The Space Community Has A Narcissism Problem, and It Undermines Women
This evening, the Inspiration4 crew — commander Jared Isaacman, pilot Dr. Sian Proctor, medical officer Hayley Arceneaux, and mission specialist Chris Sembroski — splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida after what appeared to be flawless four day mission. This mission is historic because the crew is comprised of non-space agency astronauts, and by all accounts the four performed competently. Inspiration4 reached the literal apex of what space enthusiasts can achieve — actual space. The dream of countless futurists is beginning to be realized.
However, their success, excitement, and charitable ventures (remember, part of this mission’s purpose was to raise funds for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, one of the world’s premier cancer centers for children) have not quelled a constant stream of negativity from some Internet commentators — male commentators in particular. The focus has shifted from feeling pride over what is first in hopefully a long line of successful non-agency spaceflights, to having to direct attention to the men, who apparently are not okay.
Some went “no wire hangers, ever” over the lack of live footage from the mission, even though according to Spaceflight Now, “The [Tracking and Data Relay Satellites] will relay voice and data between Crew Dragon and SpaceX mission control in California…Video imagery from the capsule will only come down to Earth when Dragon is in range of a ground tracking station.” Some seem to have forgotten that the International Space Station and other resources also use the TDRS system. More hilariously, those bemoaning the “good old days” when NASA missions were in touch with the ground all the time seem to have forgotten that these missions were never in touch with the ground all the time. In fact, no earlier spaceflight missions — scratch that, even current spaceflight missions — have live, uninterrupted crew video feeds. (I don’t think many would be interested in the ISS astronauts’ bathroom habits.)
Another popular point of view is that the four aren’t astronauts, but “tourists,” even though they have undergone months of training, and did perform scientific experiments during their mission. These words are particularly levied at the two women on the crew, Dr. Proctor and Arceneaux. Arceneaux went from being a pediatric bone cancer patient at St. Jude’s to not only being the face of the fundraising effort, but also is a physician assistant at the hospital that treated her; she is the first person to fly in space with a prosthesis, having beat the same type of cancer that killed Canadian athlete and “Marathon of Hope” fundraiser Terry Fox in 1981. Dr. Proctor perhaps was the most qualified person ever to fly in space who wasn’t an agency astronaut before her selection to the crew; in fact, she was a finalist in the 2009 NASA astronaut class. She has worked as a geology professor, was an analog astronaut, and is one of the space community’s most visible science communicators, among many other achievements. She is now the first black woman to have piloted a spacecraft in history.
There is nothing that excludes either of these brave women from being recognized as astronauts, especially since…well, they flew several hundred kilometers above the Earth for several days. But there is also nothing new about subtracting or attempting to subtract achievements from women in aerospace, and this practice is deeply rooted in the history of space journalism, right down to its beginnings.
A Capsule History of Male Commentators Showing Condescension Towards Women Astronauts
The dynamic of male reporters and commentators showing condescension towards women or performing concern for women by being condescending started as early as the 1950s, when the press corps first showed up for the first U.S. satellite launches at Cape Canaveral, and when the first U.S. astronauts were selected. As the 1960s progressed, the all-male astronauts were bonafide celebrities, and the reporters — mostly male, save for less than a handful of women — fought for attention; women were seen more as romantic conquests or secretaries, and not as professional colleagues to be respected. One male reporter who believed his celebrity was on par with the astronauts’ fame was ABC’s Jules Bergman, whose habit of reporting-as-doom mongering during several NASA missions left a sour taste in the agency’s figurative mouth. In a late 1960s interview with Poppy Northcutt, TRW computress and first woman in Mission Control, Bergman focused more on Northcutt’s blonde, tall good looks than her brilliance; the camera even panned up her miniskirted legs. Other news articles written about Northcutt around the same time did no better.
Things hadn’t improved much approximately 15 years later, when the first U.S. women astronauts were gearing up for their Space Shuttle flights. At a pre-flight press conference, first U.S. woman in space and physicist Sally Ride was asked if she’d cry in space, and what would she do if she got her menstrual cycle in space. (She understandably rolled her eyes.) Second U.S. woman in space Judy Resnik fared even worse; a 1981 NBC interview with perennial boomer mainstay Tom Brokaw saw her incredulously fielding questions about romance in space. Many questions Resnik received were about her long black curls and what makeup she wore, not her engineering genius. This is the first video that pops up on YouTube when you search for Resnik, who died in the January 1986 Challenger disaster.
Things hadn’t even improved for Yelena Serova, fourth woman cosmonaut to fly in space, by 2014. Her pre-flight press questions, too, focused more on her hair and makeup than her mission. She ended up spending 167 days in low Earth orbit aboard the ISS, and by all accounts performed well regardless of hair and makeup queries, or the very fact she was a woman cosmonaut (Russia’s space program remains infamously sexist about women in space, and multiple women on spacecraft simultaneously).
These attitudes, comments, and commentary only serve to detract attention from the actual women flying in space, and instead puts the spotlight on the male reporters. This is by design. This is narcissistic and backwards-looking, and also derivative and unoriginal, because it borrows from the late 1950s and early 1960s — a time when women took a backseat to men, who were fighting to gain relevance in a press corps where they knew they were a dime a dozen.
Where Do We Go From Here?
My experiences as a space historian have, too, been colored by men trying to take my achievements and/or opportunities from me. If I tried to write an entire list of each incident, we’d be here for a while — but one that stands out from a few years ago was a contemporary virtually bragging to me that he tried having me removed as a panel moderator at an event because he wanted the opportunity. (For what it’s worth, I did a great job moderating this particular panel.) What this person doesn’t know is that even when I know I’ve been at my very best professionally, I’ve still been denied opportunities — so every professional opportunity, for me, is hard won. As the space community changes, there are going to be new voices, and new heroes. And they might look different from the status quo.
Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill, who over 50 years ago predicted “regular citizens” would someday gain a foothold in space, once stated during a television interview that one didn’t have to be a great scientist or aerospace engineer to go to space — “just be the best you can be.” It doesn’t matter if you’re a painter, writer, physician assistant, or geology professor — just do your best, and above all, be nice.
You absolutely don’t need to take an experience or happiness from someone else — particularly someone else who is underrepresented in a community — to shine.
