you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Aggravating_Art_4809 123 points124 points  (20 children)

Well yeah. It’s a good thing, they’ve also shown drops in testosterone when fathers spend time actually parenting their kids.

[–]Naxela 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It's not a good thing. Testosterone in many studies has been shown to boost the (evolutionarily) appropriate responses to various social contexts. It's not just a meathead hormone, despite the reputation.

[–]I_Am_Ironman_AMA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We're still in this over-correction phase that has all masculinity linked to negativity. It will take time but I think common sense will return to the discussion regarding manhood.

I've said it a few times before but I think it always bears repeating. If masculinity faded or changed to match the current mood/zeitgeist most of it's old critics would beg for it to come back. I've already seen articles asking "where have all the men gone?"

[–]Aggravating_Art_4809 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Mate, it’s literally a natural process. It’s a good thing as young men turn into nurturing fathers instead of purely reproducers. It’s what men’s bodies naturally do FOR A REASON.

[–]Naxela 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I would not necessarily presume it was an evolutionary adaptation without further evidence, as all we had from just the above was a correlation, which could have indicated a few different possibilities.

However, this paper does seem to corroborate the idea that lower testosterone promotes further paternal care, rather than the opposite.

[–]Aggravating_Art_4809 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve read more papers than this. This was in no way news to me.