Here’s a provocative piece of news that came out earlier this week and gives me pause – and not applause. Apparently, testosterone plunges in men who actively exercise Daddy duties.
Say what?
The New York Times offers its interpretation of this (disturbing?) data on maleness and fatherhood, and a “politically correct” spin which I find intriguing, though more than a bit facile.
In short, it appears that men who are involved parents show a significant drop in testosterone. But the article goes on to explain that this is nature’s way of encouraging male nurturing in lieu of wanton wandering.
Maybe so. Maybe not. (I suspect there are infidelity statistics following childbirth that might contradict this.) But were the tables turned and I was told that motherhood would hammer my hormonal hotness, I’d be miffed. Um… make that, alarmed.
Data Disasters
While some might find the marketing twist on this news appealing (in some respects), I find the blatant agenda-pushing appalling.
And I say this as a solo mother who would have loved a male partner who truly wanted to participate in the parenting process.
Specifically, the article states:
The study, experts say, suggests that men’s bodies evolved hormonal systems that helped them commit to their families once children were born. It also suggests that men’s behavior can affect hormonal signals their bodies send, not just that hormones influence behavior. And, experts say, it underscores that mothers were meant to have child care help.
That’s all lovely, but isn’t that interpretation a tad convenient? As a woman, is this supposed to make me happy? To convince me of some rosy gender-joining future, despite the divorce statistics and real-world battles of the sexes that we encounter daily?
More to the point – where’s the data that shows whether testosterone levels return to “normal” – whatever that means? What about other factors that we know come into play with hormones, like sleeplessness and stress, both of which accompany parenting babies, toddlers, and very young children?
And what about the impact on sexual performance, which we know is what the men – and dare I say it, some of the women – are concerned about?
Men, Women, Mixing It Up
The article goes on to say:
Testosterone was measured when the men were 21 and single, and again nearly five years later. Although testosterone naturally decreases with age, men who became fathers showed much greater declines, more than double that of the childless men.
And men who spent more than three hours a day caring for children — playing, feeding, bathing, toileting, reading or dressing them — had the lowest testosterone.
Does this mean that Arnold might not have strayed, had he spent more time involved in Daddy Day Care?
As for the reliability of this study, its conclusions, its lack of context, its oddity – at least as presented – I’m at a bit of a loss. And the subjects – “600 men in the Cebu Province of the Philippines who are participating in a larger, well-respected health study following babies who were born in 1983 and 1984” – how exactly are they representative?
Love & Sex, Procreating & Parenting
Apparently, there are other studies to support the findings of linkage between hormone levels and fathering. According to the same Times article:
A study of Air Force veterans showed that testosterone climbed back up after men were divorced. A study of Harvard Business School students found that those in committed romantic relationships had lower testosterone than those who were not.
Swell.
But as there appears to be a link between behavior and hormone levels, might the rise in testosterone during and after divorce reflect that adversarial relationships resemble war?
As for the (122) B-school students, are they channeling their arguably more aggressive actions (and perhaps higher levels of testosterone?) into presenting cases and competing in the classroom?
Do You Like The Opposite Sex?
Were I a man reading the Times article, I’d plant my seed and run – unless a few more salient factors popped up in the discussion, among them, sexual satisfaction – quality as well as quantity.
Were I a man reading this article, I’d shake my head at the continuing battle of the sexes. I’d wonder if the women in my life are pleased over reading this sort of news, or bewildered by it, or so easily snowed.
As a man or a woman, I’d be irritated at being told how I “should” look at these potentially contentious conclusions. I would acknowledge the existence of the Air Force and B-School studies, and realize we have plenty of missing puzzle pieces and conflicting considerations.
My own solution?
Maybe we ought to author a study using men of the Cebu Province who have served in the military and attended top-tier business schools.
Seriously?
I’m all for encouraging fathers to participate in child-rearing. But this data? These conclusions? I find it all suspect to say the least – a case of offering “scientific” interpretations to suit some and stir up others.
If we’re looking for agents of social change – a means to foster the idea of men and women participating more fully in family – I dare say this approach isn’t one of them.
I read this article about a week ago. Upon the title, I thought it was a fun and interesting look at nurturing fathers, the likes of which my own children have not experienced.
Then I read further and I was disgusted.
If a drop in levels comes with nurturing and spending time with a child, it seems it would be because of the lack of need to feel more like a man – a warrior or a woman chaser in the moments.
