Saw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged.
First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive.
And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation.
The whole thing is definitely framed for a certain world view, it’s definitely not the only interpretation.
It's worth noting though that the actions of the "stereotypical man" are strongly culturally informed, and not neccessarily indicative of whatever evolutionary pressures would've wired males brains whatever way they're wired for fatherhood. I don't think we have much direct evidence of ancient female and male parent roles (apart from being able to infer the obvious, like that females would've breastfed).
It’s probably unnatural for adult men to spend much time with tiny children in the first place. Here and there, sure, and boys close to adult age, definitely, but nothing like what happens today. This is why many men find it difficult, it is contrary to instinct.
Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but my default reaction to people who say things like this is that they probably don't have kids, and if they do, I wonder about the well-being of their family life. I don't mean that to be insulting at all. It seems completely incompatible with being a family- or community-involved person.
And what's society without kids? Whether you're a parent or not, we need kids to do well. It makes no sense at all not to learn to be good with kids, to care about them, to invest in them, etc. They're firmly a core component of human society, certainly not going anywhere.
And I can't imagine not spending a lot of time with my kids. It's one of the things I think about most. I like to do a lot of things, but they're one of the few things I can always say yes to. I want to take care of them, teach them, learn from them, listen to them, see them grow, whatever. It just feels good to be in their lives. There's nothing unnatural about it.
The bond I have with my children is profound and primal. The idea that it’s “unnatural” for me to spend much time with them is so ridiculous as to be instantly dismissed.
GP clearly doesn’t have kids or have close male friends who are involved with their kids.
> And the men that had spent longer looking after babies showed the largest drops in testosterone. Those that shared a bed with their infants also had lower levels.
Dad here. Maybe…it’s the lack of sleep? Involved fathers tend to have less sleep.
As a father of 3 daughters now approaching 50 with my oldest now 24 … I will say that I believe some of this is true. Perhaps it is just the life altering effect of raising children or maybe is biological as well. You can definitely pickup on whether another male is a father or not.
Mom brain is also a thing. Large scale, consistent, structural changes in the postpartum brain that is uncorrelated with PPD.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab463
I find it very odd that the rest of the comments are sort of... not agreeing with the findings in the article.
I became a father recently (:D) and it's been an emotional rollercoaster for me. I had been frantically Googling my "symptoms" and asking around what's wrong with me, because it seems I've been quite sensitive since the birth of my baby.
I think the article is spot on — the more time you spend with your baby and care for them, the more oxytocin you get and the more your testosterone drops (I cried when my baby first spoke — cooed, really — to me, for example, and that's just one instance).
Edit: I want to take this opportunity to say — fuck companies that don't give paternity leave. This is fucking hard to do alone, so be nice to your employees and offer paternity benefits. I'm in India, where paternity leave isn't required, so I was told to fuck off when I asked for time off.
Maybe its being older already but I don’t feel super changed having a baby like people told me I would. I don’t do work or hobbies or socializing any differently. Everything else in my life didnt suddenly seem unimportant.
The one big difference is up to now I though crying babies were annoying and subconsiously somehow blamed parents. Now I see how foolish that was as babies are born knowing nothing and are just adorable little people trying their best to get their needs met and handle emotions.
the problem with most research about humans is that the variance is usually massive. The study could be true on average and that could still leave millions of men who the study doesn't end up applying to.
It makes sense as a layman - less testosterone means less fighting, aggressive behavior, chasing other mates, etc. Ensures more success for your offspring.
It's the equivalent of castrating yourself! Never!
The only problems is that if the boys are falling for it you cannot save them so you need new boys to hangout with but it's not the same because you don't go back to where you were both kids
> that men have all the necessary biological wiring to be "every bit as protective and nurturing as the most committed mother
This seems like an overstatement - man can't give birth to babies (which involves transfer of the mothers biome to the baby) or feed babies (which typically involves lactation).
Neither of the quibbles you drew are what people usually class as protective or nurturing behavior? At least in the English-speaking world that’s later in a child’s life than birth.
I’d also note that the concern about feeding babies has been obsolete since the invention of formula.
I edited the post to add a little more detail for people that (it seems, based on bizarre moderation of widely accepted realities) thought "men can't give birth to or feed babies" wasn't specific enough.
Saw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged.
First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive. And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation. The whole thing is definitely framed for a certain world view, it’s definitely not the only interpretation.
There's some interesting research on the effect of T in mice which has been challenging traditional assumptions of its role in males: https://news.emory.edu/stories/2022/08/esc_testosterone_anim...
It's worth noting though that the actions of the "stereotypical man" are strongly culturally informed, and not neccessarily indicative of whatever evolutionary pressures would've wired males brains whatever way they're wired for fatherhood. I don't think we have much direct evidence of ancient female and male parent roles (apart from being able to infer the obvious, like that females would've breastfed).
What exactly are you proposing that kids need other than nurturing?
