Why women live longer than man, that's unfair :-)

[Sirrobert]

I wonder if it's been found more often in captive animals with access to medicine?

If you could go back in time, you wouldn't have found it in humans either. How many women would have ever lived to a menopause age before advances in medicine and sanitation came about?

I think it's probably one of those things that have become a thing because our bodies now typically run a lot longer than they were designed to. Warranty expires around 30-40.

My gues is that it's the same principle as cancer.

We only have a cancer problem because we live so long. As humanity's life span increases, so will our cancer rates.

Because I can guarantee you, if you live long enough, you WILL get cancer. That's just how it works. Eventually the mutations will become to much

[phoenix_ca]

Since this post is slightly turning into a gender battle ground I will say the real answer, an average woman lives longer then an average man simply because of biology and evolution, most females in nature live longer because they need to reproduce as much as possible to keep the species going (there also tends to be less of them). Because of the stated reasons, nature merely decided to increase the females life length so species stand better odds of surviving, this was also passed down to humans.

That is what's known as the naturalistic fallacy appeal to nature fallacy. Just because that's how nature is, doesn't mean that's how things ought to be.

Fortunately, in China the ratio is reversed:D

Not really. The one-child law in China has had some incredibly detrimental effects on Chinese society. Male children aren't just preferred, female children are genuinely risky for parents. While male children have a legal obligation to provide for the needs of their parents as they get older, female children have absolutely no such responsibility. From this standpoint, it makes a whole lot more sense to keep a boy than it does to keep a girl.

I always find that case rather curious, since that state of affairs tends to be used by feminists in Western nations as an example of "male privilege", when it's in fact a situation created by the extra obligations imposed on men.

Edited May 25, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[WinkAllKerb'']

you should ask an ant

EDIT: bah ... , frogs turn herma cause of sewage, nevermind

EDIT 2: Why US is the best basketball 'nation' => because they eat beef wich eat growing hormon ... ok then ... i pass *shrug* ... next

Edited May 24, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''

[jfull]

Actually, I'm pretty sure men and women will die of old age at about the same time.

However, men are more likely to die young, which brings down the life-span average for men.

[jfull]

This again unfair:)

What exactly makes this unfair?

Do you think biology needs to evenly distribute everything to everyone?

Also, men are pretty much universally more privileged than women, so I'd say its actually quite fair that they can live longer than men.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Total hazard, Seen yesterday some 90+ years old country Viet with none occidental confort at all , explain me why please please ... what the hell there health is related too ... i feel so dumb not understanding such basic things *shrug* ... nevermind science and pharma lobbies will answer soon we just need to send them more found support to provide most of the time less efficient medecine than some of the old one, nevermind really ...

Edit: is pharmaceutics products boughtable on supermaket some kind of irony; who konws ... may be it s because the pharmacians tend to turn themselves in grocerys dealer ?!?

Edited May 24, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''

[phoenix_ca]

Also, men are pretty much universally more privileged than women, so I'd say its actually quite fair that they can live longer than men.

Supposition, unless you've got proof. Large parts of society now actually deliberately privilege women, including medical care (men are denied free mammograms when they are medically indicated, because they are men, and breast cancer charities tend to exclusively cover women), child custody law (many nations and states practice deliberate discrimination against the male in any custody battle), and family law (it is very common in the USA, Sweden, and a few others I can't recall, for law enforcement to respond to domestic disturbances by assuming that the male is always the aggressor, leading to situations where women can freely abuse their male spouses; this is the so-called "Duluth" model of family violence, and is incredibly flawed and based on little to no evidence). Further, in some nations there are specific obligations imposed on males as part of their rights as citizens that are not imposed on women, simply because they are women (e.g. the USA's Selective Service).

Please, show me in a Western nation (for the purposes of this argument let's say from a selection of the USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and the EU) exactly where men are afforded privileges simply because of their gender, without any reciprocal responsibilities or obligations. But as long as I have to keep my name on the Selective Service list because I'm a man, under penalty of jail-time, denial of federal grants and federal jobs, and a whole host of other punishments for not signing-up for possible compulsory service, I won't accept this assertion that men are "universally more privileged than women". Women are not expected to die for their country during a time of war, men are. This is only just if women are not given the same rights of citizenship. In countries that demand compulsory service from men, and justify that demand as due payment for the rights of citizenship (as the USA does), to give women the same rights without the very same demand is fundamentally unjust (unless you are working from the assumption that women really are unequal, lesser humans who should not be expected to bear the same burdens; even then, why give a lesser human the right to vote?).

