"Slipper socks. Medium."*

So. NASA apparently doesn't stock enough space suits in various sizes and suddenly this is a demonstration of the patriarchy at work.

I'll admit that I haven't done extensive reading on what happened, I got distracted by all the females running around with their hands in the air screaming about how awful the world was and how NASA was a bunch of big meanies.

To me it just seems like bad planning.

I mean, if you have three women up on the space station (or any number -- pick a number), every one of them should have a space suit that fits them available. Same would go for men (I know, I know, I'm being too fair. Men should have to share.)

Seriously. I'm not going into space without knowing I have a space suit that fits me available.

The longest rant I read most of (before my eyes glazed over because I just have very little tolerance for feminism when it gets militant and full of snark about how horrible men are) went on to say that manufacturers assume an average male size when making specialty gear like space suits and body armor and how horrible that is.

Well no. That's economics and looking at averages. If you happen to wear plus sizes, you're going to be familiar with this problem that strikes all kinds of people.

I imagine it runs a lot like this:

Let's say I manufacture space suits. I'm going to look at the space industry world wide and take a poll on the number of men vs women employed who will potentially need my product. I'm going to take a WILD guess and say the number of men approved as honest-to-God spacefaring astronauts is considerably higher than the number of women. I am then going to look at what size will fit the largest number of that larger population and that is going to be the "stock" size I provide.

Now let's say I run a space agency. I'm going to do the same thing when I'm ordering. Oh sure, I may order one or two outliers--grab an XL and a M or S just in case. But most of what I buy? It's going to fit the majority of the people who are going to need or want to wear it.

The fact that that happens to be men in this instance is not a sexism issue.

Why not? Let's look at your average department store. Go on into the women's clothing area and look at what sizes are most available. Which ones? Oh, that's right, they're the sizes that the average woman in the area is going to wear, determined by census and careful tracking of what has been selling. You know what they don't stock a lot of? Sizes for outliers.

So if you, like me, are a larger-than-average size, well good luck finding something on the rack. Your choices are going to be limited. And it's not a sexism thing (or even a sizeism one) - it's economics.

Same thing applies if you're super petite or extra tall -- if you're an outlier in size or, in the case of an industry, gender, then there may not be as ample resources available to you "off the rack" as it were. It's not an institutionalized "ism."

Now, if you want to discuss why there are fewer women in science who are then on the astronaut career trajectory, we probably can uncover some isms. I'm not saying gender discrimination doesn't happen.

I just don't think in this particular case of space suit gate that's what we're looking at.

*spot the quote