Counter-Currents
1,282 words / 9:38
It’s commonly known that women outlive men, a statistical fact that no one ever seems to cite as evidence of systemic injustice. You never hear that the reason women live longer than men is because we live in a toxically misandrist matriarchy that unfairly favors chicks and disadvantages dudes.
A study released on Monday reveals that the American “death gap” — the chasm in longevity between men and women that has persisted for more than a century — is wider than at any point since 1996. Whereas women lived 4.8 years longer on average than men in 2010, the gap in 2021 stretched out to 5.8 years.
Audio version: To listen in a player, use the one below or click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
This disparity is not exclusive to the United States. In fact, it’s worse elsewhere. Worldwide, women outlive men by an average of seven years. According to a 2001 report, the only five countries on Earth where men outlived women were the flea-bitten open-air latrines we call Afghanistan, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. But a report from 2017 says there’s no longer any country on the planet where men outlive women.
It wasn’t always this way.
According to data from developed countries, men lived longer than women throughout most of the 1800s, only for the longevity stats to tip in favor of females during the 189os — an advantage that women have held ever since. Women are supposedly more vulnerable than men to infectious diseases, but once male scientists got a grip on the microbes and brought those pesky critters to heel, women started living longer than men.
As far as I know, women have never thanked men for it.
Myriad reasons are used to explain the modern death gap between the sexes — some of them genetic, others behavioral, and still others cultural. If you’re inclined to view behavior and culture as mere outcroppings of personal and group genetics, I guess it’s all genetic. Although one could make a solid case that men have certain genetic advantages that have led them to invent nearly everything of value that humans have ever invented, the sad fact is that men are more biologically disposable than women. Until some lonely male genius perfects an artificial womb, it will remain a fact of nature that one studly man and 100 fertile women would be able to repopulate the world much more easily than 100 studly men and one fertile woman.
Among the genetic reasons for why women live longer than men:
- Female fetuses are statistically more likely to survive in the womb than male fetuses.
- Boys are more prone to developmental disorders than girls.
- Larger-sized animals tend to have shorter lifespans than smaller animals within the same species. Despite those millions of obscenely fat black women, male humans on average tend to be larger than female humans.
- Men are much more likely than women to die from heart disease, which may in part be explained by the fact that testosterone weakens heart muscles and can cause arterial plaque, whereas estrogen serves as a buffer against cardiovascular ailments.
- The Y chromosome is more likely to develop mutations than the X chromosome (women are XX and men are XY), which may make men more vulnerable to an array of ailments such as cancer.
- The frontal lobes of girls’ and young women’s brains develop more quickly than those in boys and young men. Frontal lobes are associated with judgment and weighing the consequences of one’s actions, which may explain the higher incidence of reckless and violent behavior among males.
- Females are widely thought to have stronger immune responses and the ability to produce higher quantities of antibodies than men.
On average, men also behave differently than women — which may help explain why they die younger:
- Men are much more likely than women to avoid physicians, eat unhealthy diets, and allow mental disorders to go untreated.
- Compared to women, men are more likely to smoke, drink, and abuse drugs.
- Men are also more inclined than women toward performing dangerous activities such as driving recklessly, committing homicide or being murdered, and risking life and limb merely to prove their masculine bona fides.
- When it comes to “avoidable deaths” — i.e., those attributable to behavior — the US has a higher rate than any other country. But according to a 2006 study from Leeds Metropolitan University, “In every country there is an excess of male deaths due to potentially avoidable reasons.”
Widespread cultural norms also lead men to an earlier grave than women:
- Despite Hillary Clinton’s intensely stupid claim that “Women have always been the primary victims of war,” a study of American casualties during the Second World War found that “Women made up only .1 percent of the military’s 405,000 war-related deaths” — i.e., about one in a thousand. Throughout history and everywhere on Earth, men have been the primary combatants and have suffered the heaviest losses of life during war. Men, and hardly ever women, are expected to both fight and die in war.
