DarthHelmet86 wrote:So then you are arguing against something I haven't said. Has anyone here actually used women living longer in the manor you are arguing against? I haven't read all of TMBs posts so perhaps he has and I missed it.

I wasn't arguing against what you said, I was providing the clarification that you asked for as to what I meant. Given that you began this discussion based on my comment which was a response to something DD said, which was in response to something TMB said.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:What behaviors do you think men should change to live longer lives? Are some of these behaviors related to gender roles?

Diet. Alcohol consumption. Smoking. Exercise.
Given that the data we're looking at is the average, individuals who engage is those behaviours do wonders for dragging the male average down.

Sendraks wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:So then you are arguing against something I haven't said. Has anyone here actually used women living longer in the manor you are arguing against? I haven't read all of TMBs posts so perhaps he has and I missed it.

I wasn't arguing against what you said, I was providing the clarification that you asked for as to what I meant. Given that you began this discussion based on my comment which was a response to something DD said, which was in response to something TMB said.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:What behaviors do you think men should change to live longer lives? Are some of these behaviors related to gender roles?

Diet. Alcohol consumption. Smoking. Exercise.
Given that the data we're looking at is the average, individuals who engage is those behaviours do wonders for dragging the male average down.

As far as I have ever seen diet, alcohol smoking and exercise are problems that cross genders. Can you give me a link to some sources saying that men engage in these habits more on average or that for one reason or another they are more damaging on men?

tolman wrote:And similarly, looking at society from the perspective of class or power, people from backgrounds of wealth, status or power (male and female) have had the upper hand for an awfully long time.

Women in upper class society certainly enjoyed advantages over poorer women. However, I doubt they enjoyed the same advantages as men in the same tier of society.

tolman wrote:One of the issues with some flavours of feminism is that they can be so focussed on 'men vs women' that they pay little attention to other important social factors.

I agree. The info I linked on healthy years of life, also shows how deprivation confers a marked disadvantage on women's health in more deprived groups. That is way more complex than a simple "men vs women" debate and to try and shoehorn it into such narrow parameters would mean losing sight of what the real issues are.

Oh, look at that....

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... r#p1963776

tolman wrote:

Sendraks wrote:And ultimately, looking at the history of male dominated society, men have clearly had the upper hand for an awfully long time. So in the grand scheme of things the scales of equality do not weight favourably on the behaviour of men.

And similarly, looking at society from the perspective of class or power, people from backgrounds of wealth, status or power (male and female) have had the upper hand for an awfully long time.

One of the issues with some flavours of feminism is that they can be so focussed on 'men vs women' that they pay little attention to other important social factors.

And that's one of the issues with some men too.

Doubtdispelled wrote:Oh, look at that....

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... r#p1963776

I hope that roll wasn't directed at me, I read the links in the post you linked to and it was a very interesting read. It seems the reason/reasons behind a shorter life expectancy are still in the air. With some being behavior like smoking and drinking and others being related to increased aggression possibly because of testosterone and possibly even due to increased size. Not a lot that could be blamed on gender roles, besides perhaps aggression and doing dangerous things because that is what boys do attitudes.

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.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:As far as I have ever seen diet, alcohol smoking and exercise are problems that cross genders. Can you give me a link to some sources saying that men engage in these habits more on average or that for one reason or another they are more damaging on men?

While these issues are cross gender, their prevalence of such behaviours in the sexes is not equal.

Alcohol
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/mens-health.htm
http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/Drinking-patterns-and-trends.aspx
UK and US data shows men on average consume more alcohol than women.

Smoking
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/smoking-adults-by-gender/
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11454/smok-eng-2013-rep.pdf
UK and US data shows greater prevalence of smoking in men than women.

Overweight and Obesity Rates
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-overweightobesity-rate-by-gender/
http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/trends

The last link on UK obesity rates shows a steady rise in prevalence over time but, until recently, a higher rate of obesity in women than men until 2010. Not sure what the data post 2010 shows. However in the US, men win the race to be the most obese.

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.

Very interesting links thanks for those Sendraks.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I hope that roll wasn't directed at me,

Good grief, no, Darth.

