[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Sexist Celebration in British Medical Journal re Life Expectancies
posted by Matt on 01:16 PM April 14th, 2006
Men's Health Anonymous User writes "Check out this editorial in the British Medical Journal Life expectancy: women now on top everywhere and how the authors gloat over women now living longer all over the world. Also see the rebuttals people wrote in in the Rapid Responses."

Ed. note: Since the BMJ is a subscription service, I have copied the entire article (for educational purposes only, mind you) in the extended section, so click "Read More..." to see the entire thing.


BMJ 2006;332:808 (8 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7545.808

Editorial

Life expectancy: women now on top everywhere

During 2006, even in the poorest countries, women can expect to outlive men

"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition."

Timothy Leary (1920-1996)

The year 2006 should not be allowed to pass without at least a quiet celebration that this is the first year in human history when—across almost all the world—women can expect to enjoy a longer life expectancy than men. That the trend is moving in this direction will probably be confirmed this week in the 2006 world health report.

In its world health report of 2002, the World Health Organization, using data for 2001, reported that male life expectancy exceeded female life expectancy in only six countries: Nepal, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Bangladesh, and Swaziland.1 A year later, the situation seemed to have reversed in all six countries, with two other countries (Qatar and the Maldives) reporting that men were living slightly longer than women.2 In its 2004 report the WHO continued to report the same 2002 data and in only those two tiny territories (the Maldives and Qatar) did women die younger than men.3 In the 2005 report, life expectancy data for 2003 were reported, but only to the nearest year of age, making comparison difficult.4

In January this year the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) updated its World Factbook and reported its estimates for life expectancy in 2005.5 According to the CIA, in Qatar and the Maldives women now lived longer than men. Elsewhere, however, women's fate had slipped back, by the CIA estimates which do not tally with the WHO data for earlier years. According to the CIA, in Niger women could expect to live a dozen days less than men and in Botswana three dozen days less by 2005, but nearer to two years less in Zimbabwe and Kenya by 2005. The underlying source of the CIA data is vague, as befits a somewhat secretive organisation. We will never know with certainty the exact year in which women everywhere can expect to live on average longer than men, but this year—2006—is as likely as any.

Almost 30 years ago, amid much fanfare, the eradication of smallpox was announced.6 But when it becomes certain that women everywhere can expect to live longer than men, also a remarkable achievement, a similar announcement is unlikely. We tend to forget that in many countries of the world women could expect, until recently, to live fewer years than men and that maternal mortality in particular remains a big killer.

The most reliable historical mortality records are in Europe, where states were sufficiently affluent and interested to keep accurate records. In Europe men last outlived women in the Netherlands in 1860 and in Italy in 1889. Elsewhere females' life expectancy has long exceeded males': in Sweden since 1751, Denmark since 1835, England and Wales since 1841.7

But in all western European countries the life expectancy gap between women and men is now narrowing. Except in one aberrant year, 1789, the gap reached its maximum in Sweden in 1978 (6.2 years); in Denmark in 1979 (6.2 years); and in England and Wales in 1969 (6.3 years).

Greater emancipation has freed women to demand better health care and to behave more like men, and most importantly to smoke. A century ago it would have been hard to imagine such changes, or the fact that women now expect to live longer than men almost everywhere. As this transition is so recent, the processes driving it cannot be purely biological: they relate primarily to social change. In a way, women's life expectancy is an indicator of how well everyone can do, akin to the healthy districts identified in the 1850s by William Farr, the British epidemiologist who first reported on health inequalities.8 In 1990 Amartya Sen, Indian economist and Nobel laureate, concluded from an analysis of unequal rights between men and women and mortality in the developing world that, worldwide, more than 100 million women were missing.9 The women who were born when Sen wrote this are coming of age in a very different world. We must remember, though, that life expectancy data apply from birth onwards. The picture would be different in some countries if life expectancy from conception was considered: the first doctor to be imprisoned for carrying out sex selective abortion in India was sentenced on 28 March 2006, which may be another landmark.10 Even the life expectancy from birth may not be a permanent achievement, given that the largest remaining untapped market for cigarettes in the world is made up of women living in poorer countries.

