[HN Gopher] Medieval Cambridge skeletons reveal injuries to manu...
___________________________________________________________________
Medieval Cambridge skeletons reveal injuries to manual labourers
Author : pepys
Score : 68 points
Date : 2021-01-31 07:08 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Took me a while to find the referenced paper [0]. Way more detail
| (of course) but also accessible.
|
| 0 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24225
| tkahnoski wrote:
| In reading about this, my first thought was... in 300 years will
| they be digging up our current cemeteries?
|
| The answer is a resounding 'very possible'. Although there are
| federal laws on the books
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_ethics#Preserva...
|
| There was a modern attempt at relocating a cemetery in 1988 that
| ultimately failed for political reasons:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloise_Cemetery#Present_situat...
|
| And there are things like this in the Texas State Code that give
| clearance for eminent domain actions:
| https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/water-code/title-4-...
|
| So don't buy a plot in a prospective dam/reservoir area in Texas
| if you want to be undisturbed for centuries.
| laurent92 wrote:
| In France, burial << concessions >> are 10 years renewable to
| 30 years. I'm not sure what options are in case your family
| wants to keep your grave longer.
|
| Is it indefinite duration in USA?
| retrac wrote:
| At least here in Ontario, Canada, cemetery plots are infinite
| duration, and the land is classified for that purpose
| forever. There are plenty of little cemetery plots attached
| to old 19th century churches in downtown Toronto, now
| surrounded by skyscrapers.
|
| I think it's the same in the USA.
| tkahnoski wrote:
| I personally have no idea. US culture is rather averse to
| discussing matters of death so this is all new. My brief
| searching around looks like this is tied to however you
| purchase the plot and the terms set with the cemetery itself
| and if they expire, they just bury someone a foot or two
| above the previous plot owner after removing the
| headstone....
| polycaster wrote:
| The article boils down to: "We can see that ordinary working folk
| had a higher risk of injury compared to the friars and their
| benefactors or the more sheltered hospital inmates" (ie. 44%
| compared to 32%/27% having bone fractures).
|
| Somehow I fail to see how this is surprising.
| Vervious wrote:
| I guess most research shouldn't be surprising, otherwise
| there'd be an eureka every day
| polycaster wrote:
| There's certainly value in their finding. My comment was more
| targeted at the usual HN audience perhaps expecting an
| intellectually stimulating story.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > Somehow I fail to see how this is surprising.
|
| Yes! who cares about the lives of such lowly peasants.
|
| /s
| dang wrote:
| " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation
| of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to
| criticize. Assume good faith._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ejolto wrote:
| It's important to have data to back our unsurprising
| assumptions. Lots of unsurprising assumptions have turned out
| to be false.
| kibwen wrote:
| Indeed. Relatedly, here's Popular Science's list of articles
| in the category "Science Confirms The Obvious":
| https://www.popsci.com/tags/science-confirms-obvious/
| Cederfjard wrote:
| I'd be more interested in a list called "Science Disproves
| the Obvious". Anyone got one laying around?
| taeric wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconcept
| ion... is about the best I know of.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| This some fantastic reading. Some insightful, some
| hilarious: "Steak tartare was not invented by Mongol
| warriors who tenderized meat under their saddles."
| bb123 wrote:
| Just because it isn't surprising doesn't mean it isn't
| interesting.
| polycaster wrote:
| No, it doesn't. But it is very likely that one thing comes
| from the other.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_(emotion)
| datameta wrote:
| Perhaps for some here (including myself) this data helps
| imagine a more detailed approximation of what life was like
| there in that time period.
