.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[Random Destruction]

The Olympics aren't just about physical strength. It has a lot to do with skill as well. Don't even pretend that you could do any of the equestrian events anywhere near the Olympic level. I'd also like to note that archery, table tennis, sailing and curling are current Olympic sports. Dressage/Show Jumping require as much athleticism as these.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[foobsr]

The day that I see a story on the /. front page that a woman holds the *overall* record for time in space is the day I will start believing that humanity has come to terms with equality between the sexes.

Drum fill!

My aspiration level is not so exorbitant; if equal wages would be paid down on earth, I think humanity could do without the /. frontpage story.

CC.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[lav-chan]

Nothing should be gender-segregated, ever. Not sports, not game shows, not clubs, not choirs, not board games, not locker rooms, not hospitals, not dorms, not graduations, not bath rooms, not anything. The only time segregation makes sense is when it is abilities-based. The fallacy is that many people believe that abilities always follow from sex, when they obviously do not -- they are only statistically likely to by varying degrees.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[JimDaGeek]

The tour is getting longer not because of men's strength (how many pro golfers look like very fit athletes?), but because of better tech in clubs and balls. Women should be able to keep up since they have access to the same tech.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[CastrTroy]

But if the tech only takes advantage of the high-speed, high-power impact kind of game that the men play, then I'm not sure how much it will help the women. Women don't play golf with brute strength like the men do. While they are amazing golfers, it's more about control and accuracy than it is about power. Same thing with women's tennis. Some say women's tennis is more enjoyable than men's because it's not just about brute strength, and you get a lot of longer rallies. Whereas men's tennis is just a bunch of ace serves. While I don't deny that improved technology can help women get longer drives, it's only a percentage that it adds. If the average woman drives the ball 200 yards (not saying that's accurate), and the club adds 10%, then they can drive the ball 220 yards. If the men can drive it 300 yards, then 10 % makes it 330 yards, meaning the men have an even bigger advantage due to the technology. Or maybe they'll start to add limitations about what exactly is a regulation club, so they won't have to keep on extending the courses.

Re:Neat, so when do we stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactamaly. Don'ts calls us well spoken, calls us edumacated,. (Wee's likes dat mo' better.)

Nigga gone.

Too long in space

[Animats]

If we had a decent launch capability, nobody would be spending that long up there. Things like this happen because of launch delays, not because anybody is supposed to spend that long on a mission.

The record is held by Valeriy Polyakov, who spent 431 days on Mir. He had the unfortunate experience of being up while the USSR was coming apart.

Re:Too long in space

[Otter]

I haven't been following what's going on with this crew, but I was reading the blurb here and thinking that Shannon Lucid certainly wasn't "in the right place at the right time". As you say, neither was Polyakov.

Re:Too long in space

[TheRaven64]

'On a different planet' was probably about the best place to be when the Soviet Union collapsed. This not being an option, I'd say Mir was probably a good second bet...

Re:Too long in space

[kabocox]

If we had a decent launch capability, nobody would be spending that long up there. Things like this happen because of launch delays, not because anybody is supposed to spend that long on a mission.

The record is held by Valeriy Polyakov, who spent 431 days on Mir. He had the unfortunate experience of being up while the USSR was coming apart.

If we had decent space stations, then there wouldn't be a need for them to ever come back down, and we'd have people living their entire lives up there.

Re:Too long in space

[megaditto]

You are right, it just cannot be done with the current tech. Muscle atrophy, deossification, drop in hemoglobin count, things like that...

Reproduction is out of the question in space, too, since the embryos are usually severely disfigured in zero G (hence sex is a big no-no up there).

Re:Too long in space

[kabocox]

You are right, it just cannot be done with the current tech. Muscle atrophy, deossification, drop in hemoglobin count, things like that...
Reproduction is out of the question in space, too, since the embryos are usually severely disfigured in zero G (hence sex is a big no-no up there).

Well, we actually have had the basic space tech for awhile on how large a proper space station should be to give you 1g by spinning it. That's not the problem. The problem is that it would be expensive to build the thing. Smaller isn't really better in space because you can't spin a small space station without making the people inside really sick.

Amazing talents

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from her appearance in zero-G, she must be a great cook with a warm personality.

Wrong headline

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Headline should be: "Cosmonauts put up with American woman's nagging for 188 days - new record!"

Radiation Exposure

[turgid]

Exposure to ionising radiation has a far worse effect on the female reproductive system than the male. This is reflected in UK Health and Safety laws. Spaceflight involves exposure to large "amounts of radiation," i.e. high doses.

However, I take your point, and I suppose the record has nothing to do with this, other than an anachronism from the days when men and women were treated very differently due to social stereotypes and prejudices.

Oh yeah

[DerCed]

In the end, it's just another "First post!"..

Wow that Advanced Science -NOT!!!.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that Advanced Science. To bad Mission Control in Houston didn't congratulate her on the record somewhere important. Like Mar's or even a second rate trip like the moon.

sex in space!!

[jhutchens]

I bet sex in zero gravity is awesome!

Re:sex in space!!

[steveo777]

The average /. reader is wondering that same question about anywhere.

Re:sex in space!!

[cashman73]

This might help answer that question,...

Re:sex in space!!

[jhutchens]

thanks for the link

Re:sex in space!!

[MLease]

I guess, being married, I'm not an average /. reader.... Oh, well; I never really wanted to be average, anyway!

-Mike

Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Blahbooboo3]

Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Women typically tell sexist jokes to the detriment of men everywhere. Many of them are far more 'insulting' than the idea that a woman would make dinner for her colleagues.

Yet, I have yet to hear a man whinge about them, or complain that this keeps large numbers of men out of the 'homemaker' or 'housecleaning' industries.