Anna Barford, research fellow

Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN

Danny Dorling, professor of human geography

Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN
(Daniel.Dorling@sheffield.ac.uk)

George Davey Smith, professor of clinical epidemiology, Mary Shaw, reader in medical sociology

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR


Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. World Health Organization. World health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: WHO, 2002. www.who.int/whr/2002/en/index.html (accessed 31 Mar 2006).
  2. World Health Organization. World health report 2003: shaping the future. Geneva: WHO, 2003. www.who.int/whr/2003/en/index.html (accessed 31 Mar 2006).
  3. World Health Organization. World health report 2004: changing history, Geneva: WHO, 2004. www.who.int/whr/2004/en/index.html (accessed 31 Mar 2006).
  4. World Health Organization. World health report 2005: make every mother and child count. Geneva: WHO, 2005. www.who.int/whr/2005/en/index.html (accessed 31 Mar 2006).
  5. Central Intelligence Agency. The world factbook, 2005. www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ (accessed 31 Mar 2006).
  6. Fenner F. Smallpox and its eradication. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1988.
  7. Human mortality database. University of California, Berkeley (www.mortality.org); Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (www.humanmortality.de); (data downloaded 9 Dec 2005).
  8. Lewis-Faning E. A survey of the mortality in Dr Farr's 63 healthy districts of England and Wales during the period 1851-1925. J Hygiene 1930; 30: 121-53.
  9. Sen A. More than 100 million women are missing. N York Rev Books 1990 Dec 20: 61-6.
  10. Srinivasan S. Challenges in implementing the ban on sex selection. Info Change Analysis. March 2006. www.infochangeindia.org/analysis121.jsp (accessed 3 Apr 2006).

Coffeeville Teacher accused of student 'sex' and murder plot | Quarter of Men in US with Vasectomies not following up with Effectiveness Test  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Shameful gloating! (Score:1)
by canaryguy (nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com) on 08:23 PM April 14th, 2006 EST (#1)
This article is utterly disgusting -- effectively gloating over how women have shortened the lifespan of the average man.
Re:Shameful gloating! (Score:1)
by Gregory on 09:54 PM April 14th, 2006 EST (#3)
"This article is utterly disgusting -- effectively gloating over how women have shortened the lifespan of the average man."--canaryguy

It might be more accurate to say that it is male contribution and sacrifice that have resulted in a world-wide longevity gap in women's favor. The female-favorable gap varies from nation to nation -- it may be about 6 years in the US, maybe 3 years in Israel, but 15 years in Russia.

The point is that advances in medicine and medical technology (thanks to mostly male physicians and scientists) have largely erased the pregnancy and childbirth-related dangers that historically took women's lives prior to the 20th century.

Men continue to be at greater risk than women for death from disease, accident, occuaptional hazard, military violence,and homicide.

The above article doesn't go into the subject of male sacrifice contributing to women's longer life-spans, and, unfortunately, the article doesn't discuss any of the negative consequences to women and children resulting from male vulnerability.

Warren Farrell in his '93 book "The Myth of Male Power" talks about the longevity gap and how male sacrifice and male humanitarian efforts contribute to women's longer lives. He doesn't gloat, though, as if women and men are competing classes, with men being inferior.

     
Re:Shameful gloating! (Score:1)
by canaryguy (nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com) on 01:18 AM April 15th, 2006 EST (#5)
It might be more accurate to say that it is male contribution and sacrifice that have resulted in a world-wide longevity gap in women's favor. The female-favorable gap varies from nation to nation -- it may be about 6 years in the US, maybe 3 years in Israel, but 15 years in Russia.

True. And 0 years in Bangladesh. One must not forget that women have worked politically to deprive men of equal funding for medical research that concerns mens issues. Why do men get one sixth of the funding for prostate cancer that women get for breast cancer?

Lets not forget that in 1998 women's groups redirected the reform of the laws governing OSHA towards protecting women even more. Because of women, OSHA is still a joke. Because of women, men continue to die on the job in escalating numbers.

Men continue to be at greater risk than women for death from disease, accident, occuaptional hazard, military violence,and homicide.

And suicide. 75% of the suicides are men.

The above article doesn't go into the subject of male sacrifice contributing to women's longer life-spans, and, unfortunately, the article doesn't discuss any of the negative consequences to women and children resulting from male vulnerability.

Of course not! Don't forget one of the central tenets of feminism: "Women are precious, Men don't matter."

Warren Farrell in his '93 book "The Myth of Male Power" talks about the longevity gap and how male sacrifice and male humanitarian efforts contribute to women's longer lives. He doesn't gloat, though, as if women and men are competing classes, with men being inferior.

Truly a classic. Every man should own a copy of that book. Of course he doesn't gloat, he's defending Men!
Good grief (Score:1)
by John Doe on 09:51 PM April 14th, 2006 EST (#2)
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.com
If ever we needed an archetypal example of female on male sexism, this has got to be it. There's only one way for the authors to escape and that is to demonstrate that female lifespan is truly longer than male lifespan under identical conditions. I am not aware of any such study. Otherwise, to compare this to the eradication of smallpox is astonishingly bizarre.

