November 3, 2022 - 10:30am
The age at which a girl first starts her period can reveal a great deal about both her physical health and her social context.
In Western countries, the average age at menarche fell from 16.5 years in 1840 to 13 in the 1990s. Most medical historians believe this to have been the result of improved nutrition and reduced impact of infectious disease in childhood. The richer societies became, the earlier girls began puberty.
But, peculiarly, since the turn of the century that relationship between affluence and age at menarche has gone into reverse. Now it is girls of lower socioeconomic status who get their periods first.
A piece last week in the New Yorker, titled ‘Why More and More Girls Are Hitting Puberty Early’, attributed the rise in early menarche to several factors. Among these were rising obesity levels, less sleep triggered by increased technology use, and a spike in stress triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic.
I’m sceptical of this last claim (as if the far more lethal pandemics of the past were free from stress!), but there is certainly good evidence that high calorie intake is associated with earlier menarche, along with a range of social factors.
We have known since the 1980s, for instance, that girls in Western countries who grow up without a father at home begin puberty earlier. This link between fatherlessness and early sexual development is likely a result of the fact that, as one group of researchers puts it, “during human evolutionary history, when girls encountered familial conditions that were unfavourable for survival (e.g., insecure and unsupportive family relationships), it was adaptive to become reproductively mature earlier.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the political implications, the New Yorker piece does not mention this fatherlessness factor. And although there is a brief discussion of the possibility that “endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in food, plastics, and personal-care products” may be affecting girls’ (and boys’) sexual development, there is also no mention of the role that hormonal birth control might be playing in this story.
Here is a scientific theory that you might be familiar with by way of Alex Jones. In 2010, the infamous shock jock announced that the US government was intentionally putting chemicals into the water supply with the goal of feminising American men. “It’s a chemical warfare operation,” Jones told his listeners, “I don’t like ’em putting chemicals in the water that TURN THE FREAKIN’ FROGS GAY!”
His interpretation of the research may have been some way off, but there was a grain of truth in Jones’s theory. This was presumably sourced from some of the perfectly legitimate research indicating that male amphibians show physiological signs of feminisation when exposed to synthetic oestrogen. The oestrogen, in turn, is introduced to their environment via the urine of women using hormonal birth control.
Although we know for sure that synthetic oestrogen is found in the urine of women using hormonal birth control, we don’t know exactly what effect its diluted presence in tap water might be having on human, rather than amphibian, health. Still, it is likely to be having some effect, including on sexual development, given that exposure to high levels of environmental oestrogen seems to be associated with early puberty in girls.
Blaming hormonal birth control or fatherlessness for these mysterious and slightly alarming physiological changes is difficult to write about in a progressive publication like the New Yorker. But then, as so often, ‘the science’ — if pursued honestly — does not always produce politically palatable results.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeJoe Rogan recently talked about how years ago Alex Jones was talking about this guy who had a private island where he supplied underage girls to politicians and powerful people so he could blackmail them. Joe Rogan admitted he thought Alex Jones was loopy and the story wasn’t really plausible.
Paul Joseph Watson was talking about world-wide pedophilia at the highest levels of government at least seven years ago. Weird when these “conspiracy theories” prove not to be theories.
In a girls’ grammar school in the 70s it was very apparent that working class girls matured sexually before middle class girls. This seemed to be related to body shape; the working class girls were shorter and fatter than the taller, leaner middle class girls. We all ate the same school dinners and did the same games; if anything, working class girls were keener on games, whilst middle class girls affected a languid disdain. Very few of us, if any, were on the Pill.
The working class girls were mostly locals and descended from generations of peasants, whilst the middle class girls had a more hybrid pedigree or, if local, were the daughters of land-owning farmers, probably descended from Normans and/or Vikings. I suspect this is the clue.
Merely an anecdote — but the plural of anecdote is data. Thank you.
An astute observation, Caroline. I think we can agree that this is still the case today. Have a look at the people attending Royal Ascot versus those assembling at the Aintree Racecourse in Liverpool –particularly on “Ladies” Day. Apart from garish colours, strange frocks, and an an abundance of spray tans at the latter, the women seem to be stockier and shorter. Is it nature or nurture? A combination of both? I don’t know, but the differences are real.