To afford two people the same rights, but demand reciprocal obligations from one and not the other is fundamentally unjust, all things being equal. Note that in 2013, the Pentagon re-evaluated their position on women serving in a front-line capacity. Now that women are allowed to serve in that capacity, the last tenuous argument for this difference in the application of the Selective Service Act has been undermined.

And if you'd like a perspective on other cultures, here's a relatively easy-to-follow and well-spoken individual who can elucidate this a bit:

Edited May 24, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Sirrobert]

Total hazard' date=' Seen yesterday some 90+ years old country Viet with none occidental confort at all , explain me why please please ... what the hell there health is related too ... i feel so dumb not understanding such basic things *shrug* ... nevermind science and pharma lobbies will answer soon we just need to send them more found support to provide most of the time less efficient medecine than some of the old one, nevermind really ...

[u']Edit: is pharmaceutics products boughtable on supermaket some kind of irony; who konws ... may be it s because the pharmacians tend to turn themselves in grocerys dealer ?!?

I have no god damn clue what you are saying

[sal_vager]

Since this post is slightly turning into a gender battle ground I will say the real answer, an average woman lives longer then an average man simply because of biology and evolution, most females in nature live longer because they need to reproduce as much as possible to keep the species going (there also tends to be less of them). Because of the stated reasons, nature merely decided to increase the females life length so species stand better odds of surviving, this was also passed down to humans.

I think this thread really ended here, why do Science labs threads become so controversial?

A question for another thread I think.

Edited May 24, 2014 by sal_vager

[bsalis]

Quickly posting this here before thread gets locked...

I'm no doctor but my understanding is that women have, proportionally, larger internal organs. This is the support pregnancy. However, the extra capacity allows a longer life.

As others have mentioned, men are also more prone to early death from violence and accidents.

Edited May 25, 2014 by bsalis

[theend3r]

Because they don't have to live with women.

[Sirrobert]

Because they don't have to live with women.

I can't believe noone posted that one before.

[NASAFanboy]

Because they don't have to live with women.

We are here to discuss actual biology, not relationship issues in society.

That's a fine way to get this thread locked, though.

Remember that the lifespans are measured in average, not individually. Thus, it is fitting for males to receive a shorter lifespan because they are being sent to combat to fight and die in wars, they are stronger and can commit crimes easier, they are more prone to violence, and unlike women, they have a physiological factor of pride, which causes many to commit suicide after being unemployed or many to commit suicide when faced with heavy failure/ruin.

Women aren't expected to serve in direct combat, have lower rates of crime, are more likely to negotiate and do not have a historically defined tradition of being the family breadwinner that makes them have emotional issues when unemployed.

So technically, both sides have the same lifespan. It's just that some men, by nature, tend to be more violent and lower the average lifespan on their side, along with all those wars.

[Javster]

*Insert sexist comment here*

[AngelLestat]

I was sure that someone in 4 pages would be knew the answer, but it seems not. (well I can not find it, sorry if this is not true)

The answer is "Testosterone". And women would live even longer if they would have a similar live style like mens.

If someone wants, I can give you more details of why is like that.

[phoenix_ca]

I'm no doctor but my understanding is that women have, proportionally, larger internal organs. This is the support pregnancy. However, the extra capacity allows a longer life.

A minute of searching turned-up exactly the opposite:

"Women generally have lower body weight and organ sizes, and a higher percentage of body fat.^{4, 6}" - http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hs_healthfacts_dat (Retrieved 25-May-2014)

4. Rademaker M. Do women have more adverse drug reactions? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2(6):349-351.

6. Meibohm B, Beierle I, Derendorf H. How important are gender differences in pharmacokinetics? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41(5):329-342.

and unlike women, they have a physiological factor of pride, which causes many to commit suicide after being unemployed or many to commit suicide when faced with heavy failure/ruin.

Women don't have pride? What in the world gave you that idea?

are more likely to negotiate

Same as above, I'm having trouble thinking of where you got that idea.

and do not have a historically defined tradition of being the family breadwinner that makes them have emotional issues when unemployed.

Maybe, but again, no citation so one can dismiss this out-of-hand. In fact, it seems women are far more likely to have mood disorders.

So technically, both sides have the same lifespan.

Technically, you haven't provided any supporting information. From the papers I've seen on the topic, most suggest that there is some slight biological reason for women tending to live longer. In fact the statistical evidence points to men dying much faster for pretty much any health concern. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health30a-eng.htm (Odd that this country has a Minister on the Status of Women to presumably advocate for women's issues exclusively, and no such department in government pointing-out this massive gap in deaths that affects men.)

It's just that some men, by nature, tend to be more violent and lower the average lifespan on their side, along with all those wars.

