|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 28, @03:55PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Why are men more likely to die in all those cases than women ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could be any number of reasons: from poorer health care to more high risk behavior to more high risk, stressful work. It's too bad the site sporting the stats didn't delve far enough into the issue and report the answers to those questions, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 28, @05:09PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you're a troll. Sorry I wasted my time on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would be interesting if someone researched (without feminist bigotry and hate) the causes for why men are more vulnerable health-wise.
While it is scientific fact that the XX chromosome pairing in females creates greater immunity for them from some types of disease (diseases that attack the X chromosome, that is. If the X chromosome is attacked in males, there's no backup X), most of us have seen the research that claims that men lived as long as women until around the 1920s (coincidentally, when American feminism was taking root).
Preferably, this research should be conducted and supervised by someone who knows that "genetics" is not a proper noun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but try to get funding for it. It wouldn't be allowed, because the findings might challenge the perceived status quo.
Can you imagine the outcry that would result if these statistics were reversed? You'd see billions of dollars immediately poured into research on the subject.
Oh well. As P.J.O'Rourke said "But there's one thing women can never take away from men: we die sooner." (Bit of black humour there.)
"I'll preserve one last male thing in the museum of this world, if I can." -- D.H. Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 28, @06:30PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I could have a serious discussion here, instead I get a bunch of insults from you.
Good-Bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgot to ask: why would the second x-chromosome act as a "backup"? Presumably it's not an exact copy of the first (otherwise the person in question would be a clone!). I was under the impression that diseases attack specific genes - i.e. sites on a chromosome - rather than the entire chromosomes themselves. But I could be wrong.
"I'll preserve one last male thing in the museum of this world, if I can." -- D.H. Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm remembering my Biology correctly (and I may not be, so be prepared for that), the X chromosome is the chromosome most vulnerable to disease. Because a man has one X chromosome, he is guaranteed to get sick if he has the disease. Women, because they have two X chromosomes, can be carriers of disease but not actually display any symptoms (or become sick themselves).
Like men, though, some women do become ill when one of their X chromosomes is attacked. I suppose it's luck of the draw, or perhaps the specific way in which the disease attacks one X chromosome that determines whether the woman's other X will allow her to remain a carrier or will allow her to become sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're not a troll, then you have my apologies. You sound very troll-like, though, when you post incredibly short, cryptic comments that smack of current hot feminist dogma (i.e. men are biologically inferior to women) on a men's issues Web site.
If you want a serious, scientific discussion about masculine and feminine genetics, say so and let's find some research on it. I'm really curious to see what scientific papers may be available on the Web about this topic (if any).
A good place to start, perhaps, would be The Andrology Society: here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My take on it is that men are evolutionary catalysts. "Mother" nature uses men as guinea pigs and plays it safe with women. If men with an enabling "mutation" are able to acquire enough resources to attract a woman or many women and multiply that "mutation" is passed on succesfully. If it doesn't work well, they(theoretically) won't multiply. Women may then acquire the trait, through this process, after the risk is taken by a male. So, in theory, the Y chromosome allows for a variety of traits to be sampled for success. It could result in crippling handicaps for men or great attributes. The bottom line is the betterment of the species. Just my opinion. I'm certainly no expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 29, @01:25AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe for the same reasons blacks and other minorities are more likely to die from most health problems.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're on to something there, Dan. I know that during a dark, dark depression I suffered recently it was exceedingly difficult for me to find the help I needed. I did, finally, but I had to put more effort into it than I think a female would have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My take on it is that men are evolutionary catalysts. "Mother" nature uses men as guinea pigs and plays it safe with women.
I guess I have to agree with you there. Though I am a staunch proponent of gender equality, the longevity/fatality gap is one area where I'm not so sure that the men's movement has society to blame entirely. While I believe that a lifespan gap of seven to 10 years is a little much - and that there are probably many things which can be done to narrow that gap - I think that a greater longevity in females is natural and inevitable.
As I see it, Nature simply makes women sturdier and healthier, and that's all there is to it. It's common sense; females give birth, which takes a tremendous toll on the body, thus the female body has to be well-insulated to yield the stress. Also, too, females are limited in terms of how many offspring they can create, so it's a great deal more important to maintain a certain quantity of females on Earth. Nature ensures this two ways - one, by arranging it so that females are the "default" sex, capable of being born even in the absence of a paternal chromosome (this does sometimes happen); two, she gives women (as an inevitable result of the very chromosomal pairing which makes them female in the first place) a higher resistance to congenital and acquired illnesses and diseases so that they have a lower death rate.
Just for example - the reason why male Siamese twins are more rarely seen is because female Siamese twins have a greater survival rate beyond infancy - because they're stronger! It's a biological reality which I can accept. Ultimately, as I see it, it's just female bodies - not necessarily female minds or souls - that are more important to preserve. Males who are alive and healthy are basically equal to females who are alive and healthy; it's only when men become sick or dead that we become somewhat unequal to females. So, as I see it, I'm equal to women so long as I'm alive and healthy! And when I'm dead, I could care less.
I don't, however, believe that Nature actually intended for females to live significantly longer than males, as I don't see where there's any advantage to this. My suspicion is that because women aren't giving birth nearly as much as they used to, they aren't testing the added durability that Nature gives them, and they're outliving men as a result. Men's health, however, continues to be taxed by various hazards pertaining to lifestyle and work - thus, society is legitimately to blame, to an extent.
While we're on the subject of genetics - I don't mean to sound like a troll (against males or females) or anything, but the X/Y question is one area where I'm still somewhat in doubt about things and I was wondering what all of your opinions were on it. Taking the evidence at face value, it would appear that the essence of gender in males is not genetically the same as it is in females. To be equal, wouldn't males have to be YY in the same fashion that females are XX? But instead, males are a combination of a generic chromosome and a unique sex chromosome, whereas females are the product of the generic chromosome in duplicate. There may be equal advantages and disadvantages to either process, thus resulting in essentially equal sexes, but we can't deny that the essence of femaleness would not appear to be the same as the essence of maleness, since the former results from a genetic integrity whereas the latter results from a genetic duplicity (or, might it actually be the other way around?). To be equal, wouldn't both sexes have to result from either genetic integrity or duplicity? Again, I'm not trying to being a troll or to be controversial, but I really think that this is an important question to explore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wouldn't want to be YY, Hawth. The Y chromosome is shorter and smaller than the X chromosome, and so it couldn't make you fully human. Some scientists are now saying that the X chromosome may have more to do with generating masculine features than originally thought, athough I don't have details on that.
The main reason the Y chromosome exists is to create a masculine fetus. Here's the entire process from the Andrology Society:
* Y chromosome fertilizes egg and creates testes
* Testes secretions suppress the ducts which would create a female and follow the ducts which create a male, programming the fetus to develop all the male characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 29, @05:19PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
A mentally ill woman named Margaret Mitchell was shot and killed by Los Angeles Police last year after having been stopped for being in possession of a shopping cart. She apparently lunged at the police with a screwdriver. An internal investigation by the LAPD recently determined that the officers acted properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there IS a difference between dealing with mental illness and protecting your own life. If she lunged at the officers with a weapon, they have a right to defend themselves, regardless whether the woman was mentally ill. There are hundreds upon hundreds of mentally ill men who are behind bars now for crimes they committed. Women go to counseling (unless, of course, they're Andrea Yates, and I'm truly hoping she gets fried).
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