“An astute observation, Caroline.”
It really wasn’t. Diet can explain things far better than her classroom snobbery.
Estrogen and other hormones in the environment are very likely responsible for a lot of issues not discussed in the media, as LP states. But the principal source seems to be domestic animals getting hormones, or just urinating, rather than human birth control, which seems to be a small contributor.
https://www.erniegraves.com/controlotron/how-to-filter-estrogen-out-of-water.html
Back in the old days urine was part of the scape – animals and people peeing all over the place, much like Downtown San Fancisco today.. Like the Hebredian woman using urine as a mordant and treatment wile ‘wolking’ the tweed; like pitching the chamber pot contents out the window, and the gutters flowing with it….and anyway – who drinks tap water today.
I think it is all the chemicals – industrial, plastic decaying, paints, lead, emissions, fake and real sugar, preservatives….and the sheer millions of tons of medications swallowed or rubbed on, and then down the sewer they go – and in breast milk, and just what they are doing inside you – What,,1/3 of the people on antidepressants, 1/3 on cholesterol regulators, and the rest on something else – swallowing and swallowing drugs like food….cosmetics and shampoo and stick deodorant and air freshers and fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides..
Take allergies – up 1000 fold in children since 1980. That happened to be the year vaccines were explosively increased, by sheer coincidence… Then ADHD, and every kind of behavior disorder there is exploded – mental issues, and gay frogs….
You will be surprised to know that the vast and overwhelming majority of people in the UK drink tap water. Meanwhile I am interested by your stat that allergies have increased 1000-fold since 1980, and that in 1980 “vaccines were explosively increased”. Would you be so kind as to provide credible references for those two assertions.
”More than 54% of American children are suffering from one or more chronic illnesses, with the late 1980s and early 1990s viewed as the gateway period that launched the decline. Autism, ADHD, asthma and allergies have doubled since that time, with autism now one in 34 children in some regions. Pediatric autoimmune conditions are also on the rise, and the proportion of public school children using special education services is estimated at 13% to 25% of school populations. Mounting evidence indicates environmental toxins such as heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides as the principal culprits, while studies link vaccines and toxic vaccine ingredients to a wide range of adverse health outcomes, including seizures, neurodevelopmental disorders, and infant death. As the medical, public health, and government circles remain silent on the social and economic fallout from these toxic exposures, American children have never been so sick.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/too-many-sick-children/?itm_term=home
Known Culprits
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/known-culprits/?itm_term=home
‘‘This is an epidemic. And according to HHS, it gets worse. 54% of children have some kind of chronic illness.
In 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Act and gave blanket immunity to vaccine companies for injuries caused by vaccines. And for some of these new vaccines, they can make up to a billion dollars a year in profits or even more.
This is what happened, in 1986 there were 11 vaccines on the schedule, but today there are 53 jabs.
Look what happened at the same time, in 1988 only 12.8% of kids had chronic disease, today 54%. So the rise was coterminous with the expansion of the vaccine schedule.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/members-only/vaccine-safety-project-transcript/
I really think it is as simple as access to calorie/nutrient dense food. Even unhealthy empty calories such as those from fast food outlets, that the working poor would more than likely consume more than the upper middle class and upper class girls. The human body gets the signal, “I can now devote less nutrients to growing up and my immune system so let’s go ahead and become reproductively ready now.” Does that make sense?
What doesn’t get studied is often simply dismissed. And since a proper scientific study is expensive and time consuming a lot of interesting hypotheses are dismissed. (Of course, one can do a statistical analysis of the information you can get by searching Google, but that’s not proof of anything.)
When you add the politically induced spin(s), not to mention the reproducability crisis and the growing evidence of fraud, you can see why “science” and “truth” often seem to have only the slightest connection.
Needless to say, I have a hypothesis of my own, universally ignored.
I’ve noticed that many mammals vary the typical number of off-spring from year to year; probably because of fluctuations in the food supply. The female white-tail deers, for instance, are most often seen with one fawn. But in some years many of them have two; while in other years there are barely any fawns to be seen. I wonder if some as yet un-described mechanism is controlling the fertility of the does.
