elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (05/13/85)
Discussion in this news group frequently centers on inequities in the treatment of the sexes by society, businesses, history, people in general, and so forth. Most of these inequities seem to be biases against women hence the need for a net.women but no net.men. It is interesting to note that in at least one very important way nature has the opposite bias. Namely, the life expectancy of females is roughly 10% greater than that for males. I was struck by this fact recently while looking over (for an unrelated reason) some actuarial tables. The death rate for females is substantially less than that for males at all ages from birth up to somewhere in the eighties. This seems to be true in most if not all cultures as well. At least one feminist friend of mine thinks that there is a pleasing if rough justice in this. I am not sure I see it that way, but she may have a point. If FORCED to choose, how many people would trade a fair pay scale (for instance) for 6 or 7 years of their lives. Obviously, one should not have to choose. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (05/16/85)
> Most ... inequities seem to be biases against women hence > the need for a net.women but no net.men. But how about a net.sex_roles? That would cover a lot of stuff in a fair way. > The death rate > for females is substantially less than that for males at all ages from birth > up to somewhere in the eighties. This seems to be true in most if not all > cultures as well. OK, but what are the stats for men who avoid the behavioral factors, and are thus only affected by the biological ones? Men kill themselves by: Drinking to excess Smoking tobacco (but women are catching up!) Use of drugs Getting in fights Getting in wars (except WW3 will kill us all) Working in dangerous occupations Macho driving Dangerous sports, and taking extra risks in them Working too hard Suicide (many more men than women kill themselves) Having anything to do with firearms Agreed, we poor men are "the weaker vessel", but what would the figures look like if we acted more sensibly? John Purbrick jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA {...decvax!genrad! ...allegra!mit-vax!} mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
crs@lanl.ARPA (05/17/85)
> > Most ... inequities seem to be biases against women hence > > the need for a net.women but no net.men. > > But how about a net.sex_roles? That would cover a lot of stuff in a fair way. > > > The death rate > > for females is substantially less than that for males at all ages from birth > > up to somewhere in the eighties. This seems to be true in most if not all > > cultures as well. > > OK, but what are the stats for men who avoid the behavioral factors, and are > thus only affected by the biological ones? Men kill themselves by: > > Drinking to excess > Smoking tobacco (but women are catching up!) > Use of drugs > Getting in fights > Getting in wars (except WW3 will kill us all) > Working in dangerous occupations > Macho driving > Dangerous sports, and taking extra risks in them > Working too hard > Suicide (many more men than women kill themselves) *********************************************** * > Having anything to do with firearms * *********************************************** Please tell us the source of statistics that suggest this. I believe the shooting sports are considerably safer than people think. I've seen some statistics but I can't recall where, at the moment. At least you put it at the bottom of your list. > > Agreed, we poor men are "the weaker vessel", but what would the figures look > like if we acted more sensibly? > > John Purbrick jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA > {...decvax!genrad! ...allegra!mit-vax!} mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg Charlie
daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (05/18/85)
Re: Life Expectancy_____________________________________________________________ > It is interesting to note that in at least one very important way nature has > the opposite bias [that is, against men instead of against women]. Namely, > the life expectancy of females is roughly 10% greater than that for males. (*Heavy*sigh...*) It is not valid to conclude that this is nature's bias. There are many environmental factors to take into account. I've heard some feminists describe men's lower life expectancy as part of the price they pay for being the oppressive sex. > At least one feminist friend of mine thinks that there is a pleasing if rough > justice in this. I think that's ghastly; especially if your feminist friend shares your hypothesis that the lower life expectancy is "natural." If it's the result of male oppression then yes, there is a measure of justice here. To refer to it as "pleasing" is sadistic and sick. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not :::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (05/19/85)
>> Men kill themselves in all kinds of ways including... >> *********************************************** >> * > Having anything to do with firearms * >> *********************************************** > Please tell us the source of statistics that suggest this. I believe > the shooting sports are considerably safer than people think. I've > seen some statistics but I can't recall where, at the moment. At > least you put it at the bottom of your list. No statistics, but I was referring to accidents and preventable homicides caused by firearms. You're right, target shooting is done under very carefully controlled conditions, but every year there's a rash of hunting acidents; kids (almost always boys) find their parents' (almost always dads') guns and play games with them, with sometimes tragic results; occasionally someone will blaze away at a burglar and have to explain his actions to the paperboy's parents; people (mostly men) are shot accidentally by policemen; some people (mostly male people) are killed by "unloaded" guns; and this is not an exhaustive list. What I meant by "preventable homicides" is when people get in an argument, tempers are high, someone has a lethal weapon handy, and someone else ends up dead. Sure, you can kill a person any number of ways, but most of them give the victim a better chance of escape, or at least survival. Was I guilty of over-generalization in saying "Having _anything_ to do with firearms"? Sorry.
