Women are biologically stronger than men and more likely to survive a life-threatening crisis, study suggests

Eleanor Roosevelt once quipped that a woman is like a tea bag. You can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.

So the former first lady would most certainly have approved of a new study which suggests women, far from being the weaker sex, are much more likely to survive a life-threatening crisis.

Researchers at the University of Southern Denmark trawled through historic data looking at death rates for men and women who suffered famines and epidemics, or who were sold into slavery.

In virtually every case, they found that women survived their ordeals far longer, often outliving their male counterparts by years, even when conditions were equally dire.

For example, before the Irish Potato Famine, which devastated the country from 1845 to 1849, both men and women lived until they were 38, on average. But at the height of the crisis, although life expectancy dropped to 18.17 for men, it only fell to 22.4 for women.

The same pattern was seen during the Swedish famine of 1772-1773 and the Ukraine harvest failures of 1933. Women also lived longer during two 19th century Icelandic measles outbreaks, with females lasting up to two years longer than men.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/01/08/women-biologically-stronger-men-likely-survive-life-threatening/

That's all very well looking back over the generations...

However, I reckon a large minorty percentage of the current "z-gen'/millenial" crop of cacooned snowflakes, urban princesses and forever-teens might not measure up to what their grandmothers and great-grandmothers may have managed in the past..

Didge wrote:Eleanor Roosevelt once quipped that a woman is like a tea bag. You can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.

So the former first lady would most certainly have approved of a new study which suggests women, far from being the weaker sex, are much more likely to survive a life-threatening crisis.

Researchers at the University of Southern Denmark trawled through historic data looking at death rates for men and women who suffered famines and epidemics, or who were sold into slavery.

In virtually every case, they found that women survived their ordeals far longer, often outliving their male counterparts by years, even when conditions were equally dire.

For example, before the Irish Potato Famine, which devastated the country from 1845 to 1849, both men and women lived until they were 38, on average. But at the height of the crisis, although life expectancy dropped to 18.17  for men, it only fell to 22.4 for women.

The same pattern was seen during the Swedish famine of 1772-1773 and the Ukraine harvest failures of 1933. Women also lived longer during two 19th century Icelandic measles outbreaks, with females lasting up to two years longer than men.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/01/08/women-biologically-stronger-men-likely-survive-life-threatening/

Women had higher survival rates on the Titanic too. Was that down to biology or societal norms?

Not exactly a revelation. It's long been proved that women endure cold, starvation etc for longer than men. Something to do with the body fat ratio and being built to survive childbirth. A woman's body fat is subcutaneous which makes it a better insulator and these fat stores are needed to feed a baby. If you put men and women in an outdoor survival situation, the women will survive for longer.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:Eleanor Roosevelt once quipped that a woman is like a tea bag. You can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.

So the former first lady would most certainly have approved of a new study which suggests women, far from being the weaker sex, are much more likely to survive a life-threatening crisis.

Researchers at the University of Southern Denmark trawled through historic data looking at death rates for men and women who suffered famines and epidemics, or who were sold into slavery.

In virtually every case, they found that women survived their ordeals far longer, often outliving their male counterparts by years, even when conditions were equally dire.

For example, before the Irish Potato Famine, which devastated the country from 1845 to 1849, both men and women lived until they were 38, on average. But at the height of the crisis, although life expectancy dropped to 18.17  for men, it only fell to 22.4 for women.

The same pattern was seen during the Swedish famine of 1772-1773 and the Ukraine harvest failures of 1933. Women also lived longer during two 19th century Icelandic measles outbreaks, with females lasting up to two years longer than men.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/01/08/women-biologically-stronger-men-likely-survive-life-threatening/

Women had higher survival rates on the Titanic too.  Was that down to biology or societal norms?

Who gives a fuck when its irrelevant to the points looked at in the study?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Women had higher survival rates on the Titanic too.  Was that down to biology or societal norms?

Who gives a fuck when its irrelevant to the points looked at in the study?

It's not irrelevant. Women are treated differently in times of crisis, which could help explain why they survive better. It could also be down to biological reasons.

Now calm the fuck down dude.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Who gives a fuck when its irrelevant to the points looked at in the study?

It's not irrelevant. Women are treated differently in times of crisis, which could help explain why they survive better. It could also be down to biological reasons.

Now calm the fuck down dude.    

