An intriguing new long-term study of Filipino men has discovered that becoming a father lowers a man’s testosterone level. More specifically, what really drops male testosterone is the amount of time spent caring for children; men who spent three hours or more per day caring for a child had significantly less testosterone than those dads who were less involved with their children. It’s not that men with lower testosterone were “naturally” more inclined to be caregivers in the first place; based on the voluminous longitudinal data, it’s the act of caring itself that reduced testosterone significantly.
An otherwise reasonable New York Times piece on the study begins with the somber warning, “This is probably not the news most fathers want to hear.” But as several researchers in the article point out, this is actually great news for dads—and for all men. One of our great enduring myths about males is that we are biologically hardwired for violence and promiscuity, and that any attempt to encourage us to take on a nurturing, tender role is destined to end in failure. The “Caveman Cult” crowd, which includes a great many popular writers on gender, suggests that female physiology is optimized for caregiving while male physiology is optimized for conquest. And when pressed to cite the chief factor in this supposed male inability to care for children, these defenders of traditional gender roles almost invariably cite the overarching influence of testosterone.
What this exciting new study shows is that men are far more biologically malleable than we had previously realized. Our male bodies are not obstacles to empathy or tenderness. Indeed, once we make the commitment to become active fathers to our children, it seems our hormones naturally shift to help sustain us in this all-important work of caregiving. As it turns out, the claim that women are “just built to be more nurturing” (so we might as well let them do the bulk of the nurturing and let guys off the hook) is baseless. The real truth is that we are hardwired to be adaptable, built to have seasons in our lives of both public ambition and domestic tenderness. Far from being an obstacle to our humanity, it turns out our best-known hormone is love’s surprisingly accommodating ally .
—Photo Sukanto Debnath/Flickr
You lost me with the assumption that lowered levels of testosterone is a good thing for men. To me it suggests it’s not a good thing. What does caring for children do for women. Maybe the changes, if any, in a women are a good thing. Maybe things are the way they are for a reason other than one’s ideologicall bent.
So if you are a competitive body builder or professional athlete, stay away from kids.
Good information. Ps. I don’t really see too many massive Filipino men – check out their basketball league. So maybe all this is discussion is based on a false premise that Filipino men are exactly like all other men.
There is a very serious problem here. Proponents of gender equality, including me, have tried hard to persuade male partners/husbands to share domestic tasks (to do house work & nurture children), in addition to their earning a living. This is done on fairness basis, as women have worked to earn income while doing house work and nurturing children. Suddenly, a study popd up showing that men who are involved in nurturing children produce less testosterone and as such could be perceived as beta males and sexually less interesting to their wives/girl partners. Some of these wives/girl partners may then justify… Read more »
yeah every father should take good care of their children.. i love this article and nice page men. keep it up!
Slate has a good article about how this study is being reported and discussed in ways that support politically correct, but not necessarily scientifically correct ideas
http://www.slate.com/id/2303809/
Once again I find a GMP article where the title of the piece does not really match the content of the article. The whole point of the “hardwired” metaphor is the idea that testosterone is some kind of independent driving force that makes men a certain way, that biology shapes society not vice versa. What the study actually shows about testosterone is the opposite, that it is AFFECTED by the environment. It’s affected by the decisions that people make, the jobs they have, the social roles they play, etc. As someone else pointed out, testosterone’s relationship with other hormones, physiological… Read more »
Really don’t understand why people keep arguing this point. Women will simply never see men as qualified as they are to nurture and raise children until we start carrying them inside our bodies for 9 months and breastfeeding. “Feminism” per say never said men were BAD parents it just says that to be a responsible one you have to do your share of the baby sitting. Arguing that men are REQUIRED for the developmental growth of children is a fact that women simply don’t have to accept, and arguing otherwise is a waste of time, because they wont.
Interesting study, but there is still the false perception that testosterone causes violence and bad parenting. Where is the evidence of this assertion?
Another study also showed an increase in progesterone among men who had close relationships with their infants. This is the hormone responsible for the parent-child bond and it shows the importance of forming a close relationship with infants. When fathers are marginalized from the lives of their children, that bond is weakened and further exasperates the problem of fatherlessnes.
My personal observations are that most men are great fathers. They bring a slightly different energy to parenting than do women. My personal opinion is that world would be a better place if more fathers took on the primary parent role and more women would get out of the way and find something else to do with their energy. I agree that testosterone’s role in human beings is a tad more complex than what the article claims. What the study didn’t look at was if testosterone levels decreased when the men were caring for children who were not their own.… Read more »
The argument presented here is baseless, and self-defeating, and misandristic. Starting with the misandry: I am pretty sick of the incessant misandry feminist drivel in statements such as these: “One of our great enduring myths about males is that we are biologically hardwired for violence and promiscuity. ” Promiscuity? I read somewhere that you can’t measure promiscuity? Evidently, per feminists only men can be promiscuous. It’s wrong to suggest that a woman is. The baseless and self-defeating premise ends up claiming (unintentionally) that women are naturally better suited to care for children than men. How? It claims that men with… Read more »
Feminism did not give us the “great enduring myth” that men are violent and promiscuous. That myth has been pushed by western media, culture, and politics in order to oppress men, just as it has oppressed women for centuries. True feminism is not the “man hating” feminism that the media portrays; rather, it is an affirming outlook on gender seeking to liberate women (who are particularly oppressed by most cultures) from arbitrary roles they are forced to fill in society. You also misinterpret the research. It does not say that men who have lower testosterone are better caregivers. The research… Read more »
“Feminism did not give us the “great enduring myth” that men are violent and promiscuous.” You haven’t been exposed to feminist theory and writings. Feminism casts men as the abusers and women as the victims, which is the foundational concept behind VAWA. “True feminism is not the “man hating” feminism that the media portrays” Feminism’s man-hating is not a media portrayal. It can be seen here and on other feminist blogs every single day. From the mouths of feminists themselves. Unless you are stating that the feminist articles here are not true feminism? “You also misinterpret the research. It does… Read more »
I like to think this study shows men are hardwired to be faithful. Lower testosterone should mean a lower sex drive. Not enough to make men not want sex at all, but enough to live with less sex while the children are small. After all, if you already have a child you’re around most of the time, the best way to increase your evolutionary fitness is to stick around and take care of it, not keep having more kids.
