Perhaps you are too young to have seen the 60 year process as females entered the factories and police and military and softened everything, changed the universities to the point they went from mostly male, to mostly female, female paratroopers, famous all male bars and clubs sued and losing their cases.
The pressure to make men more pliable as you describe, was always from the new female rights and presence, feminism and the government and law that advanced feminism.
Feminism was about everything, not just the family, “equal rights” was the ax they took to America.
Men adopting “The Playboy Philosophy” in the 60s, opened the door for Feminism.
I was around for it. Sounds like you want the old way. I’m for treating everyone as an individual, all around.
There is not actual evidence to support a theory that would back up your association, but I suspect there is something to it. That is that with many mammals, for example, there is a pecking order with the dominant males, yes, producing more testosterone. With our old world, which you seem to prefer, men were on top simply for being men. I would guess that to produce at least a smidge more testosterone up and down the ranks.
In my world, where individuals get whatever status or jobs they earn (though if we’d kick out 50 million illegals all Americans could, should they make the choice, afford to marry and raise a family with just one income earner—and we’d probably be much happier and better off with that), more testosterone-rich men would naturally be in leadership positions, but those women who want and earn such roles would be fine and accepted as well.