Oct 13 2009
He’s Got Big Ovaries
Upon witnessing a male behave in an extreme fashion — aggressive, impulsive, risky — we customarily conclude that the male “has big balls.” To behave like that, well, you’ve got to be high on testosterone, and for an ample supply, you need a major set of huevos. So to speak.
Recent research into male territorial aggression, however, has shed light on the crucial role estrogen likely plays. Yes, estrogen.
In Estrogen Link In Male Aggression Sheds New Light On Sex-specific Behaviors I learned,
For the first time, researchers have identified networks of nerve cells in the brain that are associated with how male mice defend their territory and have shown that these cells are controlled by the female hormone estrogen.
Okay, this is male mice. But judging from scads of research into other behavioral phenomena, the finding is likely to hold true for our kind.
If you didn’t know, the male body makes estrogen, as the female body makes testosterone. The behavior of each sex is influenced by hormones customarily associated with the opposite sex. Truth is, you don’t need ovaries to make estrogen, just as you don’t need testicles to make testosterone. If you need a high quantity of these hormones, however, it helps to have glands that specialize in making them.
Back to territoriality and estrogen. The territorial male protects his turf. He protects his mating opportunities, his mate, his nest, his offspring. What follows is pure speculation, but I could see why estrogen and not testosterone is the key hormone.
First, being the “female” hormone, estrogen likely drives females into becoming protective mothers. Second, one of the roles testosterone plays is to drive males, and females, into “making babies.” By the hormone NOT additionally being key to territoriality, multiple fertilization strategies open up. Sex without diligent parental investment becomes possible. As does sex with parental investment. And yes, numerous psychological studies suggest that different males — human males — seem oriented toward different sexual strategies, irregardless of their upbringing or religion, or culture, or whatnot. Well, maybe not totally irregardless.
No, I’m not excusing male philandering or attempting to explain away male commitment-phobia evident in some males. The sexual stereotype certainly does not hold true for all males. It is more of a caricature, an exaggeration of a kernel of truth. I’m just venturing where the science leads me. Though I have likely ventured beyond the science. But my point is that it is possible to better understand behavior without condoning it.
Here’s a provocative idea for an experiment. I wonder if male and female soccer and hockey goalies, and perhaps even defensemen, have higher estrogen levels, on average, than those offensive players whose role is less to protect a territory than to invade one. I wonder. Quick, someone swab the inside of the cheeks to soccer and hockey players across the land and do a DNA test. An inquiring mind wants to know if hormone levels may have influenced the players’ affinity for a position. (Of course, this would have to be done before the choosing of a position. The influence between behavior and biology is confoundingly bi-directional. Playing the role could change hormone levels.)