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (05/20/85)
> > The death rate >> for females is substantially less than that for males at all ages from birth > > up to somewhere in the eighties. This seems to be true in most if not all > > cultures as well. > > OK, but what are the stats for men who avoid the behavioral factors, and are > thus only affected by the biological ones? Men kill themselves by: > > Drinking to excess > Smoking tobacco (but women are catching up!) > Use of drugs > Getting in fights > Getting in wars (except WW3 will kill us all) > Working in dangerous occupations > Macho driving > Dangerous sports, and taking extra risks in them > Working too hard > Suicide (many more men than women kill themselves) > Having anything to do with firearms All true and this may account for most of the effect during a person's "prime of life" when other innate health problems are minimal. However, it is far from a complete explanation. For example, the death rate for infants between birth and age one year is nearly twice as great for males as for females and this is (statistically) the most dangerous year until one reaches a substantial age (Iforget exactly). Ed Turner astrovax!elt
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (05/21/85)
In a followup to my original posting on female vs. male life expectancies, I incorrectly stated that the death rate during the first year of life is "nearly twice as large" for male infants as for female ones. This was based on my (faulty) memory. The actual figure for the US is that it is 27% higher. In fact this ratio is maintained throughout the early childhood years when "behavioral" differences are minimal and is probably a fair indication of the "natural" bias. As people age, "behavioral" factors clearly become more important for a time. For instance, the death rate for men of ages 20 to 24 is MORE THAN THREE TIMES GREATER than for women of the same age. It seems likely to me that this huge bias is largely "behavioral". As people become "elderly" the gap again narrows to 20 to 50% effects. These figures would apply for people over about 60 years of age. This is also the rough range of differences in survival rates for men and women with specific life threatening diseases. Again this would seem to reflect the rough magnitude of the "natural" effect. Of course, in evaluating these figures, it is important to remember that the total death rate is much higher in the first year and last years of life than in the middle (i.e., far more people die before their first birthday or when they are say 75 than when they are 22). Thus, the modest "natural" biases of the early and late years are more important overall than the huge "behavioral" biases of the middle years. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (05/21/85)
> It is interesting to note that in at least one very important way nature has > the opposite bias [that is, against men instead of against women]. Namely, > the life expectancy of females is roughly 10% greater than that for males. Actually, longer life expectancy for women is fairly recent. About a hundred years ago, men were expected to go through at least 2 wives (no divorce). Women died young, mostly of childbirth and complications relating to pregnancy and childbirth. This began to change with Pasteur and the advent of antiseptic practices. Then Margaret Sanger came along with birth control information for the masses, and women were freed from conceiving and bearing too many children too close together. So "nature" (before modern medicine) did not gift women with longer lives. It took modern medical advances and women deciding to control their own bodies. Ariel (historical perspective helps) Shattan ..!rektronix!orca!ariels
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/22/85)
> Re: Life Expectancy_____________________________________________________________ > > > It is interesting to note that in at least one very important way nature has > > the opposite bias [that is, against men instead of against women]. Namely, > > the life expectancy of females is roughly 10% greater than that for males. > > > At least one feminist friend of mine thinks that there is a pleasing if rough > > justice in this. > In the last century, men lived dramatically longer than women; were men less oppressive towards women in the last century? No. When people let their emotions take precedence over thinking (as the man-hating faction of feminism seems to), it leads them into absurdities like the one above.
