Public health programs have long taken a ho-hum attitude towards the problem of excess male mortality. But the current
issue of the American Journal of Public Health sounds a
wake-up call to health workers arouind the globe.
The May theme issue highlights the fact that
men have higher death rates than women for each of the 10 leading causes
of death. In North America, men die about 5 years sooner than women. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union,
Russian men were dying as much as 15 years sooner than their female counterparts.
One of the anachronistic arguments that has been used to justify the neglect of men's health is the claim that women
are biologically superior to men. This is how a recent World Health Organization report on "Gender and Health" puts it:
"Part of women's advantage in relation to life expectancy is biological in origin....as many societies have undergone
economic and industrial development, a variety of social and cultural factors have combined to allow women's inherent
biological advantage to emerge."
This pseudo-scientific statement is like saying that since women are biologically predisposed to a variety of medical
problems such as osteoporosis and autoimmune disorders, this "proves" that women are genetically inferior to men.
It's like arguing that since men are able to procreate many more offspring than women, and for years after women of
the same age reach menopause, that men have an innate biologic advantage.
Indeed, the very notion of biological advantage is faulty, because the concept is meaningful only in reference to a
person's particular environment. For example, men run faster than women. In a world populated by predatory felines,
running ability clearly favors men. This fact does not mean that men are biologically superior; it only reveals that in
this environment, men have a survival advantage over women.
Finally, the WHO statement does not account for men's traditional role as primary family breadwinner. This breadwinner
role has required that men take on life-threatening roles, including hunting wild game, defending the tribe, and working
in mines and factories. Even in modern society, many men work overtime or are employed at two jobs in order to support
their families.
Indeed, the narrowing of the lifespan gender gap in the United States in the past three decades may be a direct
consequence of women entering the workforce in large numbers, thus exposing them to the same occupational stresses and
strains that men have tolerated for ages.
Discussions of biological advantage, with their myriad scientific and logical flaws, only serve to justify the status
quo which accepts shorter male lifespans as "natural."
In the past, arguments of biological superiority have been applied to racial and ethnic minorities such as
African-Americans, indigenous groups, and Jews.
Surely, enlightened persons who believe in gender equality would not want to be associated with repugnant concepts
that are tainted with historical connotations of intolerance and bigotry.
In a bygone era, arguments about the genetic superiority of racial groups appeared in the publications of extremist
groups with a dubious political agenda. Now in 2003, claims of sex-based biological advantage are being promoted by the
World Health Organization.
