If you can't comprehend a compound sentence.

Maybe they shoulda thought of that when they wanted to break out of the warm safety of the kitchen.

Subby: There is more to a sentence than just the part you want to read and/or understand.

Not my family, we die around 62-63

I'm 35 so my 5 month old better hold in tight while she can, of course I'm only going back to my great grandfather any further back might be a stroke to far

Those boys at Nat Geo are really worried about the very old cougars sparking with someone else?

I'd say (men not dying in war as often) + (men not dying doing hazardous work as often) + (men living healthier because their wives watch Oprah and make them eat nasty food) = (the change in the gender life expectancy gap)

Is this where I get to predict a thread full of insightful comments and absolutely no trolling?

Women not getting proper medical treatment is the troubling trend, not that men are living longer. But I guess subby is one of those people who don't care that certain people are not getting good medical care. Funny, that last one is the trend I find most troubling.

DeaH: Women not getting proper medical treatment is the troubling trend, not that men are living longer. But I guess subby is one of those people who don't care that certain people are not getting good medical care. Funny, that last one is the trend I find most troubling.

They are only speculating on a cause. I would suggest that men are just catching up. The average lifespan of men used to be pushed down by death in war and workplace accidents. Now, workplaces are safer and death rates in combat are down due to rapid medical care. The study they are comparing against was from 1989, so a lot depends on how the study was performed. If they studies a cohort that were all born around the same time and were dieing off around 1989, that puts them smack-dab in a lot of nasty wars. Hard to say with the little information provided.

Oerath: Is this where I get to predict a thread full of insightful comments and absolutely no trolling?

See how the chart compares data from 1989 to 2009? You know what happened in 2009? That's right -- blah president.

GoldSpider: Author is evidently not troubled by the fact that men live five fewer years than women.

In other news that you will never hear, men account for 90% of occupational fatalities i.e. dying on the job.

Subby fail English? That's unpossible!

bravo subby

GoldSpider: Though men's life spans have increased by 4.6 years since 1989, women have gained only 2.7 years, perhaps because a larger percentage of women have lacked adequate treatment for high blood pressure and cholesterol

Who looks at evidence of diminishing returns and turns it into a gender equality issue??

Feminists.

Nabb1: "Politics"?

Perhaps it's politics because subby is so stupid and self-centered that he used the stupid tag for this story.

Nabb1: "Politics"?

Gotta get the misogyny trolls to come out somehow...

GoldSpider: DeaH: Women not getting proper medical treatment is the troubling trend, not that men are living longer.

Author is evidently not troubled by the fact that men live five fewer years than women.

What makes you think that?

It's a quirk of statistics and arguing about how it's the ages of the old people that's changing.



Old people aren't living longer, it's fewer people are dying in their teens and twenties. And more people switching to better browsers.

Thread where Men die earlier than women
....

Empty Matchbook: misogyny trolls

Lionel Mandrake: What about MEN'S RIGHTS???!!1??

....

Lets all apologize now for dying only slightly less sooner then women.

We might be living longer, but we're still squandering our resources in the name of profit and last time I checked several world superpowers have nukes.

So we'll live long enough to witness us wiping ourselves out? Awesome.

Empty Matchbook: Nabb1: "Politics"?

Gotta get the misogyny trolls to come out somehow...

Don't forget about the misandry trolls.  Although that's so common that you almost don't recognize it when it's happening.

whidbey: We might be living longer, but we're still squandering our resources in the name of profit and last time I checked several world superpowers have nukes.

So we'll live long enough to witness us wiping ourselves out? Awesome.

"any day now", he said for the past 60 years.

people: Empty Matchbook: misogyny trolls

Lionel Mandrake: What about MEN'S RIGHTS???!!1??

....

Lets all apologize now for dying only slightly less sooner then women.

Sort of how it looks to me as well.

TFA points out that women, on average, outlive men and that while average life expectancy is increasing for both groups, it's increasing more slowly for the group that is already ahead. The response to this is to be concerned that women aren't getting the health care they need to maintain that gap.

