Are men the weaker sex?

[Miigwech]

Scientists confirm what women always knew: men really are the weaker sex
In times of famine, epidemic and hardship over the past 250 years, women have consistently outlived men, find researchers

Women are more likely than men to survive in times of famine and epidemics, research has found.

While it has long been known that women have a higher life expectancy than men in general, analysis of historical records stretching back 250 years shows that women have, for example, outlived men on slave plantations in Trinidad, during famines in Sweden and through various measles outbreaks in Iceland.

Even when mortality was very high for both sexes, women still outlived men, on average, by six months to four years, according to the report (pdf) by Duke University in North Carolina.

The datasets included seven groups of people for whom life expectancy was 20 years or under for one or both sexes. Among them were working and former slaves in Trinidad and the US in the early 1800s; people experiencing famine in Sweden, Ireland and the Ukraine in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries; and Icelanders affected by the 1846 and 1882 measles epidemics.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jan/15/scientists-confirm-what-women-always-knew-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex

[Srkdqltr]

1. Short answer.. duh yes.

[Miigwech]

4. LOL

[Skittles]

2. LOL

EVERY woman knows the answer to that.

[Miigwech]

7. Agreed, LOL

[lunatica]

26. Well all men are required to do to assure the continuation of the species

is to pass on their semen. That’s it. A moment of time with the use of one organ. Women, on the other hand, use their entire bodies to assure their offspring are alive, nurtured and fed for nine months before birth and anywhere up to 2 years after birth.

Who is stronger and who is more necessary?

Is this still in question?

[Calculating]

39. Yes but the men need to provide while the women raise the children

At least that's how it traditionally worked. The women wouldn't be able to tend to the farm or go hunting while pregnant or with young children. While men have a relatively minor role in creating the baby, they still help a lot when it comes to protection and providing.

[lunatica]

41. I'll be Devil's advocate here

You know how Hillary says it takes a village to raise a child? A village made up of only women could handle anything men could do.

It’s actually something that has happened throughout history when all the men went off to fight their wars. Even during WWII women built all those war machines that helped men win the war. Then, even though they did an outstanding job carrying the load of the tough work of making war paraphernalia, plus holding the home front down and keeping the country running without missing a beat, they were summarily pushed aside when they could have been incorporated instead.

And on top of all that women were called the weaker sex.

But in truth, most women who haven’t been abused have love and respect for their men. We value them greatly, but just wish it were more reciprocal.

[Calculating]

43. Fair enough

But I'm speaking more of the hunter gatherer times. When you have to go out and hunt dangerous prey or fight to defend the village for a rival clan, it comes in handy having a bunch of strong men around. In modern society you could absolutely make things work with a population that's mostly women with a few men for reproduction. The real ethical issue becomes what to do with the unwanted men, and why we have a gender ratio of roughly one man for one woman if we aren't meant to function with monogamous relationships. You'd think evolution/god/etc would have created something like a 80/20 female to male ratio or something if men are really unnecessary other than reproduction.

[lunatica]

44. LOL!

I agree completely with you! Frankly, if it weren’t for men humanity would still be living in small villages, having not evolved much. There might be more harmony perhaps, but civilization as we know it today would probably not exist. A few famines and the human race would have been too depleted to survive.

Imagine if both sexes had always worked together as equals. It’s something to think about. Because in reality there is no weaker sex.

[tazkcmo]

51. You make sense.

Stop it! You're ruining the divisiveness of this article.

[lunatica]

66. Let me tell you! I can clear a room in seconds

by merely saying, “I’ve been thinking about ...”.

[treestar]

61. Except for the very end of the pregnancy,

women can still do work.

I wouldn't argue with the men helped.

[Bananaluver]

3. The science has been there all while I was raising kids and reading the books.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Well, I have heard plenty of women say "You should try childbirth some time."

[bunny planet]

6. Is water wet?

[maxsolomon]

8. Women (typically) have a higher body fat % than men

and therefore survive famines better. If they're "stronger", it's because evolution shaped them that way - survival is paramount.

So, good job, researchers.

[redstatebluegirl]

9. Yes no doubt.

When my MIL was ill it was her daughters and DIL who took care of her. The men did not want any part of taking care of her end of life issues, they were also "afraid of being there when she passed". When my niece and nephew stayed with us and got the flu, I took care of them, my husband said it made him nauseous to clean them up.

