I watched Ric Burns’ documentary on the Donner Party the other night and was very surprised at the ratio of men to women and children who died from the ordeal. Apparently, 28 men died though only 8 women did. Some stats are here: http://members.aol.com/danmrosen/donner/survivor.htm
Why would women be able to survive at such a higher rate than men? The writer in this article says that men are genetically more um…tended to mortality than women, and that women have greater fat reserves: http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/inside/archive/01_04_26/02.donnerparty.html
I don’t know about that though, it seems likein such a situation, everyone must have depleted their fat reserves. A friend told me the men might have deferred to the women, gave away their food, etc., though I have not found any indication that happened.
I have another historical question. I will save the ethical debate on this for Great Debates, but were women included in the draw when the “Forlorn Hope” group drew lots to determine who would be killed to feed the others?
I would guess that men would have done everything they could so the women would starve. At the time, Women were considered as both being weaker and that man’s responsibility was to protect women. Kind of like the “Women and Childern first” thing on sinking ships.
Don’t know much about the Donner Party (though I’d like to learn more- Can anyone recommend a good book on the subject?), but perhaps the men did more strenuous tasks, using up their energy faster.
There was a National Geographic article on the Donner Party several (maybe more than several) years ago. It was pointed out that 1) the men were more violent and killed each other directly and took other risks, and 2) single men died more than married men. When everyone was in a state of weakness, having family members to look out for you is a great asset.
But NG did conclude that, beyond that, the women must have been physically better able to deal with famine. Never, you might want to look the article up.
Oh, I forgot that one of the reasons they were better able to deal with famine was that they were smaller and needed fewer calories. But I believe that the additional body fat was mentioned.
My memory is dim, but I seem to remember that there was no evidence in the diaries of women getting more food.
I remember the Discover article, and a few others on this subject. The reasons for the differential survival of women boil down to:
The men took more risks, and did more strenuous work, and spent more time in the cold, which burned up their food/fat reserves quicker than those of the women
Women start out with more fat, and thus more reserves, and are thus slightly more resistant to famine in general
Because of greater fat reserves, women are also slightly more tolerant of cold than men, and slightly better insulated, meaning they didn’t expend as much energy on keeping warm
Women are smaller and thus require less food
The basal metabolic rate of the average women is slightly slower than that of a man of equal size and weight, and thus they require less food.
The result was that the women starved slower than the men. In such an extreme environment, their slight advantages added up to greater survival overall.
There was also evidence, as someone else mentioned, that being part of a family was beneficial. Most who died were single individuals or of very small groups. Most who survived were members of a family.
Have you considered it being a matter of statistics? How many men were on the trip and how many women? It’s already been stated here that there were single men, so there probably were more men then women to start out with…
About that XX being stronger than XY…It’s nice that everyone’s being so polite about it but… its still bullshit. What do you mean by “biologically” stronger? How is it measured? and how is THAT conclusion drawn?
My Best Friend’s Dad was a PhD Nutritionist who taught at a University. He maintained that the women and men in the Donner Party split the “food” pretty much equally on a per person basis. Because men burn more calories as a rule (& taking into account the other things mentioned here as mentioned by Broomstick below and others) they starved at a greater rate.
Of course this always seemed to come up when it was time to take the last sausage or the end of the potatoes – when it was just his wife and daughter – so the “I am a man I need more” always had more the whiff of scam about it than science when coming from him
Sigene Its not a mere matter of statistics. of the Donner Party, 55 were men and 34 were women. 28 of the men died (more than 50%) and only 9 of the women (~25%). There has to be a reason beyond mere chance.
I know some people theorize that women with children (and likewise men with families) had “more to live for” and were more determined to survive.
I have no idea if this was a factor in the Donner case but it would also make sense to leave as many women alive as possible to propogate. One man can father many children with several different women. Many men and few women…not a good scenario. But many women and few men…might work better. Just a thought.
Although, it may have been more beneficial to …ahem…eat women…because of higher fat content.
Nevermind…I’ll shut up.