A rise when divorced? Are they not once again on the war path so to speak?
I think a man holding a baby, taking care of a baby with no reservation is the sexiest thing on earth. Bring on the higher testosterone levels later when baby is asleep.
As for divorce and testosterone levels, if a similar study were conducted on women during divorce, wouldn’t our testosterone levels be higher as well? As far as post-divorce, men are on the prowl again, so that also seems logical.
I’m with you on the sexy factor, when it comes to a man holding a baby, or caring for a child.
Here are the studies that I’d like to see – one that measures causality between stress and lower hormone levels, and another on sleep deprivation and hormone levels. I’d be interested to see one for the men, and one for the women. (Does anyone know if that exists out there, and with “reliable” data?)
And hormone levels when sex has been more in the background than the forefront. (pre-divorce or job loss vs post)
This headline news is something that was likely “discovered” on an open-ending computerized fishing trip into who knows how many old studies, searching for any possible correlations among an ocean of data. And they hooked a fish that could get them attention. If it means anything, those with children are likely getting less sex at home and this can be associated with a testosterone drop. Those parents with lower testosterone levels are indeed more likely to be inclined toward parenting behaviors and not catting around on the side. I read nothing about SES, educational levels or use of birth control – any of which might impact on who becomes a father and be an explanatory factor (if there actually is anything here).
There is experimental evidence that being a “winner” in sports (and even in a chess match) increases testosterone levels temporarily. These findings are a big deal for psychology, because everybody worships testosterone. We’ve been sold this as the American Way Of Life. “I’m more manly than you are, and if you don’t believe me, let’s step outside.” Men have been made overly sensitized (spell check tried to make it “sanitized” – cute) to their testosterone. This country runs on making people feel inadequate (“losers”) until they purchase a fix for it.
I cringed when I first saw this sloppy report in the NYTimes. I’m in a bind with the NYTimes – it’s going downhill while going broke, and yet it’s the best general news source in this country. Is that good/bad or what?
A favorite dating story of mine. Some years ago, when talking with a special friend about this topic, I noted how I don’t go for the traditional “manly” stuff — I don’t watch spectator sports, drink beer in bars or particularly enjoy dirty jokes (unless they happen, rarely, to be actually funny). She replied quickly and emphatically (well, she’s that sort of person – definitely no pushover) “What!? You are the most manly man I’ve ever met.”
Nice, I guess, but I was trying to make the other point.
I agree that it was very sloppy, Paul. (The study of divorced Air Force vets? Harvard B-School students? Apples and oranges to go with this fruity set of stats… )
But it does raise exactly the issues you mention – the worship of stereotypical gender roles (whatever that is, at the moment), playing on fears, using data any which way (and truly, in such a silly and obvious fashion), and more.
I took a little “impromptu” poll of my own, incidentally (I talked to a few male friends). I make no pretense of it being representative (and no Filipinos involved), but I find no cause for concern and no correlation relative to childcare involvement and testosterone sufficiency as exhibited by deep voice, rugged stubble, and regular sexual activity.
Anecdotal at best (and perhaps just as reliable as the studies mentioned?) – I’ll just say that it pays to have friends whose voracity you trust.
p.s. The biggest Viagra market is not old guys but the hoards of younger guys who want to impress the girl that they can make love more times in the weekend than any other guy.
As Fran says “God help us – that’s not how we would feel about it.” And in any case, today everybody knows what’s actually behind this sort of thing, just like we know how the home run king gets his steroid-studded crown. Who’s impressed with that – sad.
As to your “p.s.” Paul – Given the rate at which we push SSRIs on everyone with any complaint, perhaps the Viagra is to counteract the effects of the Depression Downers?
Perhaps re SSRIs — yes, a pill for everybody to counter the side effects of a pill for everybody.
There are all kinds of medical studies finding all kinds of lab values in all kinds of situations. But to be useful, a finding has to pass the “so what?” test. This rarely happens. It’s not surprising that it hasn’t happened here either. Into the void usually rush demons. Also as here.
Perhaps this is evidence that you can make any study come out the way you want it to by skewing data and interpretation. In my opinion, testosterone levels only count when you’re dealing with prostate cancer. Otherwise, there are many things that are more important. In my opinion only.
I couldn’t agree more about the skewing of data and interpretation, Carol. We see it over and over again. Concerning, when it’s mainstream.