Most women I know work at least one job, if not two, have kids and elderly parents or relatives they are responsible for. They are also responsible for keeping the house clean and most of the cooking. In my house I even take care of the yard most of the time.

No offense guys, you would be lost without the women in your lives.

[Ohiogal]

15. +1000

[SunSeeker]

20. Been there done that.

Oh, and top of all that, I battled stage III breast cancer. And I was not unusual; there were women in the chemo ward next to me doing the same thing, with young kids like I had.

[redstatebluegirl]

27. I love my husband, but if he gets a cold he is down for the count and needs constant care.

[dweller]

10. K&R

all honor and accolades to Mother Earth for her creations
🙏🏻

✌🏼

[nolabear]

11. Without a doubt. Genetically, constitutionally and psychologically.

I don’t mean that as an insult. Men excel in many ways and are physically capable of greater feats of strength. But they are biologically more expendable so lack some of the protections women have. Sex linked genetic abnormalities far more are through the maternal lineage and manifest in the male offspring. Our body fat ratio helps us survive famine and illness better. Our ability to work together helps us help one another survive.

Male aggression (the positive kind) has shaped the world to be kinder and more easily negotiated for them but we have a huge capacity to survive and thrive when we don’t settle for only their standards.

[cwydro]

12. Yup.

Easy question.

[Karadeniz]

13. Let me be really sexist. When I want a complete escape from our political doo-doo, I'll switch on

Something that will completely occupy my mind. I've discovered that a great escape mechanism is one of the ghost/paranormal shows on the science channel! Just today it hit me that by far, most of the earthbound spirits were males and especially the nasty ones! (Not always.) I wondered why male spirits would be more likely to get stuck here rather than following the light. It occurs to me that the traditional role of women...to be kind, sympathetic, nurturing....better prepares a soul for progress than some traditional masculine qualities...competitiveness, fighting.
So...does femininity favor soul development? Or, can we decide that some masculine attributes need to be subjugated for soul development?
Okay...tear me apart!❤

[rabid_decline]

50. I'll weigh in here

Cause this is fun. I don’t have any reality tv transgressions of any sort. But I was unaware that the paranormal community tends to chance upon mostly men’s souls. I’d call bullshit there right away. Even looking at Northern European Pagan cultures the Freyas were the women priestesses.
The ONLY male priests were of her choosing. I’d imagine some of this stigma carried over to when the fucking Pilgrims came here and inadvertently brought along some flotsam and jetsam from the old faiths. Nonetheless the Salem witch trials put women on the spotlight. Not men. I’d imagine that Wouk have been a perfect time to be a full on Warlock. Going unnoticed.

[scheming daemons]

14. Depends on what you are measuring.

If the question is physical muscular strength, the answer is overwhelmingly no... with obvious exceptions.


If the question is emotional strength, the answer is overwhelmingly yes... with obvious exceptions.

[LanternWaste]

67. And what of constitutional strength (rather than the ill-defined 'muscular strength')?

Try 'The Paleolithic Revolution' by Paula Johanson. You may surprise yourself... with obvious exceptions.

[mnhtnbb]

16. This has been known for a long time.

They certainly are the whinier sex.

[11 Bravo]

17. Until I witness a man pass a bowling bowl through his reproductive organ ...

and then voluntarily do so again, maybe even multiple times, this one seems like a no-brainer.

I'm a combat veteran, twice-wounded in battle; but after watching my darling wife give birth to two amazing sons, I have no fucking doubt about which one of us is tougher!

(On a related note, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.)

[Skittles]

18. I think it is the root of a lot of misogyny

deep down, men know NOTHING they do beats growing and delivering a human being - nothing

[11 Bravo]

24. I hear you. I was right there, holding her hand, both times, but ...

she was the one doing the heavy lifting.

Hell, my part in the procedure had been hugely pleasurable to that point!

Afterwards we have parented together, and as a matter of fact, I think I'm one Hell of a Dad.

But she brought them into this world.

I know that, and I never miss an opportunity to thank her for our two sons.

[Skittles]

32. and then there are guys like you

REAL men, not threatened by women....yes INDEED

[11 Bravo]

73. Thanks, Skittles. I appreciate that, although for the life of me ...

I still can't wrap my head around the mindset any man who doesn't get it.

As an aside, I still remember 15 or so years ago when you ripped me a new one for being a deer hunter. I disagreed with you, but I was moved by your passion and conviction.