I’ve noticed the same among the squirrels. A bumper crop of acorns quickly produces a bumper crop of silly young squirrels for my dog to chase.
I am but a lowly bachelor but still I ask you; couldn’t a similar mechanism be at work among the humans?
That would make sense. I have noticed a similar fluctuation with wild turkeys that I have hunted for 25 years enthusiastically. At least with the Eastern Wild Turkey, I am convinced that very warm springs end up producing more females and cold wet springs usually produce more males.
There was also a lot of concerns about phthalates and their impact on the reproductive system. Without proper studies it has hard to know, so ample room for shock jocks.
At least phthalates are on the regulators radar. They have to be controlled for and risk assessed in pharmaceutical manufacture. They’re a breakdown product for much plastics production so don’t expect to see them being banned anytime soon!
Yes, I am sure you are right. Just adding another of many possible factors. Everyone will have their favourite cause, it may be that several factors are involved. Difficult to nail down.
Regarding phthalates and endocrine inhibitors still active in drinking water, how is is possible at this point to examine a control group? The stuff is everywhere. It is akin to the same argument for why COVID vaccines are so heavily pushed: if everyone gets at least one injection, then there is no way to examine any side-effects.
Why is the effect of fatherlessness on girls a political issue? Is there a widely accepted political viewpoint that says children don’t need fathers?
Yes, Feminism.
Yes. Communism. Sorry but Feminism has been milked and summarily discarded by the neo-Marxist Left. Now they move on to further destruction of identity via transgenderism. This is the goal. James Lindsay with New Discourses (YouTube) explains this very very well.
Globalist governments and corps. Fascism in fact.
YES – the Welfare State says children must not have fathers – or the income is reduced by the father’s wages. The ‘Welfare Trap’ is almost entirely based on the destruction of Marriage – it is the very core of how it works.
Quite so. A truly horrible example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences” in action.
Yes Michael. Since 1978 in Australia. Feminism. Family Law Courts.
Surely the hormones given to cows to increase milk production is the culprit?
That is not allowed in the UK or Europe. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen but if it does I think it would be on a very small scale and would be illegal. I think it was one of the problems with a proposed trade agreement between the US and EU and would be a problem with a UK/US trade agreement as well.
Boys with moobs are becoming more common. Testosterone levels declining. While both sexes have a combination of hormones belonging to both, the balance makes a difference. Are males becoming obsolete?
Yes and I think sperm counts in western men have also been falling.
World-wide actually. I have some very simple and rather impolite and crude theories as to why. Allow me to attempt to explain without being too explicit: Social media. I-Phones. Pornography. Men “shoot their bullets” more often with no actual “target” in the room with them if that makes sense. 🙂
As an older man – from back when us boys were sort of like little wild animals, when ‘Lord of the Flies’ was always lurking in the background when ever boys congregated – I must say today’s boys are total Pu**ies – they stay at home, like mice mostly – just inside except for the couple hours when they come and go from school – then they are just crudeish louts – but otherwise, shut-ins doing who knows what – but not charging about like we were when freed from school. I would not be surprised to find they are loaded with female hormones.
Moobs are a feature of obesity too, which may also be feminising
My take on mid-life obesity in men (e.g. ‘beer belly’) was that it signals a kind of faux-pregnancy, being a signal that the person having this feature is not up for, or interested in, combat and competition with other stronger and younger males. In regard to which it was interesting to read (a long time ago) that certain indigenous American tribes forced young males who had failed their initiation rites to wear ‘ womens’ ‘ clothing.
Well I don’t think young males today could benefit from older men dissing them. The overwhelming machinery of the feminist state is already enough to crush even the best. Perhaps what wiser men should do is to share their experience with their younger colleagues along with some sympathy. The current failings of younger men are not being helped by the “well, it is all your own fault” rhetoric by older men that should know better. I don’t mean older men should be denying the harsh reality that has been revealed about gender roles – I mean they should be reflecting about the new scenario and advising young men on strategies to manouver around it.
Well said Andre. Older generations allowed the feminists to take over, knowing full well that the family was being attacked. What do you get when women are in charge of boys from birth the death? Look around.