But I've done at least one mountaineering expedition (recreational not professional) every year for the past 30 years, where our lives would have been on the line if we had incompetent people with us, even taking precautions there have still been a handful of questionable moments over the years. I've only done 3 long-haul type expeditions that were 4+ months. I also worked as a guide for 2 years back in my 20s on much less technical trips, but those were always the most dangerous because you have people you don't know who have varying skill levels and experience.
In my experience (other than the guide work) we never had a de facto leader unless one member was vastly more experienced in general or had more previous experience with a given region or specific route.
That's obviously different than being in a research station with a large group of people for a year. But I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable leading an expedition to Antarctica if I had only seen snow once before as was apparently the case with the author of this article. Also, on real expeditions (not just living in a research station) you are constantly touching other members of your group, it's absolutely necessary and there's no way around it.
I realize there are going to be differences between a research station gig and even a moderately technical alpine route, but this woman's approach just seems unreasonable.
I can understand how an Antarctic station might look on the surface like a mountaineering trip, but in my experience (a less serious climber than yourself, have deployed to the Ice for the US program on both sides of the logistics/science line) there's actually not much in common between the two, I guess outside of the small field camps which are almost(?) always summer-only affairs and usually run by mountain guides.
There's a great book, Big Dead Place, which is the best window in to the USAP culture that I've come across. It's a bit dated, but I can assure you that the crazy sorts of things in that book still happen - it's shocking/beautiful that it works at all.
I really don't think you can compare recreational experiences to professional experiences here. I see that you've done some cool stuff, but it really isn't the same as you can't always choose your team mates for a variety of reasons, which is why women have to take extreme care.
But I've done at least one mountaineering expedition (recreational not professional) every year for the past 30 years, where our lives would have been on the line if we had incompetent people with us, even taking precautions there have still been a handful of questionable moments over the years. I've only done 3 long-haul type expeditions that were 4+ months. I also worked as a guide for 2 years back in my 20s on much less technical trips, but those were always the most dangerous because you have people you don't know who have varying skill levels and experience.
In my experience (other than the guide work) we never had a de facto leader unless one member was vastly more experienced in general or had more previous experience with a given region or specific route.
That's obviously different than being in a research station with a large group of people for a year. But I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable leading an expedition to Antarctica if I had only seen snow once before as was apparently the case with the author of this article. Also, on real expeditions (not just living in a research station) you are constantly touching other members of your group, it's absolutely necessary and there's no way around it.
I realize there are going to be differences between a research station gig and even a moderately technical alpine route, but this woman's approach just seems unreasonable.