Lighten the fuck up, and seriously consider installing a sense of humour.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me ask you, would you be saying 'Loosen up' if it were a racist joke? If it's just a joke, I would, I believe that in the context of a joke, nothing should ever be off-limits. Just because someone tells a racist joke or finds one funny, doesn't mean they're a racist, the same thing goes for sexist humor. There are plenty of acts by women comics about how men are pigs, look at porn all day, and beat off at the drop of a hat. They're sexist jokes about men, so should I (being one) have to take offense? Of course not, because I'm intelligent enough to understand that it's a fucking joke!

If you don't find offensive comedy funny, that's fine, but plenty of people do, and they shouldn't have to be denied a form of entertainment because of a whiny minority that takes shit too seriously.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[JimDaGeek]

Please spare me. Women bitch about men all the time. Tons of places on the net for women to complain how "there are no good men out there".

Let me ask you, would you be saying 'Loosen up' if it were a racist joke?

I wouldn't. People need to get over this racism/sexism/Blah-ism junk. If someone makes a joke about a white dude, I don't get all flustered over it.

One thing I am wondering is why is this even news? I am not being sexist. Why should there be the first male who spent the longest time in space and the first female? Why not just the human with the longest time in space? Oh, and what about sports? Aren't women equal? So why are there world records for men and world records for women? Why not just a world record for the fastest, strongest, etc.?

This type of stuff isn't just male/female. It is also for every non-white man that does something. The first man in space, the first black man in space, the first women in space, the first black women in space, the first Asian in space, etc, etc. I personally don't care what the race/sex is. How about as a society we just acknowledge the first person to accomplish something regardless of sex/race?

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[JimDaGeek]

Opps, I did a typo. In response to:

Let me ask you, would you be saying 'Loosen up' if it were a racist joke?

I would say loosen up.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[powerpants]

I agree with you about the silliness of having a first-woman-in-space accolade, but sports are a different matter. Men and women have very different physiology after puberty and to pretend otherwise is fatuous. Granted, there are physiological characteristics that keep, say, (ethnic) Jews out of the NBA, but that's a very specific instance where height is at a premium. There are plenty of Jewish footballers who can compete at a world-class level.

Ending the gender-based segregation of sports would eliminate women's sports, and add little to the overall competition. They simply wouldn't be able to compete. With all due respect to Billy Jean King, Bobby Riggs was 55 when she beat him. She certainly wouldn't have fared as well against Jimmy Connors or Bjorn Borg?

That being said, I should reiterate my agreement that gender-based or race-based accolades are usually quite asinine. I saw a poster a while back announcing a lecture by Anousheh Ansari, the "first female space tourist."

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[enjerth]

Yeah, it's sexist to suggest that men expect women to fix dinner! I fix my own dinner!

I am highly offended.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Khaed]

And still we wonder why it's hard to get women into computing.

That's silly.

Women can neither read nor do math. Why do we need them in computing?

I will now refer you to every single female stand-up comedian ever to see jokes about men. Get over yourself. :)

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[JimDaGeek]

WRT to sports, if it is a sport that is dominated by strength, then yes, splitting by sex is OK. But sports like tennis, soccer(footbal)? I am not too sure about. Heck, what about American bowling? There is no reason a women cannot go against a man. I know I suck at bowling and would get creamed by a pro female. I also don't see why runners, not sprinters, should be segregated by sex. A female can be just as endurance conditioned as a man.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect to Billy Jean King, Bobby Riggs was 55 when she beat him.

I actually had no idea that that was the case. That basically relegates her accomplishment to complete irrelevancy. Thanks for the info.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[micheas]

I also don't see why runners, not sprinters, should be segregated by sex. A female can be just as endurance conditioned as a man.

Let's see, Men generally have a narrow more efficient hip structure than women, Larger lung capacity than women, greater muscle to weight ratio, and greater strength.

If a woman and a man run a half marathon in close to the same time, the woman is a much better athlete.

As a reguards to tennis, the speed of your serve is a big factor in how good you can be. and you can typically serve some factor faster than you can throw a baseball. Men typically can throw harder/faster than women do to the higher center of gravity, and greater upper body strength.

The only sports that I have seen women do close to as well as men are auto racing and horse racing. One big factor is that the more you weigh the worse you do. So sub hundred pound athletes like Danika Patrick have an advantage to make up for their relatively less upper body strength.

In gymnastics, the men and women have different competitions because of the biological differences between men and women.

I suppose curling may be a wash in terms of which gender is better, but that is the extent of what I can think of.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother. My wife cooks, I wash the dishes. We share the work. Hell, we even watch the same lesbian porn movies together. Then she tells me how she would go down on Silvia Saint.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Mike89]

Women typically tell sexist jokes to the detriment of men everywhere. Many of them are far more 'insulting' than the idea that a woman would make dinner for her colleagues.

Half of the time it's not even "jokes". Trust me, when my Mum has her divorced friends over, I'm sure to steer clear for the night. Even if they haven't met me before, I'm still the spawn of Satan.

Re:Parent Funny! Mod Up and Loosen up! :)

[Walter Carver]

You've got a point, and I agree. Both, men and women, we are equal, but not the same. For instance the female body isn't designed to withstand strain as the male one.

Equality and Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Today is the hottest day for Jun 18th in history where I live. Why are we discriminating against 29 perfectly good yet under represented days that could have been the hottest if we had only had them on the 18th. If we were really equal then all of the other days would be equally hot.

This is stupid. She's a woman and probably delighted to be one. Rather than complain about mentioning her sex, let's just give her a hearty congrat's and move on.

Re:Equality and Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

This is stupid. She's a woman and probably delighted to be one. Rather than complain about mentioning her sex, let's just give her a hearty congrat's and move on.

Rather than praising her on her amazing ability to have been born female, let's just not have the article in the first place.

If it were true, yeah.

[zippthorne]

But I seem to recall some broken Russian computer equipment recently, so I'm not inclined to believe they made it the full 188.

