Are Men the Weaker Sex?

Yes cause we think with much smaller heads (but dont don't like to think of them as small =D

Isn't it interesting that many posters have taken the term weakness to mean physical (mechanical) weakness when the article is refering to a weakness in immune fuction.

In general - men are stronger mechanically, they can lift more, run faster and they are on average taller then women too. (It's of interest that the most powerful muscle in humans is the female uterus)

The article takes about genetic weakness. Because of their more convoluted developmental path and the hormones neccessary for that path to even take place men are more susceptible to environmnetal toxins, including radiation, pesticides, heavy metals.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Visit any nursing facility and notice the residents male to female ratio. Very few male residents, we don't live that long, or at least we don't last as long with medical problems.

I used to think I was unfortunate being born the weaker sex, with less ability to survive serious medical problems, until visiting my mother and mother in law at nursing homes.

Now I understand that being the weaker sex is a good thing !

Of course males are in many ways more fragile than females - I recall a study that looked at age-normalized death-rates, and men were ahead in most of them, whether due to failing health (i.e. genetic diseases) or behavioural characteristics (i.e. being involved in car crash, smoking related illness, alcohol fuelled violence, alcohol related illness). It is extremely stupid to deny this, because then we will end up failing to protect ourselves from this disadvantage. As the article says:

While not forgoing the push for fairness and equality, it seems wise to accept the scientific reality of male weaknesses. This likely won’t mean the end of men, but their vulnerability to environmental contaminants and diseases could have serious ramifications for the future of the entire human race unless we find ways to protect them from harm.

Of course, men are also tend massively physically stronger than women and much more aggressive. So perhaps not the weaker sex, depends all on the context. Provoking title I guess, which gets attention, which is a good thing with that conclusion. Also I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure men visit the doctors far less than women - so this is probably a good reason for men to start visiting the doctor a bit more for check-ups.

reply to post by dlbott

Seriously, I find women amazing in every way. They are incredibly strong and resilient. They seldom get credit for all they do. I would like to say thanks to all the women here on ATS, some of us men appreciate you and we are not all pigs lol.

Pretty sure putting women on a pedestal like that constitutes benevolent sexism (google it). And everyone else with similar bizarre opinions should probably google benevolent sexism too. Women should be treated fairly and equitably. Nothing else.

How about this?

Men and women are different. Each sex has its strengths and weaknesses both mentally and physically and maybe even genetically.

dukeofjive696969
Nature made women into a strong creature, society tried to make them weak.

Those who have a little black evening dress with heels, and their own BOB and hiking boots, oh, and be proficient with firearms are few and far between...

Perhaps this phenomena is due to the current imbalance of male / female 'superiority' in our societies where the male has become self imposed dominator in practically all spheres of life, from education, workplace, governments, religion, it is all from a male perspective.

Deny that which brought you into being and that which is essential to life, a real say, and deny at your peril.

The Yang cannot exist without the Yin, in suppressing the Yin, the Yang has spiraled out of control to it's own potential demise.

Redress the balance Yang for you are lost without the vital Yin.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Really? You realize that statistically in education, especially higher education, men are falling behind. Our current education system is geared toward female learners and boys are being left out.

There are a lot of top positions that are occupied by men, yes, but that is more a function of the separate choices men and women make in life. Women get out into society and generally don't choose to pursue the top quite as often or as aggressively as men do. Where they do, they succeed.

This still boils down to men and women being different. Women tend to value things differently than men, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because you don't see us at the top doesn't mean we aren't there.

reply to post by FyreByrd

My theory is: "The weaker sex is the stronger sex because of the weakness of the stronger sex for the weaker sex"

There IS a genetic "war" going on and the Y chromosome IS losing. There are several X-linked diseases that females carry but mostly males get, there's some indication that homosexuality may also be x-linked (resulting in no reproduction), the act of coitus produces "compliance" chemicals in the male brain making them more amenable to the female will. More spontaneous miscarriages are males (more intentional abortions are female).
Those bigger muscles (plumage in the human species) come at a genetic cost. The Y chromosome is constantly under attack by the X chromosome and has resorted to shedding most of its vulnerable genetic material.
What most people refer to as "the weaker sex" is more of a SOCIAL construct rather than a genetic one. Genetically, the X chromosome is MUCH stronger and more resilient than the Y chromosome and is currently in the process of obliterating the Y chromosome altogether. I find this an alarming trend (as do most scientists) and hope that there is a remedy for the trend.

As far as the susceptibility to environmental toxins, males are generally the ones who have the greater exposure so, again, that's more of a social trend than a genetic one. I wonder what their study would show if women were sent in to places like Chernobyl for clean-up in the same numbers as men.

reply to post by whitewave




Not actually true:

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by whitewave

Personally I don't think scientists really have a firm grip on understanding the phenomena. My question is what happens once the Y chromosome is hone. Will women be able to self impregnate, turn into a man for a few weeks to produce sperm to impregnate another women. I know their are examples of some animal species doing just that. But why would we see this only with humans in the mammal world wouldn't we notice thevy chromosome disappearing across the board.