I hope you aren't suggesting that that should be the state of affairs. It may well be socially acceptable to toss men into the meat grinder of a war but anathema to do so with a woman, but that doesn't mean it's right or just. Nor is it really a biological reason for the difference, but a social one. (Given the OP, social inequities are indeed within the scope of the thread.)

Given that there is clear evidence that men die at far higher rates than women, I would argue it is fundamentally unjust for a society to preferentially support the health of women, which is, unfortunately, exactly what is happening in a few societies, like Canada (with the Minister on the Status of Women, who also has the authority to block inter-ministerial communications that would elucidate this issue here), or Sweden (which has arguably gone off the deep end in this regard, with even so much as the suggestion that there may be differences between men and women being thoroughly squashed).

The answer is "Testosterone". And women would live even longer if they would have a similar live style like mens.

This isn't an answer. All it amounts to is "Men die sooner because testosterone." It's not an argument. It's barely even a sentence.

Edited May 25, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[AngelLestat]

This isn't an answer. All it amounts to is "Men die sooner because testosterone." It's not an argument. It's barely even a sentence.

If you want a better explanation, you just need to ask, like I said. I dint do it at first becouse I knew that it would take time (my english is not good), and maybe someone would like search for them self evidence to see if is true or not.

You can said that women lives longer than men just becouse evolution (and you would not be wrong).

Almost the majority of all female´s animals had longer life span. This is becouse females had a major impact in children survival than mens. For that, is normal that this evolution trait appears.

But this does not explain the "why" in an accurate science way.

There are several studies that prove how testosterone reduce our Immune System, womens are stronger against deseases, heart attacks, etc.

Both genders had some Testosterone levels, but of course mens had more of it. This give us more strength and power, but it also acts as nitro in a normal engine (grind down).

Stadistics and studies show that mens (and males in mostly all species) lives longer when they had low levels of testosterone.

"historical data showing castrated Koreans far outlived their non-eunuch contemporaries."

"research in Japan in which scientists created "super female" mice from genetic material from two females, with no genetic material from a male. These mice lived a third longer than ordinary female mice."

"Laboratory studies have also shown cells in female rodents repair damage better than in males, but this difference is eliminated if the ovaries are surgically removed. It is also known that castrated male animals tend to live longer than intact animals. According to Kirkwood there is also evidence from an institution for the mentally disturbed in Kansas, where castration of male inmates was once a common practice, that castrated men lived an average of 14 years longer than uncastrated inmates."

Regarding to the theory which stand that mens live less than women becouse they had major risks or worst work conditions, it was disproval in several studies.

First, the World Health Organization show many times that womens had the worst works in average to mens, with less paid, more stress and repetivive and in exposition to harm enviroments (this is changing in out time, but still women had worst jobs according to health)

Mens die more becouse drugs, alcolishm, risk behavior, etc.

But womens also die of other causes, like given birth, a life with less physsical activity than mens, this give health proeblems to future, etc.

[Vaporized Steel]

The reason why the list of oldest people alive are all woman is because these people date back to the time of the early 20th and late 19th century.

Since then up till just 2-3 decades ago it was custom that woman took care of the Household. Which is fair to say that it's a less labour intensive life style. In theory, womans at home had all the time to care about their longevity. If only they would all care or understand longevity. While most men had to perform the labour intensive duties of society. It is already scientifically proven that labour intensive life styles reduces longevity.

Not to mention that in order to be over 110 years old almost all the available men were forced into military duty for the first and 2nd world war. And everyone that would be over 110-120 years old today would have the required age in 1914-1918 for forced duty. A large pool of young men that were once available to become old died in battle at young ages.

And the casualties of men in the first and 2nd world wars (not to mention all the other wars) is enormous. I guess more then 100 million men died in all the wars since the late 19th century. Possibly alot more. Compared to a feeble amount of woman.

Ofcourse a whole lot more died in wars through genocide but I'm talking about battle casualties here which are almost all men and not woman.

I'm very sure that if men and woman equally distributed labour intensive jobs and no more men would die in battle there would be equally old men alive.

[AngelLestat]

Vaporized, you dont even read the last post before reply?

That is soo wrong, is already proven that women had worst enviroment conditions than mens in work, no only that, when they come back to home they keep working with house tasks.

But you are only imaging some 60th movie enviroment in some develope country where the men go to work and the women stay at home watching tv and making some smalls task.

First, in those cases women live more than mens, but also in cases where womens had an inferno of live.

The world is a lot bigger than the 60th movie style that you picture. What about africa, where girls since birth had less life expentency just becouse mens dont like to have daghters? what about the 80% of women which not live in development countries? Even in develoment countries women hard worst jobs. Read about it. A trusted source is W.H.O. World health organization.

There are studies where men and womens had a very close social enviroment similarities, and even there women life span difference is the same.

