logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

USA Population Figures for the Years 1980 to 1996


US Population Figures – by age and sex over time

US Population Distribution – by age and sex (1996)

Leading Causes of Deaths

Life Expectancies

World Population

World Population Control — U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program
An overview compiled from various sources, based on various opinions relating to the consequences of the U.S.-promoted culture of death resulting from National Security Study Memorandum 200, by Henry A. Kissinger, National Security Council, Washington, D.C. 20506, April 24, 1974.

Demographics for the World and for selected countries and regions

Life Expectancies in: Various countries in the world

This web page contains data (mostly graphs) depicting the population distribution of the USA by sex and age from 1980 to 1996.  The graphs were constructed from USA Census data published by the US Bureau of the Census, and, for information pertaining to causes of deaths, from data available at the web site of the US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Notes are shown after some of the graphs to put a few of the changes in the size of age groups in subsequent years within the context of population control policies and processes in effect during their birth years.  It is not possible to pin down accurate causes of the changes, as the groups span a period of birth years that stretches in each case from the beginning of the sequence of census years minus the maximum age of the group to the end of the census years minus the minimum age of the group.
    More accurate estimates of the causes can be determined only if the speculations take into account the history of a population group whose time frame of origin doesn't extend over more than one birth year.
    At least four common factors affect all male age-cohorts to a far greater extent than they affect females in corresponding age groups:

  • Suicide (to a larger extent than murder)
  • Job accidents (they cost almost entirely the lives of men only)
  • Poor health care and health research (the health research devoted to men's health issues – where it is required the most – is only about one third of that devoted to women – where, based on life expectancies achieved, it is required the least.)
  • Murder (far more men than women become victims of murder.  Men comprise 77% of murder victims 18 years and older.  See also Leading Causes of Death, age group 15 - 24 (USA))

If any of these factors were to affect women to the same extent as they affect men, an uproar would ensue.  How come it doesn't when it is primarily men who are affected?  A Scientific American article on social issues provides a clue of what it at the bottom of it: extensive and all-pervasive discrimination against men, although the article alleges that the differences in the life expectancies are due to the biological inferiority of men, thereby repeating age-worn feminist propagandistic hype. (There is a great need  to promote IMD (International Men's Day) to raise awareness, largely even amongst men, about systemic discrimination against men: A YouTube video about discrimination against men (off-site))

The web site of the Scientific American contains a section on WOMEN'S HEALTH.  The table of contents of that section will lead you to an article Why Women Live Longer than Men which contains the following two graphs.  It would be difficult to find better illustrations of the extent to which anti-male discrimination has affected men and women, at least with respect to their life expectancies.

The following two graphs illustrate a social calamity of major proportion that flies in the face of women as victims of society's oppression and discrimination.  In spite of that the Scientific American scoffs off this incontrovertible evidence of the cumulative effects of anti-male discrimination by attributing it to various other factors, anything other than that women's gains were at the expense of men's well-being.

U.S. mortality rate ratios. 1900 - 1990 Percent of U.S. population that is female, age groups 15 - 110, 1990 data
Image: The original image is no longer available on the Net. 
The image shown above was constructed by Fathers for Life and is a reasonable substitute.

Differences in the death rates of U.S. men and women have changed over the past century. Mortality has been consistently higher for men than for women at all ages (the male-to-female mortality ratio is more than one). In recent decades, however, this discrepancy has become even more pronounced at certain stages of life.
Image: Laurie Grace; Source: Social Security Administration (1990 data)

Women outnumber men by age 25, when they make up 50.3 percent of the U.S. population; by age 100, women comprise 81.7 percent.

Instead of taking the opportunity to point out the extent to which men have increasingly fallen behind women's advances in health care, medical research, job safety, men's occupational diseases and other reasons for men's shorter life expectancies, the article in the Scientific American scoffs off any such concerns by attributing the enormous disparity to factors such as,

"…behavioral as well as biological differences between the sexes, …" (without explaining that these differences are not men's choosing but are imposed on them by society),

"…differences in the effects of medical technology, …" (without explaining that if it weren't for vastly lower funding for medical research affecting men, that there would be little difference in the medical technology available to men and women),

"…social and psychological factors," (without explaining that in a society that worked for decades to eradicate gender differences in these factors, the cure appears to have the opposite from the desired effect, that it in fact appears to have made the problem worse),