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| shadowprofile77 wrote:
| Can't say much for hospital inmates but, bear in mind that
| friars in medieval Europe often had their days filled with
| plenty of hard physical labour as well, and often tended to
| farm plots for the benefit of their monasteries and church
| lands with lots of their own sweaty work. It was not what we
| would today consider a sedentary job at all. Though yes, a
| labourer would have been much more likely to suffer injuries
| regardless... One good fictional account of medieval life among
| all classes: Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follet. Wonderful
| reading and realistically depicted in most ways.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Somehow I fail to see how this is surprising.
|
| Validating assumptions is useful science.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| yeah, but it's also been published on the bbc and posted
| here.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I don't think that this quote is what the article boils down
| to. IMHO the key information is rather: " _" However, severe
| trauma was prevalent across the social spectrum._"
|
| At all levels they found a significant number of skeletons with
| bone fractures.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Yes, the injury rate may be similar, but the sources of these
| injuries are likely not. Amongst the ruling classes, horses
| were the danger. Ride a horse and you will break more bones
| than the guy who walks to work. Be a friar working in a
| hospital, not toiling in the fields nor riding horses, and
| your fracture rate would be much lower.
| wpasc wrote:
| But your risk of bacterial infection probably skyrockets
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Also violence, but in different forms.
|
| For lower classes, regular street brawls will produce a lot
| of injuries. Upper class people will get into some street
| violence, but the presence of retinues will drastically
| reduce their incidence. On the other hand, for upper
| classes (but not monks) war and training for war will
| produce a ton of injuries, many fatal. Learning to fence
| and joust are very dangerous activities even in modern
| times.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> Learning to fence and joust are very dangerous
| activities even in modern times.
|
| Horses. Even today, horses are profoundly dangerous. Go
| to any hospital warn dealing with neck injuries. Young
| men fall off motorcycles, and so are generally a little
| older (16+). Young girls break their necks falling off
| horses. That particular fall (head first off a horse) is
| horrible. The neck takes all the load. Helmets protect
| the skull, not the neck. Obama once said that if he had
| sons there would be a conversation about them playing
| football. If I had daughters, they would not ride horses.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I'll also mention that fencing used to be wildly
| dangerous to train in. When I learned to fence (Italian
| school longsword) we practiced with plastic swords and
| lacrosse gloves. Compared to wood swords with leather
| gloves this is an incredible safety improvement, and
| still we broke fingers from time to time. Even modern
| longsword fencing helms[0] (sport fencing helms can't
| handle the abuse) are much tougher thanks to the presence
| of pre-drilled plate which provides better visibility
| without reduced protection[1].
|
| 0 - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4a/15/22/4a1522079ba29
| 51466fb... This type is necessary if you wish to practice
| with steel swords, among other protective equipment.
| Steel can cave in regular fencing masks.
|
| 1 - Against cutting blows, which is the main issue in
| practice. Such a plate would be disastrous in actual war,
| since it would guarantee that any arrow making contact
| would "bite" rather than deflecting.
| TRcontrarian wrote:
| Interesting. When I took modern foil fencing classes, it
| wasn't dangerous in the slightest. The training foils
| (the long thin bendy swords that people usually think of
| when they think of fencing) are extremely flexible and
| have a button on the tip. You score a point by pushing
| that button against your opponent in a score zone of
| their body. You wear an electrified vest over your torso
| with a long wire leading back to the score machine, and
| when the opponent's sword tip touches your vest it
| completes an electric circuit. If that circuit is
| completed at the same time the opponent's foil tip button
| is depressed, they score a point. Both people have full
| cage facemasks, and there's almost zero chance of injury
| short of tripping.
|
| Epee fencing, on the other hand, uses a heavier, stiffer
| sword, so when you poke somebody it can bruise.
|
| Sabre fencing is the third modern fencing style, and
| allows you to score points with the blade (slashing)
| instead of just the point as with foil and epee. I've
| never done it but have heard it is the most physical
| style of the three.
|
| This photo is of an epee match, but displays the still
| considerable flexibility of the weapon and the
| electrification wires that trail behind each combatant. h
| ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89p%C3%A9e#/media/File:F
| in...
| ashtonkem wrote:
| It's worth mentioning how much heavier and more energetic
| a longsword is compared to modern sport fencing weapons.
| A fencing saber weighs 500g (~1.1lbs) by regulation.
| Longswords on the other hand tend to weigh in the 3-4lb
| range based on the size of the fencer. Longswords are
| also relatively inflexible in the cutting direction to
| avoid a "whipping" effect, although they'll flex on the
| thrust for safety.