Honestly, does anyone care anymore

[sizzzzlerz]

about these "records"? I sure don't. Whether its Steve Fosset or Richard Branson playing with their rich-man toys or some meaningless [insert duration] while [insert activity] record, the result is the same -- Stop pestering me with reports, I simply don't give a damn.

More females in engineering and tech...

[Dareth]

would bring the dating pool closer. All you have to do then is find a way for it to be acceptable for the females to be drunk enough at work to consider dating you.

Re:More females in engineering and tech...

[rts008]

"...for the females to be drunk enough at work to consider dating you."

Remember where your posting...I think that much alcohol is considered a lethal dose in most human beings. It may be okay for cows though...gives a new perspective on the term cow-orkers!

Now to go scrub my brains with bleach to get rid of the mental images.

Astronaut Sets Female Space Record ...

[Palmyst]

is the more accurate headline.

Re:Astronaut Sets Female Space Record ...

[burndive]

I was going to post this exact reply.

Re:Astronaut Sets Female Space Record ...

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, unless a dude went up into space, had a sex change, stayed up there for awhile, had another sex change, and then came back down... then u know, "he" could break the "female" space record, lol...

Re:Astronaut Sets Female Space Record ...

[masterhibb]

Brilliant! If I could, I would mod you up.

NASA's The Real World

[Quiet_Desperation]

Sunita: Wow. I made a record.
NASA: Congrats!
Sunita: This is a great place to live.
NASA: Sure, why not. Now go to the galley and make dinner already.

I disagree

[everphilski]

there is some value to emphasizing the possibilities to certain groups in the past that were told that they were incapable of certain things, be they intellectual or physical limitations.

I guess as a father myself, I disagree. Instead of setting up seperate bars for men and women, the playing field should be level for everyone. Since we now tell our daughters that they don't have those incapabilities and limitations that prior generations had, shouldn't we tell them that they can attain as much as any individual on the face of this earth? Why are we construing a second set of records? "Sergei Krikalev holds the space duration record of 748 days in orbit, but the highest by a woman is ... "

Doesn't that sound demeaning to you?

An exception I do agree with is sports and olympic events. Our bodies are physically built differently. I understand setting up physical competitions that are gender based. But in the workplace and in educational pursuits, I don't see why we need to set up a second tier of markers for our daughters. They should be as capable as anyone, right?

Re:I disagree

[stoolpigeon]

Well I agree about telling our daughters that they are capable. But female role models in certain fields are very scarce due to the past discrimination. So I guess I'm glad to see a story about a female astronaut, for whatever reason.
 
I don't know that it sounds demeaning though, to anyone who understands the context. I for one, having been a part of the Naval aviation community, fully understand the kind of obstacles this woman overcame to get where she is. Obstacles no man in her class had to face.
 
Go look at her wikipedia write up. Notice how it starts? All the emphasis on her heritage? It looks sort of like some of the lists that are being created to mock my posts. People of just about any race or nationality are extremely proud to be associated with the space program and go out of their way to point it out. Why women shouldn't be allowed to be the same, I have no idea.
 
My initial reaction to the article was that if I had to guess - she is annoyed at the focus on her gender. And maybe she is. But the more I thought about it, the more I was pleased to see a woman achieving this getting attention - whatever the reason.

Re:I disagree

[lav-chan]

Not even sports should be gender-based. They should be based on classes (weight, height, whatever) just like gender-segregated sports are individually. A 250-pound body-builder-type female, for example, should not be stuck playing with a bunch of smaller females (or the very few larger ones) based solely on the fact that women statistically have smaller frames. The statistics obviously don't apply to her. She should play with people of a similar size, and if that means men, that's perfectly fine.

Re:I disagree

[JimDaGeek]

For the most part I agree with you. However, a 200 lbs. male power lifter will be stronger than a 200 lbs. female power lifter. It is just the nature of humans. For most sports, I do think you are spot on. Take tennis for example. Why can't that be unisex?

I remember when I was a kid this battle of the sexes tennis match. I think it was during the 70's? I was born in 1972, so I was a little young and don't remember it all. Anyway, they put some young female tennis player in her prime against some really old fart, over the hill male tennis player. The dude lost. Duh! I remember, vaguely, the media making a stink over it. Any old-timers out there remember this?

Re:I disagree

[dwater]

> Not even sports should be gender-based

Right! Nor based on any (other?) physical characteristic either.

I'm particularly keen on volleyball, but I'm not very tall. I've seen several people who are 'picked' because they're tall, but are less capable than I (am). At one point, I thought I might be able to be pretty good, but there doesn't seem to be much point if there's only one position for short people (libero) - it seems even setters (my favourite position) should be tall.

This reminds me of boxing - don't they have different competitions for people who are built differently?

Re:I disagree

[oakgrove]

The only problem with that is that pound for pound, men are considerably stronger than women on average. Your hypothetical 250 pound woman would get clobbered in practically any sport she entered where physical strength was an important advantage.

Re:I disagree

[lav-chan]

on average

Re:I disagree

[oakgrove]

on average

Is that supposed to be insightful or something?

The world bench press record for super heavy weight women is 551.2 pounds. For men it's 1010 pounds. The 20th score down on the list for men is 800 pounds. There are literally thousands of men in the world that would laugh at 551 pounds. The chances of a woman ever winning the overall bench press record are zero. To have women compete on the same level as men in powerlifting would forever doom women to not even second class place but it would basically kill women's powerlifting. It would be so sad, it wouldn't even be funny. Why would you want to see that happen. Basically, people would be saying, yeah, she might not ever place anything but last in a tournament but at least she's the strongest woman in the world. Hey, I know, why don't we have an all women's league. Then we are right back to where we are now. Better not to go through the trouble.