Oh shut up you wally, I am fine, your point was utterly and mindnumbingly stupid

Can you think why?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not irrelevant. Women are treated differently in times of crisis, which could help explain why they survive better. It could also be down to biological reasons.

Now calm the fuck down dude.    

Oh shut up you wally, I am fine, your point was utterly and mindnumbingly stupid

Can you think why?

How about you just fuck off dick head?

You have some sort of mental problem that makes you freak out when challenged.

Answer your own fucking question then.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh shut up you wally, I am fine, your point was utterly and mindnumbingly stupid

Can you think why?

How about you just fuck off dick head?

You have some sort of mental problem that makes you freak out when challenged.

Answer your own fucking question then.

So you are mindnumbingly stupid it seems

The Titanic, had a mitigating factor that enabled many women to survive, based off a policy of women and children first.

Hence it had fuck all to do with understanding how women fare better in cases likes famines. Now because clearly you are a peabrain on history and I know history. Espically on the Potato famine and famines like in the Soviet Union. Now equally many women and men died through starvation, but where women fared better their ressistance to diseases and illnesses during famines. One they better adapt to, due to child rasing. 

So I am not going to fuck off you pathetic boy, learn some history, actually read the study and you might realise its you being the dickhead

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How about you just fuck off dick head?

You have some sort of mental problem that makes you freak out when challenged.

Answer your own fucking question then.

So you are mindnumbingly stupid it seems

The Titanic, had a mitigating factor that enabled many women to survive, based off a policy of women and children first.

Hence it had fuck all to do with understanding how women fare better in cases likes famines. Now because clearly you are a peabrain on history and I know history. Espically on the Potato famine and famines like in the Soviet Union. Now equally many women and men died through starvation, but where women fared better their ressistance to diseases and illnesses during famines. One they better adapt to, due to child rasing. 

So I am not going to fuck off you pathetic boy, learn some history, actually read the study and you might realise its you being the dickhead

Like I said earlier cocksucker "Women are treated differently in times of crisis".

A famine and a sinking boat are both a crisis, and both will see women treated differently than men.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you are mindnumbingly stupid it seems

The Titanic, had a mitigating factor that enabled many women to survive, based off a policy of women and children first.

Hence it had fuck all to do with understanding how women fare better in cases likes famines. Now because clearly you are a peabrain on history and I know history. Espically on the Potato famine and famines like in the Soviet Union. Now equally many women and men died through starvation, but where women fared better their ressistance to diseases and illnesses during famines. One they better adapt to, due to child rasing. 

So I am not going to fuck off you pathetic boy, learn some history, actually read the study and you might realise its you being the dickhead

Like I said earlier cocksucker  "Women are treated differently in times of crisis".

A famine and a sinking boat are both a crisis, and both will see women treated differently than men.  

Why do imbicilles, think its insulting to say someone sucks cocks, unless they dislike homosexuals or bisexuals?

If you think I do, then clearly you have the mentality of a 8 year boy on the playground

I see the point of the mitigating factor of women and children first went over that peabrain of yours.

So come on Brain of Texas, show how women were advantaged over men, during many famines, when equally they are both starving and dying?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Like I said earlier cocksucker  "Women are treated differently in times of crisis".

A famine and a sinking boat are both a crisis, and both will see women treated differently than men.  

Why do imbicilles, think its insulting to say someone sucks cocks, unless they dislike homosexuals or bisexuals?

If you think I do, then clearly you have the mentality of a 8 year boy on the playground

I see the point of the mitigating factor of women and children first went over that peabrain of yours.

So come on Brain of Texas, show how women were advantaged over men, during many famines, when equally they are both starving and dying?

Why were women advantaged over in any crisis?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why do imbicilles, think its insulting to say someone sucks cocks, unless they dislike homosexuals or bisexuals?

If you think I do, then clearly you have the mentality of a 8 year boy on the playground

I see the point of the mitigating factor of women and children first went over that peabrain of yours.

So come on Brain of Texas, show how women were advantaged over men, during many famines, when equally they are both starving and dying?

Why were women advantaged over in any crisis?

Let me post some points from the study for you

Girls born during the famine that struck Ukraine in 1933, for example, lived to 10.85, and boys to 7.3 -- a 50 percent difference.

When the researchers broke the results down by age group, they found that most of the female survival advantage comes from differences in infant mortality. Newborn girls are hardier than newborn boys.

