Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

NCFM Chicago Chapter President Tim Goldich, The Less Masculine the Better

May 6, 2021

The Less Masculine the Better

One of the more neglected men’s health issues involves an attack on masculinity itself. It comes in the form of excessive estrogenic chemicals in the environment and in the foods we eat. Many sources concur; estrogen and estrogen-related chemicals and even foodstuffs are ubiquitous at the local supermarket. And it could be that the attack on red meat and the tendency to replace it with soy products is a contributing factor.

In keeping with her wide-ranging study of the biological differences between men and women, neuroscientist Anne Moir offers comprehensive scientific evidence that men have different dietary needs than women. Moir claims that to get enough of the specific amino acids and proteins a man needs in the higher quantities he needs—to maintain healthy levels of iron and zinc—males need red meat in their diet. “Red meat has been demonized—health has been the excuse, but politics is the reason.” [1] If she’s right, the oft-made claim that men are partly to blame for their own health issues, because men eat too much red meat, is turned on its ear.

nat;ional coalition for menMore troubling is Moir’s claim that the soy products replacing meat have estrogen-like properties that can feminize males. Apparently, soy is found in about 60 percent of all processed foods. She also joins the chorus of scientists warning of the feminizing effect of various chemicals in the environment. Do women on the pill pass female hormones into the water system? Also, a wide range of estrogenic chemicals, phthalates, dioxin, and other pollutants have been implicated. In nature, the feminizing effects on many species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and even aquatic mammals have been observed and documented for decades.

As compared to just fifty years ago, average testosterone levels and sperm counts have been cut in half. [2]

According to Janet Raloff of Science News, exposure in the womb, even to small amounts of certain plasticizers and solvents, may result in smaller-than-normal penis size, testes that do not descend into the scrotum properly, low testosterone levels, lower sperm production, and increased risk of testicular cancer. And, it is claimed, “more than one-quarter of U.S. women have phthalate concentrations in their bodies greater than those deemed in the new study to have genital-altering effects” on the boys they give birth to. [3] The effects are not just physical, but also behavioral. “The greater a boy’s fetal exposure to certain phthalates, the less often he tended to engage in typically masculine play.” [4] According to Newsweek, reduced sperm count in men is a “well-documented” trend, and “scientists wonder if endocrine disrupters in the water are partially responsible.” [5]

Not only does estrogen pollution feminize males, in sufficient quantities, it may prevent males from being born at all.

[S]everal recent studies point to the possible importance of ubiquitous hormonelike pollutants. For instance, a 1996 study reported the sex of children born to couples who had been exposed to large amounts of dioxin during a July 1976 industrial accident near Seveso, Italy. In the first 8 years after the accident, 12 daughters — and no sons — were born to the nine couples who had more than 100 parts per trillion (ppt) of dioxin in blood samples taken at the time of the accident.[6]

Apparently, in areas where dioxin and estrogen pollution is at its worst, the male birthrate has been cut in half!

The trend has not escaped the attention of documentarian Michael (Stupid White Men) Moore. “Guys!  Nature is trying to kill us off! Why is Mother Nature doing this?” In answer to his own question: “If you were Nature . . . what would you do if you noticed that it was one particular gender of humans that was going out of its way to destroy you?”[7] Misandry, anyone? The evident delight with which Moore greets the news of declining male birthrates may offer a clue as to why this issue is so neglected.

Why isn’t the media ringing the alarm bell? Why don’t we care? It would seem the consensus holds that testosterone = “toxic masculinity.” And so, the less testosterone the better. In other words, we don’t care owing to misandry. – Tim Goldich


[1]       Moir, Anne and Moir, Bill, Why Men Don’t Iron: The Fascinating and Unalterable Differences Between Men and Women (New York: CITADEL PRESS/Kensington Publishing Corp., 1999) pp.53-100.

[2]        Cahalan, Susan, “Why more men are suffering from infertility than ever before,” The New York Post, February, 2021,,by%201%20percent%20each%20year.

[3]       Raloff, Janet and Harder, B., “Gender Measure: Pollutant appears to alter boys’ genitals,” Science News, June 04, 2005, Vol. 167, p.355.

[4]        Raloff, Janet, “Chemicals from plastics show effects in boys,” Science News, December 19, 2009, p.10.  “The greater a boy’s fetal exposure to certain phthalates, the less often he tended to engage in typically masculine play.”

[5] (retrieved November 08, 2008)

[6]       Raloff, J., “Why Are Boys’ Birth Rates Falling?”, Science News, April 04, 1998,

[7]       Moore, Michael, Stupid White Men . . . and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! (New York: Regan Books/HarperCollins, 2001), pp.144-5.

Chapter President Tim Goldich, The Less Masculine the Better

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.