Re:I disagree

[lav-chan]

But that's just statistics. If you compare black men to white men there will be a similar difference, it just won't be as pronounced. That goes for just about any generalisation you can make about women and men -- they talk different (so do black and white people), they dress different (so do black and white people), they eat different foods (so do black and white people), they listen to different music (so do black and white people), they watch different movies (so do black and white people), they have different body features (so do black and white people), they have different susceptibilities to disease (so do black and white people), they have different crime rates (so do black and white people), et cetera. The only differences are the degree and the fact that people inexplicably care more when something is different across sexes rather than across races or nationalities or eye colours.

The fact that women will never be first place in bench-pressing doesn't bother me at all. You probably won't either. That doesn't mean we should invent some fictional prerequisites to give you a better chance at recognition (world bench press record for people named [insert your name] who live in [insert your state/province/whatever]).

Re:I disagree

[oakgrove]

I'm not going to argue your opinion as you are free to have it as I am free to have mine. However, I would like to point out that the physical differences between men and women is much more pronounced than the differences between black and white men. White men can compete successfully at the top of any sport right alongside the best black athletes. I direct your attention to the little publicized fact that right now, all three recognized major heavyweight boxing belts are held by white men. Also, there are very strong white athletes in basketball, e.g. Steve Nash, Larry Bird, and the plethora of eastern european players that come over here to play. And that's just a couple of sports. Incidentally the two main ones that are known particularly for their black dominated natures. So, in short, to compare the differences between whites and blacks and men and women and see some kind of congruity is a bit disingenious. I apologize for the spelling and the poor grammar. My mind's a bit split right now. And you're right, no bench press titles for me.

Re:I disagree

[lav-chan]

However, I would like to point out that the physical differences between men and women is much more pronounced than the differences between black and white men.

Well for sure they are. But i bet there are other differences (besides physical ones) between black and white people that are more pronounced than the differences between, say, white females and white males. I don't think there's any fair way to decide the threshold for pronouncedness in either case.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. We should segregate based on race but let's not stop at sports.

Re:I disagree

[Straif]

But your entire argument is based on sociological differences which cannot be measured or controlled. Sports and other physical based events, separate in terms of maximum ability, which can be much more easily measured so despite your earlier 'argument' to the contrary, statistics matter.

By a geek?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once you start picking subsets of humans who have achieved something, it quickly becomes meaningless."

This just in; a geek has bagged over a hundred women. Audiance is stunned.

The most female

[SkeptAck]

"The first time we have two female commanders in orbit - that will be neat," Whitson said.

He should have said "hot".

Don't bite the hand that feeds/shelters you?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Even when the station has little problems, it's just a beautiful, wonderful place to live.'

Of course she would say that. Otherwise she is fired and has to vacate the space station immediately. And getting kicked out of the space station into the outer space is a bad way to leave your job.

You've opened my eyes

[Kwiik]

[quote]the playing field should be level for everyone[/quote]
We should tell boys as well as girls that they are worthless and will grow up to bag groceries
that way nobody will try

(and I'll keep my job when I'm 40 years older)

NASA really needed this

[myth_of_sisyphus]

Their last most famous female astronaut wore a diaper in a cross-country ride for a little revenge-torture. And the one before that disintegrated in the atmosphere while the one before that asploded.

It makes me a little sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

... when I realize, that after spending decades and billions and billions of dollars, the most exciting announcement NASA makes is "Female Astronaut Sets Space Record."

Yeah boy, that's worth all the time and money we've invested in NASA.

Simple answer.

[ushering05401]

At the top levels of competition the playing field should be level. If any person can compete at the top level they should be allowed to do so.

There are realities about physical form dictated by hormones that differ between the sexes, but there is also an incredible variation on both sides of the sex issue.

Many women have extremely athletic form, and many men have... uh... not athletic form. On the intelligence front we recently saw a study that suggested testosterone influenced mathematical abilities while lack of it increased verbal skills. But that does not mean that a particular man is better at math than a particular woman.

You can keep segregation in sports so long as there is the opportunity for all humans to reach their maximum potential at the top level of competition.

In America this would mean opening the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.. to people of both sexes, but keeping the feeder leagues gender separated. And there are feeder leagues. The NBA has the male only NBADL for men unable to compete at the top level. The NFL has the World League which is mostly populated by Americans (I know several) who cannot compete at the top level. The NHL has a farm system as does MLB.

Keep those male only. Keep the WNBA, the WPGA, and all the other women's leagues (there are club hockey leagues, baseball leagues etc..) women only. But if someone begins to rise to the top of their gender separate league they deserve a shot at the true top level of competition. This is an issue similar to the Baseball integration. The 'negroes' had their own league, so why should they be allowed to play with whites?

Regards.

Re:Simple answer.

[icegreentea]

you open up top level teams, you end up with a 10:1 male female ratio or something. it'll effectively be the same thing, or even worse. especially with the more physically demanding sports. not to mention a PR shitstorm that is going to appear when some female athlete gets all beat up by a guy (thick hockey).

Re:Simple answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

...beat up by a guy (thick hockey).

  I thick you may have made a Freudian slip. But as an ex-hockey player, I agree- that ice IS slippery!) ;-)

What does 188 days in space do with you?

[hcgpragt]

Does anyone know what such a long time in space does with your body?
What would be differences in impact between woman and men?
I seem to remember a documentary about Russian cosmonauts who's bone-mass had become alarmingly small after being in weightlessness too long.
Is that different these days?

H
p.s Please keep it scientific....

Re:What does 188 days in space do with you?

[pilgrim23]

one thing that is I am sure of some interest to women with an abundance in the area of mamary glands is; the lack of gravity means a lack of sag. I AM being scientific!

Re:What does 188 days in space do with you?

[hcgpragt]

Butt of course you are :)

seriuosly though.
Woman tend to have ligter bones and less mussle tissue,
Wouldn't a woman suffer from weigtlessness earlier and more?

