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).
Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
Sorry, what? The framing of this sentence alone has a very creepy vibe. I can't speak for all of us, but most us have strong protective instincts towards kids of all ages, especially the youngest ones.
> This is why many men find it difficult, it is contrary to instinct.
Contrary to whose instinct? If I had a kid, I would want to ensure his/her safety and success. Men in general yearn for it. And there's nothing that suggests men are incapable of it. Research indicates good outcomes. And I know fathers who are the sole care givers for young kids when life makes it inconvenient for the mother.
> Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
Hunter gatherer culture is at least ten thousand years old - plenty of time for social behavior to evolve. Modern humans, including men are very heavily invested in kids because humans can't have a lot of kids. Ensuring each one's safety becomes important.
Heck! Humans, including males are very nurturing and protective towards even children of other men and other species. Plenty of evidence that your assertion doesn't hold at all.
In very much more serious, but perhaps less kind thoughts, do you not get halfway through writing things like that without considering how fundamentally broken that thinking is? My heart seriously goes out to you, unless it’s not ok given I am pretty tall and you might be 12 or something so it may still be a few years before we can talk, but I may be dead by then and it feels like you could use a pal, lil buddy.
It’s not difficult at all. Minutes after birth, naked baby was on my naked chest, and bonding started. This never felt contrary to my instinct.
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.
I don't have kids and it still sounds nonsensical. As a man, my instinct isn't to run away from my child if I had one. If life keeps men and their children apart, that's a different matter altogether. But I have seen other men yearn to be with their little kids. My father did the same when I was young. Some of them are their kids' sole caregiver for the majority of the time because life keeps the mother away from the child. And in all instances, I see strong paternal affection and instincts at play. I'm baffled by an assertion otherwise.
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.
for every helicopter dad there are ten guys who don't care about their offspring.
Dad here. Maybe…it’s the lack of sleep? Involved fathers tend to have less sleep.
Before kiddos I took the apriori belief that it would kinda suck. The belief was unassailable because I thought, evolutionarily, if it was fun to have kids it wouldn't be fun to make them - otherwise we'd endure unfun "making" because we know the having would be fun.
I know now how stupid that was on many levels. Just specifically that belief has changed for me: its fun to make kids because having them is self reinforcing and wonderful and intrinsically motivational.
Perhaps I'm a data point.
When kids are days, weeks, months old, they're constantly experiencing new things. That's the first tree she ever saw! It's amazing to experience the world through them.
When they're a couple years old, you see them learning and connecting and developing a unique personality. I love it when my two year old picks up on things that I missed, or teaches me something. And it's kind of awesome to be someone's superhero for however long this lasts.
I don't know how it goes after this but so far the trend has been that they get more fun as they grow...
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.
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.
One of the weird changes I've seen in my life is testosterone emerging as a sort of status symbol. When I was young, that just wouldn't have landed: if you said "I have high testosterone," people would have known what you meant, but it wasn't a thing people said and it would've seemed a little comical, with its "science!" and test tube overtones. Back then the idea was, if you want to be manly, then build muscle or find a manly occupation (or both). Why measure a chemical when you can use your eyes?
Now though, people get defensive about it. It matters. "Low t" would've seemed like a semi-clinical nerd's take on manhood, once; now it's regarded as a real insult. That was a step backwards imo.
I’m on testosterone and one of the side effects is your estrogen raises too, and boy I had no idea how much that hormone affects us. It gave me a new appreciation of what women sometimes feel when I think they’re overreacting.
Probably you cannot average humans.
I swear I actually noticed it. At times i felt the changes.. it felt similar to the buzz you get when playing a fast paced shootem up game. it wasn't quite a buzz though.
By the time Gettler looked into this field, it was already an established fact that fathers had lower testosterone that [sic] men without kids.
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.
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
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).
I also don't understand why this opinion is so controversial. Humans, including men are one of the rare species that nurture and protect babies (consciously and beyond symbiosis) of other individuals or even species, including wild animals. Why is it so surprising then that men are good at nurturing their own babies?
I’d also note that the concern about feeding babies has been obsolete since the invention of formula.
Testosterone also drops when you dont get enough sleep, which is a universal lifestyle change for parents.
My identity: trans woman (to ameliorate the stung feelings of identitarians, relativists, and/or feminists reading this).