The results suggest that the life expectancy gender gap can't be fully explained by behavioral and social differences between the sexes, such as risk-taking or violence.

Instead, the female advantage in times of crisis may be largely due to biological factors such as genetics or hormones. Estrogens, for example, have been shown to enhance the body's immune defenses against infectious disease.

"Our results add another piece to the puzzle of gender differences in survival," the researchers said.

Let me help you because you're so fucking stupid. If I were in a famine, I would make sure my wife had more food than me. I'm not that unusual in my thinking. Most men are trained from birth to sacrifice for their women. It's what we do. It's why the men on the Titanic let women go before them. It's part of our social fabric. It's why women get sentenced to shorter periods for the exact same crime, even though the law isn't supposed to let that happen. While chivalry is not what it used to be it's effects are still evident in how woman are still treated differently than men. It's effects were much stronger in years past, you know like during the time periods of those famines.

Is that clear enough for you asshole?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why were women advantaged over in any crisis?

Let me post some points from the study for you

Girls born during the famine that struck Ukraine in 1933, for example, lived to 10.85, and boys to 7.3 -- a 50 percent difference.

When the researchers broke the results down by age group, they found that most of the female survival advantage comes from differences in infant mortality. Newborn girls are hardier than newborn boys.

The results suggest that the life expectancy gender gap can't be fully explained by behavioral and social differences between the sexes, such as risk-taking or violence.

Instead, the female advantage in times of crisis may be largely due to biological factors such as genetics or hormones. Estrogens, for example, have been shown to enhance the body's immune defenses against infectious disease.

"Our results add another piece to the puzzle of gender differences in survival," the researchers said.

Guess you should have posted that first, because your link is behind a paywall.

This is basically what I said......

The results suggest that the life expectancy gender gap can't be fully explained by behavioral and social differences between the sexes, such as risk-taking or violence.

Social differences come into play.

Women had higher survival rates on the Titanic too. Was that down to biology or societal norms?

I asked a question, and your link (that I couldn't read) answered it. The answer is both!

Maddog wrote:Let me help you because you're so fucking stupid. If I were in a famine, I would make sure my wife had more food than me. I'm not that unusual in my thinking. Most men are trained from birth to sacrifice for their women. It's what we do. It's why the men on the Titanic let women go before them. It's part of our social fabric. It's why women get sentenced to shorter periods for the exact same crime, even though the law isn't supposed to let that happen.  While chivalry is not what it used to be it's effects are still evident in how woman are still treated differently than men. It's effects were much stronger in years past, you know like during the time periods of those famines.

Is that clear enough for you asshole?    

PMSL.

So now the bases for any situation in life, is now meant to be based on some Hillbilly in Texas.
It shows you have never read any famines that have happened in history, where when people are starving, many things go out of the window. In the Soviet famine, many people resorted to Canibalism, which in many cases this was the husbands and fathers that resorted to this.

So to say what you would do, shows you really are not that bright and have very little empathic intelligence

So the reality is here, that many die through starvation, no matter whether women or men. Where women fare better, is around the many diseases and illnesses that outbreak through famines. It shows, women have a better immune system to deal with this. Which evolutionary wise makes absolute sense. As clearly nature would need more women to survive in order for what little survivors left, could then reproduce.

So when you posted about the Titanic, for one it was stupid. Second, it shows you have no comprehension what the study was even looking at and 3 this really shows, you dont like being wrong and you are very wrong here.

Now grow the fuck up and realise you were being an idiot here

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Let me help you because you're so fucking stupid. If I were in a famine, I would make sure my wife had more food than me. I'm not that unusual in my thinking. Most men are trained from birth to sacrifice for their women. It's what we do. It's why the men on the Titanic let women go before them. It's part of our social fabric. It's why women get sentenced to shorter periods for the exact same crime, even though the law isn't supposed to let that happen.  While chivalry is not what it used to be it's effects are still evident in how woman are still treated differently than men. It's effects were much stronger in years past, you know like during the time periods of those famines.

Is that clear enough for you asshole?    

PMSL.

So now the bases for any situation in life, is now meant to be based on some Hillbilly in Texas.
It shows you have never read any famines that have happened in history, where when people are starving, many things go out of the window. In the Soviet famine, many people resorted to Canibalism, which in many cases this was the husbands and fathers that resorted to this.