Over the ensuing years you have remained one of my favorite DUers. (And I will confess, it's WAY more fun to be on your good side!)

Yes INDEED!

[Skittles]

81. awww

well, I will never understand people who are entertained by killing

but.....we are still here, although if you ever confess to wearing CROCS I will take *ACTION*

[11 Bravo]

82. If I ever don CROCS, I will richly deserve being scheduled ...

for an ASS-KICKING!

[mcar]

37. Good on you!

[Faux pas]

19. Yes

next question.

[FM123]

21. Ask Betty White, I think she knows.....

<img src="?resize=600,226" alt="Image result for betty white, “Why do people say "grow some balls""/>

[rabid_decline]

49. God!

Betty White nailed this when I was thinking this as a little boy! Who’d gotten wracked in the balls enough to know, “damn! Those shits are sensitive!” Howcome all of our stuff has to be exposed?”
I’m grateful to be a man, but if there is is a God, he plays a lot of sick jokes. But she was so right about that. When I was a boy I always hated when other men would say “have the balls!” I was like ..”are you kidding me?!” You mean these very sensitive things that could cripple me with a mere finger flicking? These things that can go from velvety soft to a weird shrink wrapped cinched up bundle of skin?

[KayF]

54. "i'd never say that in a million years"

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/nov/10/betty-white-golden-girl

Only those words never passed her lips, and she'd quite like people to bear that in mind next time they see fit to quote it at her, as I have just done. "That's what I hate about Facebook and the internet," she sighs. "They can say you said anything. I never would have said that. I'd never say that in a million years."

[Skittles]

55. I'd say it

I despise the sexist reference to the weakest body part on the PLANET as evidence of "courage".

[KayF]

83. but Betty White wouldn't n/t

[FM123]

59. You are right, it is always attributed to Betty but it turns out it was actually someone else.

So, who did say it? Partial credit goes to New York standup comedian Sheng Wang, who delivered a lengthier version of the joke on the 28 January 2011 episode of Comedy Central Presents:

A friend said to me, “Hey you need to grow a pair. Grow a pair, Bro.” It’s when someone calls you weak, but they associate it with a lack of testicles. Which is weird, because testicles are the most sensitive things in the world. If you suddenly just grew a pair, you’d be a lot more vulnerable. If you want to be tough, you should lose a pair. If you want to be real tough, you should grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.

[bdamomma]

79. ............

[lindysalsagal]

22. Search youtube for "stupid things men do."

The prosecution rests.

[dewsgirl]

52. LoL

[alittlelark]

23. Each single woman is EXTREMELY valuable evolutionarily.

Only females have the ability to bodily nurture and bring to fruition a new Homo Sapien Sapien. Half of Homo Sapien Sapiens DO NOT have that ability (males).

Females INVEST in offspring. By spending 40 weeks pregnant (somewhat incapacitated), then feeding the new Homo Sapien Sapien from their bodies for whatever amt of time is accepted in their society - they create a new member of our species.

THIS ^^^^ is why females are almost always the 'Survivors'. Our DNA has gotten us this far - In order for DNA to replicate it NEEDS women.

One mans sperm spurt can impregnate 10,000 women if it is spread out. But the male has no investment - unless he recognizes and internalizes the fact that his DNA is 1/2 of the new Homo Sapien Sapien.

Evolution created females to be Stronger than men because they are NEEDED to bring new Homo Sapien Sapiens into the world.

Men are disposable in evolutionary thought - only a few dozen are really needed - yeah it's ugly to think that, but look at the wild world - just look at lions. Males are sacrificed for the best DNA

https://www.livescience.com/41572-male-lion-survival.html


Evolution favors females, because females 'invest


Gods, I could make this post into a book. It's JUST DNA, it is what it is, and we are all made of it and ruled by it in many ways.

[Calculating]

40. So the incels are right after all...

Or at least that's the logical conclusion of this. Basically mediocre males shouldn't be able to reproduce, while mediocre females still have value due to their ability to bring new humans into the world by reproducing with the few top tier males with the best genetics. That's LITERALLY what incels are always complaining about. They wonder why a mediocre male shouldn't be entitled to a mediocre female, and why the mediocre females are instead still attracted to the best males.