- Men also make up the roaring majority of those who die from job-related deaths: As of 2014, women comprised only 8% of workplace fatalities.
- “Compared to men, women have larger and more intimate social networks,” so when women fail, they have a much vaster array of fluffy pillows to brace their fall than men.
- According to a 2012 study, “men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do” when convicted for the same crimes and are “twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted” than men.
- Possibly as the cumulative result of social norms that favor women all across the world, men commit suicide at much higher rates than women.
You can buy Jim Goad’s ANSWER Me! here.
And yet despite all this, it’s shoved down boys’ throats since birth that they are unfairly privileged relative to girls.
I remember one summer in my early adolescence sitting on the steel benches outside our rooms in the cheap little motel we visited every year in Wildwood, New Jersey. I listened in silently disgusted wonderment as my mom and sister gleefully mocked my father and brother-in-law for their looks, their behavior, and their misfortunes. This was back before feminism was used as a front to lower wages and force women to work, so for my mother and sister, they weren’t really on a “vacation”; they were just on a trip away from home. I’m not sure where my father and brother-in-law were during this extended mockery session; maybe they were in their rooms snoring off the exhaustion from working their balls off the other 51 weeks every year. I marveled at how vicious and ungrateful mom and sis sounded.
Then, of course, their mates died before they did. For the last 20 years of her life, my mom lived off the money she’d been bequeathed from the dead husband whom she ridiculed behind his back. My sister got divorced before her husband died, but she was able to milk child support out of that hapless, toupee-wearing sucker.
How many other men work themselves to death while their ungrateful womenfolk cackle behind their backs like sharp-beaked hens? How many more are forced to endure their women cackling right to their faces?
It reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago that never ceases to be grimly funny:
Q: Why do men die ten years before women do?
A: Because they want to.
Men inhabit a world that everyone insists is a “patriarchy” but then works them to death as their cunty women belittle them and scoop up the fruit of their labor once they’ve croaked.
More than any other reason — or maybe as a result of all the other reasons combined — men die younger than women because they want to.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
21 comments
In an Italian study on this topic in a monastery where males and females had everything equal (work chores, waking, sleeping, food, heating and so on) they died: exactly the same age. Which leads me to believe the biological reasons given by “scientists” of how women are more durable are just cover for the mistreatment of men. That aside, I have seen a good number of women destroy their late man’s legacy, his reputation, his collections, his writings and things that could inspire his descendants. The worst for me was my own grandma that threw all of grandpa’s things in the trash within two days of his passing. It included his Uboat logs from the war, his medals, his diaries, his uniform and so on. Just out of spite. Lucky for me that I was far away when news broke and I had given up on my revenge fantasies by the time I met her.
@Johan: What was the old woman so angry about? Just curious.
She had a Chad fiancee early in the war who got killed, then found herself starving after the war and her market value near zero (lots of women, no men in sight). My grandfather took her in and saved her, wifed her up and she thought of it as something temporary to get out of when starvation-time was over. But she got pregnant and was stuck with her non-chad Uboat officer. Instead of embracing her new life she turned to sleeping pills and nagging him to death. While I love my grandpa I could not stand her in life or death.
Thanks for this important topic. While the battle of the sexes has many battlefronts, this is one where ‘the science’ is far more compelling than most topics placed under a microscope. Despite these obvious gaps, which gender gets extra help interested in their cause? For instance, men also die of cancer more often than women. Is there any program to help us out? Do a web search for “men’s cancer society” vs. “women’s cancer society”…. It’s not even close, like Shirley Stoler arm wrestling with an infant male. There is some sort of charity for ALL Mens health, Movember, that raised 16 million dollars in 2021. Compare to the Susan Komen pink ribbon foundation which just focuses just on breast cancer… 87 million. The CEO makes about a half million a year… that’s a lotta bazongas. Also worth mentioning is that Movember has a male CEO and Komen a female CEO… Just kidding, both have female CEOs!