|
| For comparison's sake here[0] is a very high quality
| practice fencing blade in a historically correct style.
| The weird shape is to help maintain the correct balance
| after the edge and point have been thickened to avoid
| injury.
|
| We didn't really go for point based scoring, since we
| were attempting to replicate a historical fencing school.
| In actual fights it is incredibly common for both
| combatants to fatally injure each other in an exchange,
| so we recognized the idea of dual hits where both
| combatants were struck. With both steel and plastic
| weapons the impacts are loud enough to not require any
| special detection equipment.
|
| [0] - http://www.albion-
| swords.com/swords/albion/maestro/sword-pra...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Every time I see an evil comic book-style villain with a
| scared face I am reminded that that look is based in
| realty. Pre-war, many well-to-do Germans took part in a
| style of fencing that resulted in regular injuries to the
| face. A scared face was a badge of status. There were
| several prominent WWII leaders with facial scars not from
| battle but from fraternal fencing organizations. A few
| years later and the comic book supervillains had scared
| faces too.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Melanie Reid [0] is a journalist and experienced horse
| rider who broke her neck and back in 2010 aged 53 [0].
| She now writes a weekly article ('Spinal Column') that
| describes her continuing experiences of being
| tetraplegic. Very insightful concerning the resultant
| life-shattering injuries.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Reid
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Interested in how common broken bones are today, I stumbled
| across this study:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12111017/
|
| > There were 6451 men and 6936 women followed for a median of 3.0
| years. During this time there were 140 incident limb fractures in
| men and 391 in women.
|
| Whereas OP's archaeological study had:
|
| > Fractures were more prevalent in males (40%, n = 57/143) than
| females (26%, n = 25/95).
| radu_floricica wrote:
| Age, maybe? Primary cause for fractures nowadays is
| osteoporosis, which AFAIK is more serious to women after
| menopause. Primary cause historically was accidents, with the
| opposite distribution.
| greatpatton wrote:
| Sport? I mean almost all the people I know had a broken bone
| or joint issue because of sport and then you have domestic
| accident.
|
| For instance in Switzerland each year you have 550k non-
| professional accident (declared one to your employer) for
| 8.5M inhabitants. (Ref: SUVA annual report but only available
| in GE and FR)
| hammock wrote:
| Why is osteoporosis so prevalent in modern age? Diet?
| stan_rogers wrote:
| That, and like many cancers, just a larger number of people
| living long enough to fall victim to it. Women developing
| what are usually postmenopausal issues more or less
| requires living to and through menopause. (Yes, old people
| got to be nearly as old as they do now, but getting to be
| old was much less of a sure thing.)
| nickff wrote:
| Osteoporosis is (largely) an old person's disease, and
| people are now living long enough to get it.
| jandrese wrote:
| People just live longer.
| lazide wrote:
| Theory time - it could be due to reduced natural Vitamin D
| from lower sun exposure, a mostly sedentary life, combined
| with less life long physical labor (especially for women,
| who are severely under-represented in construction and
| heavy industry, which is about the only places you'd get
| that kind of exercise in modern society).
|
| Lifting weight helps bones get stronger, and Vitamin D is
| an essential nutrient in proper bone building.
|
| 100 years ago even, most people lived and worked on farms
| in the US (and many other places), now it's single digit
| percentages - and many of them spend it driving vehicles
| and similar less physical labor.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > especially for women, who are severely under-
| represented in construction and heavy industry
|
| Seems an odd thing to mention/focus on. Any specific
| reason for including this?
| lazide wrote:
| Because women have dramatically higher fracture rates due
| to osteoporosis (and lower bone mineral density in
| general) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11063899/], the
| only known way (outside of some, last I heard, unproven
| clinical vibration treatments) to get stronger bones is
| to lift heavy things while having proper nutrition, and
| about the only occupational exposure you're going to get
| to lifting heavy things on a regular basis is those
| industries?