It’s probably unnatural for adult men to spend much time with tiny children in the first place. Here and there, sure, and boys close to adult age, definitely, but nothing like what happens today. This is why many men find it difficult, it is contrary to instinct.
Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
This sounds like bro science.
As a father I can assure you you have no idea what you're talking about.
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but my default reaction to people who say things like this is that they probably don't have kids, and if they do, I wonder about the well-being of their family life. I don't mean that to be insulting at all. It seems completely incompatible with being a family- or community-involved person.
And what's society without kids? Whether you're a parent or not, we need kids to do well. It makes no sense at all not to learn to be good with kids, to care about them, to invest in them, etc. They're firmly a core component of human society, certainly not going anywhere.
And I can't imagine not spending a lot of time with my kids. It's one of the things I think about most. I like to do a lot of things, but they're one of the few things I can always say yes to. I want to take care of them, teach them, learn from them, listen to them, see them grow, whatever. It just feels good to be in their lives. There's nothing unnatural about it.
Echoing this.
The bond I have with my children is profound and primal. The idea that it’s “unnatural” for me to spend much time with them is so ridiculous as to be instantly dismissed.
GP clearly doesn’t have kids or have close male friends who are involved with their kids.
> And the men that had spent longer looking after babies showed the largest drops in testosterone. Those that shared a bed with their infants also had lower levels.
Dad here. Maybe…it’s the lack of sleep? Involved fathers tend to have less sleep.
Parents also tend to gain weight, and higher BMI is associated with a decline in T.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3809034/
Several of the studies described changes in hormones before the child was born.
As a father of 3 daughters now approaching 50 with my oldest now 24 … I will say that I believe some of this is true. Perhaps it is just the life altering effect of raising children or maybe is biological as well. You can definitely pickup on whether another male is a father or not.
Mom brain is also a thing. Large scale, consistent, structural changes in the postpartum brain that is uncorrelated with PPD. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab463
I find it very odd that the rest of the comments are sort of... not agreeing with the findings in the article.
I became a father recently (:D) and it's been an emotional rollercoaster for me. I had been frantically Googling my "symptoms" and asking around what's wrong with me, because it seems I've been quite sensitive since the birth of my baby.
One way to explain this is the Gordon Ramsay meme (https://imgflip.com/memetemplate/211147137/Oh-dear-dear-gorg..., LHS = my reaction to my baby, RHS = my reaction to other kids before my baby was born).
I think the article is spot on — the more time you spend with your baby and care for them, the more oxytocin you get and the more your testosterone drops (I cried when my baby first spoke — cooed, really — to me, for example, and that's just one instance).
Edit: I want to take this opportunity to say — fuck companies that don't give paternity leave. This is fucking hard to do alone, so be nice to your employees and offer paternity benefits. I'm in India, where paternity leave isn't required, so I was told to fuck off when I asked for time off.
Maybe its being older already but I don’t feel super changed having a baby like people told me I would. I don’t do work or hobbies or socializing any differently. Everything else in my life didnt suddenly seem unimportant.
The one big difference is up to now I though crying babies were annoying and subconsiously somehow blamed parents. Now I see how foolish that was as babies are born knowing nothing and are just adorable little people trying their best to get their needs met and handle emotions.
the problem with most research about humans is that the variance is usually massive. The study could be true on average and that could still leave millions of men who the study doesn't end up applying to.
Famous story about the plane cockpit for average pilot ended up being bad for absolutely everyone comes to mind.
Probably you cannot average humans.
I swear my hearing got more sensitive with kids. Also, some commercials hit differently.
I can’t read news stories about something terrible that happened to a child since having kids.
No longer having social interaction and lack of sleep can also lower testosterone levels?
Positive sign that this article wasn't AI
Lol, I thought the same.
It makes sense as a layman - less testosterone means less fighting, aggressive behavior, chasing other mates, etc. Ensures more success for your offspring.
It's the equivalent of castrating yourself! Never!
The only problems is that if the boys are falling for it you cannot save them so you need new boys to hangout with but it's not the same because you don't go back to where you were both kids
you have to control for the stress, lack of sleep etc.
do partners who purchase a puppy also have lower T in the following months if they are primary caregivers?
I wouldn’t trust these sourced studies - smells exactly like replication crisis findings.
Malcom Gladwell meticulously sourced the researchers when he was writing his books. He got everything right. It was all the researchers who lied.
> that men have all the necessary biological wiring to be "every bit as protective and nurturing as the most committed mother
This seems like an overstatement - man can't give birth to babies (which involves transfer of the mothers biome to the baby) or feed babies (which typically involves lactation).
Neither of the quibbles you drew are what people usually class as protective or nurturing behavior? At least in the English-speaking world that’s later in a child’s life than birth.
I’d also note that the concern about feeding babies has been obsolete since the invention of formula.
Is it correlation or causation?
Testosterone also drops when you dont get enough sleep, which is a universal lifestyle change for parents.
I edited the post to add a little more detail for people that (it seems, based on bizarre moderation of widely accepted realities) thought "men can't give birth to or feed babies" wasn't specific enough.