Toxic Testosterone,

"…Between 15 and 24 years, for example, the male-to-female mortality ratio peaks because of a sudden surge in male deaths with the onset of puberty. During this period, men are three times more likely to die than women, and most of the male fatalities are caused by reckless behavior or violence," (thus recklessly insinuating that it is males' fault that they meet their maker at such an early age.  This one statement in particular is an insult to the male sector of the population, but, nevertheless, true to form for anyone who scoffs at the higher mortality of males and, pre-occupied with the plight of women, gives it not much further thoughtFor more on the real causes of men's shorter life expectancies, see The 1989 Montreal Massacre in the context of men's sacrifices, 2008 12 07, by Professor Jeffrey Asher.)

If it were teenage girls and young women aged 15 - 24 who were to experience a "sudden surge of deaths due to the onset of puberty," would that be written off as unimportant because females at that age engage in reckless behaviour?  Is the fact that boys are being sent off to the salt mines when they become men not a more important fundamental cause of their fatalities.  Almost all work-related fatal accidents happen to men.  More than three quarters of all murder victims are men.  Can anyone who insists that these facts are the result of reckless behaviour by post-pubertal adults who are hormonally challenged expect that we respect any of his opinions?

Still, the article contains a collection of other reasons for the disparity in the life expectancies of men and women, such as the beneficial effects of estrogen, but the article bewails at the same time that the difference in the life spans is narrowing due to the contributing factor of women living more like men do.

However, the obvious bias in the article doesn't stop there.  Women's advantages are said to be due to them being more fit than men and that women are meant to live longer, with the evidence for that demonstrated in many animal species, for instance as in the greater life expectancy in female sperm whales, who live on average 30 years longer than male sperm whales.  But that isn't all.  Real differences in the frequency of the numbers of deaths by the sexes are obscured and obfuscated, such as in the following:

"Whereas accidents claim the lives of 45 of every 100,000 young adult males annually, heart disease -- the leading cause of death in men and women alike -- kills 500 of every 100,000 men between the ages of 55 and 64 every year." (without identifying that the high accident rate for males is to a large extent caused by the fact that it is almost exclusively men who are being given the dangerous work in which they have the accidents that maim and kill them, and without explaining that about twice as many men than women die of heart disease in the age group 55 – 64)

The article in the Scientific American states that "[b]ecause human children are dependent for such a long time, continued health and longevity may enhance older women's contribution to the gene pool even when they can no longer reproduce," but fails to explain why that should be so and why the same benefit shouldn't be sought with respect to increased longevity for men.  Besides, it stretches the imagination a bit to attribute much importance to the contribution of longevity to the gene pool when it appears that the contribution of wives in marriages in that respect is an established and proven fact.  It would appear that the largest contributions to the gene pool are still being made by married women, although unmarried women are constantly gaining with their "fatherless" contributions.
    Nevertheless, apparently on account of this, although no proof of any kind is offered, it is also said that the authors are led to "posit an evolutionary explanation, one that suggests that female longevity is more essential, from a Darwinian perspective, than the prolonged survival of males."
    The conclusion of the article contains the following:

 …Some researchers feel that women in developed countries are close to reaching the natural limits of human life span, and so their gains in life expectancy must inevitably diminish.

But some sociologists have discounted this reasoning, pointing instead to women's changing roles in society.  As more women have taken on behaviors and stresses that were formerly confined to men—smoking, drinking and working outside the home—they have become more likely to suffer from diseases that were traditionally considered "masculine."

In part because of these factors, men's and women's death rates in the U.S. have begun to converge in the past 20 years. But it is primarily the reduction in male mortality, as opposed to the increase in female mortality, that is narrowing this gender gap. In general, the higher a nation's level of social and economic development, the greater the life expectancy for both men and women and the greater the convergence in the two figures.

That doesn't match up with the population distributions in many countries, such as India and China for example.  There it is difficult to see an "evolutionary explanation" for women that would make them longer-living than men.  The absence of the "evolutionary explanation" in countries in which one would expect natural selection to play a greater role than it does in the developed nations would seem to indicate that the Scientific American went out on a limb in making its claim.
    See the Demographics for the World, for China, India and other countries.  The evidence appears to indicate that the "evolutionary explanation" is nothing other than man (or, rather, woman) -made and reflects nothing other than rampant discriminatory policies that work to the detriment of the male population.

