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

First topic message reminder :

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/

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

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.

Yeah

Like can a woman take a punch from iron Mike as well as a man??

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


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 ...

So yet more pathetic excuses

Again based on the study, Maddog made an idiotic point

Smelly's was even more idiotic based on the study

But then idiots tend to agree with each other, when they do not know what they are talking about, or that they cannot even bother to read a study

Here again is why you are so utterly dumb

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, I'm not interested in your "study" until you learn some good manners. You're a rude obnoxious man.

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, I'm not interested in your "study" until you learn some good manners. You're a rude obnoxious man.

So you are not interested in the study. I was always ridicule stupidity, if you cannot take that, then you are a snowflake.

Your poor attempts at victim status, just do not wash

If you cannot take the banter, then jog on, as you have no problem also insulting.

You agree to something idiotic, which as seen would have had no relevance to the study, as there was a clear adavantage for women with the Titanic. Hence why they used events where there was little to no social  factors to advantage either women or men. Hence to try and find if there was a biological adavantage. So to use an event like the Titanic, would be dumb to say the least. Just as it would be if they factored in many sieges in history. Which advantage men.

Maddog was right to bring up the point he did, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly retarded.

Raggamuffin wrote:Maddog was right to bring up the point he did, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly retarded.

Is that why you cannot reason why it should be relevant?

I have given you many opportunities and all you keep giving me, is more bullshit

Here, the main points again

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

You agree to something idiotic, which as seen would have had no relevance to the study, as there was a clear adavantage for women with the Titanic. Hence why they used events where there was little to no social factors to advantage either women or men. Hence to try and find if there was a biological adavantage. So to use an event like the Titanic, would be dumb to say the least. Just as it would be if they factored in many sieges in history. Which advantage men.

In your own time Rags