To think men take more risks than women do?

[pregahes]

Just that really. Having a debate and I think this is the case.

What are your thoughts and if you agree, why do you think this is? Nature or Nurture?

Bipolar disorder is diagnosed as frequently in men as it is in women.

Maybe as just existing involves more risk for women there is less attraction to add even more

I lived in a predominantly female household before I was married. I had boys so then lived in a predominately male household. I find males put themselves first and are generally selfish in the sense that if things don't affect them or benefit them then they don't care . So I guess that's why they take risks if it's to their advantage.

I don't think it's socialisation. I think they are wired that way . My sons and husband have always said I care too much about stuff . Men will put themselves first far more and care less .

Is pregnancy not among the most spectacular acts of risk-taking? Or is it the case that women didn't publicise how they had suffered as a result of pregnancy, birth, motherhood and being a wife, so women don't know they were taking risks when they get pregnant? Though I guess plummeting birth rates could go against this theory...

Re: going out after dark, there's a distinction to be made between women being pretty much powerless when confronted by a man much stronger than them (most anticipation of becoming flooded with adrenaline and becoming invincible in these situations is bollocks, unfortunately) and an attack by a man on another man of more or less equal strength.

Yes, you've got it re risk assessment and belief in their abilities.
I actually had an ex who used to say "I'd have made a great spy" over and again and wondered why I knew he was lying.

Earlier for men generally and is linked to high intelligence.

Testosterone must play a part too.

And also to add to this that attacking someone, an agreed male trait, is crazily risky behaviour

They value male life more than women's in many cases. See religious beliefs and how women are treated if men are left to their own devices.
Men simply have poor risk comprehension and a heightened belief in their own abilities. For example they may think "Oh I might break an arm but that's OK because I probably won't" they wouldn't think that arm might end up being their head or spine.

Maybe as just existing involves more risk for women there is less attraction to add even more

In what sense? Men die younger, are much more likely to be murdered. What element of existing as a woman is riskier and how does this risk crystallise?

That sounds like a Victorian story rather than a fact.

What evidence do we have that in prehistoric societies it was men who hunted not women?

This is why there are slightly more boys born than girls. Men and boys take more risks (testosterone I guess) and are more likely to die by misadventure before breeding.....

I think society enables men to take more risks as there is generally a woman behind them picking up the pieces if things go wrong.

I read something that said that men and women perceive distance differently. So when you're driving a man might pull out and do something "riskier" without feeling like it's risky because they perceive the distance between them and another car differently to a woman.

It's widely established that women (broadly speaking and with all other factors held equal) are more risk averse than men are.

Personal observation only but I think that as far as it can be generalised that men have better automatic spacial awareness than women and this is why women are better drivers, because instead of taking spatial awareness for granted, they think more about it

Women are more averse to risk than men due to heightened sensitivity to potential losses. Conversely, men, exhibiting greater optimism and over confidence in their abilities are more willing to engage in risk-taking. Men massively value the rewards, be it financial, improved social standing, bragging rights and kudos and I imagine a sense of increased attractiveness to women.

It's spacial awareness - but driving you can see men's poor risk judgements clearly when they refuse to understand basic physics; i.e leaving a certain amount of space dependant on speed between you and the car in front. They have little comprehension the person they are tailgating might break suddenly.

Is that scenario a spatial awareness thing or just arrogance in their own reaction speed and driving abilities? I can't believe that someone sitting 2 inches off your rear bumper on the motorway does not think it is a bit risky they just also think that 200 hours playing Grand Theft Auto has someone imbued them with Lewis Hamiton-esque driving skills.

This leads to the current issue with incels/gender divisions at this moment because women value these things less as they are able to earn for themselves and rely on men less. So having the wild belief you can fight of a lion becomes more risky for a female who doesn't need you to do that any more and would rather have stability to protect offspring and ensure the two of you can afford a big mortgage/holidays/happy retirement.

I think its a personality thing more. I know very weedy and risk averse men and very brave women. Cant really generalise IMO.

In evolutionary terms, the potential rewards for risk taking are higher for men than for women.

Women avoid risks and confrontation because they're not in a position to defend themselves and their children. Men are more comfortable with confrontation, because it can enhance their status within a group. Confrontation is a risk but there's a greater potential payoff for men than for women. The argument also translates to situational risks in activities such as hunting where men can enhance their status by being the alpha hunter.

You see it in modes of communication. Men are more likely to disagree, make a joke at someone's expense or challenge someone's behaviour, all of which could lead to confrontation, but for which there's a potential payoff in terms of group status. Women have less to gain (and more to lose - putting their children in danger) so they prefer to seek opportunities to co-operate rather than confront, and they avoid environmental risks in order to protect their children.

Men get to have more offspring if they're a high status male. Women get to have more (surviving) offspring if they're good at nurturing and not putting themselves and their children in danger.

There are numerous news stories about risk taking males killing themselves and others in car crashes, base jumping incidents and work related 'fails'

There's even Facebook, Ladbible and Bored Panda pages showing humorous examples

https://www.boredpanda.com/workplace-safety-fails-men-accident-waiting-to-happen/

I've often wondered how these stats would be if you controlled for the fact women go out at night alone at a significantly lower rate than men.

Still higher as a lot of these murders are gang related or related to other organised crime, but still.

It’s basic evolutionary biology. In all human societies until very recently, and many even today, the man’s role was to go out & do what had to be done to secure resources for his family or tribe. The woman’s role was to do what had to be done to maintain the family home, and to nurture & raise their children.

We are not so different from our ancestors, or from our cousins in less developed parts of the world. Even in modern societies men take more risks and worry less about the consequences of those risks. Testosterone is a very powerful hormone. Women are more risk-averse and more anxious about the potential consequences of risk. Oestrogen is also a very powerful hormone.