[petercooper]

I listen to a BBC medical podcast (Medical Matters - it's really good) and recently they were at a critical injuries unit in London. The reporter asked the head of the unit why 90% of the patients there were men. The blunt answer given was that men take more extreme risks and are, therefore, more likely to need emergency medical attention. I could hear the PC brigade warming up their pens to correct that observation as sexist and not based in reality, though.

[rbanffy]

If the same number of women engaged in the same kind of risky activities as the men injured in this specific hospital, the lack of women could be explained by men being less competent in these risky activities. It would be as sexist as the above answer. Could also be that men are more fragile.

[petercooper]

I agree it could be any of those things. Observationally, though, I concur with the doctor based merely on the lack of women I see running across the road in front of my car, skateboarding, BMX biking, base jumping, or generally pratting about in public compared to men.

[rbanffy]

My point is that the statement of a fact cannot be considered sexist. My own observations confirm your observations. Among my friends who parachute there are about 20 men and 2 women. This ratio is much higher than the overall ratio of men to women among my friends.

More observation than ours should be made before we conclude men have a higher probability to engage in physically dangerous forms of entertainment, but I would say it's a good bet they do.

At least in our society.

How much of it is nature and how much is nurture is what seems controversial.