According to many researchers, the level of testosterone in American and European men has been steadily declining over the past few decades. Testosterone is a hormone that distinguishes men from women, as well as more aggressive and strong men from passive and weak ones. Thus, the mass decrease of this hormone in men’s blood indicates that there are fewer active and dominant men, and the gap between genders is narrowing. Two questions arise: why is this happening and who benefits from it?
Some scientists are trying to answer the first question, linking the decrease in testosterone to obesity, alcohol, smoking, lack of physical activity, stress, etc. However, it is hard to believe that these problems are progressing as rapidly as the decline in the level of masculinity hormone. Have we really started consuming more alcohol and smoking more than our ancestors? That’s not the case. For example, in Russia, alcohol consumption has almost halved in the last 13 years, and in other countries and periods, the dynamics vary, but there is no trend of alcohol degradation. On the contrary, especially in developed countries, the population’s health and life expectancy are increasing.
Therefore, more interesting research is available. For example, Danish scientists, after observing over a thousand men for more than ten years, found that married men have testosterone levels significantly lower than single men. Apparently, scientists believe that in marriage, a married man needs testosterone much less, as there is no need for him to compete for a partner. Or, for example, the results of research conducted by biologists from the Northwestern University in the USA, which prove that testosterone levels in men’s blood decrease immediately after the birth of their children.
Based on the above, I dare to suggest that it is not alcohol and obesity that are to blame for men weakening and losing aggressiveness. The new formula of social relations is to blame, replacing such old masculine virtues as will, determination, and independence with sensitivity, empathy, and compromise. Women’s emancipation and the fight against gender stereotypes have deprived men of their former status. From being the head of the family, responsible for its well-being and decision-making, he has become an equal partner, contributing to family matters. In this new role, men need less testosterone, so our bodies adapt in response to new social demands and decrease hormone levels.
The answer to the first question has been found: the male social role has changed, leading to a decrease in testosterone levels, adapting us to new realities and behaviors. Now, who benefits from this? Why were we given a new behavior model, thereby reducing testosterone? Who ultimately benefited from this? Men lost - they have less strength and sexual energy. Women lost - their men have less strength and sexual energy. Who won?
One could speculate that no one is behind this and everything happened on its own: women grew tired of being women, they dethroned men from the patriarchal pedestal, established by millions of years of evolution, and turned nature back a hundred years! Perhaps. However, this is hard to believe, especially when considering who supports the feminist movement of recent times: Bill Gates, Nicholas Rockefeller, George Soros, and others. These are not emotionally unstable suffragettes of the past century. These are quite pragmatic men of the 21st century. They undoubtedly have motives and goals.
I have three versions.
A decrease in testosterone in men leads to a decrease in fertility. A decrease in fertility leads to a decrease in population, and everyone is talking about the overpopulation of the planet. There are too many of us, and no world war can fix this situation. We live longer, live better, and survive in large numbers. If this continues, there will be too many of us, and it will be scarier than any tsunami. We will perish under our own weight. However, scientists believe that any animal population tends to adjust its numbers to the available resources for its livelihood. However, this process occurs in waves: first the population sharply increases, then sharply decreases, then increases again, but not as sharply, then decreases again, but again, not as sharply. After several fluctuations, the population size stabilizes.
From the outside, this process seems logical, however, it causes a lot of inconvenience to those who are unlucky enough to live during the downward trend, when the population sharply decreases due to mass hunger and epidemics. By preemptively reducing fertility and stabilizing the population size, one can avoid waiting for these catastrophically natural events.
The results are already there, the plan is working. Fertility has significantly decreased in developed countries over the past decades. It remains to address Asia, India, and Africa, and the problem will be solved.
The main threat to most of the modern world over the past century has not been global warming, world wars, epidemics, or tsunamis. The main threat has been the idea of equality on a global scale, better known as communism. At the beginning of the last century, in the Russian Empire, power was seized by people who believed that goods should be distributed not according to the principle of “who is the owner, gets the profit”, but “who worked more, earned more.” This idea was very appealing to those who were working at that time. However, it scared those who had inherited land and capital, never worked, and never tried. In one particular country, they took everything away from them and forced them to work. What if the Bolsheviks had gone further and reached Manhattan?
Such plans were there for the Bolsheviks, but the Second World War intervened. They did not manage to reach Manhattan, and after the death of the last Bolshevik, communism was discredited, disgraced, and made a mockery of in North Korea and Cuba. However, the fear remained. Sooner or later, if vigilance is lost, the fire may ignite again, and who knows, maybe this time, it will reach Manhattan.
As it is well known, revolutions are made by rough, bold, and daring men who have nothing to lose except their chains. If you lower their testosterone in advance, teaching them that raising their voice is wrong and that domestic violence leads to prison, they won’t climb onto the barricades. Such a preventive measure is much cheaper and more reliable than a civil war with crowds of hungry workers and soldiers.
Testosterone is responsible for aggressiveness, dominance, masculinity, as well as the resulting courage, audacity, decisiveness, uncompromising nature, and self-confidence. All these qualities attract the opposite sex, however, they do not align at all with patience, thoroughness, meticulousness, and, as a result, deep knowledge. Yet it is the scientists with their deep research in physics, chemistry, and mathematics who have given our civilization the telephone, television, and the Internet. It is thanks to the “nerds” and “mama’s boys,” not sexual heroes and uncompromising tyrants, that we owe our happy hi-tech style of life.
Apparently, feminists have been freeing men for a hundred years, not women. Men who are called “nerds” at school and “wimps” in families. However, it is they who create what our civilization needs at its current stage of development - complex technical solutions and new scientific discoveries. By reducing testosterone, we equalize the social rights of strong and weak men, allowing nerds to no longer feel like under-men and not be distracted from science by reflecting on their sexual success. To be a respected man, it is enough to be sensitive and delicate, and they have enough of that from birth.
Moreover, bold and decisive people are less hardworking and manageable. They are good for individual activities, like throwing a grenade at the enemy from a trench, sprinting 100 meters, or repairing a power line. Most professions in the modern globalized world are related to working in large corporations and offices, where conformity and softness are the main factors of success. There is no place for strong and decisive people, they only irritate others. Obedient, manageable, and intellectually working individuals are needed. Apparently, it is these “people of the future” that have been created for decades by those behind the feminist movement.
And, perhaps, they are doing the right thing?
Translated by ChatGPT gpt-3.5-turbo/42 on 2024-04-20 at 14:25
