Posted: Nov 13, 2014 11:01 am
by Doubtdispelled
TMB wrote:
tolman wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:If the size arguments hold valid then it would seem that men will never be able to live as long as women on average unless the size average is also brought closer together.

Given the age gap in the UK has narrowed from six to four years in last three decades, I'm confident that this can be made smaller still. They may never be 100% equal, but if the gap is brought down to a year's difference, this would be a) a huge achievement and b) certainly reduce any perceived inequalities/advantages/disadvantages.

I don't see why issues which may be meaningfully biological are necessarily best seen as 'inequalities' in any kind of 'discrimination' sense.

Though, of course, were figures the other way round, there would arguably be quite a few people calling themselves feminists who would argue that the figures were proof (or evidence approximating proof) of sexist disadvantage, unless there was undeniable evidence to the contrary.

Since there have been arguments advanced that due to women being physiologically weaker than men is the reason why women are protected in sport and athletics, does the argument that men being physiologically more moribund than women not mean they should be given some form of beneficial discrimination?

Leaving aside the fact that your use of the word 'protected' in this context speaks volumes about your bigotry, what forms of 'beneficial discrimination' would you propose be offered to men in order to bring their life expectancy in line with that of women? To 'protect' them against dying younger, in other words.

I've heard, for instance, (and those of a squeamish disposition should look away now) that castration of the male human leads to longer life expectancy, but I think that's rather an extreme solution.