The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new report out, about accidental deaths among children age 0-19. The most likely time for a kid to die in an accident is when they’re aged 15-19; the second most likely time is in the first year of life. (See the chart on page 25).
One thing that sticks out, glancing through the report, is that in every age group boys are more likely to die from an accident than girls. But the magnitude of the difference varies, as you can see in this chart:
Under a year of age, the death rate for girls is 22 per 100,000, compared to 27 per 100 per boys, which is a fairly small difference (put another way, for every 10 girl infants who die accidently, 12 boy infants die accidentally). In contrast, for the 15-19 year olds, the rates are 20 and 45 per 100,000 — for every 10 girls who die, 23 boys die.
It’s also clear that the youngest and the oldest groups are the groups most at risk of dying by accident. In the youngest group, the most common cause of accidental death is suffocation; in all other age groups, the most common cause of death is a transportation-related accident (mostly accidents involving motor vehicles, although a few are accidents involving bikes). The slight uptick in the likelihood of 10-14 year olds dying — and then the enormous leap in deaths for 15-19 year olds — is entirely caused by the higher numbers of vehicle-related deaths in those age groups. ((See the graph on page 33 of the report.))
Most of the differences in accidental death rates, I suspect, come about because boys are encouraged by both grown-ups and peers to be physical risk-takers; part of being a boy’s boy, in our culture, is taking risks. I don’t say this to blame boys. Instead, I think this is one clear way society’s sexism, and in particular our conception of masculinity, is harming some boys.
Anti-feminist Robert Franklin doesn’t think risk-taking can explain why more boys age 10-14 die in vehicle accidents:
Given that children under the age of 14 generally don’t drive cars, what’s the explanation for that?
The explanation is, some 14 year olds do drive cars.
By far the highest death rates for kids age 10-14 are in Alaska and North Dakota ((See page 48 of the CDC report.)) — both states where 14 year olds can get learners permits. Meanwhile, the four states with the lowest death rates for 10-14 are states that won’t give learner’s permits until age 16.
Although there must be other factors involved, ((One state with learners permits for 14 year olds, Iowa, has only average death rates for 10-14 year olds.)) it’s clear that in areas where 14 year olds can legally drive, 14 year olds are more likely to die in car accidents. And probably 14 year old boys take more risks driving than 14 year old girls.
What really puzzles me is why boys under the age of 1 are about 50% more likely to die of suffocation than girls. Elkins suggested to me that boys may just be more fragile than girls at that age (which would also explain boys’ higher rates of SIDS). A couple of anti-feminists who have left comments to Robert’s post think it’s because evil male-hating women are selectively murdering infant boys and disguising the deaths as accidents. (Gee, there’s nothing insane-o about that movement.)
Another puzzling (to me) finding is that accidental deaths by poisoning are far more common among 15-19 year olds. One possibility is that “poisoning” includes alcohol poisoning and drug overdoses; another is that perhaps some suicide deaths are being counted as accidental deaths. (This is also a possibility for some of the vehicle-related deaths.)
Posted in Sexism hurts men
Most of the differences in accidental death rates, I suspect, come about because boys are encouraged by both grown-ups and peers to be physical risk-takers; part of being a boy’s boy, in our culture, is taking risks. I don’t say this to blame boys. Instead, I think this is one clear way society’s sexism, and in particular our conception of masculinity, is harming some boys.
Or, it might be that there is something innately different in the make-up of boys and girls such that boys are driven to take risks more than girls are, and our society is shaped to accomodate that (as opposed to creating the behavior in the first place) rather than fight the losing battle of trying to stop it.
Or, that boys’ activities are the default, but that girls are encouraged by both grown-ups and peers to NOT be physical risk-takers, part and parcel of the same set of sexist societial expectations and sanctions that encourage them to spend a lot of time worrying about their physical appearance and attractiveness to boys and to bypass learning math and science.
One state with learners permits for 14 year olds, Iowa, has only average death rates for 10-14 year olds.
Cars aren’t the only form of transportation. In Alaska, snowmobiling — sorry, snow “machining” — apparently is popular. I grew up in East Texas, where kids too young even for learner’s permits would drive ATVs. I bet there is significant correlation between kids’ access to various forms of transportation, not limited to cars, and to the rates of accidental deaths.