It is unfortunate that the article didn't provide a graph or table illuminating the much-touted convergence of the life expectancies of the sexes.  Data that illustrate the convergence of the life expectancies of the sexes in the US population are reflected in the following chart.

Estimated average life expectancies, U.S., white vs. black, femal vs. male, 1929 - 1996
Source: Table 5. Estimated average length of life in years, by race and sex: Death-registration States, 1900-28, and United States, 1929-96, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 47, No. 13, December 24, 1998 17

The data shown in the preceding graph suggest that differences in life expectancies for specific sectors in the population are most likely caused by different life styles all right, but that the life styles are most likely controlled by factors that have far more likely a lot to do with discrimination than with biological advantages (or lack thereof) possessed by the sexes.
   Is it really that difficult to accept that just as the enormous differences in the life expectancies between Blacks and Whites are largely due to discrimination, that discrimination against men is the main reason why the life expectancies of the sexes differ that much?  However, from the trend exhibited by the Scientific American during the last two decades, it is hardly likely that we'll see an objective discussion of that likelihood in that publication at any time soon.
   Only someone thoroughly indoctrinated in victimhood would bewail the fact that a disadvantaged population group, men, is making gains on a much advantaged and privileged sector of the population, women, especially white women, the most privileged, advantaged and pampered group of all.  However, the authors of the Scientific American article appear to be quite well aware of the fact that if you live and work like a man you'll die like a man, that is, you'll die sooner, even if you are a woman.

_______________

Note: There is a great need  to promote IMD (International Men's Day) to raise awareness, largely even amongst men, about systemic discrimination against men: A YouTube video about discrimination against men (off-site)

Still, percentages and rates never really tell the whole story.  What does all of this mean in real numbers?  What if Death didn't discriminate between males and females?

The magnitude of the male deaths in excess of female deaths measures in the millions when looked at in terms of absolute numbers of the whole US population.
US population totals by sex, 1980 - 1996

Between seven and five-and-a-half million fewer males are alive in every year of the interval shown in the preceding graph, but that still doesn't tell the whole story.  The total number of male deaths in the age groups that were counted is actually considerably higher than the difference between the counts of surviving males and females.  That is because in every birth year of the various age groups that were counted by the US Bureau of the Census more boys than girls were born.  That means that the total number of deaths that reduced the male survivors shown in each year in excess of the female survivors must be increased by about another 1.5 million.

How did all of these male deaths come about?  More importantly, why doesn't anyone ever discuss them much, or, if they should happen to mention them in passing, why are they played down or obfuscated?  It would seem that the holocaust progressing right in our midst now should receive far more attention than the holocaust that happened so long ago in a far-away place half-way around the world.

The following graph shows a breakdown of the 10 leading causes of death for men and women in the age group 15 - 24, of which the authors of the article in the Scientific American say that the higher death rate for males is due to entering puberty and engaging in increased reckless behaviour.  It will be interesting to see whether, as they enter the work place in increasing numbers, more women will increasingly fall victim to the type of reckless behaviours that men are said to engage in, although it will very likely take many years before women look for dirty and dangerous work to the same extent that men are presently forced to do.

US -- Ten leading causes of death, by sex, age group 15 - 24, 1995

[From Data available at NCIPC:
Ten Leading Causes of Injury Death by Age Group - Males, 1995, U.S. and
Ten Leading Causes of Injury Death by Age Group - Females, 1995, U.S. ]

The following table shows more detailed information for age groups in the range from <1 to 9 years.

Table 1.

Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Sex and Age Group
(1995 US figures)
  Age <1 Age 1-4 Age 5-9 Totals
Cause Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Both
Unintentional  
   MV NonTraffic 0 0 71 51 37 16 108 67 175
   Drowning 24 35 347 190 168 54 539 279 818
   Fire/Burn 28 38 271 184 117 108 416 330 746
   Suffocation 218 158 95 67 50 24 363 249 612
   Other 32 24 54 52 41 23 127 99 226
   Falls 12 8 27 19 20 0 59 27 86
   External 28 29 0 0 0 0 28 29 57
   Struck By, Against 0 0 35 0 0 0 35 0 35
   Firearm 0 0 0 0 22 10 22 10 32
   Natural/Env 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 15
Homicide  
   Other 139 107 156 121 19 16 314 244 558
   Firearm 0 0 45 29 41 29 86 58 144
   Suffocation 20 11 0 0 0 0 20 11 31
   Fire/Burn 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 12
Tied 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 5
Totals 595 506 1,484 1,035 1,033 628 3,112 2,169 5,2

Original Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control


Considering that even boys in the age range from 0 to 9 years are more likely to be killed in traffic accidents or through murder than girls are, if we were to believe the reasoning by the article in the Scientific American, then it would only be proper to even blame it all in the 0 - 9 year age group on testosterone poisoning.  What other explanation could there possibly be?  It would most certainly not be on account of any other genetic disadvantage, such as that boys will be boys, would it?