Historically things have worked out because one alpha male can only support so many females on his own, and those females would all need someone to provide for their kids. Due to this, females traditionally had to settle for lower tier men in order to secure a stable provider for their offspring. There has always been a balance between females wanting a mate with the best genetics, and a mate who will be the best provider. Now we have many social safety nets for single mothers such as welfare programs/food stamps/etc and it's entirely possible for single mothers to successfully raise their kids without needing to settle for the mediocre men of society. The choice used to be something along the lines of "settle for that awkward/goofy short guy with glasses, or end up begging for scraps when the jock runs out on you to chase another girl"

The problem with all of this is that mediocre men NEED to feel they have a chance at finding a mate, or you end up a society full of hopeless young males who stay home playing video games at best, or go on shooting rampages at worst. Human society isn't like a pack of lions where undesirable males can just be driven out of the pack or killed. People need to feel like they have a fair shot and a role in society or they check out and stop contributing.

[rabid_decline]

47. No, the incessant are wrong

After just finishing one of my YouTube episodes which basically parodies nerds, geeks or “uncles” as you call them. Much of these assertions or narratives are just untrue. I wish people would see that. I think with incels they were just nerdy dudes who took a wrong turn on societal rejection, internalized inadvertently and ran with that. If we look at humans as a societal tribalised sentient species (which we see ourselves at conflict with ourselves day by day) we would understand the being ostracized historically was a fate worse than death.
Women tend have variances in their attraction cycles. Incels aren’t attuned to this. Some males are, but again much of it has to do with their conditioning. I just don’t think it’s really fair to subjugate some men as mediocre and some as superior. Most of those nerdy dudes I saw and interviewed at comicon were really sweet, honest and genuine people who’ve been ostracized by society. A lot of them I think have given up on love and empathy and when happens regions of the brain literally start receding. I think THIS is where you get instances of the mass shooters. The areas of their brains that once gave a shit shrunk to the point that they have lost most of their ability to care. I will say this is mostly conditioning and that they’re not incapable of feeling something. I guarantee you that most of those shooters-everywhere they looked for empathy was long lost. With few exceptions who had an actual pathological situation. Ugh! What I’m saying is those types were probably gonna do what they were gonna do anyway. But their feeling of dejection and rejection were part of the activator.

[treestar]

62. But then polygamy was normal

in ancient society and still exists in some places today.

It seems natural that the alpha males get many women and the rest none. Civilization altered that when society decided to make it one on one. Could have been a concession to the extra men - they fought for the leader, but in peacetime, they would perhaps make trouble. The Church contributed to it also.

But in the late 60s, the sexual revolution set things back to the way they had been, or began to. Thus the incels find themselves in their natural place, without understanding why. Women no longer have to settle for them, and like the polygamous wives, would rather be one of the King's harem than settle for someone who isn't attractive to them.

[Calculating]

65. The issue is polygamy doesn't function well in civilization

I live in Utah, and the few polygamist holdout groups here basically live off government aid in some cases. One man can't support dozens of kids from multiple wives unless he's rich or getting aid from society. Also the system typically isn't giving the best males the wives. Instead it gives them to the wealthy or church leaders. The worst part is how many young men are cast out of these sects, and end up homeless because they haven't learned how to function in modern society. Polygamy works when people are living in tribal villages or something, but civilization was built by monogamy.

[treestar]

74. Yes, I just have that theory

that the sexual revolution released everyone from the requirement of marriage, so it might tend to go back to the way it was, but without actual marriages, thus the jock gets to date a lot of women and others don't get any. They don't even have to support them.

In some Muslim countries, they can still have multiple wives, limited to 4, say, so long as they can support them. But in modern America life, no man has to support a woman if he doesn't want to and doesn't have to marry one to get sex, so the system is informal. He may not even have to support his wife. The kids he does, though, and since he's such an alpha male, he may have several by many women, but that could get expensive enough to discourage that. It's probably more economical to have all the kids in one house by one woman.

[rabid_decline]

48. Evolution doesn't favor females because

Of their investment. Evolution invests itself in probability. And in humankind because of us being sentient for whatever reasons evolution may not have gotten it right. The emotional investment in furthering the species would only be because of evolution itself. The same reason a female preying mantis bites the head off the male right after coitus. Much of this I would imagine involves very complex mathematical equations of chaos theory and how “nature” sought its own way to self regulate what populated and what promulgates. Anyone who truly observes nature can see this with which invasive weeds or flora dominate from one season to the next. Same for insects. Climate change has really affected that lately.
Evolution might favor females, but only to further proliferate the species. I think we as humans are running the clock on that shit. So that promulgation is peeking its head, showing us the the door, and Mother Earth is lying in wait for us to extinguish ourselves.