And if moronic physical risk-taking activities like getting into your dad’s liquor cabinet and then crashing mechanized carts in the Super WalMart parking lot is the societal “default” that girls are missing because we’re too busy with hair and makeup, then I’m grateful I’m not a boy.
14 year old boys don’t tend to drive cars (though they sometimes do.) That said, you can kill yourself quite nicely on a dirtbike or skateboard, if you choose to do so.
Outside the arena of play, boys also tend to do a variety of more dangerous things, including farm work, construction work, fisheries work, and other manual labor.
This is in large part because they get big faster. I was working when I was 14, and was doing jobs with materials and tools which were in retrospect quite dangerous. The fact that I was a large 14 year old boy meant that fewer people stopped to think “wait a second, should a kid be (on the roof)(under the boat)(using the tablesaw)(whatever)”
The fact that I was a large 14 year old boy meant that fewer people stopped to think “wait a second, should a kid be (on the roof)(under the boat)(using the tablesaw)(whatever)”
The BSA actually has a video called “Ages and Stages” which is meant to train volunteers to not make the assumption that “bigger” means “more mature”. You see a big kid and you tend to think that he’s going to act more adult-like than a kid the same age who’s smaller. Not true. And in fact his bigger size may end up getting him in more trouble than the smaller kid who’s more likely to know his limits.
And if moronic physical risk-taking activities like getting into your dad’s liquor cabinet and then crashing mechanized carts in the Super WalMart parking lot is the societal “default” that girls are missing because we’re too busy with hair and makeup, then I’m grateful I’m not a boy.
Hah! But then I doubt that crashing mechanized arts while drunk has killed very many 14-year olds. My point in my second paragraph is that sexism shapes the behavior of both boys and girls, and if you remove sexism from the equation the result may be not that boys’ fatalities go down but that girls’ go up.
My first paragraph is asking, “Do boys get involved in risky behavior because their actions are shaped by societial expecations, or are societial expectations shaped because boys are innately driven to get involved in risky behavior more than girls are?”
What really puzzles me is why boys under the age of 1 are about 50% more likely to die of suffocation than girls.
Another hypothesis: parents tend to think of female infants as more fragile, and are thus are more likely to be vigilant at the moment of a potential accident.
14 year old boy has 17-year-old male friend who drives in a manner typical of 17-year-old boys. 14 year old dies of vehicular accident when a collision causes him to be ejected from his seat and into a ravine.
Boys tend to have male friends. Girls tend to have female friends. Higher vehicular accident rate for non-driving boys explained, without even going into non-car vehicles (hell, I did some stupid shiat on my bike when I was 12, did they count bicycles?)
However, I tend to disagree with Amp’s belief on the results – as long as it doesn’t involve cars, I think girls should be encouraged to do more risk-taking stupid crazy shiat in their youths (as long as it doesn’t involve cars or unprotected sex). There are too damned many walking Barbie dolls out there as it is.
I’ve seen studies and anecdotes about how adults respond to infants they believe to be male or female. (It’s especially noticeable for strangers commenting on infants they don’t know, based on clothing or other secondary cues.) Boys are more likely to be regarded as “strong” or “brave” or “tough” or “big.” Girls are more likely to be regarded as “pretty” or “graceful” or delicate.” An aspect of the patriarchy that has nothing to do with murdering little boys expects even very little boys to take charge, to look after their sisters. I’ve heard a male *toddler* told his job is to take care of his twin sister, with a clear expectation that her job is to be taken care of, not to take care of her twin brother.
Given all that…I’m not a bit surprised that concerned parents with patriarchal values are fussier about the health of infant daughters than infant sons. They expect them to be more fragile. A slight cough sounds more worrisome. These same concerned parents with patriarchal values think their young sons can be allowed to play further from the house than their sisters at the same age, or be unsupervised for longer intervals. These are the conditions that make little boys more vulnerable to accidents, even when everybody has good intentions.
I think it’s quite arguable that (in general) boys are naturally driven to take more risks.
“RDS is the leading cause of death among very premature (GA less than or equal to 30 weeks) infants and the rate is higher among males. The higher incidence of RDS in males is generally ascribed to a slower rate of lung maturation among male infants.”
