We take it for granted that women live longer than men. This is the case in over 98 percent of countries in the world. In the United States, average life expectancy is over five years more for women than for men.
But why is this the case? Why is it that for every major cause of mortality that affects both men and women, men die faster?
Are men genetically programmed to die sooner then women? Is it determined in our genes that men develop cancer and heart disease more often than women? Men have a 60 percent higher chance of developing cancer and a 40 percent higher chance of dying from cancer than women, even when you leave out gender-specific cancers like breast, cervical and prostate cancers.
In fact, men have an increased risk of mortality at all ages. Of the top 10 causes of death in the United States, men are winning in nine of them.
This difference in life span between men and women has been relatively unexamined because it has been assumed to be based on biology. But this does not appear to be the case. For one, the extent of the gender gap in life expectancy changes across time and across countries. In the United States, the gap is narrowing, from 7.8 years in 1979 to just 5.2 years in 2006. This is thought to be due to women increasingly taking on stresses and habits of men such as smoking, drinking alcohol and working outside the home. The gender difference is much larger in African countries where AIDS strikes men at higher rates than women and in countries of the former Soviet Union. Clearly there is more to the gender gap than our genes.
Perhaps masculinity itself is killing us. It seems that doctor-avoidance, risk-taking behavior and stress may be the best explanations for the gender gap. It is true that men just don't go to the doctor. Men are twice as likely as women to say they do not have a usual source of health care, and men attend half as many preventive care visits. This leads to half the opportunities to screen men for high blood pressure, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood sugar, substance abuse, cigarette smoking and depression or anxiety. Lack of identification of such risks leads to fewer chances to intervene in a disease process. Heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and cancer then present more often and in more advanced stages than among those who are diagnosed or treated sooner.
Male gender roles may play a part in making men feel that they should deal with symptoms or illness on their own. Just as men typically don't ask for directions when lost, the male may feel it is not "masculine" to seek help for potentially serious medical symptoms. It remains to be seen whether the metrosexual movement will improve the rate at which men seek care for potentially dangerous conditions. However, to the extent that higher mortality can be explained by avoidance of the health care system, it is incumbent upon creators of health policy and providers of health care to make such services more attractive and accessible to men.
Men's habits and roles also impact their rates of disease incidence, While women are taking on more and more professional roles previously held by men, in the US, 95 percent of workers in the 10 most hazardous occupations are still men. Men die in workplace accidents at much higher rates as women, even excluding combat deaths, which were the leading cause of occupational deaths in the US when last reported in 2005.
Then there are non-occupational risks that men take. Men have an increased risk of heart disease and increased risk of alcoholism, suicide and homicide.
Men drive faster and are more likely to eat an unhealthy diet. Men report higher levels of stress and lower rates of stress-reducing activities like meditation and yoga. Well, then, one might say that men deserve to die younger. However, when disparities are found in risk-taking among ethnic or socioeconomic groups, the usual response is not to blame the group at risk. The socially responsible response is to take a hard look at how the educational and health care systems may have failed that group and what can be done to change that, which promotes risk-taking and avoidance of self-care.
Social policy also impacts the rate at which men access the healthcare system. There are fewer programs that target men as specifically as women. Men are less likely to be insured and are less able to qualify for public insurance, such as Medicaid, than women with children.
It is dangerous to assume that the gap in life expectancy between men and women is biological. Such an assumption stops us from examining social, economic, behavioral, or public health policies that may be contributing to higher mortality among men. In the United States, Men's health is largely neglected when looking at health policy. This is not as much the case in Europe and Australia, where entire departments of Andrology exist at many academic and governmental health institutions. Such departments include anthropologists and sociologists, policy advisors and health service researchers. Women have strongly advocated for their own health, leading to increased research, public policies favorable to women's health concerns and health care delivery approaches that specifically address women's health issues. Men need to do the same, not to take away such programs for women, but to add years to the lives of their fellow men.
Follow Myles Spar, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drspar
Alison Rose Levy: Michelle Obama Steps Up As Health Champion
The only thing I can think of is to feed them a heathy diet at home, things they like prepared right. It helps to make up for the junk they devour outside the home.
cleanse their souls which shortens their life span.
Next go to: A New Cure for Cancer and everything else.
*Understand: The human H2O molecule is surrounded by an "electron" whose orbit is in a 180 degree half-circle to the South. All fluids consumed have first been "forced-through metal piping" which causes their electrons to spin(orbit) to the North, like the insects molecular-rotation. To drink this in-correctly influenced fluid means that you are "NEGATING" your own "7 year cellular rebuild cycle" thus causing your early demise! To begin to "south-spin" ALL FLUIDS means that you are giving your system exactly what it needs to do this cellular replacement correctly. In time you will eat-less, sleep-less, and begin to look much younger. You will also live for up to 1000 years in a healthy and productive physical body.