I think this was an interesting study but I think you have to be skeptical about drawing PC conclusions. As one commenter pointed out, this study could suggest that testosterone makes men less nurturing, which supports the idea that men are less suited to child rearing. Another possibility that no one has mentioned is that many male mammals will attack and kill any young that they come across so that the mothers will go into estrus again and be ready to mate. In mammals that are social (e.g., lions) some mechanism is needed to reduce male aggression toward young so… Read more »
As one commenter pointed out, this study could suggest that testosterone makes men less nurturing, which supports the idea that men are less suited to child rearing. Ugh, no, you can’t take a study’s results and reverse them! The study did not conclude that the lower testosterone levels made men better nurturers than they were pre-fatherhood. The study concluded that the act of nurturing produced a lower testosterone level. That’s it. NOTHING about their ability or inability, or the quality of the nurturing. Women’s testosterone levels dip and spike throughout their lives (indeed, within a monthly cycle). Testosterone plays a… Read more »
If men were not hardwired to care for children, there would not be all the pain caused by women and the courts excluding fathers, men would just walk away unscathed.
Any piece of research that punches a hole in the scumbag ideology that teaches that we are not needed is good research!
The results of the study are not new. Several studies have found similar results before. What is new is the attention it is getting. Secondly, the study actually supports the prevailing view that the influence of testosterone interferes men’s ability to care for children, which kind of supports the view that women (who tend to have less testosterone) are built for nurturing. The study shows that a hormone that makes people some what impulsive is not useful when caring for children, and so the male body decreases the hormone level when around children for an extended period of time. A… Read more »
Another recent study found that men who keep up their male contacts outside of the family have higher testosterone than those that don’t.
What do you mean by, “the study smacks down the prevailing feminist view of fatherhood as total sexist bunk”?
Feminism has been the greatest thing that has ever happened to fatherhood. Because of the feminist movement, today’s young fathers are taking much more nurturing responsibility for their children than their fathers and grandfathers ever did.
The feminist argument that men and women are essentially interchangeable is debunked here.
This study suggests that lower testosterone = better suited to care for children. Conclusion? Women, because of having lower testosterone than men, including fathers, are suited the best to care for children. This article missed that elephant in the room.
LOL Feminism NEVER was/is about how men and women are “interchangeable”. Ever. Feminism is purely about NOT punishing women for being born. Simple. The levels of testosterone don’t necessarily determine how capable one is to nurture, anyone with an iq over 2 can observe that what really goes on behind caregiving is a person’s state of mind and personal goals. You can be as physiologically ready for caregiving all you want, but if rearing a child isn’t in your priorities, IT’S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I can tell you now, if you reversed this study, you would find the same can… Read more »
“Feminism NEVER was/is about how men and women are “interchangeable”. “
Then, you know nothing about one of feminism’s cornerstone arguments, that “gender is a social construct.” In other words, men and women are interchangeable, except for societal influence.
Now, that’s some serious feminist psychobabble that this study debunks.
The thing you’re missing is that gender and sex are not the same thing.
I am well aware of the difference. The “gender is a social construct” argument is not mine.
The study doesn’t say that the lower testosterone levels made them better nurturers. Just that the act of nurturing produced lower testosterone levels.
The act of cuddling produces spikes in oxytocin. If one person gets a higher spike than the other, it doesn’t make them a better cuddler.
Wow, I am commenting on a really old argument and just noticed. *facepalm*
New Study: Women who spend too much time reading and commenting on the internet shown to pay less attention to detail.
Feminism has been the greatest thing that has ever happened to fatherhood. Because of the feminist movement, today’s young fathers are taking much more nurturing responsibility for their children than their fathers and grandfathers ever did.
Which makes it all the more a shame that they then turn a blind eye to the very young fathers who are pushed out of their children’s lives by what almost amounts to legalized kidnapping…
I’m generally skeptical about conclusions reached regarding how we are (or are not) “hardwired”. Testosterone’s roles in the body are pretty complex (in both “male” and “female” bodies), and it turns out that changes in testosterone alone don’t always skew to changes in behavior–other hormones that have interplay with testosterone are really important.
One book that goes into this a little is The Trouble with Testosterone:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9h-lBfI7U-QC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
So, while it’s welcome news, I guess, that taking care of children might lower men’s testosterone, it’s hard to know what it really means, behaviorally, as a consequence…
Men can become nurturers, yes. I think the point of evo psych folks is that there are more impediments to men adopting that role than for women who are nurturers by default. Men have to make a rational decision whether to adopt the role or not. When you look at these roles in the aggregate you’ll see that women adopt more of a nurturing role than men.