[randr]

28. Just the fact that men are prone to wage war

would give you the answer

[Freddie]

29. Which is why women are more likely to be overweight

It’s Mother Nature preparing us for pregnancy during a famine. News flash to Mother Nature: I’m way past pregnancy age so why do you keep prepping me for that famine??

[Doreen]

30. After reading all of this I feel very simple minded.

I always thought nature just kept us around longer to reproduce as many as we can and to be able to stay strong for our offspring.

Yeah, I am simple minded.

[padah513]

31. Hell yeah we are. If men had to have the babies

The human race would have gone extinct a long time ago.

[maxsolomon]

33. If men had to have the babies, they'd do it.

that's how evolution works.

Ask male Seahorses or Emperor Penguins.

[Skittles]

56. here's the compromise, and the TRUTH

if men could have babies they would only have ONE

[LanternWaste]

68. Evolution is science, and science is not predicated on "if they had to, they'd do it..."

without objective data and evidence to support it.

[maxsolomon]

71. right.

if humans had evolved so that men bore the children, men would bear the children.

our "weakness" has nothing to do with it.

[Captain Stern]

34. Of course us men are the weaker sex.

That's why women have historically held most of the political power in the world, controlled almost all of the material assets in the world, and to this day disproportionately hold most positions of power and influence in just about every country on this planet.

That's how come us men are always fighting for equal rights.

Sounds silly, yes? It is.

Women, in general, naturally have some capabilities that men have less of....and the opposite is true also. But I think that to label one sex 'weaker' or 'stronger' than the other is just silly, since the definitions of those words is pretty much subjective.

[rabid_decline]

45. I concur with

Your weaker vs stronger statement. The premise of the OP seems based on biased, tribalistic identity politics. In fact, in a time where gender dysphoria, is becoming a real top-of-mind issue, I would say that the OP is being deliberately divisive because it excludes those who identify as gender fluid. But what the fuck do I know? I’m just a Chicano man living out in the Southwest. My voice doesn’t matter anymore than it did before.

[treestar]

63. In this study, they just mean the endurance

physically.

[leftyladyfrommo]

35. I think women are definitely better at seeing

the wider perspective. Men have such tunnel vision.

[rabid_decline]

46. I think men and women

Have different forms of logic based thinking. I also think that few people realize that masculinity and femininity exist in everyone and they are abstractual concepts. It would be cultural or sociological conditioning that has subjugated this. I blame most of the discombobulation that and religion. Religion at least as a social conditioner. Some older societies were too uncomfortable to find the nuanced explanations for the ways humans just are. Other societies however were able to navigate through much of that.
The science does show though that there are true differences based on the logic. But not necessarily cognition. Again, this shit has more to do with social conditioning. There is no real litmus test on which gender makes better decisions. I will say though that with my background in marketing and graphic design that most women have certain higher susceptibilities in being marketed to. Because of sensation factors. But again, I will argue that this is social conditioning.

[leftyladyfrommo]

64. I don't agree with that.

The older I get and I am 71 the more I realize just how different men and women are.

Women aren't dealing with an over abundance of testosterone.

It makes all the difference.

[rabid_decline]

36. Why are we worried about

Whose weaker and whose stronger? Biology had its own of implementing the attributes of both - garnering exact evolutionary attributes to one where the other was meant to lack. Just because men don’t live as long, it doesn’t mean it makes us weaker. On an evolutionary scale men had a lot of hazardous responsibilities not only to their family, but their tribe/community and amongst other men as well.
Biology also saw other things evolutionarily. For instance, the size of an average woman’s liver is roughly half that of a man. This of course was to accommodate for carrying in her womb.
There are numerous other anomalies in the biological world-the male sawhorse is the one who gives birth (and dies) after the female kisses him and spits her eggs down his throat.
With regard to bears, the male bear is NOT allowed to stick around after the sow has given birth. She will usually be overcome with a voracious rage, and will eat that male bear if he doesn’t vacate. The male bear vacates and waits out a whole other season until he can procreate again.
With regard to humans well we’re a pretty stupid bunch. Modern man at some juncture felt compelled to foist his dominance through societal installments. Societal contracts which we all hope will dissolve for the greater good of our species. Anymore I see us as a species being the most parasitic scrounge on this planet regardless of stripe.
Certainly I will cast blame the actions of certain men and their grasp for dominance this day. But I will also refuse to have a label stamped onmy head that I am somehow flawed or maligned just because I was born with the chromosomes with which I was born! I’ve NEVER subjugated a woman for any reason in any circumstance. So for me, such a mysandric statement is saddening. It proves that you’ll never transcend revolutionary thought, that you won’t enlist allied thinkers, and that you’d rather draw lines in the sand and engage in zero sum thinking. So to heck with your post. And quit hating on men. We’re not all bad and I will not tolerate hateful talk about the gender I was born as. It just as anyone else is not my fault I was born into this gender. And I should never be suffered hostility for that

