Globe and Mail ran a piece about this last week. I was amazed at how many guys screamed blue murder about it. Insecure in their masculinity, much?

I think part of the problem is that we have lots of words for female beauty (eg. voluptuous, willowy, petite), but very few for male beauty; it's either "handsome", or somehow "feminine". Also, as with female beauty, there's a lack of recognition that certain "looks" go in and out of fashion.

Despite my gladness that the "bishounen" look is finally getting some Western recognition, I do have a bit of a problem with this business of judging character traits by looks. Obviously the women in the study only made those judgments in response to prodding by the researchers. Whether they like big square-jawed bears or lithe, sultry prettyboys, the straight women I know wouldn't make guesses about a guy's fatherhood abilities without having a conversation with him first.

I think you are missing the point- these studies have been around for quite some time and have stood up to tests time and time again, and in multiple cultures.

As for the physical characteristics that you asked about, they are usually the ones determined by the amount of testosterone present- people with more testosterone always have more "masculine" characteristics, because that is the hormone that actively changes that feature (e.g. most features that males take on during puberty). For example, if a man has a lot of testosterone, he is most likely more muscular, a stronger jawbone, broader shoulders, more facial hair, etc.

The studies have consistently shown that women are initially more attracted to the more "masculine" type, believing them to be better short-term lovers (and perhaps they are), while consistently choosing the more "feminine" male for the long-term partner, which is also probably true.

Sorry, but this is science. Just because it doesn't work with what you believe in doesn't mean you need to actively work to discredit it. Or we could just dismiss modern science in favor of personal ideology- I hear it's really working out for our current administration.

Actually, Alex, evolutionary psychology has a LOT of critics, including from other scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controversy

[And Samhita, did you mean tot say evolutionary psychology in that first sentence, rather than evolutionary biology? As is my admittedly limited understanding, evolutionary biology is pretty much just the study of evolution, where evolutionary psychology is making claims about human nature and behavior based on how they evolved.]

hmmm, nice strawman, Alex. Evolutionary psychology is NOT a universally-accepted field, and anytime you try to figure out the "why" of human behavior, you are necessarily doing something that is at least in part non-scientific. Until science can fully explain the mind and consciousness with a zero percent chance of error, it will always be this way. Much smarter people than you or I have attempted to justify scientific explanations of human consciousness. All of them, every single one, for thousands upon thousands of years, have failed. If you're not familiar with philosophical skepticism, I suggest you look into it -- start out with Descartes and work your way from there. So calling this "science" is awfully simplistic and frankly demonstrates a discomforting willingness on your part to simply accept the scientific status quo (because we all know scientists are all completely one hundred percent objective, and their personal beliefs never influence experiments, hypotheses, observations, or results at ALL).

For what it's worth, I am generally ONLY attracted to men with at least a few "feminine" features, be they big lips, long lashes, or little to no body hair (actually, that one's ALMOST its own requirement). What can I say -- I like 'em pretty :)

Cara, I know all about the controversies, although there is very little actual debate on biological attractions.

The original post completely ignored any science whatsoever behind this, despite that the points that she attacked have long since been proven.

Controversy does not mean that the science is invalid. Global warming is a "controversy". No, it's not a scientific controversy, it's a political debate.

In the same sense, the factors that go into biological attraction are no longer under controversy. Read the wikipedia article you linked- it doesn't even address the topic at hand.

The Law Fairy-

The science in question has been put through the scientific method numerous times, with consistent results. From my perspective, and the perspective of many other scientists, it is undeniable that genetic/biological factors play a role in our selection of mates.

I'm quite familiar with Descartes, and I'm not one to blindly accept the latest scientific study. Thank you for the condescension, though!

Yes Cara, thank you for pointing that out. I totally meant to write evolutionary psychology. Let me fix that now, lol.

I don't think it's so simple that we can altogether dismiss evolutionary psychology. We accept that humans are animals. We accept that we, like animals, have evolved through natural selection and all other some such processes. We accept, like animals, that our lives are based around the need for resources and the drive to reproduce. Why, then, do we dismiss the idea that, like animals, our social behavior, like animals, is in part determined by evolution? I think it is because to accept that the possibility that there might be some gender-specific truths is just too threatening to some, and for good reason--the knowledge can be used for undermining purposes, especially by an uneducated populace. (I'm reminded of a comment I could make about a lot of posts or things that are in the news. It is unfortunate that they are publicized to a general public that has not been taught the means through which to criticize them. Learning about scientific studies and their limits should be a part of every student's education.)

I do accept the criticism, however, that, as homo sapiens, we are different than the rest of the animal kingdom. We have developed consciousness, and are the first beings on the planet to have done so. I think this throws a wrench into any attempt to understand our behavior on a purely biological basis. The sociological and the biological must combine for the understanding to be complete.

In the meantime, I am all for criticizing ideas of 'masculine' and 'feminine', as long as it remains acceptable to submit to the idea that, I don't know, some kind of female fish behaves one way 90% of the time, and her male counterpart does not. Let's never dismiss scientific evidence for political purposes, and let's make sure the scientific evidence is sound.

By the way, a great book on evolutionary psychology for anyone who is interested, is called "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature", by Matt Ridley.

I pretty much agree with alxinwonderland. Ignoring the science based on your belief that "masculine and feminine" aren't terms we should use is preposterous. In science, the amount of testosterone determines how "masculine" you are. Not cultural stereotypes- the amount of testosterone. And objective and measurable sum, if you will, of your manliness.

