Endocrine disruptors and the end of the masculine era.

Could this be yet another step closer to the end of men?

I’m curious what effects these have on Women and children?

Is this suggesting a reduction in toxic masculine traits? Has Darwin’s theory found a place despite the hubris of modern society?

 

It matters not to me very much who the public thinks are in charge
Its whose behind the frontmen and women that matters

World's a mess and not getting better. It would I think be better if it were women pulling the strings of those we think are our leaders.

That is of course IF they are not already..

 

Interesting article. Perhaps chastity "bottles up" normal hormones.....and leads to feminization. As an example....both men and women produce estrogen....women obviously more so than men....but if men are not allowed to orgasm there may be a build of "estrogenic" activity in their bodies....perhaps even secondary results like some breast development.

 

You can put an end to the masculine era but that still doesn't cure ignorance/stupidity/evil. I live in a country where they are separating immigrant children from their parents and the agency in charge of doing so is run by a woman. Chemically reducing masculinity would help but not cure societies problems. Dumb is still dumb whether it is masculine of feminine.

 

Interesting question. Population growth (in a world with limited resources) and climate change are probably the two biggest challenges facing mankind at present so a drop in male fecundity would be no bad thing in that sense. But the type of endocrine disruptors you mention are pretty evil chemically and some are strongly carcinogenic, like PCBs. The rubber used in older sex toys was prone to leak phthalates, and has now been replaced, although apparently you still get some from milk via the tubing used in production. Soy is also considered to be an endocrine disruptor but is generally considered to have anti-cancer effects. So maybe a nice solution is to include soy in as many foods as possible!

 

Evolution is slow. Human society less so but still constrained by evolutionary traits. Male or female, non of us need to be bound to any particular and largely learned traits. In my (x) years I can see a shift in attitudes. Despite the odd step back here and there (including current ones) mostly for the better.

I don't think pollutants can be a good thing in any way at all and they are certainly not necessary for a desirable change. I think most sane and educated men see women and people of different sexual leanings as equals.

Perhaps it's just different (nicer and better educated) people I associate with now but there is a marked change from the experiences in my youth.

It may be the end of the 'masculine era' and that would be a good thing, but I like to think it is not due to pollutants but due to societal development.

 

There's no evidence that this happens and no reason why it should.

The OP is a pertinent question. Sperm counts are falling and the reasons are unclear. At the moment it's not a great problem, but in fifteen generations? That's about 350 - 400 years time. Think how different we are from men and women of the 1600s. Many inches taller, for one thing. Our successors in 2400 will be very different from us, and if there is a continuation of the lowering of the sperm count that will lead to significant problems. Presumably, science will find an answer to the question of procreation.

But the interesting thing will be whether, along with reduced fertility, men of the future will also have reduced testosterone and the other characteristics that make us, in general, violent and unpredictable.