Why almost all males in the animal kingdom live less than females? What? they go to work in worst enviroment conditions? And majority of females not only they need to hunt for them, also for their progeny.

There are a lot of countries who never enter in war, and you can see the same life span difference there.

[drakesdoom]

On a purely biological basis a male can have hundreds of children a year limited only to how many females he can impregnate.

A female can have at most 4 children every 3 years.

Evolution is driven by the ability of genes to be passed on and give healthy offspring as compared to other genes. Honestly with ratios like that I am surprised men don't drop dead at 40.

[jwenting]

I'm talking about in nature, as in not human. As for menopause, it is defined as "uncommon" in the animal kingdom so it could just be an human gene error. 1:1 for humans but can greatly differ for other species.

given that in nature most members of a species die young, that's no surprise...

[jwenting]

Vaporized, you dont even read the last post before reply?

That is soo wrong, is already proven that women had worst enviroment conditions than mens in work, no only that, when they come back to home they keep working with house tasks.

more feminist, anti-male, propaganda...

Haven't yet heard of female miners getting killed in mine explosions, very few get killed in napalm or IED attacks, get the bends in industrial diving accidents trying to get a job done beyond the safety margins because otherwise a lot of other people suffer, etc. etc..

Sure, they may have a job where they're limited in the shade of their nail polish, but is that really hardship?...

[phoenix_ca]

more feminist, anti-male, propaganda...

Or just a misunderstanding.

@AngelLestat: So far you haven't given any citations or references. Those would be helpful. Otherwise all you're saying is supposition.

[sndrtj]

While it is true that males are more likely to die young because of a generally more risky life style, this alone cannot explain why women live longer. Even at older ages - where lifestyles of males and females are pretty much the same - females still outlive males. From an evolutionary standpoint, it sure makes sense for females to live longer. Men are not "required" to live long, because they can spread their genes on much shorter time spans than females (a man can impregnate many women in a single year. A woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months). Furthermore, unlike more simpler forms of life where juveniles are pretty much independent from birth, mammalian infants require copious amounts of care from parents to survive. For humans, this effect is even enhanced. Compared to other mammals, humans are born very immature. A giraffe baby can stand up in its first few hours. A human baby can't even see properly the first few months. Human juveniles can't survive independently for about 15 years after birth. This means that it is evolutionary advantageous to have at least one parent survive at least 15 years after childbirth. Furthermore, "natural" human relationships are estimated to be on the order of 4-5 years, enough for the offspring to reach toddler age, but not long enough for full independence. This burden thus becomes primarily the job of the mother. Hence, women need to live longer than men. (Note: yes, nearly all cultures have the notion of livelong marriages. Where and how this fits in the evolutionary picture is somewhat unclear. Perhaps the concept of marriage is too recent to have an evolutionary effect?)

It has been shown that childless women live longer than child-bearing women. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as the body must be kept "fresh" for the time when childbirth finally happens. This does, indeed, suggest some connection with hormonal balance. For men, this relation doesn't exist, as there as no way for the male body to know when it has produced offspring.

[Idobox]

more feminist, anti-male, propaganda...

Haven't yet heard of female miners getting killed in mine explosions, very few get killed in napalm or IED attacks, get the bends in industrial diving accidents trying to get a job done beyond the safety margins because otherwise a lot of other people suffer, etc. etc..

Sure, they may have a job where they're limited in the shade of their nail polish, but is that really hardship?...

It's not a contest to see who has it the worst, but we're talking of people over 100 years old. At that time, in many places (and even in some places to this day), men had better access to healthcare and higher quality food, did not have to give birth to 12 children, and were not surrounded 24/7 by kids and elderly (also known as nature's Petri dishes) in cramped living quarters.

Sure, they were less likely to die in a mining accident or to get silicosis, but WW2 killed more civilians than soldiers, and violent deaths pale in comparison of the Spanish flu and other diseases.

In the end, men die younger than women in part for biological reasons (male pets usually have shorter lives than female ones, and they don't higher risk of dying at war, or a lesser exposition to nail polish remover), and in part because of a less healthy lifestyle (until a few decades ago, men drank, smoked and ate red meat a lot more than women). Comparing working in a field (which women also did) to working on a cotton mill 12h a day is a pointless exercise, and will not explain why upper-class women outlive their lazy-ass aristocratic husbands.

Now, given that our lifestyles have changed a lot, that gender differences are less pronounced, and healthcare improves, the biological role will become even more predominant. We also have to take into account males have a bonus because almost every drug is tested on males, and as a result, women are much more likely to have complications/secondary effects. This is slowly changing today, but it will take decades for thisdifference in healthcare quality to vanish.