If a man were to openly say he would be more comfortable with a male doctor or lawyer, he gets labeled a sexist. If a woman says she would be more comfortable with a female doctor or lawyer, they start creating new specialties and ad campaigns. There’s a whole medical specialty for women’s health… gynecology. Is there one for men? No, it isn’t urology which is often about the kidneys… and via google there are women’s urologists specialists too. There are so many female law firms with campaigns called ‘ever argue with a woman’ they are suing each other for copyright infringement.
Anyhow this is one of those topics where guys should be asking for equity, the word of the decade. City Journal is generally pretty shrewd about the Overton Window of acceptable public speech, which is why they showed some cojones in The Misogyny Myth, a compendium of facts to complement the above. I find childless feminists are usually most hostile to men. One a woman has borne a son its remarkable how she starts seeing the world in more nuanced ways wanting him treated fairly.
This essay reminds me of Arunachalam Muruganantham (try saying that name 3 times).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arunachalam_Muruganantham
He is an Indian inventor who came up with a machine that can produce sanitary napkins cheaply enough for Indian women in villages who otherwise could not afford them. Before the machine, the unsanitary ways in which these women would deal with their periods jeopardized their health and productivity. Now however because of the efforts and vision of one single man, millions of Indian women have had their lives greatly improved.
We need to repeat this message whenever women start belittling men as in Jim’s essay.
The stressed out, balding career women who fought so hard to get out of the kitchen will soon be dying as early as, or even earlier than men. Then there’s the day the draft returns and feminists force younger women into combat. Feminism was one of the biggest tricks ever played on women. In the past, only slave women worked, now they all do.
As a teenager in high school, my mother was always telling me to stop with the nonsense of studying history and literature, and instead study how to work in an office so that “I wouldn’t have to get my hands dirty — i.e. not in warehouses or outdoor work which could be dirty and dangerous. She had been working in the garment industry for 30 years, and my dad worked at Goodyear. She wanted ‘a better life’ for me. And I am glad she did, because then, I worked in offices all my life which gave me money to save to go to college to study — you guessed it — history, literature, art history, etc.
I did get a laugh, however, because there were copiers before Xerox that required adding ink to it which always got your hands dirty! Here’s to you, Mom!
But it is true that working in dirty and dangerous jobs does lead you to an earlier grave, and I’m sure that is why men die earlier than women.
I always kind liked the smell of mimeographed those pages. Stayed around for awhile.
Pathetic servile devotion to Womyn™ is a huge problem, the vaginal cartel terrorizes men in this country. If more white men had controlled their females and properly educated them the BLM protests for instance would have been only the fringe leftists and blacks themselves. It’s so obvious it’s sad some can’t admit, although women have an ordained role to play in life too, men pretty much created everything in the modern world. To female readers of this website, I hope you understand but women in general support leftist policies, the typical female weltanshauung is totally perverse and giving you sufferage 100 years ago was a historic mistake. If the world were totally just only the women in histrionics over the poor (ghetto blacks, illegals, Palestinians, you name it) would be the ones who are the victims of anti-white violence, but sadly some of these murderous pro-abortion ‘women’ (AKA godless shameless whores) may survive just fine!
Likewise will I not consider women’s greater longevity as some kind of symptom of systemic injustice against men.
Women are far from the superhumans that feminism claims they are, as their lives have distinct and inherent drawbacks. They are seen as victims due to them being the physiological runts of the human race compared to men, a distinction that emerged because historically men competed over breeding rights and are required to provide for the women, making them far stronger and relegating women to a caretaking role. To say nothing of having your period every single month. A lot of women I know live in misery, I do not envy them one bit.
So let em have this, I say. What’s 5 more years when you’re 90, anyway?
Ninety?!? The average life expectancy for American men is now 73.2 years.
I don’t dismiss the premise that the differential of longevity between the sexes is somewhat contrived, but I have a few points.
Peasant women worked as hard as the men and often still do. As did Pioneer women. Prior to the 20th century, mortality of both mother and child in birth were very high.
In the United States, most people did heavy farm work until the 20th century.
