Battle of the Sexes

Researchers have apparently discovered the reasons behind why men die (on average) at an earlier age than women. Statistics have been gathered from thirty European countries and these have revealed some interesting trends. There have been lots of theories put forward previously - such as the assumption that men work much harder than women, and therefore wear themselves out earlier (this seems somewhat tenuous, to say the least); or that men are more reluctant to seek help for suspected illnesses than are women, thereby presenting themselves with additional health risks. Sir Donald Acheson - the former Chief Medical Officer in Britain - once declared that it was simply a question of "hormones". He says that it is men's "rash and venturesome natures" that renders them the real weaker sex. However, this latest research has dismissed all of that and has concluded that the reason why men die younger is attributed to two main causes: Booze and fags.

Apparently, men drink more and smoke more than their female counterparts. Hmm, alcohol and tobacco are undoubtedly big killers - that can't be denied - but the question is this: Why do men drink and smoke more than women? Is it because they work harder than women and therefore need more release from stress, or is it because of their "rash and venturesome natures" that causes them to ignore the risks? If so, then Donald Acheson was correct - as are some other pundits from the past. Perhaps women are just smarter than men, and it's therefore not a question of taking fewer risks, but more one of being better at risk management? It would be interesting to learn the proportion between the sexes of the biggest bonus earners in the banking system - for we are told that the bigger the risk, the bigger the bonus if the deal comes off.

Perhaps women are simply more responsible in their outlook, and thereby give more consideration to their actions? The fact that the bankers whose risks fail don't appear to face any consequences from that (other than a loss of the bonus) could indicate that men are more selfish, and less worried, about the damage that their bad actions can do to others (recklessness again)?

All this leads me to think that the guys who never take risks - for example those who prefer to under-perform in steady, mundane jobs - should presumably (statistically) live longer. And as a counterpoint to that, the guys who are the real risk-takers will (statistically) shorten their lives by a considerable amount. In the case of the greedy, bonus-hungry bankers, let's hope so.

I have to confess that I drink and smoke too much and that also, I am a man. This puts me in real danger of shortneing my life. My dear father neither drank nor smoked, nor took any other real risks, and he lived until he was ninety. Does this prove a point? I'd be interested to learn too, whether guys who change sex and so become women suddenly develop a more responsible attitude to alcohol and tobacco and also, become more attuned to their responsibilities when taking risks? In theory, according to Donald Acheson, they should (if it really is all about the "hormones" like he said).

I feel a research project coming on. I'm going to apply for some funding for this - it's crucial that we understand whether swapping sexes also means swapping our sense of self-preservation, our sense of responsibility, and our willingness to take risks. What's more important though, is that I need the money from the funding application to pay for my next bout of booze and fags. Bring it on!