Is male sex the weaker?

Image via Wikipedia A potentially contentious thought as its quite contrary to commonly accepted ideas.

Males are commonly more heavily muscled and taller than their female counterparts. These differences mean that females are frequently regarded as being weaker than men. These arguments can be considered to be sexist and therefore of no consequence.

As illogical as the argument is, it is still taken as being fact. A point to dispute the assertion, is that females generally outlive men by 5 to 10 years (at least in western societies). Surely this indicates that the male is flawed or at least weaker?

There are low level differences between the sexes and these can account for the variation in lifespan. These factors are looked at by the scientific community. Put in perspective, the scientific variables point to fact that the sexes are equal except that factors that make up a male result in his body being worn out before hers.

There is another less attractive proposition. In the past childbirth was a pretty dangerous occupation for both the woman and the child. The large number of deaths would have had an impact on the surviving females. Charles Darwin pointed out that evolution was based on the concept of natural selection.

So has society in the past had an impact on the human species? Have we effectively practiced selective breeding by caring more for boy children in the past so as to ensure that they survived through to maturity? Has the predilection of the paternalistic society put males at a disadvantage?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Darwin all about diversity