Why is a mans life less valued than women and children?

Question

It always troubled me as a child when I was growing up that Id be safe in a war or incident until I was 18 and then no one would care as I would be a man. I could be forced to fight wars, expected to be the last off a burning wreckage etc. If a man is murdered it is less traumatic then for women or children? Can anyone explain why mens lives are less valued. Or is it that society deems that as the more dominent physically they can protect themselves better.

Answer 1

traditionally men were believed to be more able-bodied, thus more useful in fighting. also, women can have more children, and children have their whole lives ahead of them. it's all tradition.

Answer 2

Wow, I can't believe the answers you've gotten. They really stuck with the whole re-population theme. I wonder how many of them would agree that if there were only two men and 50 women that each of the men should be able to sleep with 25 women each - and the women shouldn't mind as part of their civic duty. I suspect that if you even suggested that women's primary purpose under any circumstance should be baby-making machines - they would try to make it so there was only one man left.

It is worse than you probably realize. Check out sentencing data at the United States Dept. of Justice website for fun some day. Vehicular manslaughter for instance... if the victim is a man the average sentence is 3.6 years. If the victim is a woman the average sentence is 7.3 years or just over twice as long.

Anyway, on to why... Emotionally we (as a society) still consider women to be the weaker sex. We have legislated equality - but that has basically been an exercise in affirmative action. What we feel and what we think are two different things.

One last example, it doesn't talk about the worth of a life - but it does talk about double standards and that is where the problem comes from - the difference in the worth of life is just the ultimate double standard. The civil rights act states that separate but equal is illegal for a number of reasons - including gender. We aren't real informed in this country - but most people know this - separate but equal is wrong. Enter Title XIIII. Title 9 says, at its core, that for every dollar a college spends on a mens sporting program, they must spend a dollar of a comparable womens program. What happened then is that colleges that had a mens basketball and hockey program often had to choose one because they couldn't afford to run a mens hockey program and a womens hockey program and a mens basketball program and a womens basketball program.

Why don't we have one team (separate but equal being illegal and all anyway) and if you are good enough to make it - you make it, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman? Well... you already know the reason now don't you?

Peace out :)

Answer 3

Children - this one is obvious. They have the great majority of their life to live. The whole thing about being 18, though, is just law. Older cultures than our own set the bar much lower (a Jewish child becomes an adult at 13).
Women - this one is harder to figure out. They are typically the primary caregivers for the children, so I suppose they need to stay with them. And it is generally agreed upon that the average women is less physically strong than the average man (though women are frequently seen as more resistant to pain). In addition, women of childbearing age have always been seen as having great value, as they represent the fruitfulness and well being of the society (see damsel in distress stories).
For instances where some emergency was taking place, a man would be more likely to be able to contribute physically to the cause.
In my opinion, it is not an issue of the value of life, but where that life could do the most good.

Answer 4

I've surprised at the amount of high quality answers here.
I hate to waste an answer (I'm not trying to give the best answer here), but I wanted to say how impressed I was that most everyone was on the same (and I think, correct) track.

Our systems and beliefs largely reflect biology, and men are truly more expendable than women. From a purely biological point of view, one man can do the work of 50 (though for purposes of adaptability, nature seems to prefer variation).

Why is it that men warred and women stayed at home? Because the best (in theory and on average) men returned to produce stronger specimens. The more women available, the more iterations that could take place.

Is this attitude a cultural (and biologically unnecessary today) atavism? Maybe, sure, but it has strong roots.

Answer 5

Yes, the main reason is that a man can impregnate a LOT of women in a given time (a man can theoretically have 9x30=270 kids in the time it takes a woman to have 1 ... )

Also there are social and cultural influences. And no it's not our life is worth less, is that we are more willing to sacrifice our life's for the protection of the innocent and those that we love.

So take it as a compliment, and think about those men as honorable, and heroes, instead of thinking about the cold, harsh truth, that for the human species, and from an evolutionary point of view more then 270 men = 1 woman.

Answer 6

A man alone cannot procreate. (Nor can a lone woman, but... let's say physically it's less dangerous for a young boy to have a child than a young woman). Also, a lot fewer men are sufficient to keep up the child count, than women.

I think about children, it's very clear - they have neither the strength, nor the knowledge, to protect themselves effectively.

About wars - well, if there were no wars, nobody would be forced to fight them. It is men's willingness to fight wars (and women's unwillingness) that makes men soldiers by default.

But I think it goes back to procreation. One man is able to impregnate many, many women just for the time one woman bears the child. So, to esure procreation, there ought to be plenty of women, but the number of men is not of so vital an importance, as long as there are any. I suppose that attitude may be genetically coded.

Answer 7

It is not that a mans life is less valued it is that his value is different then a woman's.

I have to preface this by saying that I do not believe this is correct thinking for a society of human beings of the 21st century!!

the role of a women is generally labeled as mothers, nurturers, homemakers, peace keepers, teacher and custodian of correct social behaviors.

the role of men is generally labeled as provider, protector, guardian, physically stronger, their role in creating life is the beginning of the journey.

using these labels, society dictates the roles and responsibilities each gender lives.

ANY life taken, harmed, dishonored is a travesty. Be it man,woman or child. Anyone of them missing in the circle of life is missed and the pain of all is felt and life's balance is broken.

Answer 8

I agree its unfair but I guess because women are needed to continue the human race - say if you had 50 women and 2 men - it would be better than 50men and 2 women....

And children is obvious..

Answer 9

Because you guys are strong, this is you guys' world. You guys are kings and warriors. We depend upon that manly strength, o don't we just love it. The strength of a man is beautiful. Something that cannot be described. You have the ability to hold society together, you're forced to fight because we know that you can do it, you are a MAN, you are STRONG, MIGHTY, HANDSOME, SEXY, YOU ARE EVERYTHING, YOU ARE A KING.

Answer 10

As men r physically strong they are expected to protect themselves as well as the world

Answer 11

Men are, biologically, more expendable.
Men are, in general, better able to defend themselves as well.
This brings about the thought that, if they could not save themselves, they couldnt be saved anyway.

Men are also, in general, more violent.
Its hard to have sympathy for a wolf that gets bitten.

But you're right.... and it speaks well of you.