|
| At least as of 2007 those industries (and related
| industries) were 78% male
| [https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/06/art2full.pdf]
|
| There is also a similar visible skew in the power
| lifting, olympic lifting, or weight lifting communities
| for those into it recreationally.
|
| It used to be we all spent more time lifting heavy
| things. However, post WW2 that has rapidly declined.
|
| So one way to reduce or reverse this is if we ALL lifted
| heavy things more often. From a risk reduction
| perspective, that seems to be especially valuable for
| women?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Key info missing from your comment:
|
| > _Men and women aged 50-79 years were recruited from
| population registers in 31 European centers._
|
| They followed _older_ people for 3 years. It is well-known that
| menopause causes osteoporosis, which makes women more at risk
| of bone fractures in older age. And in fact this is a study on
| osteoporosis...
| ndiscussion wrote:
| Men have had much more dangerous lives throughout history
| protecting women. I don't find this to surprising, although it
| is interesting to note.
| zeku wrote:
| While this is true, I think you're forgetting about all of
| the ways men could be injured that don't involve actively
| protecting women.
|
| Need to muscle some livestock? Probably mans job.
|
| Need to cut trees? Probably mans job.
|
| Need to stalk wild game through the forest? Probably mans
| job.
|
| Need to lift heavy things that could injure you? Probably
| mans job.
|
| A teenager being too aggressive and overdoing some activity?
| Probably a man.
|
| It's not hard to see all the ways men could be injured by
| being men, that doesn't involve protecting women from
| predators.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| I believe those are considered the man's job so the woman
| remains intact.
| zeku wrote:
| I'm going to be honest, your comments seem like they have
| an air of... condescension? Towards either other
| commenters and/or women.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| Not trying to be condescending to women, but we are a
| sexually dimorphic species due to the heavy costs that
| women bear in reproduction (ie they are unable to fight
| for 9 months, and they can only reproduce ~annually,
| whereas a man can reproduce ~daily)
| lostlogin wrote:
| I don't think it's to do with protecting women. Males die
| more and from all sorts of things, even before birth and as
| infants. In terms of violent death, there is plenty that is
| unrelated to protecting women.
|
| "Men's higher unintentional injury, suicide, and homicide
| mortality rates are observed in all age groups in low-,
| middle-, and high-income countries. The sole exception is for
| homicide of children under the age of 15 years in low- and
| high-income countries, where the rates for girls are similar
| to or higher than those for boys."
|
| I'm not sure how you would record whether a death was related
| to protecting a woman?
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222499/
| ndiscussion wrote:
| In my mind, things like fighting in war, working high-risk
| jobs, etc, all fall under protecting reproductive resources
| through history.
|
| Things like suffocation, drowning, and fire are a bit
| harder to understand... but I believe they are derived from
| a high-risk mentality that men have gained as a result of
| this protector status.
|
| Ignoring the radical changes that we've seen in the last 50
| years, if we sent women to war, we wouldn't have any
| children. Any nation that did that was wiped off the face
| of the earth rather quickly.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > if we sent women to war, we wouldn't have any children.
| Any nation that did that was wiped off the face of the
| earth rather quickly.
|
| If gender rolls were reversed wouldn't be many examples
| where the death toll was high enough for this to occur.
|
| In Britain in the 1921 census there were 1,209 single
| women aged 25 to 29 for every 1,000 men. In 1931 50% were
| still single, and 35% of them did not marry while still
| able to bear children.
|
| After the war there were about 40% fewer single French
| men for every unmarried woman, compared to before.
|
| Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten the
| existence of a country. Post WW2 Germany and Russia would
| also be grim examples. It is of note that the 20th
| century was the first time that deaths from actual enemy
| action exceeded deaths from disease during war.
|
| https://qz.com/389781/think-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-
| now-t...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_women
| ndiscussion wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem
|
| Perhaps we can increase my "50" years to "200" years. For
| the vast majority of history, having less men was
| considered eugenic and a good thing.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| In Islamic societies, men having multiple wives was quite
| rare, with the vast majority of marriages being
| monogamous.
|
| It wasn't driven by having less men. It was driven by the
| upper class wanting more sex.