I say women have stronger immune systems because they one have to stay alive long enough to come to term and deliver the baby and then stay alive long enough to raise said baby. We are talking small degrees of stronger. Theirs goes to eleven when a mans has nowhere to go after ten. But that's it not they have immune system 2.0 and its totally superior by a large margin. Just enough to keep the mother alive to give birth and maybe stick by the child's side long enough for it to have a chance if surviving before perishing herself from said disease just like the father.

Second as mentioned men are exposed to more disease by the nature if their work. Might make them more susceptible to long term immune function decline.

reply to post by BASSPLYR


If I recall correctly, much of the symptoms from some forms of sickness are due to the immune systems response to an infection. For example, symptoms of the flu are caused by immune response. It's possible that evolution gave males / females different immune systems to suit different purposes.

This thread reminds me so much of the cringe/beta threads on /b/. Seriously people, neither one is the "weaker" sex. As a typical male, let me paint a picture using cars.

You have two cars. One a sports car and the other sedan. Both are cars, but each one offers something unique. The sports car is faster, but the sedan is safer. The sports car is cramped, the sedan is spacious. The bottom line is that they're still both cars and highly desirable to their target audience. And each one has it's strengths and weaknesses but neither are "weaker" as a car.

Same with us humans. The day when we can quit arguing over who is "better" than the other, is the day we've advanced as a society.

I think many, many, many people would have benefited from actually reading the first post... I love tests like that!

On topic, it is definitely interesting in a lot of ways. I think that with more research, more light will be shed on it. As it stands, I think our current knowledge of some of these mysteries is severely lacking.

reply to post by C0bzz


"Holding its own" just means that the "war" isn't over yet. The scientific studies (not the NY Times interpretation of those studies) states emphatically that the Y chromosome IS under attack and HAS shed much of its genetic material. Who knows? In the final outcome, that may just translate to a leaner, meaner version of the Y chromosome. I don't count males as out of the game yet but genetically, they ARE struggling to survive.

reply to post by FyreByrd


How many actually read the linked article ? show of hands ? I suspect that just like I have done many times, read the title and a few replies and put in my two cents, this has more to do with chemistry and hormones than muscle and the physical aspects of strength and weakness.

I thought of this, just as fish and other species have been victimized by the environment and pollution, causing gender benders and high hermaphroditic increases in those species, one can only think that those factors are directly affecting humans as well but we do not see the studies, and if what they are writing about estrogen is correct, women have a one up chemical protector on us because the chemical make up of men is possibly weaker in protecting against man made environmental changes and pollution.

Some of the studies on plastics, PVC and even certain foods are altering the overall nature of all humans but certainly males, but lets be honest we are all going to be in trouble is the good old Y chromosome goes missing completely, I actually think that since we do not even have a full grasp on chemical and environmental impacts on the human chemistry all GMO food need to be banned because we do not have any evidence of very long term studies (20-30 years or greater) on overall impact on human beings.

Naaa men are stronger as I found out a few weeks ago when I suffered from kidney stones, apparently it's worse than child birth. I got through it so sorry ladies that's one up for the guys

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


The fact that you got a kidney stone shows a predisposition towards weakness (or bad diet).
Sorry, couldn't resist.

reply to post by ketsuko


You misunderstood my post.

The whole way thing are set up are geared towards a male dominated society (regardless of females being academically superior). The subjects studied in the education system, the fact children are expected to attend school at such a young age where it has been proven that mother child bonding is still essential at that age, the fact that in many societies children are given subjects at too young an age when playing is where they should be at etc, the fact that the school and work day revolves around working times tied to traditional male roles extended by male dominated bosses that care only about profit and enterprise rather than the family unit.

There is a wage gap between male and female employees doing the same job. The opportunities in commercial environments typically are male dominated and aren't allowing for the reproductive and mothering aspect of being a woman. It doesn't favour women because of this and because of a presumed 'emotional instability'. The typical workplace requires an ambitious, ruthless attitude with no place for empathy or sympathy and is dominated by those with little or no care for others. The alpha factor is inherent in such organisatons.

From the top strata down there are more psychopaths and those of psychopathic tendencies making up more of the decision makers in industry than anywhere else. It has been proven, a lot of top management have got to their positions because of their psychopathic tendencies.

If showing such attributes is presumed a way of career success, therefore more money and power and such attributes have been rewarded and companies successively built upon such traits and each merger / multinational / international and political power wielded over the people by psychopaths then how exactly is society to thrive in any real way. It won't it will fail, it will destroy itself, it is destroying itself.

Ignore reality at your peril.