The New David
If you are talking about "men are stronger, thus superior" I agree.
On the other hand, I think we, as humans, tend to give ourselves far too credit thinking we are that much better than animals.
I think our minds allow us to UNDERSTAND the animal nature of man moreso than CONTROL it. We rationalize so many "decisions" that are basically animal instinct.
Look at how often women choose the alpha male in situation after situation, just like in nature. Look at how often men choose the youngest (and most fertile) women, just like in nature.
There was a thread about this the other day, virtually NO animals in nature are monogamous.
It's a concept humans invented to control social behavior.
Should we ignore the special biological bond women have with their children and award child custody strictly 50/50?
Without asking what part biology plays in the debate, we work off man made intellectual standards that might nor reflect reality.
I know plenty of guys who meet girls they don't want to lose, so they give in and get married.
Humans act out of self interest.
The claim has been made here again and again that marriage is VERY beneficial to men.
So...how do you explain this disconnect?
What does those men who don't want to get married EVEN though it's TOTALLY in the their self interest (big grain of salt) know that the women (and Rand Corp.) telling them it's good for them not know?
Or what do those women (and Rand Corp.) know that these men don't?
Why is it so hard to convince men to do something that is great for them?
Flip side, why are women so eager for something that is not?
"Women live longer, it's just biology, no big deal, just move along...." or "men are just here to spread the seeds, so biological, it's important for women to live longer to raise the offspring"
This last line sounded to me a lot like what men say when they explain why monogamy is unrealistic.
NONE of the women here who expect us to shrug our shoulders and say "well, I guess, it's biology, oh well...I won't look into why I die ten years sooner anymore" will buy into the notion that biology rather than man-made social concepts to prevent pregnancy before birth control, should determine our attitude towards monogamy.
If it's good for the gander, it had better be good for the goose.
If it's good for the goose, forget the gander.
As you point out, monogamy is NOT a burden to most women, it is their preference. So, they have no interest in re-examining the science or biology of that concept.
Both died of cancer. One breast and the other skin.
Biology is the reason men die younger. Let's admit it and stop making excuses for them.
As a physician, he should know that males are more susceptible to disease than females are even before they're born, and at every stage of the lifespan thereafter. Males are certainly not subject to more stress than females while they're still in the womb or, after that, in the cradle, because they're "working harder" or because of "gender roles"!
He should also know that, regarding heart disease, the female cardiovascular system is stronger than that of the male because it's designed to withstand the physical rigors of pregnancy and childbirth. In the first trimester of pregnancy and then again during labor and delivery, cardiac output is increased by 30% to 50%. Women don't have less stress than men...they're simply built to endure it better than men are.
But all you have to do is Google "cardiac output" and "pregnancy" to confirm the percentage of increase.
PS--I did not use the words "cardiac input" --you did.
That's why NOT ONE man in my life has EVER asked me, "So, when you are getting married?"
That's why (almost) every woman in my life has...
It also does not help that it is ingrained in women from birth that they have to get married. Or it should be their goal in life. Just about everything fed to little girls deals with prince charming, marriage, and children. It's hard to become unconditioned to things you have been fed since birth. While men and women both receive pressure to get married, women are told by the media more often that they are failures if they do not get married.
Men are more likely to be applauded for not getting married while women are shunned and told to think about their biological clocks. So it's no surprise women ask other women and men when they are getting married. Marriage is still a goal for a lot of people.
Just curious...
Do you not think men are "conditioned" to do things their entire lives?
Men are immune to social pressures?
They are not.
Men are, however, FAR more likely to IGNORE that social pressure, because it is just that. Ultimately, people have to make their own decisions and OWN them. Rather than just go along...
How, and in what context, are men "applauded" for not getting married? How are women shunned?
You mention momogamy. Most women are naturally inclined towards it, while men are the exact opposite.
I wonder if the fact that society has NO interest in understanding ONLY comdemning men for not being naturally monogamous in a society with great social and financial penalties for failing to do so...adds to the stress that kills them?
Monogamy, I believe, is a cultural phenomenom that is also driven by biology but only in that women can get pregnant. It really is her and her child's best interest to be monogamous so that she can, with reliability, point a finger at the father so she can have protection for herself and her child.
I remember my father in his seventies saying to me, "I wish I could just go to Acapulco and lie on the beach for a few days." This from a WWII vet, you understand. I said, "I'll buy you a ticket and make the hotel reservations." He said, "Oh, your mother wouldn't want to go."