Re:What does 188 days in space do with you?

[vorlich]

It provides the owner of the body with a reasonable standard of celebrity and they eventually get a High School named after them.

Re:ever wonder.....

[Anonymous Coward]

brufas gonna work it out
brufas gonna scream and shout

Re:ughh....god she is ugly.

[Anonymous Coward]

After 188 days in space, I doubt that the woman's face is the most important thing that men will be concentrating their attention on...

nope I think you're wrong

[fantomas]

I worked in the schools library service for many years. Female dominated profession. Often I was one of the few men. All ticked along nicely in the places I worked in, quiet days, deadlines, whatever.

Could be a reflection of the industry you're in, the country/ culture you're in, who knows...

Re:nope I think you're wrong

[dharbee]

Well I worked in a school too, then before that in child services.

YOU are wrong, GP is dead on.

Re:nope I think you're wrong

[fantomas]

I guess we just had different experiences. I have no idea of your work situation, what kind of school it was, what country it was in even. Unless you'd like to offer commentary on my workplace in the mid 90s in Scotland, I don't remember seeing you around there, so you'll have to take my word for it...

Re:nope I think you're wrong

[CastrTroy]

what deadlines and stress are there in the school library service. Sorry if i'm being a little naive here, but it doesn't seem like school library services would be a high-stress, high-paced type of work environment.

Re:nope I think you're wrong

[dharbee]

"so you'll have to take my word for it..."

Not really. I suspect this has very little to do with where we worked and everything to do with the perspective we took to work with us. I worked in MANY schools and child care facilities, and the vast majority of them are exactly as OP described. Your one example does little to nothing to negate that.

Re:nope I think you're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And your experiences do little that change the fact that he had a good one. Really, it might be against the norm but that doesn't take away from it showing that female dominated workplaces *can* be pleasant.

ok, lets stop now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next headline.

Woman sets record for absolutely nothing.

Do Fem-Nauts Get Issued Space Dildos ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Fem-Nauts Get Issued Space Dildos ?? Enquiring Nerd Wants To Know !!

Um, no

[dharbee]

"The rules are the same whether you're a man or a woman."

Not for the sport I played in college. Kind of moots your whole point, huh?

Re:Um, no

[Hatta]

If the rules are different, it's not the same game.

I prefer to imagine that they 'improvise'.

[FatSean]

All sorts of stuff up there on the station...surely some of it can find an additional purpose...

Re:I prefer to imagine that they 'improvise'.

[r00t]

All sorts of stuff up there on the station...surely some of it can find an additional purpose...

You mean like the Russian dude?

Re:I prefer to imagine that they 'improvise'.

[Anonymous Coward]

American dildos, Russian dildos, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

Still no

[dharbee]

Nope, you're wrong.

Volleyball has different net heights or men and women. The game is EXACTLY the same. The skillset is exactly the same.

Kind of silly to keep replying when you're only making yourself look worse.

Re:Still no

[Hatta]

Oh I don't particularly care how I look. And besides, I don't learn if I'm never corrected. Anyway, I stand by my assertion that if the rules are different they're different games. In this case it appears that men's volleyball and women's volleyball are different games. Not very different games mind you, but still different. Open both up to either gender and let the best players win.

Re:Still no

[JimDaGeek]

Hey, I agree, the only way one can learn is to try and to be wrong from time to time. Don't let the trolls bother you. With that said, many pro sports have different regulations for women vs. men. Is that "right" or "wrong"? I don't know. For some sorts "yes and no" and for others "no and yes".

Re:Still no

[dharbee]

"Anyway, I stand by my assertion that if the rules are different they're different games."

The RULES aren't different. The EQUIPMENT is. So you're still wrong.

"In this case it appears that men's volleyball and women's volleyball are different games."

Only to you, because you want to be right, but you're not.

"Open both up to either gender and let the best players win."

Having played at a very high level, let me say, this is moronic. The very best women's players are equivalent to very good high school players. You're simply wrong about everything you posted.

Re:Still no

[Hatta]

The RULES aren't different. The EQUIPMENT is. So you're still wrong.

The rules state where the equipment is meant to be placed.

Only to you, because you want to be right, but you're not.

I made a pretty reasonable argument. The games are different if the rules are different. The rules specify what equipment is to be used, therefore if you change the equipment you're changing the rules, and so the game is different. If I'm wrong, please tell me where. It's the only way I'll learn.

Having played at a very high level, let me say, this is moronic.

Why?

The very best women's players are equivalent to very good high school players.

That's kind of my point. If they can't win without protectionist rules like "no boys", should they win at all? The best players should win, whether male or female.

You're simply wrong about everything you posted.

Would you please demonstrate that instead of merely stating it?

Columbia and Challenger each had 2 women aboard

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Columbia had Laurel Clark and Kalpana Chawla, and Challenger had Judy Resnik and Christa McAuliffe.

Women's Rights Activist Complain...

[crashcodesdotcom]

... that there shouldn't be a record by gender.

Oh wait. I don't hear em' complaining. I for one think this takes away from the record for longest single spaceflight:

Dr Valeri Vladimirovich Polyakov - 437 days

Female Astronaut Sets Space Record...

[loudawg]

for having the craziest hair in NASA's history!

Yes

[Blahbooboo3]

Yes.

Why should women get special treatment in sports?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I understand that there's some sort of desire to level the playing field because, on average, women have a physical disadvantage vs men and by making a category for women we provide an opportunity for women to compete too.

However gender is not the only way in which people are physcially disadvantaged. Why is there no classification for "nerdy little runts" to give them a break too? About the only place this happens is in sports like weightlifting and boxing where there are divisions based on body weight.

When is a record not a record?

[suckmysav]

When it is followed immediately by the words "by a woman".

