Why do women live longer, on average, than men? I believe that the difference in lifespan is around six years in the U.S. Why??
Thanks.
Because they aren’t married to women 
:: Ducks and runs ::
Actually, I have no clue. I recall hearing that women tend to take better care of themselves (going to the doctor more often, etc.); something of that sort, perhaps?
They are better able to handle physical and emotional stress.
Since risky, manual labor is usually left to men, women generally avoid the critical injuries and worn out bodies generated by careers in the military, construction, etc.
Also, since women talk out their problems (instead of bottling them up inside like men).
Enola has it. Men die more accidental deaths from physical activity and risk. These deaths at a LOWER age, drag down the overall average.
It’s all the 16-30 year old male deaths that drag the average down…not the old men who are 71 and can’t hack it until 72.
The average is drug down by many young male deaths. The 18-30 year car accidents, moto accidents, shootings, etc.
Plus, young men are much more succesful at committing suicide than women.
Philster, I believe you are mistaken and the statistical probability of a 70 year old woman living one more year is greater than that of a 70 year old man living another year. An actuary will be along soon, no doubt, to confirm or deny this.
You are asking the question wrong.
(ahem)
Why do most men die befoe their Wives?
They want to.
Testosterone is one very big physiological reason. Increased levels of testosterone in men leads to all kinds of health risks such as earlier heart disease that leads to lower life expectancies for men. It is not just social factors at all. Almost all animal species show the same difference in life expectancies between men and women. It is not just just a case of early deaths in men driving down the overall average for all men either. Men have an increased risk of death and all ages and these differences become extremely pronounced at the absolute high end of the scale.
I read somewhere (no cite, sorry) that it was in our species’ best interests to have women live longer. That past their child-bearing years, older women would help raise their grandchildren. I guess grandfathers weren’t as valuable. Families who had women genetically predisposed to live longer tended to be more successful (more kids, healthier kids), thus propogating that tendency.
I think it’s because we’re smarter and funnier and cuter and smoother and softer and we smell better, so the gods are rewarding us by taking you stinky, hairy, hard-headed men away from us sooner.
That’s what I think.
Actuaries who use such data for insurance purposes? They misuse averages like anyone else. It’s to their advantage to use the lower number for men…it’s very convenient in their line of biz so the bias towards misusing or failing to further study what the average means is staggering. It’s a staggering idea to expect an actuary to have the most non-biased understanding of life expectency when the current “accepted” idea that men die first is so convenient for them and their culture and biz practices is molded around the concept.
If you make it to 35…and your a male…life expectency is near equal with women who made it that far. I want the studies that control variables such as male behavior when young and can focus on life expectency as a median number, not an average.
Hey, I’ll pop in and admit defeat…but actuaries ain’t gonna refute what their biz is based on.
It is certainly true of all the mortaility tables I’ve ever used. (The subsequent post on the subject by Philster is ignorant and silly.)
Actual references and/or stats might be helpful from both sides of this argument. “I’ve heard” and “I’ve read” only go so far.
Here’s info from Geographic.org regarding the US:
Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 0.99 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.7 male(s)/female
That huge drop-off of men relative to women after 65 seems to suggest that the discrepancy is not due to young males dying off. In other areas, however, such as Denmark and Eastern Europe young male mortality contributes a bit more.
The WHO attributes the disparity in richer countries to better diet, more excersize and less smoking among women. In poorer countries, men tend to get serious injuries more often and are more succeptible to disease.
A study from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic research has a lot of interesting info. Much of it is in agreement with the WHO’s findings. Interstingly it suggests that prior to agriculture there may not have been a discrepancy at all. After establishment of agriculture, female mortality was possibly higher than that of males. The present disparity is thought to be a 20th century phenomenon. As societies approached equality, and some nasty diseases like TB were kept in check, female life spans surged.
In short, there are biological factors at work, but according to the above, the current disparity is generally due to women taking better care of themselves overall.
Philster, can you expound on that? How can it benefit insurance companies to use false data? I understand the interpretation of the data may be subjective but statistical deaths are not subjective so the insurance companies would be lying to themselves? All of them? For what purpose?
According to these actuarial tables, at age 70 the life expectancy of a man and a woman are 12 and 15 years respectively.
Prior to the 20th century, male life span was greater than females due to the huge number of women who died from childbirth related causes. Infant mortality is consistently higher in males than females across cultural lines even today. Just thought I’d throw that in.
The New Scientist seems to somewhat agree with Philster on this.
Though many sites seem to claim that the contributing factor is indeed elevated levels of testosterone, which cause males to do stupid and dangerous things, but also cause a greater chance of heart disease. Something women have a much, much lower chance of.