So to say what you would do, shows you really are not that bright and have very little empathic intelligence

So the reality is here, that many die through starvation, no matter whether women or men. Where women fare better, is around the many diseases and illnesses that outbreak through famines. It shows, women have a better immune system to deal with this. Which evolutionary wise makes absolute sense. As clearly nature would need more women to survive in order for what little survivors left, could then reproduce.

So when you posted about the Titanic, for one it was stupid. Second, it shows you have no comprehension what the study was even looking at and 3 this really shows, you dont like being wrong and you are very wrong here.

Now grow the fuck up and realise you were being an idiot here

Do you think I invented chivalry or that it was never practiced in the past?

You think men and women have always been treated the same during times of crisis?

Anyway, your link answered my question. I'm moving on now princess.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

PMSL.

So now the bases for any situation in life, is now meant to be based on some Hillbilly in Texas.
It shows you have never read any famines that have happened in history, where when people are starving, many things go out of the window. In the Soviet famine, many people resorted to Canibalism, which in many cases this was the husbands and fathers that resorted to this.

So to say what you would do, shows you really are not that bright and have very little empathic intelligence

So the reality is here, that many die through starvation, no matter whether women or men. Where women fare better, is around the many diseases and illnesses that outbreak through famines. It shows, women have a better immune system to deal with this. Which evolutionary wise makes absolute sense. As clearly nature would need more women to survive in order for what little survivors left, could then reproduce.

So when you posted about the Titanic, for one it was stupid. Second, it shows you have no comprehension what the study was even looking at and 3 this really shows, you dont like being wrong and you are very wrong here.

Now grow the fuck up and realise you were being an idiot here

Do you think I invented chivalry or that it was never practiced in the past?

You think men and women have always been treated the same during times of crisis?

What I suggest you do, is actually read about the Soviet famines

That would be a good starting point

Then you will understand, chivalry often went out of the window.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you think I invented chivalry or that it was never practiced in the past?

You think men and women have always been treated the same during times of crisis?

What I suggest you do, is actually read about the Soviet famines

That would be a good starting point

Then you will understand, chivalry often went out of the window.

Often, but not always.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

What I suggest you do, is actually read about the Soviet famines

That would be a good starting point

Then you will understand, chivalry often went out of the window.

Often, but not always.  

I never claimed that it always did.

So can you now see why I ridiculed your point on the Titanic?

You can see that it was utterly mute to what was even looked at.

Never mind

What about transwomen who used to be men?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Often, but not always.  

I never claimed that it always did.

So can you now see why I ridiculed your point on the Titanic?

You can see that it was utterly mute to what was even looked at.

Never mind

I have no idea why you had an issue with my question in regards to the Titanic.

Maybe you have Aspergers. You seem to be lacking in social skills. You trend to get very upset when challenged. Were you bullied as a child maybe?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

I never claimed that it always did.

So can you now see why I ridiculed your point on the Titanic?

You can see that it was utterly mute to what was even looked at.

Never mind

I have no idea why you had an issue with my question in regards to the Titanic.

Maybe you have Aspergers. You seem to be lacking in social skills. You trend to get very upset when challenged. Were you bullied as a child maybe?    

For one, I am not upset

Second, your point was as seen very stupid

Third, I get bored when people fail to read the study and then post something very stupid as you did.

It seems, its you that is bothered by your continued poor accusations, from cocksucking, to mental health conditions.

The reality is, you did not like being wrong here. Hence your continued stupidity

Best you learn to deal with that buttercup

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I have no idea why you had an issue with my question in regards to the Titanic.

Maybe you have Aspergers. You seem to be lacking in social skills. You trend to get very upset when challenged. Were you bullied as a child maybe?    

For one, I am not upset

Second, your point was as seen very stupid

Third, I get bored when people fail to read something and then post something very stupid as you did.

It seems, its you that is bothered by your continued poor accusations, from cocksucking, to mental health conditions.

The reality is, you did not like being wrong here. Hence your continued stupidity

Best you learn to deal with that buttercup

How was I wrong? I poised a question and it set you off.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

For one, I am not upset

Second, your point was as seen very stupid

Third, I get bored when people fail to read something and then post something very stupid as you did.

It seems, its you that is bothered by your continued poor accusations, from cocksucking, to mental health conditions.

The reality is, you did not like being wrong here. Hence your continued stupidity

Best you learn to deal with that buttercup

How was I wrong? I poised a question and it set you off.  

I ridiculed your question, because as seen, it was very dumb, based on the study

Proving even more, that you did not even bother to read it.