It was because I had forgotten all about having the same old same old discussions involving TMB's posts over and over again!

Is it my imagination, or are you feeling rather over-sensitive today?

If so, have a hug.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:It's difficult to find exact figures, but it's barely credible that a 30% difference exists when controlling for all relevant variables when typically such studies (e.g. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 4113341506 ) find a gap in the 0-5% range when accounting for all relevant factors. People on both sides quote with such gleeful abandon and bias that if someone doesn't specifically mention accounting for some factor you can almost invariably assume they are not.

I don't think the information claims that 30% difference occurs everywhere, only that that the extent to which the pay gap exists varies from field to field.

But quoting a 30% gap when controlling for all factors in the same field yields a 0% gap is sloppy in the best case and downright dishonest in the worst. To be clear I'm here discussing the author of the article, not you for quoting it - I don't hold you responsible for the writer's errors.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Very interesting links thanks for those Sendraks.

I should hasten to add, that "men should do less of those things" as means to staving off ill health and also extending lifespans, is a vastly oversimplified conclusion to a long series of unasked questions about what drives those behaviours in the first place.

Thommo wrote:But quoting a 30% gap when controlling for all factors in the same field yields a 0% gap is sloppy in the best case and downright dishonest in the worst. To be clear I'm here discussing the author of the article, not you for quoting it - I don't hold you responsible for the writer's errors.

I'm willing to bet that if pressed to replicate their findings, the author would be unable to do so.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I hope that roll wasn't directed at me,

Good grief, no, Darth.

It was because I had forgotten all about having the same old same old discussions involving TMB's posts over and over again!

Is it my imagination, or are you feeling rather over-sensitive today?

If so, have a hug.

It isn't just today, it comes from my social anxiety. In discussions like this I get worried people might be thinking I am some how arguing for the other side instead of simply wanting to ask questions and get information. I am always open to an internet hug to make me feel better.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:It isn't just today, it comes from my social anxiety. In discussions like this I get worried people might be thinking I am some how arguing for the other side instead of simply wanting to ask questions and get information. I am always open to an internet hug to make me feel better.

Nope. Didn't you think you were arguing, just seeking clarification. It is all cool.
I have similar issues with anxiety, although CBT and medication has helped bring a good deal of mine into check.

I think it is a failing of my posting style that I tend to write in response to both specific comments, but contextualise them in the content of the overall thread and also specific earlier comments that I have in mind. Given that not everyone will be clear what I have in mind, that can create some interpretation issues.

So I might be responding specifically to something you said.
But still ranting in response to the content of another post four pages previous.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:But quoting a 30% gap when controlling for all factors in the same field yields a 0% gap is sloppy in the best case and downright dishonest in the worst. To be clear I'm here discussing the author of the article, not you for quoting it - I don't hold you responsible for the writer's errors.

I'm willing to bet that if pressed to replicate their findings, the author would be unable to do so.

Which author?

Thommo wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:But quoting a 30% gap when controlling for all factors in the same field yields a 0% gap is sloppy in the best case and downright dishonest in the worst. To be clear I'm here discussing the author of the article, not you for quoting it - I don't hold you responsible for the writer's errors.

I'm willing to bet that if pressed to replicate their findings, the author would be unable to do so.

Which author?

The author of the article. Although now that I think about it, if they're willing to claim a 30% gap exists in response to one set of data, they'd probably make the claim in response to any other set of data?

Sendraks wrote:The author of the article. Although now that I think about it, if they're willing to claim a 30% gap exists in response to one set of data, they'd probably make the claim in response to any other set of data?

Maybe, who knows.

I just like to be clear about the facts before springboarding to solutions. There is a big problem of people perceiving situations where equal work does get equal pay as being obviously discriminatory towards women because most women aren't doing the same work in the same circumstances. I think this also leads to a tendency to devalue "women's work" like raising children, when it seems important to me to value this in its own right.

Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?

Women.

laklak wrote:

Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?

Women.

I think you got that wrong, Lak. Married men live longer than unmarried men. So it's lack of women, not women themselves, if they have anything to do with it at all.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newslette ... ens-health

But then we all know you are a man who likes living on the edge..... with a wooden spoon....