–Urmi Bhaumik, Iain Aitken, Ichiro Kawachi, Steve Ringer, John Orav, and Ellice Lieberman, “Narrowing of Sex Differences in Infant Mortality in Massachusetts,” Journal of Perinatology (2004) 24, 94–99.
RDS=Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Preemie boys and girls of the same gestational age don’t have the same lung maturity–male lungs apparently develop more slowly in utero. So I assume they’d be more vulnerable to death by suffocation than their female peers for the first year or so, until they catch up.
Also, on the teenaged side–I’d suspect that fatal hunting accidents also heavily skew to teenaged boys. States vary in their hunting laws, but teens can generally get a hunting license before they’re old enough for a driver’s license. For example, Maine offers a junior hunting license beginning at age 10; in Virginia, you can get a junior license if you’re 12-15.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/licensefees.asp
http://www.maine.gov/IFW/licenses_permits/hunting.htm
However, I tend to disagree with Amp’s belief on the results – as long as it doesn’t involve cars, I think girls should be encouraged to do more risk-taking stupid crazy shiat in their youths (as long as it doesn’t involve cars or unprotected sex). There are too damned many walking Barbie dolls out there as it is.
Once again, can I point out from personal experience that there are more options than “stupid crazy shiat” and “walking Barbie doll”?
Well, Penny, then that should even up as we get rid of that evil sexist idea that women shouldn’t go hunting.
How many kids do you think die of hunting accidents? Enough to be a significant part of the difference? I doubt it. Some organization called the “Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting” documented 29 fatalities for children under the age of 18 for the years 2004 and 2005. Nationwide.
Not enough to show up in the statistics in the CDC report.
Silenced as Foo, I tend to agree with your disagreement with me. As PG says, probably some sort of medium position is called for.
And I do find it plausible that parents are more protective of female children, which could lead to more suffocation among male children. I’d still like to see more detailed research on this question, however.
Regarding the idea that girls aren’t required to take care of their brothers in patriarchal society… I guess it depends on what you mean by “take care of.” It seems to me that caretaking tasks (feeding, clothing, cleaning, etc) — especially of younger siblings — tend to fall more on sisters than brothers.
One would think that the phrase “take care” was used here in the context of “protect” or “defend”, not “provide assistance”.
Ditto here, though even not having “typical girl concerns”, I wasn’t a risk taker. I didn’t fit well with my brother (the one near my age) who was one almost by definition. As much as I wasn’t afraid of death and even wanted my life to end – I was still wary of taking unnecessary risks, or of doing stupid things.
Amp:
Regarding the idea that girls aren’t required to take care of their brothers in patriarchal society… I guess it depends on what you mean by “take care of.” It seems to me that caretaking tasks (feeding, clothing, cleaning, etc) — especially of younger siblings — tend to fall more on sisters than brothers.
It would seem that the definition of “take care of” would come into play. While I have observed what you about some caretaking tasks (like feeding, clothing, cleaning, etc..) falling on girls moreso than boys it also seems to me that when it comes to keeping the younger siblings out of trouble, maintain discipline in the parents stead, and protect the younger sibling such tasks end up falling on boys more often
So perhaps one could say that by having such expectations of boys puts them in a position to take more risks and gives the parents a sense of security thinking that since “he’ll be alright” they let him engage in activities that they would never let a girl do.
Expecting boys to be stones and girls to be flowers…
You just reminded me of something:
“Fathers be good to your daughters
Daughters will love like you do
Girls become lovers who turn into mothers
So mothers be good to your daughters too
Boys, you can break
You’ll find out how much they can take
Boys will be strong
And boys soldier on
But boys would be gone without warmth from
A woman’s good, good heart.”
For the love of shit, I hate that song.
Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any solid evidence that there seems to be a Y-chromosome-linked genetic trait for getting involved in “risky behavior”, because the only evidence we have of “risky behavior” occurs long after societal expectations (a.k.a. Nurture in the Nature/Nurture argument) have helped shape the subject.
What we DO see evidence of, though, is the dual standard wherein the societal expectation is that “boys can take care of themselves” and that “girls cannot”. And that’s sexist, since there is no actual evidence that girls are less effective at “taking care of themselves” than boys.
So the real question is, even if it is some trait that boys are genetically predisposed towards, should society be enabling their self-destruction the same way that a co-dependent enables the liver-diseased or drunken-crash death of an alcoholic?