His stats are clearly wrong, but he's on the right track -- all he's talking about is occupational fatality, which was mentioned in another comment and does account for some of the difference in life expectancy.
Its more like 75%. So? Still high enough to sway the data in favour of females.
In colloquial English, a claim for "99% of <x>" is almost never intended to be read literally. Usage of this construction is widespread and well understood by 99% of the people reading this.
the numbers are obviously hyperbole but the distribution is certainly skewed towards men having the share of "dangerous" jobs.. whether or not there are enough dangerous jobs to effect species-wide life expectancy questions is a different question
I'm not sure why this was flagged -- your statistics may be completely wrong, indicating you did no research, but your point remains true[0]. I don't think politics belongs on HN, but that's clearly why you are being downvoted.
It was flagged likely because it came off as rancorous and provided incorrect statistics. It would have been better if he supported his claims with stronger arguments. Hopefully someone else can write a post which investigates this trend without the hyperbole.
Thany you for the link.
The stats I provided were just an estimate. Apparently the real numbers are 93% of men in occupational deaths.
I wasnt far off.
I imagine Im not too far off with the homelessness stat either.