|
| It also turned out to be disastrous for society, and most
| of the Islamic world has outlawed or severly restricted
| the practice as it leads to huge social problems.
|
| The fact is that war has never been a large driver of
| casualties in these societies, outside of WW1 and WW2
| which are the two exceptions and really don't prove your
| point. Wars were never fought to protect women, and most
| men died of disease and accidents, not war.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Devastating loses but nowhere near enough to threaten
| the existence of a country
|
| After WW1 the average height of a french soldier dropped
| by an inch or two (don't remember the exact value). This
| was attributed to the slaughter of the fit men. It also
| became fashionable to marry old men and foreigners.
|
| I know in Germany after both wars there was the same
| effect on marriages, but I don't know about the height.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| People do not fight for the protection of reproductive
| resources. The peaceful way birth rates fell around the
| world these days is proof of that.
|
| People fought protecting material resources. Reproductive
| resources were only useful insofar as they help you
| produce more subordinates to generate more material
| resources. In feudalism this meant that reproductive
| resources were very important, but in slavery and
| capitalism it isn't really the case.
|
| Given the realities of military engagements in Feudal
| Europe - and the rather small army sizes - its not true
| that sending women to war would cause a fatal decrease in
| the birth rate, at all.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| I'm speaking of evolutionary biases, not conscious
| motives... in all species, the men go to war. Female
| lions do hunt, but they don't fight.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| What you are saying is simply wrong. Females participate
| in war in many species, including humans and lions.
| Female lions will often defend their pride to prevent the
| attacking lions from killing their cubs, and similarly in
| humans women often fight in defensive wars.
|
| Evolutionary biases are also essentially irrelevant in
| how societies are structured. The structures of societies
| are very intentional and based on material reality, not
| mere biases.
|
| Generally, men have mostly done the fighting, especially
| in wars of aggression. The reasons for these are
| material, as men are often better at fighting. It's not
| to protect women. When it's useful and makes sense for
| women to fight, then women fight.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The miniseries Spartacus (recommended!) decided to pit
| women gladiators against male ones. Both the men and
| women were obviously highly fit and ripped. Try as they
| might, the filmmakers simply couldn't make it look like a
| fair fight.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| This is indeed true. That's why women in combat roles
| historically did not engage in such roles. Instead, women
| often manned defences, were light archers, and so on.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| Interesting, do you have any examples of female warrior
| societies? The wikipedia article seems to start with WW1:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
|
| And even then, they were support, not infantry.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Women have been in support and combat positions in war
| since antiquity. Women buried with weapons were found in
| Kazakhstan in antiquity, otherwise quite a few Chinese
| armies had women in infantry positions (most often
| manning defences). See :
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare
|
| This generally doesn't happen unless either the society
| is quite rich but lacks strong men, or cases of
| emergency, or if there is surplus of land and food,
| because raising armies is very costly, and as a result it
| doesn't make sense not to send the strongest fighters
| possible as it is expensive to outfit them and to
| maintain production at home.
|
| Nowadays, women are proving extremely competent as
| fighter pilots as their bodies are better at withstanding
| G-Forces, but in classical infantry where there is a
| large strength requirement again it doesn't make much
| sense.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > as their bodies are better at withstanding G-Forces
|
| Likely coming from being shorter. The heart doesn't have
| to push the blood as far uphill.
|
| Women do indeed fight, but not until it gets desperate.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| That is indeed part of why women are better at
| withstanding g-forces. The other is lower bodymass.
|
| It's true that women generally don't fight until it's
| desperate historically. I explained why in the comment
| you replied to.
| skyfaller wrote:
| What about the men who were living dangerously by assaulting
| women? What do you think men were protecting women from? If
| you're going to talk about war, you have to talk about
| offense as well as defense, and some significant percentage
| of warriors were injured/killed while attacking, not
| defending, and then the survivors went on to rape and
| pillage. Some of these men were taking resources, not
| protecting them. For some men to be "protectors" means others
| are aggressors. If men lead more dangerous lives due to war
| and violence, you've got to consider how much of that danger
| they created themselves.