The following table shows a summary of similarly detailed information for all leading causes of death for both sexes in the range from <1 to 24 years of age.

Table 2.

Leading Causes of Deaths by Sex and Age Group
(US 1995 figures)
Age Group: <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 All
Cause Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Both
Unintentional Injuries 422 365 1,345 926 1,012 600 1,276 656 10,313 3,529 14,377 6,076 20,453
Homicide 159 118 253 199 87 70 287 118 6,224 1,060 6,851 1,447 8,298
Congenital Anomalies 3,585 2,969 374 321 126 116 104 103 258 194 4,447 3,703 8,150
Suicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 77 4,132 652 4,385 729 5,114
Short Gestation 2,207 1,726 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,207 1,726 3,933
SIDS 1,99 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,997 1,400 3,397
Malignant Neoplasms 0 0 290 198 299 224 288 215 1,009 633 1,886 1,270 3,156
Heart Disease 0 0 136 115 75 55 88 76 659 380 958 626 1,584
Respiratory Distress Synd. 867 587 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867 587 1,454
Maternal Complications 696 613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 696 613 1,309
HIV 0 0 96 114 63 60 40 26 377 252 576 452 1,028
Placenta Cord Membranes 528 434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 528 434 962
Pneumonia & Influenza 280 212 69 87 34 39 0 31 119 88 502 457 959
Perinatal Infections 447 341 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 447 341 788
Intrauterine     Hypoxia 270 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 205 475
Bronchitis Emphysema Asthma 0 0 0 0 29 0 69 36 133 113 231 149 380
Cerebrovascular 0 0 36 0 0 12 26 0 97 75 159 87 246
Perinatal Period 0 0 45 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 42 87
Benign Neoplasms 0 0 0 0 21 29 31 0 0 0 52 29 81
Septicemia 0 0 38 42 19 0 0 0 0 0 57 42 99
Anemias 0 0 0 23 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 39 39
Tied 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 5
Totals: 11,302 8,852 2,691 2,067 1,765 1,221 2,462 1,340 23,321 6,976 41,541 20,456 61,997

Original Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Note:  The absence of a quantity in a given field doesn't mean that no instances of the particular cause of death occurred.  It means that the quantity was too small to rank in the ten leading causes of death for the given age group.  Of course, some causes of death that are typical for neonatal children are not applicable for older age groups and vice versa .

The data for the eleven causes that bring about the most deaths shown in the subsequent graph identify that there are two age groups that have the greatest losses, the less than 1-year-olds and the ones in the 15-24 years range.  Would that be due to testosterone poisoning?

Leading causes of deaths, by age group and sex; US data for 1995, age range <1 - 24 years

A number of things become apparent from the preceding graph and from the table on which it is based.

  • In every but the most insignificant causes of death and in every age group, males experience the most deaths.
  • In every instance where the cause of death is caused by purely biological factors, although males are at a slight disadvantage, the disparity in the numbers of deaths is relatively small.
  • There are very outstanding disparities in the numbers of deaths in only the 15-24 age group and in only tree categories: deaths due to unintentional injuries, due to homicide, and due to suicide.  These major causes of deaths for males, relatively insignificant for females, but having a large impact on the male population, are the focus of the first of the next two graphs.
  • Boys and girls aged 1 year or less are not being murdered, if we can believe the numbers shown above.  The reason why these murders don't show up prominently is two-fold.
  • Charges of murder or manslaughter of children younger than one year are covered under the category of crime called infanticide.  That is a category of crime of which only biological mothers can avail themselves.  If we are to believe the data shown by the NCIPC then all of infanticides in 1995 are covered under the category "Homicide," and no more than a total of 277 cases of infanticide took place in that year.   However, without any doubt, the death statistics for children aged less than one year should by rights amount to a considerable number.  Take alone the numbers of such deaths about which we read in the papers, which generally cover only those cases where someone found a newly-born discarded in a dumpster.  Where in the statistics are these deaths?  The source of the numbers, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, doesn't say.
  • Is it possible that many murders of newly-born children are perhaps hidden in the high numbers of SIDS and  in some of the other causes of death shown for the age group?  Unless the real number of children who die during their first year of life is reported falsely by the NCIPC, there is no possible explanation for the low number of homicides.  As reported in the Grand Jury Report for Humboldt County, California, 50% of SIDS cases occurred under suspicious circumstances and autopsies in cases of SIDS are rarely done.