By the 1920s, industrialzation, mechanization of manual labor, and increased productivity per work shift was such that men from those large peasant families were leaving for the big city to find work. Family sizes then went from the huge farm families with nine or so kids — not including a few stillborns and mortal childhood infections from times before antibiotics and vaccines — to a few surviving children at best.
The standard of living was also rising. My Grandmother who graduated High School in 1935 in the middle of the Depression complained many times of her life “washing on the board.” And in those days even the fancy hotels in what are now astronomically-priced Colorado resort towns had bedbugs and were not always boasting of indoor plumbing. You left your business in a crock called a Thunder Mug outside in the hallway for the young girls from room service to pick up and leave fresh water. Likewise, most of the boys worked in the (dangerous) mines but never struck it rich.
In the 1930s, industrial work too became as scarce as the family farm — but the postwar period that we are familiar with was vastly different and continues to change radically today.
My Grandmother remembers times during the Depression when the government culled sheep to raise wool prices and tangentially feed the poor with unmarketable and almost unpalatable mutton, and this made a big difference for many poor families.
She says that my Dad, who grew up during the war, never went hungry a day in his life — in spite of being raised in one mining or ranching camp from the next, as my Grandfather worked for the government during the war as a trapper.
It is unfortunate that the Roosevelt regime could do nothing for the economy save getting involved in World War, but I digress.
In any case, I would not dismiss the premise that civilans suffer and die the most in wartime.
It holds true for the World Wars, where military deaths have varied by tens of millions, and even counting the civilian deaths accurately is a black art. Millions died from disaster-diseases like typhus during the World Wars and during the Interwar period in Russia, Poland, and the Balkans. The German military maintained a vigilant cordon sanitaire to protect Germany and Western Europe during the wars, and the Allies also after the wars.
The casualty figures cited by Mr. Goad for the USA are mostly military because the continental United States was protected by two enormous oceans that were far, far out of the range of nearly all WWII bombers and collateral combat.
Plus, the American continent is difficult to blockade because it is virtually self-sufficent on resources, and even exporting much of the world’s oil at the time.
Those on the American Homefront experienced the war far differently than people did in Central Europe or Asia.
The main concern of American civilians, other than getting one of those dreadful blue telegrams from the War Department, was how to manage the real shortages of sugar and rubber automobile tires — and whether they had enough ration coupons to buy gasoline, which (unlike rubber) was not actually in short supply.
All other countries during the war, regardless of the amount of fighting there, had to burn wood chips or coal to produce (deadly) carbon monoxide gas to operate their trucks, tractors, buses, vans, and motorcars.
Even the Swedish vacuum cleaner company, Electrolux produced woodchip or charcoal gasifiers to provide fuel for this very purpose. It’s fairly easy to Google images of WWII and postwar civilian vehicles in places like Melbourne that are pulling “producer gas” trailers to generate gaseous fuel to run the motor because petrol is unobtainable.
Industrial medicine and hygiene studies in neutral Sweden from the 1950s have much to say about this because chronic carbon monoxide poisoning was common with truckers or those operating commercial petrol and gasifier vehicles, who were mostly male.
🙂
[724 words]
>And yet despite all this, it’s shoved down boys’ throats since birth that they are unfairly privileged relative to girls.
Well I never heard that. Maybe because I wasn’t a boy. In fact, I thought it was a truth generally acknowledged that girls had the inside track in the privilege game. This may well have made some of them lazy and low achievers, but that’s gonna happen.
Women in the West (particularly Northern Europe & lands dominated by Northern European descendants) tend to be extremely women friendly & slightly even matriarchal
However most of the world isn’t that way; most females globally get married, raped and/or impregnated at really young ages, work tough gruelling jobs to find multiple mouths, endure decades or a lifetime of domestic violence & generally live sad lives
In many parts of the globe, females are the breadwinners not males
Most videos of war zones, drought afflicted areas and/or refugee camps typically have females struggling to provide for many
I always wonder where the males are!