If you had read the study, you would not have made such a stupid point, that had no relevance

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How was I wrong? I poised a question and it set you off.  

I ridiculed your question, because as seen, it was very dumb, based on the study

Proving even more, that you did not even bother to read it.

If you had read the study, you would not have made such a stupid point, that had no relevance

I didn't read the study because it was behind a pay wall. I'm not paying to read that study.

Your study was not conclusive. It put forth a theory and also admitted that the same factors I listed had some relevance. How much is not known.

So, my question is relevant. Glad you didn't like it.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

I ridiculed your question, because as seen, it was very dumb, based on the study

Proving even more, that you did not even bother to read it.

If you had read the study, you would not have made such a stupid point, that had no relevance

I didn't read the study because it was behind a pay wall. I'm not paying to read that study.

Your study was not conclusive. It put forth a theory and also admitted that the same factors I listed had some relevance. How much is not known.

So, my question is relevant. Glad you didn't like it.  

Then you clearly are very lazy, not to bother to research further, by easily looking this study up

You then make astounding claims, after admitting you have not read the study. Where are these factors, you claim it listed, affter not reading the study? Please post this up. 

Talk about a contradiction lol

What again this shows, is you are someone that does not like having people show you are in the wrong. So clearly what has happened here, is a problem that lies within yourself. You need to understand, sometimes you are in the wrong. Its quite simple really. Since I have shown what the study was about and showed why your point has no relevance, based on the mitigating situation. You have just posted continued misdirection, without tackling the evidence from the study or my points. 

So, show me thus how your question is relevant, based on what the study was based on?

Please give yourself as much times as possible to answer.

This should be hilarious.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I didn't read the study because it was behind a pay wall. I'm not paying to read that study.

Your study was not conclusive. It put forth a theory and also admitted that the same factors I listed had some relevance. How much is not known.

So, my question is relevant. Glad you didn't like it.  

Then you clearly are very lazy, not to bother to research further, by easily looking this study up

You then make astounding claims, after admitting you have not read the study. Where are these factors, you claim it listed, affter not reading the study? Please post this up. 

Talk about a contradiction lol

What again this shows, is you are someone that does not like having people show you are in the wrong. So clearly what has happened here, is a problem that lies within yourself. You need to understand, sometimes you are in the wrong. Its quite simple really. Since I have shown what the study was about and showed why your point has no relevance, based on the mitigating situation. You have just posted continued misdirection, without tackling the evidence from the study or my points. 

So, show me thus how your question is relevant, based on what the study was based on?

Please give yourself as much times as possible to answer.

This should be hilarious.  

You have already decided my question was not relevant. I know when I'm wasting my time with someone.

So, this whole thread has devolved into two males slagging each other off over a thread about the superiority of women.

HoratioTarr wrote:So, this whole thread has devolved into two males slagging each other off over a thread about the superiority of women.  

Pretty much, and asking dumb questions. I'm not sure if your question is dumb or not, I'm not in charge of declaring which questions are dumb.

HoratioTarr wrote:So, this whole thread has devolved into two males slagging each other off over a thread about the superiority of women.  

Yup.

Maddog wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:So, this whole thread has devolved into two males slagging each other off over a thread about the superiority of women.  

Pretty much, and asking dumb questions.  I'm not sure if your question is dumb or not, I'm not in charge of declaring which questions are dumb.  

It wasn't a question.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Pretty much, and asking dumb questions.  I'm not sure if your question is dumb or not, I'm not in charge of declaring which questions are dumb.  

It wasn't a question.

Women had higher survival rates on the Titanic too.  Was that down to biology or societal norms?


It wasn't?

Edit

My bad. Your comment wasn't a question.

Women are superior to men, if they keep their knees together, after a while a man will give them anything they want !

Yes women are constitutionally stronger. Right from the get go. A female newborn in intensive care stands a better chance of recovery than a male one under identical circumstances (re: degree of prematurity, illness, etc.)

In old age we have more longevity too.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Go, sister!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Yay! He’s back!

He was my dream man when I was about 12 years old.

George not Zorro.

Does this mean that men and women are different??

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Who gives a fuck when its irrelevant to the points looked at in the study?

It's not irrelevant. Women are treated differently in times of crisis, which could help explain why they survive better. It could also be down to biological reasons.

Now calm the fuck down dude.    