|
| "Protection" that involves attacking others first is pretty
| questionable from a moral and practical standpoint. "No first
| strike" policies for nuclear weapons, for instance, would go
| a long way to making the world safer.
| ndiscussion wrote:
| You can pick and choose words, but ultimately I'm talking
| about genetic expansion. This has nothing to do with
| morals, it's the will to power.
| bt1a wrote:
| I find it difficult to compare these two sets of figures
| considering you're looking for fractures at any point in life
| on the skeletons, and for the study, the people were only
| followed for a median of 3 years (no need to say 3.0 for
| median).
| ghaff wrote:
| And while they were apparently counting fractures that had
| healed, I assume that's an imperfect exercise for relatively
| minor, clean fractures from many years prior.
|
| I assume a pretty good portion of today's population gets a
| fracture on a limb at some point in their lives.
| awhitby wrote:
| It's off topic but there may indeed be a need to say 3.0
| rather than 3 for median - the use of a median is orthogonal
| to the choice of precision.
|
| Consider the median of: 2.9, 3.0, 3.1 years.
| ummonk wrote:
| Seems like a similar ballpark given historical life expectancy
| bb123 wrote:
| I for found the gender difference quite surprising. I would not
| have imagined at the bottom levels of an agrarian society that
| there was much difference in the risks men and women faced.
| detritus wrote:
| But why? I'd expect across most societies historically for
| males to engage in more physically stressful work.
|
| Not to undermine the value of women's work across that span, of
| course - but I'm genuinely surprised at your surprise.
| laurent92 wrote:
| A fun part about this is, forced labour for men remained
| legal until 1957's UN treaty. Forced labour was abolished by
| the ILO treaty of 1930 but had a specific exclusion at
| Article 11, to exclude men 17-to-49 who didn't have official
| or familial responsibilities.
|
| ILO 1930 PDF:
| https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-
| bangk...
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| > I for found the gender difference quite surprising.
|
| I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you provide the
| relevant quote?
| rtkwe wrote:
| ^F "male"
|
| > Across all sites the team found fractures were more common
| in male remains (40%) than female (26%)
| InitialLastName wrote:
| I wonder how that ratio compares to now. I would assume
| that men (especially teenage/young adult men) are still
| more likely to suffer injuries (due to higher risk
| tolerance/attraction, in addition to continued workplace
| differences).
| [deleted]
| laurent92 wrote:
| Men are ~93% of workplace fatality in XXIst century, both
| in USA and France for which I've seen the figures,
| although it's only 450 deaths in France. It is on upwards
| trend for women (very recent trend, probably equalization
| of work) and downwards trend for men (has been on the
| decrease since WWII).
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Specifically, I'm interested in what proportion of people
| have (at the point of death) had a bone fracture at some
| point.
|
| I would assume that workplace fatality has been dropping
| (in line with ~all other forms of non-age-related
| fatality), but a look back through my mind-palace of
| anecdotal evidence suggests that a) more of the young men
| I knew than young women have broken bones and b) not far
| off 30% of the people I know, in (roughly speaking) the
| most economically privileged class in world history have
| broken bones at some point. What I'm curious about is the
| data to back up the anecdote.
| [deleted]
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This is not really surprising. Daily tasks were usually quite
| distinct between men and women.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| And this is still the case to this day. The 10 most dangerous
| jobs in the US are male dominated.
| beckman466 wrote:
| You hear that Uber eats riders? you peasants, you! You too can
| make the news in just under 1,000 years, _after_ you 've fallen
| into a swamp (with your body staying preserved), _after_
| splitting your head on a rock, _after_ going 30mph around a
| corner with an about-to-blow tire and a huge 8-person 'late'
| order in your painfully overburdened backpack, and lastly,
| _after_ having been exhausted and worn out from the consecutive
| 60-hour weeks you 've been making as a 'freelancer'...
|
| /s
| libraryatnight wrote:
| Or just disappear while trying to find a place to pee _.
|
| _https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25983785
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-01 23:01 UTC)