I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything.
But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable.
Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in front the sex THEY consider stronger.
See the White Feather movement in the UK during WW1.
To be fair I've seen quite a few women fight in Ukraine but they are outnumbered by men something like 1:100. Even in Israel where women are drafted and have compulsory service they still are shielded from the real meat grinder operations.
When an artificial womb is invented that can allow a baby to grow to term the dynamic will be forever changed.
Women can bear children: this is a valuable advantage on the homefront and a huge liability on the front lines. Women get raped in wars, there's no getting around it. Women can stay home to bear children and care for the small ones and foster hope for the future.
While it is plain that fathers are good for children and having them around is a benefit, if a man must go to war, then it is better than a woman going to war. A man can procreate a child with his wife before shipping out. A man is unlikely to be raped or bear children when captured on the front lines. A society that has lost a significant portion of its fighting-age men is more likely to recover than one which has lost many child-bearing women, or both.
Furthermore, if you want to build a cohesive fighting unit (or a department in business or education or industry or whatever), you build it entirely of one sex. It is more efficient that way (no expenses on women's bathrooms or other facilities) and there is less conflict and drama (troops gonna have sex and women gonna get pregnant, and then they're both sent home?)
These are inherent biological factors and they have nothing to do with human rules, they are God-given and unchanging. These factors have been true for millions of years, and they are the basis for human rules on why men fight and women stay home.
If you think men aren't, or even worse, you haven't been following what russians do a lot.
It's not feminists calling for powerful men to send disposable poor men into the grinder. It's not feminists calling for men to "man up" and pretend they don't have emotional needs or fears. That's all on traditionalist men. Sexist men don't get to both enforce such traditional roles while decrying them as unjust.
[0]https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression
It doesn't do that at all. The most obvious example of this is unemployment. When men lose jobs, they are at much higher risk to slide into social isolation, drug use and even suicide. Anti-social behavior among women in those situations is much less common.
Young men without perspective likewise are much more likely to turn towards extremism, violence and so on. Most 'incels' or shut-ins are men. Most violent criminals are men, most gang members are men.
Men, especially young men are much more vulnerable to exhibit maladjusted behaviors and that's both backed by common sense and data.
But that's exactly what I'm referring to. It cherry picks some examples to make men look "fragile", "sensitive", and "vulnerable".
But if you looked at these terms objectively, which sex is more so?
> Most violent criminals are men
You can't say that and still insist that men are weaker.
> Men, especially young men are much more vulnerable to exhibit maladjusted behaviors and that's both backed by common sense and data.
See how you're twisting the meaning of words to arrive at your conclusion?
Polar bears are more vulnerable to freezing to death than Arabian gazelles, therefore polar bears are "fragile", "sensitive", and "vulnerable" compared to gazelles.
Discussions are pointless when words have no meanings.
It also ignores that women, generally speaking, have greater support networks than men. Men in America have generally been expected to handle far more things on their own. Plenty of women I know in their 30s and beyond still ask things of their parents whilst I don't know of nearly as many guys in my cohort who rely on their parents in any way.
In a sense, this is all victim blaming. Majority of homeless people are men? I guess they should have been as strong as women! /s
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
There's nothing cherry picked about this, men do worse these days and are more vulnerable than women on a lot of very substantial metrics. It doesn't get more real and objective than looking at the rate of deaths of despair and the gender disparity there. I don't understand why you apparently perceive this as an attack om men.
This inability to acknowledge the vulnerability of men is, as the article points out as well, one of the reasons why there is comparatively little help for men.
Like, yeah, maybe you could, but the evidence is lacking.
The linked study, "The fragile male":
> The human male is, on most measures, more vulnerable than the female.
This sounds to me like the same studies which said that smoking leads to healthier pregnancies. It contradicts even the most basic of common sense and cherry picks what it needs to arrive at the conclusion rather than analyzing things objectively.
It reminds me of "Women considered better coders" articles of yesteryear.