-- Silence is the voice of complicity
Who wants to subscribe to the B.M.J. now? (Score:1)
by Craig on 10:32 PM April 14th, 2006 EST (#4)
The smug tone in this article really makes me angry. I think I'd be even more angry if I was one of the people who subscribe to the British Medical Journal only to be shown biased crap such as this article. I would demand a refund.

I'd be willing to bet that even as women's life expectancy increases, men's life expectancy will be continually ignored, and yet the feminists will still claim that they haven't achieved 'equality' for women.


Re:Who wants to subscribe to the B.M.J. now? (Score:1)
by khankrumthebulgar on 09:23 AM April 15th, 2006 EST (#6)
You don't have to be a Genius to realize that FemNags don't care about equality. They want to destroy as many Men as possible and thin our numbers. They want to rule over Men in some kind of Female Oligarchy. That Oligarchy will be run by Lesbians.

I have posted repeatedly it is about Survival for Men and boys. We are being killed in a War of Attrition. This is what the Radical FemNags are advocating, even Gendercide.
Re:Who wants to subscribe to the B.M.J. now? (Score:1)
by Hunchback on 08:21 PM April 15th, 2006 EST (#8)
Nah.
They don't want to kill us. They want to enslave us. They want the staterooms, while we work in the boiler room. They don't want us stricken, they want us stokin'.

Re:Who wants to subscribe to the B.M.J. now? (Score:1)
by canaryguy (nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com) on 09:49 PM April 15th, 2006 EST (#9)
Nah.
They don't want to kill us. They want to enslave us. They want the staterooms, while we work in the boiler room. They don't want us stricken, they want us stokin'.


I figure feminists want us enslaved from 18 to retirement age. Once we hit retirement, they want us dead and out of the way. Can't have slaves enjoying the fruits of their labor -- for what's left...
Re:Who wants to subscribe to the B.M.J. now? (Score:1)
by Craig on 11:15 PM April 15th, 2006 EST (#10)
I think some feminists would probably want to make sperm donations compulsory from every man.

Feminists could flick through catalogues to find their preferred donors (maybe victims is the word?). Men would have no say in the matter. Then when they gave birth to your child you would be forced to pay child support until your kid is eighteen.

The child support would probably be rediculously high so as to tie men to their jobs permanently and to force men into working longer, harder and for less money per hour (and definately for less money than women).

The feminists could probably also make up some other B.S. reason to drain a bit more money out of men too-such as claiming 'emotional distress'as a result of having to give birth to the child conceived by your sperm (even though it would be their choice to have the child in the first place). Men would then be forced to pay obscene amounts of money to them for the rest of the feminists' lives as compensation for this 'emotional distress'.

Or maybe I just need some more damn sleep.
Proof that Chivalry Still Exists (Score:1)
by oregon dad on 10:45 AM April 15th, 2006 EST (#7)
Now you have the data.
Men still consider women precious....but now we see from this report that they are not.
There are more of them, and they last longer than us.

Precious?
Men are a diminishing breed.

Unfortunately, men are WIRED to think a certain way (i.e. that women are precious). Women know this and take advantage.
Re:Proof that Chivalry Still Exists (Score:1)
by khankrumthebulgar on 11:33 AM April 16th, 2006 EST (#11)
Look at the Data. Incarcerations of Men, Suicide, Life Expectancy, Deaths on the Job 94% in the US. Combat Deaths of Men vs. Women. In the War in Iraq 2.2% of the deaths are Women. Yet the FemNag controlled media equate this as equality. If it were 40% Females I would agree, but 2.2%????

Mary Daly advocated reducing Male populace to 10% of Females for Breeding Stock. I say we eliminate all Lesbians from our Culture and Feminism will implode.
Re:Proof that Chivalry Still Exists: Deadly? (Score:2)
by Roy on 06:35 PM April 18th, 2006 EST (#12)
Oregon Dad -- "Men still consider women precious..."

Very insightful comment!

And if you follow that naive idealistic concept of the fairer sex's "preciousness" through to it's ultimate logical conclusion ....

You WILL ACCEPT YOUR OWN EMOTIONAL SLAVERY.

If I'm incorrect, I'd like to read a logical rebuttal!

Please, all who are "in love..." reply in six months... when you're trashing your ex-whatever.

Am I politely cynical, or merely obeserving the gender wars clearly?

Anyone noticed how no females ("actual or professed") post on this site anymore?

Must be our BAAAD attitudes that has made it too uncomfortable?


[an error occurred while processing this directive]