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (05/23/85)
> > Actually, longer life expectancy for women is fairly recent. About > a hundred years ago, men were expected to go through at least 2 wives (no > divorce). Women died young, mostly of childbirth and complications > relating to pregnancy and childbirth. This began to change with Pasteur > and the advent of antiseptic practices. Then Margaret Sanger came > along with birth control information for the masses, and women were > freed from conceiving and bearing too many children too close > together. True. In fact it is probably reasonable to assume that the biological (i.e., adaptive) reason for women's greater hardiness is connected to the need to withstand the stress of repeated childbirths. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (05/24/85)
>So "nature" (before modern medicine) did not gift women with longer >lives. It took modern medical advances and women deciding to control >their own bodies. > >Ariel (historical perspective helps) Shattan I doubt that modern medical advances explain much of the greater mortality of male embryos as compared to female, and I doubt that the female embryo has absorbed enough feminist politics to perform the politically proper control of her own body. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (05/24/85)
In article <601@astrovax.UUCP> elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes: >In a followup to my original posting on female vs. male life expectancies, I >incorrectly stated that the death rate during the first year of life is >"nearly twice as large" for male infants as for female ones. This was based >on my (faulty) memory. The actual figure for the US is that it is 27% higher. >In fact this ratio is maintained throughout the early childhood years when >"behavioral" differences are minimal and is probably a fair indication of the >"natural" bias. I'll agree that it isn't a behavioral difference on the part of the child, but I don't know that I believe that it's natural. I suspect, rather, that it's a behavioral bias on the parents' part. There have been studies done about the way parents relate to infants and toddlers based on the sex of the child. There is a substantial difference in how protective parents are of young children: Boys are given much more leeway to explore and experiment with their surroundings than are girls. I don't have any documentation on these experiments, although I'm sure it could be found. I saw, not too long ago, a report on PBS about one such study conducted in England, where parents were placed in a room with an infant for an hour and observed. It was nearly universal that the "boys" were given *much* less protection than the "girls." As one of the controls on the experiment, the same child was dressed differently. When dressed as a boy, the parents reacted as if the child were a boy, and when dressed like a girl, as if the child were a girl. >As people age, "behavioral" factors clearly become more important for a time. >For instance, the death rate for men of ages 20 to 24 is MORE THAN THREE >TIMES GREATER than for women of the same age. It seems likely to me that >this huge bias is largely "behavioral". These are, probably, behavioral/cultural biases affecting the individuals involved directly. >As people become "elderly" the gap again narrows to 20 to 50% effects. These >figures would apply for people over about 60 years of age. This is also the >rough range of differences in survival rates for men and women with specific >life threatening diseases. Again this would seem to reflect the rough >magnitude of the "natural" effect. I'm not convinced. What's natural and what's behavioral? There is definitely a correlation between "will to live" and survival rates for illnesses. It seems to me that that's mostly another behavioral/cultural bias that favors women. >Of course, in evaluating these figures, it is important to remember that the >total death rate is much higher in the first year and last years of life than >in the middle (i.e., far more people die before their first birthday or when >they are say 75 than when they are 22). Thus, the modest "natural" biases of >the early and late years are more important overall than the huge "behavioral" >biases of the middle years. True - the death rate comparisons - but I don't see that it's relevant. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/27/85)
> > > > Actually, longer life expectancy for women is fairly recent. About > > a hundred years ago, men were expected to go through at least 2 wives (no > > divorce). Women died young, mostly of childbirth and complications > > relating to pregnancy and childbirth. This began to change with Pasteur > > and the advent of antiseptic practices. Then Margaret Sanger came > > along with birth control information for the masses, and women were > > freed from conceiving and bearing too many children too close > > together. > > True. In fact it is probably reasonable to assume that the biological > (i.e., adaptive) reason for women's greater hardiness is connected to > the need to withstand the stress of repeated childbirths. > An additional point is that women seem to be significantly more susceptible to auto-immune diseases in which the immune system attacks the body through an excess of zeal. This also makes sense if one assumes that childbirth made disease and infection a greater threat to women than to men. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (05/28/85)
This is a reply to Ed Gould's posting arguing that the differences between male and female death rates could be due to behavioral/cultural factors rather than "natural" ones at all ages. I am not reposting all of his arguments along with his citations of my previous arguments as I believe this practice leads to a clogged net and articles too long to read. In principle I agree that the differences COULD POSSIBLY be entirely behavioral/cultural, mainly because it is so nearly impossible to completely eliminate such factors. It is like trying to determine whether IQ is determined by heredity or environment. Controled experiments are just not a practical possibility. Thus, I doubt that an entirely behavioral/cultural explanation could be logically excluded. Nevertheless, I don't think an entirely behavioral/cultural explanation is the best one or even a very sensible one. The main reasons are 1) it is clear that entirely genetic factors account for many profound PHYSICAL differences between men and women from gross anatomy to subtle biases in metabolism and blood chemistry, thus it is perfectly plausable that there be inherent differences in hardiness (or whatever one would call it), and 2) the effect is a large one even though most human deathes are not caused directly by their environment or behavior (i.e., by accidents, murders, etc) but by aging, diseaese, and physical disorders which can only be indirectly influenced by behavioral/cultural factors (i.e., different levels of care or "will to live"). Thus, I think that the best and most reasonable explanation of the figures is a substantial inherent biological bias. Finally, as others have pointed out in other contexts, since one can not escape one's environment/culture in practise in most cases, it really doesn't matter whether it is inherent or not for most purposes. Ed Turner astrovax!elt