We can't even get the US to stop guzzling oil and consuming too much energy. The bright side is that there will finally be too many of us that we'll see we have real problems, not "nuh uh we can keep drilling oil there's still plenty of it!"

GameSprocket: DeaH: Women not getting proper medical treatment is the troubling trend, not that men are living longer. But I guess subby is one of those people who don't care that certain people are not getting good medical care. Funny, that last one is the trend I find most troubling.

They are only speculating on a cause. I would suggest that men are just catching up. The average lifespan of men used to be pushed down by death in war and workplace accidents. Now, workplaces are safer and death rates in combat are down due to rapid medical care. The study they are comparing against was from 1989, so a lot depends on how the study was performed. If they studies a cohort that were all born around the same time and were dieing off around 1989, that puts them smack-dab in a lot of nasty wars. Hard to say with the little information provided.

I think the things your talking about do help explain why men are making a leap in life-expectancy. There is no getting around the fact that maternal mortality rates are double what they were in the 1980s. Also, women are uninsured at higher rates than men.



I want to be first to say that it is great that men are making gains, but it is disturbing what's happening with women.

GoldSpider: I hadn't pegged you as a ZPG nutter, but I suppose it makes sense.

To be fair, zero population growth has already largely been achieved in the developed world and first world population growth is now driven by immigration and the children of immigrants.

What we really need is NPG.

GoldSpider: whidbey: We can't even get the US to stop guzzling oil and consuming too much energy. The bright side is that there will finally be too many of us that we'll see we have real problems, not "nuh uh we can keep drilling oil there's still plenty of it!"

I hadn't pegged you as a ZPG nutter, but I suppose it makes sense.

No, population is going to continue to increase. Unless we lose some major hangups over birth control, or we have that big biological disaster that's most likely been long overdue. Otherwise world population will double, with jack shiat for resources to cover it.

GoldSpider: Monkeyhouse Zendo: The response to this is to be concerned that women aren't getting the health care they need to maintain that gap.

Well-said.

isn't it possible that men are just engaging in less of the activities that caused much of the gap today than they have in the past?

DeaH: I think the things your talking about do help explain why men are making a leap in life-expectancy. There is no getting around the fact that maternal mortality rates are double what they were in the 1980s. Also, women are uninsured at higher rates than men.

Good points. I wonder if the actual study went more in depth. The linked article is kinda useless.

GoldSpider: DeaH: GoldSpider: DeaH: Women not getting proper medical treatment is the troubling trend, not that men are living longer.

Author is evidently not troubled by the fact that men live five fewer years than women.

What makes you think that?

The fact that her article highlighted a much less glaring discrepancy as a cause for concern?

I was under the impress the article was highlighting something new. It isn't that the difference in mortality rates isn't disturbing, but the trend in increases is the thing that has changed. Since this correlates with more women being uninsured than men and maternal mortality rates increasing, I think that was the "new" in the new trend. The fact that there is a mortality gap between men and women is disturbing, but it does not qualify as a new trend.

DeaH: I think the things your talking about do help explain why men are making a leap in life-expectancy. There is no getting around the fact that maternal mortality rates are double what they were in the 1980s. Also, women are uninsured at higher rates than men.

I think if you included a chart of maternal mortality as a function of income you'd find that it skews heavily towards the lower end of the economic scale (a much more useful analysis than the caucasian/black breakdown). Those numbers tell me we have a larger fraction of young mothers with fewer resources and less access to health care which isn't an issue specific to young mothers considering the increase in the wealth gap over that same time frame.

skullkrusher: isn't it possible that men are just engaging in less of the activities that caused much of the gap today than they have in the past?

Men are still the vast majority of workplace deaths.

Men also see extreme pressure to work longer hours.

2012 Washington Post
The daddy dilemma: Why men face a 'flexibility stigma' at work
Roughly 40 percent of college-educated men work 50 hours a week or more - often much more - compared with just 14 percent of college-educated women. Men who work 50 to 60 hours a week want to work an average of 13 fewer hours; those working more than 60 hours a week would prefer to work a stunning 25 less."