When are these dyke wannabe-men going to realise that they wont be considered the equals of men until they start actually gauging their "achievements" against the standards of men

Time and time again I see the news media breathlessly reporting that some woman has set a world record in something only to discover the words "by a woman" tacked on to the end.

Ladies, didn't Annika Sorenstam teach you anything?

Re:When is a record not a record?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err...it's the guys over at NASA giving her the accolades, she didn't have anything to do with it and quite probably would be happier with the record for longest single spaceflight rather than longest single spaceflight by a woman.

And what makes you think all successful women are lesbians? IIRC this lady is happily married, as are a fair few successful women.
Plenty of women want to compete on a level playing field with the guys, they're just not allowed to do so due to politics and such.

nope, reproduction is fine

[r00t]

It's been tried with mice and a number of other things.

joking

[PermanentMarker]

AS A JOKE

I just imagined on my vacation that we had to make several extra pee stops
Womans blader is smaller, so .. guesing how much that space thing travels.
The record might be the longest travel for a woman without a pee stop :)

just kiding, not ment to be offensive.
But she might set a record like this.

Sorry, but you're also wrong

[dharbee]

"Hey, I agree"

And you're wrong too.

"Don't let the trolls bother you"

I doubt he read your post.

If he was an option...

[FatSean]

...we wouldn't be discussing NASA-issue dildos!

I have, but you and listening aren't friends

[dharbee]

"I made a pretty reasonable argument. The games are different if the rules are different."

NO, rules are not equipment.

"The rules specify what equipment is to be used, therefore if you change the equipment you're changing the rules, "

No, you're changing the equipment, NOT the rules. Changing shoes does not change the rules. Wrong again.

"If I'm wrong, please tell me where. It's the only way I'll learn."

I have, LISTEN and you'll learn. Stop insisting your re-definition of terms is accurate and you'll learn.

"Would you please demonstrate that instead of merely stating it?"

I have. When you have a better argument than "I think rules=equipment even though I've been shown they're not" please make it. Otherwise, save your breath.

Re:I have, but you and listening aren't friends

[Hatta]

The equipment is specified by the rules. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. If your goal posts are 80 yards apart, you're not playing real football anymore.

I looked up the official volleyball rules from the FIVB. The net height is specified by Rule 2.1.1. Tell me again how net height isn't a rule?

You're still wrong FUCKING LISTEN

[dharbee]

"The net height is specified by Rule 2.1.1."

It is a rule. That doesn't change the game.

Now tell me how changing net height changes the rules? OH IT DOESN'T! You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

"If your goal posts are 80 yards apart, you're not playing real football anymore."

Football fields have slightly different dimensions. So do baseball diamonds.

The GAME does not change. THE RULES DO NOT CHANGE. I can play THE SAME GAME ON BOTH HEIGHTS WITH NO CHANGE IN THE RULES OF THE GAME AT ALL. Repeat that to yourself until you get it.

"I don't see what's so hard to understand about that"

Because as I said before, you're not listening. Now I believe it's because you're simply to stupid to understand.

I have shown you why you're wrong. You've done nothing but repeat the same wrong statement over and over.

Re:You're still wrong FUCKING LISTEN

[Hatta]

The GAME does not change. THE RULES DO NOT CHANGE. I can play THE SAME GAME ON BOTH HEIGHTS WITH NO CHANGE IN THE RULES OF THE GAME AT ALL.

That's not true. Rule 2.1.1 would change.

If you want your sport to be a valid contest of skill, you have to play with the same rules. All of them. If you start changing things like net height that introduces a factor other than skill that could decide your match. Then the match isn't really about skill anymore.

Why do you keep repeating the same wrong crap

[dharbee]

"That's not true. Rule 2.1.1 would change."

NO, actually that's exactly wrong. There is ONLY one rule 2.1.1, which sets the net height for both men AND women. The RULE would not change, as there is nothing for it to change to. ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.

Second, is the rule "the game"? Then you're wrong on this front as well. Pass, set, hit. Height of the net changes nothing. Did you see that part where I typed "GAME"? Are you genuinely so moronic that you think "GAME" typed in caps isn't significant, or are you just so dumb that you think "GAME" and "rules" are synonymous?

"If you start changing things like net height that introduces a factor other than skill that could decide your match"

If you introduce a variable that is the same for everyone, then how does that cause an inequity? OH IT DOESN'T! You're wrong here too.

You're wrong, and I'm beginning to suspect you're not a native speaker either. Is it your inability to understand the nuances of English that make you type things that are clearly and unequivocally wrong?

Re:Why do you keep repeating the same wrong crap

[Hatta]

You said originally: You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

And then: ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.

If *I* were to play the game with the net at both heights, it would require a change in rule 2.1.1.

Did you see that part where I typed "GAME"? Are you genuinely so moronic that you think "GAME" typed in caps isn't significant, or are you just so dumb that you think "GAME" and "rules" are synonymous?

A game is defined by the rules that, um, define it. If you change the rules, you're changing the game. What else makes a game unique but its rules? That's an honest question.

If you introduce a variable that is the same for everyone, then how does that cause an inequity? OH IT DOESN'T! You're wrong here too.

That's actually what I was trying to say. If you change a rule across the board, then you're comparing apples to apples. If you change them only in certain circumstances, then you can't compare them, so it's not fair to call them the same game.

You're wrong, and I'm beginning to suspect you're not a native speaker either. Is it your inability to understand the nuances of English that make you type things that are clearly and unequivocally wrong?

Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. Maybe I'm dumb too. At least I'm polite.

No again

[dharbee]

"You said originally: You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

And then: ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.

If *I* were to play the game with the net at both heights, it would require a change in rule 2.1.1."

No, it wouldn't. The rule wouldn't change, as it covers BOTH heights. ONE rule, TWO specifications, used a different times. The RULE never changes.

"Maybe I'm dumb too."

No maybe.

"At least I'm polite."