Good point, and it's not irrelevant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not irrelevant. Women are treated differently in times of crisis, which could help explain why they survive better. It could also be down to biological reasons.

Now calm the fuck down dude.    

Good point, and it's not irrelevant.

This should be hilarious, as it was idiotically irrelevant

Show me the relevance based on the study, which is not  based on on known advantages like women and children first on the Titanic? Or male soldiers advantaged with more food than the old, women or children during sieges through history?


In your own time

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good point, and it's not irrelevant.

This should be hilarious, as it was idiotically irrelevant

Show me the relevance based on the study, which is not  based on on known advantages like women and children first on the Titanic? Or male soldiers advantaged with more food than the old, women or children during sieges through history?


In your own time

You clearly didn't appreciate the point Maddog was making, you just went off on one as usual and started getting abusive.

The study in your OP? You have to sign up to see it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


This should be hilarious, as it was idiotically irrelevant

Show me the relevance based on the study, which is not  based on on known advantages like women and children first on the Titanic? Or male soldiers advantaged with more food than the old, women or children during sieges through history?


In your own time

You clearly didn't appreciate the point Maddog was making, you just went off on one as usual and started getting abusive.

The study in your OP? You have to sign up to see it.

So basically you are a retard

I asked you what relevance it had, based on the study and you misdirect with babble

Based on the study, Maddogs point was retarded. As with the Titanic, women had a very clear advantage to survive, based on the "women and children first" notion. The study looked at 3 aspects. Famines, epidemics and slavery. In other words 3 situations that had no clear advantage to either males or females.

You can easily look the study up on line

Try again

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not irrelevant. Women are treated differently in times of crisis, which could help explain why they survive better. It could also be down to biological reasons.

Now calm the fuck down dude.    

Good point, and it's not irrelevant.

Yeah maddog does make a good point actually, social conditions could and probably do contribute to the survivability of women.

Front line troops are mostly men so the majority of battlefield deaths are men

Sewer workers

Construction workers

Miners

All dangerous fields of work and all dominated by men.

There is less support for male suicide.

Male mental issues also have less support.

Clearly the study is bollox since the playing field is anything but level

smelly-bandit wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good point, and it's not irrelevant.

Yeah maddog does make a good point actually, social conditions could and probably do contribute to the survivability of women.

Front line troops are mostly men so the majority of battlefield deaths are men

Sewer workers

Construction workers

Miners

All dangerous fields of work and all dominated by men.

There is less support for male suicide.

Male mental issues also have less support.

Clearly the study is bollox since the playing field is anything but level

So the bases for the study was based on events

Lets prove why smelly is a retard

1) Freed Liberian Slaves

2) Plantation slaves in Trinidad

3) The Ukranian famine

4) The Swedish famine

5) Icelandic epidemics

6) Irish Potato famine

Hence as seen, through the study women clearly have an advantage over men based more aound how they have a better survival rate around diseases and illnesses, let alone they live longer than men anyway. During all situations, many suffered from outbreaks of illnessess and diseses. Thus they have from the earliest ages a biological advantage. Which evolutionary wise makes sense.

The study already takes into account social ffactors and hence why it choose these extreme conditions, where there was little to no social factor advantage for either men or women

Hence why smelly is a complete imbicille

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You clearly didn't appreciate the point Maddog was making, you just went off on one as usual and started getting abusive.

The study in your OP? You have to sign up to see it.

So basically you are a retard

I asked you what relevance it had, based on the study and you misdirect with babble

Based on the study, Maddogs point was retarded. As with the Titanic, women had a very clear advantage to survive, based on the "women and children first" notion. The study looked at 3 aspects. Famines, epidemics and slavery. In other words 3 situations that had no clear advantage to either males or females.

You can easily look the study up on line

Try again

This is why I don't post much here any more. You're so revolting and rude, and Maddog made a very good point. I was talking to him anyway, not you.

Away with you, you horrible man ...

smelly-bandit wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good point, and it's not irrelevant.

Yeah maddog does make a good point actually, social conditions could and probably do contribute to the survivability of women.

Front line troops are mostly men so the majority of battlefield deaths are men

Sewer workers

Construction workers

Miners

All dangerous fields of work and all dominated by men.

There is less support for male suicide.

Male mental issues also have less support.

Clearly the study is bollox since the playing field is anything but level

Exactly. All conditions and issues should be taken into account when deciding whether or not woman are naturally "stronger" than men.