If the employee was a man and took time off, he was less likely to be recommended for promotions, raises or high-profile assignments. What became clear was not just that men were penalized for taking leaves, but why. They were seen as bad workers precisely because they were thought to have traits traditionally viewed as feminine: being weak, insecure, emotional or naïve.

"The" National Geographic?

people: skullkrusher: isn't it possible that men are just engaging in less of the activities that caused much of the gap today than they have in the past?

Men are still the vast majority of workplace deaths.

Men also see extreme pressure to work longer hours.

2012 Washington Post
The daddy dilemma: Why men face a 'flexibility stigma' at work
Roughly 40 percent of college-educated men work 50 hours a week or more - often much more - compared with just 14 percent of college-educated women. Men who work 50 to 60 hours a week want to work an average of 13 fewer hours; those working more than 60 hours a week would prefer to work a stunning 25 less."

If the employee was a man and took time off, he was less likely to be recommended for promotions, raises or high-profile assignments. What became clear was not just that men were penalized for taking leaves, but why. They were seen as bad workers precisely because they were thought to have traits traditionally viewed as feminine: being weak, insecure, emotional or naïve.

that could explain part of the current 5 year difference.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I think if you included a chart of maternal mortality as a function of income you'd find that it skews heavily towards the lower end of the economic scale (a much more useful analysis than the caucasian/black breakdown). Those numbers tell me we have a larger fraction of young mothers with fewer resources and less access to health care which isn't an issue specific to young mothers considering the increase in the wealth gap over that same time frame.

Are you not bothered by the fact that African-Americans are disproportionately poor?

So is this under "politics" because of the trollistic headline?

DeaH: but the trend in increases is the thing that has changed.

Well, if we're talking about a new trend, women are going to be better equipped to pay for healthcare as young women are earning more and where women earning college and advanced degrees far outstrips men.

2012 Young Women Earn More
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year.
That's 8% more than comparable men. Women of that age earn more in 39 of the 50 biggest American cities.


2010 WSJ Young Women's Pay Exceeds Male Peers'

2010 Time Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

2012 Non-cognitive Skills and the Gender Disparities in Test Scores and Teacher Assessments: Evidence from Primary School The disparity in educational attainment between males and females has been so widely
reported in recent years that the basic facts are now well known and are driving public policy debate.2 As summarized in Goldin, Katz and Kuziemko (2006), the ratio of males to females graduating from a four-year college stood at 1.60 in 1960, fell to parity by 1980, and continued its decline to 0.74 in 2003. Thus, by 2003, there were 135 females for every 100 males who graduated from a four-year college. Not surprisingly, the gender gap in college degrees awarded is linked to differences in college attendance. In 1960, the male-female undergraduate ratio was 1.55; by 2003, it had fallen to 0.77. Heckman and LaFontaine (2010) show that as much as half of the current gender gap in college attendance can be linked to lower rates of high-school graduation among males, a pattern that is especially pronounced for blacks. This finding raises the question of why boys lag behind girls in high-school completion. In this paper, we push that question back to primary school, identify gender disparities as early as kindergarten and focus on the role of non-cognitive factors

2012 The Boys at the Back
The study's authors analyzed data from more than 5,800 students from kindergarten through fifth grade and found that boys across all racial groups and in all major subject areas received lower grades than their test scores would have predicted.

The scholars attributed this "misalignment" to differences in "noncognitive skills": attentiveness, persistence, eagerness to learn, the ability to sit still and work independently. As most parents know, girls tend to develop these skills earlier and more naturally than boys.

No previous study, to my knowledge, has demonstrated that the well-known gender gap in school grades begins so early and is almost entirely attributable to differences in behavior. The researchers found that teachers rated boys as less proficient even when the boys did just as well as the girls on tests of reading, math and science. (The teachers did not know the test scores in advance.) If the teachers had not accounted for classroom behavior, the boys' grades, like the girls', would have matched their test scores.