I was too, but I guess you're too dumb to realize that saying the same wrong garbage repeatedly and being totally fucking obtuse will get you treated impolitely.

"If you change them only in certain circumstances, then you can't compare them, so it's not fair to call them the same game."

IT IS THE SAME FUCKING GAME YOU FUCKING MORON. CHANGING SHOES DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. PLAYING IN THE RAIN DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. IT CHANGES THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GAME, BUT NOT THE GAME ITSELF.

Here is the point that you're clearly too fucking stupid to grasp. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS THAT CHANGE IF YOU CHANGE THE NET HEIGHT. YOU DO NOTHING DIFFERENTLY. THE ACTIONS REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME DO NOT CHANGE.

You seem to think that changing equipment changes the game. Is the game different if I change my socks between games? No. I still use the same skillset to accomplish the same goals using the same actions.

Hopefully you're not too fucking moronic to grasp it this time (but your stupidity has surprised me before).

Re:No again

[Hatta]

LOL you're funny. Rule 2.1.1 clearly states that men use a net at 2.43 meters and women use a net at 2.24 meters. If *I* as a man were to play games at both 2.43 meters and 2.24 meters, that rule would have to be changed. And you're accusing me of not listening. Rich.

THERE ARE NO ACTIONS THAT CHANGE IF YOU CHANGE THE NET HEIGHT. YOU DO NOTHING DIFFERENTLY. THE ACTIONS REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME DO NOT CHANGE.

Sure they would. A higher net would require you to jump higher. And you call me dumb?

Is the game different if I change my socks between games?

Are your socks specified by the rules? No, then go ahead it doesn't change the game. If for some reason they are specified by the rules, then changing socks would change the game. There are plenty of games that require special footwear, soccer, bowling, etc. Using non-regulation footwear would change those games.

You're getting dumber, how is it possible?

[dharbee]

"If *I* as a man were to play games at both 2.43 meters and 2.24 meters, that rule would have to be changed"

And I'm telling you NO it wouldn't. Men routinely play at women's height. Look up in the rulebook and find out why.

"A higher net would require you to jump higher. And you call me dumb?"

You are. You max jump EVERY TIME you jump. There is NO reason to jump less than maximum, so you max jump EVERY TIME. Raise the net? SO FUCKING WHAT, YOU STILL HAVE TO MAX JUMP, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME HEIGHT. You will jump the same height regardless of the height of the net. GOT IT?

"Are your socks specified by the rules? No, then go ahead it doesn't change the game"

Yes. attire is addressed. Now tell me EXACTLY what part of the game changes if I wear socks that aren't ok, or a rubber band (not ok) around my wrist, or bands in my hair but not scrunchies? NOTHING. You are wrong.

Every point you made is wrong, and makes it clear you don't play. Damn guy, had you ever played you'd realize how stupid the jumping point you fucked up was.

Re:You're getting dumber, how is it possible?

[Hatta]

And I'm telling you NO it wouldn't. Men routinely play at women's height. Look up in the rulebook and find out why.

I can't find that rule in the FIVB Official Rules. If it exists, please point me to it. You are the expert after all.

You max jump EVERY TIME you jump. There is NO reason to jump less than maximum, so you max jump EVERY TIME. Raise the net? SO FUCKING WHAT, YOU STILL HAVE TO MAX JUMP, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME HEIGHT. You will jump the same height regardless of the height of the net. GOT IT?

The height of anyone's jump isn't going to change. But the minimum jump necessary to get the ball over the net is going to change. Someone who could just clear the net at 2.24 meters may not be able to play at all if you change the net height.


Yes. attire is addressed. Now tell me EXACTLY what part of the game changes if I wear socks that aren't ok, or a rubber band (not ok) around my wrist, or bands in my hair but not scrunchies? NOTHING. You are wrong.

Those are probably safety issues. A game that's less dangerous isn't the same as a game that's more dangerous. Perceived risk of injury is going to affect how the game is played.

You're STILL getting dumber, how is it possible?

[dharbee]

"I can't find that rule in the FIVB Official Rules. If it exists, please point me to it. You are the expert after all."

NO NO NO, YOU brought the rule book into play, so you should have had this information before you opened your mouth. You posted many times claiming that the rule changes, only to be confronted by your ignorance. You'll get nothing from me.

"But the minimum jump necessary to get the ball over the net is going to change"

NO jumping is necessary to get the ball over. NONE. It can be done VERY effectively without leaving your feet, thus mooting your entire point.

"Now tell me EXACTLY what part of the game changes if I wear socks that aren't ok, or a rubber band (not ok) around my wrist, or bands in my hair but not scrunchies? NOTHING. You are wrong."

I asked you a question, which you did not answer. So tell me EXACTLY what changes or admit you can't. Don't overstep yourself like you did by quoting a rulebook you were unfamiliar with.

Re:You're STILL getting dumber, how is it possible

[Hatta]

NO NO NO, YOU brought the rule book into play, so you should have had this information before you opened your mouth.

It's not there. There is no such rule. Males can not play volleyball with a net height other than 2.43 meters according to FIVB rules. Prove me wrong. Would it help if I called you stupid?

NO jumping is necessary to get the ball over. NONE. It can be done VERY effectively without leaving your feet, thus mooting your entire point.

It is if you want to spike the ball. The height of the net is also going to affect whether some balls get over it or hit the net. If the height of the net isn't important, why bother specifying it?

I asked you a question, which you did not answer. So tell me EXACTLY what changes or admit you can't.

I asked you a question which you didn't answer too:A game is defined by the rules that, um, define it. If you change the rules, you're changing the game. What else makes a game unique but its rules? That's an honest question.