[LanternWaste]

69. I think you're conflating "worry" and "curiosity"

I don't see anyone acting, looking or sounding worried. No one is voicing concerns of worry. No one in fact, is bringing worry up in any form... except you.

[Demonaut]

38. males protect the weaker sex

of course it's biased

[Calculating]

42. Exactly

Men have traditionally had to fight and work hard jobs exposing them to lots of danger. It's only natural that they tend to live shorter lives on average. They also have all that testosterone which causes them to take more risks and be more aggressive.

[LanternWaste]

70. Can you provide the relevant and objective numbers to support this premise?

[jayfish]

72. Well, Golly Gee.

Didn't you get torched positing a strikingly similar question about another topic? Let me look it up.

Yep, there it is.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212609130#post21


And you came back with nada. My advice to Demonaut and Calculating... Don't bother.

Oh, and LanterWaste, you might want to look up how that case is going BTW.

[treestar]

75. Farming

and later merchants, not every man is in the military or the police force. Factory work started in the industrial revolution, and women and children worked in those.

[Throck]

53. My wife says yes.

She also says I don't listen to her.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

57. Yes.

Why do you even need to ask?

For thousands of years men have used their greater physical strength to keep women oppressed. I'm also inclined to think that the fact that it's the women who have babies is incredibly frightening to men, and so they need to make the case that women are inferior to make up for their inability to reproduce. And so, over thousands of years, the pretense that men are stronger, better, smarter, and whatever, has gained a real foothold in our culture.

I do need to point out that life expectancy under 20 years implies an incredibly high infant and early childhood mortality.

Every so often I'll come across some otherwise sensible person who thinks that such a low life expectancy means that people were old and died of old age at that young point. No. Or, a physician I knew not that long ago who seemed to think that women tended to die more or less immediately after menopause. No.

If you live to age 4 in a world where life expectancy is under 20, you have a decent chance of making it to age 10. And if you make it to age 20 you have a very good chance of making it to age 40. And so on. What killed people off at younger ages were things like childhood diseases (the ones people of my generation survived and people of a younger generation had vaccines for). A bit later, it was accidents that killed people prematurely. And other infectious diseases.

Maybe the most important thing is that throughout our evolution, we've always had old people. Ones who could remember what it was like fifty or more years ago. Who remembered the rare catastrophe or flood or whatever. The old people really matter. There's also a hypothesis out there that menopause in humans came about because it allowed older women, no longer subject to childbearing themselves, to become grandmothers and help raise the younger generation.

[llmart]

58. My simple answer is...

whichever gender on average lives the longest is clearly the stronger of the two.

I think we all know the answer to that one.

[SlogginThroughIt]

60. In nature there is balance

In nature there is balance. But then Humans have to come along and fuck it all up with articles like this.

Good god why do we get off on debasing each other like this. Stronger, weaker.... This all just pushes off the gol of realizing equality and harmony for a quick dig at the other.

[MissouriLibrul]

76. Hmmm. Let me think for a second ...

Okay. I’ve got the right answer!

.
.
.
.
.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

[Loki Liesmith]

77. This is stupid

There’s a pretty simple reason women outlive men in crisis situations. Think about it folks.

[Midnightwalk]

78. What an interesting thread

It’d be interesting to extend the research further than 250 years. I’d expect a similar result. I wonder if church records could be used.

Wars, famine, disease and natural catastrophes have always impacted humans. Women do more to raise the next generation so they are more important evolutionary wise.

But the fun part was reading all the “hell yeah and here’s why” replies.

[we can do it]

80. Is this really a question?