Update 2003 05 23

Infanticide — "SIDS" in Australia; four children killed in one family

Proving that women who kill no more than one of their infants get away with murder, Kathleen Folbigg raised the suspicion of the authorities only after she had killed her fourth child of her four children she had killed, a 19-month-old baby girl.
   Mind, you, if her husband would not have found her diary, she would have gotten away with murdering that child, too. (Full Story)

_______________________
See also:

Covert Video Recordings of  Life-threatening Child Abuse: Lessons for Child Protection

Deaths due to unintentinal injuries, US data by NCIPC for 1995

Leading causes of death for age group <1, by sex; US data by NCIPC for 1995

Table 3

10 Leading Causes of Deaths in the U.S.A. for 1995,  Age Range 25 - 65+
Age Groups: 25-3435-4445-5455-6465+
CauseMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale
Malignancies2,3842,4917,6859,42521,81222,37448,26539,633199,536181,606
Heart Disease2,3211,1409,9473,65625,5968,90246,74121,499276,767338,670
HIV15,9962,27515,9962,8647,1161,0632,0032,003**
Unintentional Injuries10,3173,11810,7793,4466,8322,4294,597 2,14614,39914,700
Suicide5,2341,0585,0801,3873,4651,0672,214***
Cerebrovascular3423781,2871,4852,4703,0034,3735,36287,73251,030
Liver Disease414*2,7051,0003,8871,3603,6701,686**
Diabetes3452691,0767682,2921,7044,1704,01818,14426,308
Bronch., Emphys., Asth.****1,3611,3955,3124,67646,42542,053
Homicide4,8401,3223,0701,0481,458*****
Pneumonia & Influenza377245925555*7612,0821,37632,55741,740
Nephritis*******8039,421 10,761
Septicemia*******782 6,764 10,135
Congenital Anomalies*228********
Alzheimer's Disease********6,837 13,393
Totals: 42,60612,48858,74825,43676,82243,525124,41680,992661,869767,098

Original Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

* The absence of a quantity doesn't mean that no instances of the particular cause of death occurred.  It means that the quantity was too small to rank in the ten leading causes of death for the given age group.

Ten Leading causes of deaths by age group and sex, US data fro 1995, age range 25 - 64+

 

The following chart shows mortalities by age groups from heart diseases in the US.

Deaths from heart- and cardiovasucalar diseases, US dtata for 1997

Note: The figures shown in the graph reflect fatalities from heart and cardiovascular diseases.  They are derived from data shown for the groups: ICD 390 to 459.9 at the CDC website.
   The relatively small and declining numbers of deaths for men aged 75 and over reflect the fact that by that age relatively few men are left alive and still capable of dying.  That fact becomes a little clearer in a table showing the death rates from heart diseases for the sexes.

It may seem that it is primarily women who die of heart diseases.  However, consider that in the older age groups very few men are still alive to get a chance of dying of heart disease.  Consider also that in those age groups that are still approximately equal in size for men and women, men are far more likely to die of heart diseases.  At any rate, as the table shows, the death rates for males dying of heart diseases are higher than those for females in all age groups.
   Considering the false assertion by feminists that health research funding goes predominantly to men's health issues (in reality health research funding dedicated to women's health issues is roughly twice that allocated to men's health issues, even though men's health issues cause greater numbers of deaths in all pre-retirement age groups), it would seem that the problem of men dying so far more likely of heart diseases than women do is not one of the issues being addressed by research. That is true of all health issues affecting men and one of the major reasons for men's early demise as well as for the widened gap in the average life expectancies of the sexes.
   Of course, that aggravates issues for women.  They are more likely to become widows at an early age, having to raise children on their own and on meager incomes, in addition to being lonely and widowed in their old age, without a reasonable income derived from what their long-deceased husband could have earned for their retirement age.
   Is that what we want?  How come we let the feminists force it on all of us?