Even the Hillary Clinton quote of ‘women have always been the primary victims of war’ is valid because historically & globally, most females become sex slaves any time their territories are invaded
Men get killed or die as POWs
I bet most people would pick the latter situation
Excellent article. I learned a lot from it. I tend to avoid the Woman Question as I also do the Jewish Question. Not that both aren’t vitally important to any fully developed social theory, but I still am as I always have been, a Race and Immigration First guy. If we don’t halt the nonwhite invasion(s), nothing else will matter. The Jews are extremely powerful, but mostly because we let them be. And wrt the WQ, we need as many white females on our side as possible. If that means we simply ignore certain sexual injustices disfavoring males, well, so be it. Once white men become strong again in dealing with racial threats, the JQ and the WQ will simply evaporate (ie, the JQ and WQ are only Qs at all because the POC-Q remains unresolved).
Jews were powerful enough when they were generally derided, mocked and put under significant limitiations. But we live in a new society, of Jewish design, in which they and their machinations can now be criticised only tangentially or cautiously in private and most people are too indoctrinated (by them) to even consider malfeasance on their part. Multi-racialism may be the sword, but let’s not forget who the executioner is.
When it comes to the JQ, I freely admit that I’m way over on the “left” side of the debate (amongst serious prowhites). I have quite a number of Jewish friends, some of whom are among the most awakened (and frankly, intelligently prowhite) people I know. While I’m of European descent and Jews are not, I consider ideologically conservative (not neoconservative) Jews to be highly admirable and valuable people, at least on average. Japanese are not white, either, but it would be churlish and vulgarly racist for me to deny that there is much to admire about them, too.
I’ve been familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald since I purchased his (then) godawfully expensive hardback trilogy on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy in the 90s. That trilogy is one of the great works from the Right, and I learned an immense amount from it. Nevertheless, I still think as I did then, that, on a shrinking and ‘darkening’ planet, the superior peoples of this Earth – Europeans, Armenians, perhaps Christian Levantines, Jews, Japanese, possibly other East Asians, though I deeply distrust Red China – need to find ways to put aside ancient or recent enmities and ideological hostilities and work together for mutual survival, for ourselves, for civilization itself, and for life on Earth.
The Jewish role in the West since the Enlightenment has been mostly negative, especially politically (and, of course, racially). But peoples don’t have to be imprisoned by their pasts. Whites and Jews today have far more in common with each other than they do with their darker-skinned competitors and enemies. If we could get more Jews to understand that white nationalism is essentially the moral equivalent of Zionism, I think we could bring more over to accepting our goals as just.
I admit this is a complex issue, and certainly much more could be said.
‘If we could get more Jews to understand that white nationalism is essentially the moral equivalent of Zionism, I think we could bring more over to accepting our goals as just.’
Jews do know that White Nationalism is the moral equivalent of Zionism.
That’s why they oppose it.
That’s also why jews will promote the idea that they and Whites have lots in common even though they consider themselves jews first and ‘White’ second (at best).
Jews love White Americans because they’re gullible about jews. That’s why Kevin MacDonald’s work is so valuable. It has the potential to educate Whites about how jews work.
I have never met a jew – no matter how nice or how helpful – that considered the interests of the White race to be important to them. In fact, I have never met a jew that would affirm that Whites ought to have their own homeland even if jews had to be discomfited to get it.
Jews play Whites.
That’s how they win.
When the jews who ‘support’ Whites form and fund a pro-White organization on the level of the American Jewish Congress or the B’nai B’rith, let me know.
But, until that happens, all talk of jews being ‘with’ Whites is just empty talk.
That being said, there are very assimilated jews who don’t much care for their people and prefer Whites to jews. They’re rare so their existence is politically irrelevant.
I concur on that. If they can collectively knock it off with the bad behavior, then we could coexist peacefully. Much of that is up to them to decide – do they want to keep making the same mistakes, or start getting along with the rest of the world?
This was a scorcher, and I thought it was great. It was especially timely as my lovely next door neighbor was just killed in an industrial accident in October. And believe me, it was a helluva way to go.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.