I assert that a game is nothing more than the sum of its rules. If I'm wrong, please tell me what else there is, but I'm going to proceed on that basis. If a game is nothing more than the sum of its rules and the rules govern the equipment then changing what equipment is allowed obviously changes the rules and thus the game. So here it is: the part of the game changed when you change the rules governing equipment is the rules governing equipment. I could sit here and berate you for not being able to follow such basic tautological logic, but that wouldn't get us anywhere.

All right dick, you are ignorant

[dharbee]

"according to FIVB rules."

YOU said FIVB rules. Go ahead and prove THAT wrong cunt.

The FIVB only sanctions international competition.

Now if you look again, or maybe get someone smarter to read it to you, you'll realize I never said it was in the FIVB rulebook once.

Had you not presumed to know WTF you're talking about (which you clearly don't) you'd realize that INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES sanction non-international tourneys. The FIVB has NOTHING to do with it. As such, the individual countries rules apply.

SO when I said "Men routinely play at women's height. Look up in the rulebook and find out why." your idiot ass assumed something you shouldn't have. Now that you have the information you need, look it up and come back when you see I'm right and you're wrong. And a prick.

"It is if you want to spike the ball."

And I'm telling you NO IT ISN'T. Your ignorance about the game is showing through. YOU DO NOT NEED TO JUMP TO SPIKE. Repeat that until you get it.

"I asked you a question"

Which was both stupid and irrelevant.

"If I'm wrong, please tell me what else there is"

I HAVE IMBECILE. You've just chosen to ignore it while repeating the same wrong nonsense over and over.

"So here it is: the part of the game changed when you change the rules governing equipment is the rules governing equipment."

That's A RULE idiot, not the GAME. The game is not the sum of all its rules, and your repeated assertion is moronic.

"I could sit here and berate you for not being able to follow such basic tautological logic"

Which you would also be WRONG about. Rules=game is only logical to YOU, as anyone who has ever played anything anywhere knows the GAME is more than just the sum of its rules as you assert.

Why are you so stupid that you think saying the same wrong garbage over and over will make it right?

And why are you so stupid as to assume intimate knowledge of a game you've clearly never played at any level basic recreation?

Respond with something that's not wrong please, instead of the same idiotic "rules=game" fallacy you insist of thumping for.

Re:All right dick, you are ignorant

[Hatta]

YOU said FIVB rules. Go ahead and prove THAT wrong cunt.

Yes, Yes I did.

Now if you look again, or maybe get someone smarter to read it to you, you'll realize I never said it was in the FIVB rulebook once.

We were talking about the FIVB rulebook, you said look it up in the rule book. If you're going to change the subject, tell me. How am I supposed to know what country you live in?



And I'm telling you NO IT ISN'T. Your ignorance about the game is showing through. YOU DO NOT NEED TO JUMP TO SPIKE. Repeat that until you get it.

Well that's fair. I never claimed to know a lot about volleyball, i was a lot shorter when I played it last.


"If I'm wrong, please tell me what else there is"

I HAVE IMBECILE. You've just chosen to ignore it while repeating the same wrong nonsense over and over.

Would you please quote where you did? I must have missed it between all the insults and yelling.

That's A RULE idiot, not the GAME. The game is not the sum of all its rules, and your repeated assertion is moronic.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the difference is. I'm starting to suspect you can't and that's why you're getting all riled up.

Stop assuming and you won't look (as) stupid

[dharbee]

"We were talking about the FIVB rulebook, you said look it up in the rule book."

NO IDIOT, we were talking about the RULES. YOU ASSUMED that the discussion was exclusively FIVB, but that's your ignorance of the rules themselves. The FIVB CLEARLY cedes authority in non-international competitions.

"If you're going to change the subject, tell me. "

I didn't change the subject, you ASSUMED something that was wrong. BUT IN THE FIVB RULEBOOK, IT CLEARLY STATES WHAT KIND OF COMPETITION IT COVERS. YOUR fault. Had you actually bothered to look through it, you'd find the part where it talks about local sanctioning bodies.

"How am I supposed to know what country you live in?"

Ask. Don't make an idiotic ASSUMPTION about something you're clearly VERY ignorant on. Had you actually READ the FIVB rule book, you'd see it CLEARLY cedes authority to local sanctioning bodies for non-international competition.

YOU assumed that the FIVB was the appropriate sanctioning body. That was you being a fucking moron again, not me changing anything.

"Would you please quote where you did?"

No, you've been ignoring it for a half dozen posts, so no idiot I won't.

"I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the difference is"

One difference is INTERPRETATION. OOPS! I told you, so this "I'm starting to suspect you can't" you can shove up your ass. That's not the only difference, just one you can shut the fuck up with.

Re:Stop assuming and you won't look (as) stupid

[Hatta]

YOU assumed that the FIVB was the appropriate sanctioning body.

And you wait until now to object? Oh come on now.

No, you've been ignoring it for a half dozen posts, so no idiot I won't.

If you're not going to discuss, why bother replying? Are you working off stress or something?

One difference is INTERPRETATION.

I don't follow. Interpretation of what by whom? You know I'm dumb, spell it out for me.

No, you're just flailing now.

[dharbee]

"And you wait until now to object? Oh come on now."

YOU tried to use the rulebook to argue from authority. You honestly think I'm going to allow that without taking advantage of your ignorance? NO fucking way.

"If you're not going to discuss, why bother replying? Are you working off stress or something?"

Because you're wrong, and hate it, but can't let it go. So I'll keep reminding you until you get it.

Listen, you said something wrong, I clarified, and NOW instead of admitting it, you're changing the subject. I'm not going to lead you around by the nose if the best you can do is make blanket statements from ignorance, ASSUMING you know WTF you're talking about and arguing with me the whole way, only NOW realizing that your ignorant assumptions crippled your argument.

In the future, should you choose to share your opinion again (bad idea) DO NOT be so fucking arrogant as to think a google search is a substitute for real knowledge. It fucked you quite badly this time.