USA Population Figures by Age Groups Over Time

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 5 - 9
The drop in the size of the age groups 5 - 9 in 1981 and 1982 is most likely due to a combination of circumstances.  The age group is that which was born in the 1972 to 1977 time frame and most likely reflects changes in the divorce laws in the early seventies, combined with liberalized abortion policies and the spreading use of the birth control pill.  

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 10 - 14
The decreases that are shown for the 10 - 14 age groups in the years 1981 to 1986 reflect reduced birth rates in the period from 1965 to 1976, probably caused by the increased use of The Pill.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 15 - 19
The decreases that are shown for the 15 - 19 age groups in the years 1981 to 1992 reflect reduced birth rates in the period from 1960 to 1976.  The marketing of The Pill started in 1960.
 

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 20 - 24
The decreases that are shown for the 20 - 24 age groups in the years 1981 to 1989 reflect reduced birth rates in the period from 1955 to 1961.  Even prior to the introduction of The Pill, birth control methods became more widely promoted, available, used and legal to use.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 20 - 29
The increase in the population numbers that span the interval from 1980 to 1987 that are shown for the 25 - 29 age groups reflects the baby boom — that was well under way in 1950 and continued until the availability of the birth control pill and the increasing availability of other birth control methods that caused the beginning of a decline of the birth rates for the age group beginning in the 1960 to 1969 period.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 30 - 34
The age groups in the years 1980 to 1992 were born during the baby boom, of which the blip in 1981 most likely marks the beginning in about 1946.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 35 -39
The small peak in 1986 was most likely for the 35 - 39 age group too the result of the beginning of the baby boom.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 40 - 44
For this 40 - 44 age group too, 1991 marks the result of the beginning of the baby boom.  A lot of men returning after the war got married after a long absence.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 45 - 49
I have to go out on a limb here.  Is it possible that the stable population figures and even the prolonged period of population decreases in the following three graphs reflect the impact of the Great Depression?
    Many men were jobless and therefore not very good marriage prospects, aside from the fact that millions of able, potential fathers were traveling all over the country trying to find work. Jobless transients, busy trying to find something to eat, are very likely not interested in founding families, let alone getting opportunities to found them.  Not only that, but it is almost certain that the deprivations caused by the Great Depression also caused greater child mortality rates.

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 50 - 54

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 55 - 59

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 60 - 64

The difference in the size of the male and female populations in these age groups is widening.  The onset of the golden age is a killer for many men.  However, the golden age itself is even a greater killer  As the following two graphs show, the real numbers of men in these age groups drops off rapidly.  A life-time of injuries received in war and on the job, lack of health care and support networks that come even close to those available to women take their toll.  Consider that by the time men reach the age of retirement few are still married, a large number have been deserted by their wives, and many lost the means to secure their retirement age on account of the ongoing transfer of wealth to their former wives.
    At that stage, the average level of comfort available to women in these age groups far exceeds that of the average man in the same age group.  However, a strong social safety net is available to women, and that for men lacks many of the same aspects.  Old men are lonely and few people feel sorry for them.  The problems are compounded by the fact that there are so few old men and that they are therefore almost invisible.  Public sympathy focuses on the obvious: large numbers of women in need.  Should we be surprised that the suicide rates for these men are as much and more than eleven times higher than those of their female counterparts in these age groups?
 

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 65 - 74

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 75 - 84

USA population by sex, 1980 - 1996, age group 85 and over 

US Population Distribution by age and sex (1996)

US population distribution by age group and sex, 1996


See also:

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

_________________
Updates:
2000 01 06 (to change font sizes in Tables 2 & 3)
2000 04 24 (to add comment about the disparity in the total male and female population counts)
2000 04 30 (to add link to UN Population Politics
2000 05 01 (to add an additional comment about the "evolutionary explanation")
2000 06 12 (replaced the page header and made minor edits)
2000 11 22 (to show graph indicating deaths from heart diseases)
2001 02 11 (format changes)
2002 02 14 (added graph for US Population Distribution - 1996)
2002 07 11 (added link to article on U.S.-sponsored world population control)
2003 05 23 (added reference to "SIDS" murders in Australia)
2011 11 21 (added links to information on IMD)