"masculinity in terms of testosterone" =/= "manliness as defined by GQ"

Oh, and the Law Fairy- when I stopped seeing red, I re-read what you wrote and am really just staggered at the arrogance of it. Telling me to "start from there"? FYI, I "started" with Descartes when my father gave me Discourses on my tenth birthday. I don't know you who are or what kind of background you have, and for that reason you don't see me assuming you're some sort of idiot- but it spoke volumes when you did! But I would recommend The Red Queen if you haven't read it.

Through some interesting coincidence, I just finished re-reading The Red Queen while on vacation this weekend. So I know whereof I speak.

I don't buy the book as gospel. Even the author admits that there's a great deal of conjecture, conflicting evidence, conflicting theories that explain evidence equally well, and a multitude of other problems. On another note (only lightly related), the author displays in several places absolutely no understanding of feminism.

As the author himself states, the Red Queen theory may have a place in science. But it is by no means cemented as the be-all-end-all, and will probably end up being amended, adjoined into other theories, or even supplanted completely. The author, indeed, seemed to be looking forward to seeing what happened in the theory.

I also noticed that his language got less certain, and his explanation of theories involved more guesswork, every time he moved away from animals and into the realm of human beings. So that's something else you proponants of the Red Queen might want to keep in mind.

I wouldn't call myself a proponent of The Red Queen- I found it interesting and illuminating, but in many places thinly-veiled guesswork.

That's sort of the moral of the day, and my general method of putting the pieces of human behavior together: most of it is unknown, most of it is off-putting, but that doesn't mean ALL of it is incorrect. Find the good stuff, forget the rest. But please, don't forget it all based off a conviction you made long before you read the latest.

I am sceptical of this study as indicative of anything evolutionary-based or genetic-based. It sounds as if social conditioning could completely explain the results. In the article it says:

This research shows a high amount of agreement between women about what they see, personality wise, when asked to 'judge a book by its cover.'

Well, duh. It is completely unsurprising to me that women who grew up in the same culture are going to make similar judgments about personality based on looks.

Furthermore, as another commenter pointed out, these women are judging a "book by its cover" only due to being explicitly asked to by the researchers. Who's to say whether outside of the research environment these women would actually have consciously made such judgments and decided whether or not to interact with a person based on them? I, for one, would never make a judgment on how good of a father a man is based solely on his looks.

Also, the research says NOTHING about whether men with more "feminine" features ACTUALLY make better fathers. All it says is that the women in this study were more likely to BELIEVE that men with "feminine" features would make better fathers, when asked explicitly by the researcher.

Thanks for the comment, Kimmy. I will admit that it's been a few years since I read the book myself; I can't say that my opinions wouldn't have changed, had I just read it today.

Law Fairy said:
"Until science can fully explain the mind and consciousness with a zero percent chance of error, it will always be this way."

I understand and support the sentiment you express here, but factually what you said is wrong. Science doesn’t try to prove things 'with a zero% chance of error'. In any field (physics, chem, biochem, nutrition, ect) scientists usually use a p-value of
That said, when I read the page (and it sounded like it was out of Marie Clare or something), my biggest concern was that it was taking a subconscious thought-process (attraction), and then making ppl rationalize it and put it into words. They're two steps removed from what they are 'testing', and how can they account for those possible errors?

That said, I believe that theoretically, good meaningful science can be performed in this field, but that means they have to account for racism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, classism, ect (in both the subject and the person designing the experiment). I too would prefer that more detailed knowledge about the brain/mind existed and that we had a better way to examine it. But that we don't, in my book, shouldn't mean that all other research should stop, but it should be conducted knowingly realizing, accepting, and acknowledging its limitations. Science has never pretended to be perfect, that's what we have religion for.

Correction:
That was supposed to read as 'a p value of less than five percent', but I guess it didn't like all those characters...

I don't appreciate physical characteristics identified as masculine and feminine as though there is a static way to look manly verses looking feminine. Why is a square jaw masculine? I have a square jaw and I don't think I am masculine.

Because of averages. men are (generally) different from women in height, musculature, and breast size, to name a few categories.

That's fairly well accepted, I think. Gender differentiation is common across many other mammals as well.

Given that, it doesn't seem too preposterous to imagine that men and women are also different in facial shape, ON AVERAGE.

Obviously, any time you talk about large group averages you will find some evidence of anomalies. It doesn't make the comments based on averages less true, though it may make them less relevant.

"For the most part, evolutionary psychology scares me."

For most of part, people who dismiss entire fields of science, scare me. Especially when they know little about the field.

What scares you? Evolutionary psychologists who are studying how stressful environments can induce earlier onset of puberty? oooh, scary.

How about evolutionary psychologists who are studying the evolved mechanisms that are specically designed to process faces? Thid voulf help cure prosagnosia (inborn inability to recognize faces). Eeek, frightening!

How about those scary evolutionary psychologists who are testing how dangerous threats can evoke a coalitional psychology - a need to affiliate with cooperative partners? Acck!

Most frightening are those evolutionary psychologists who are studying the evolution of theory of mind (abilty to recognize that others have different perspectives of the world than us). More specifically, how evolved motivational and emotional systems fuel the development of this system, which could ultimately lead to better treatments for autism. The horror, the horror!

What about evolutionary psychologists studying how social norms and mental mechanisms supporting the transmission of these cultural norms evolved? It's like a Freddy Krueger movie!

It seems like some people are irrationally afraid of the claim that some sex differences might be rooted in evolutionary processes.

If you want to believe that women are mentally just carbon copies of males, go right ahead.

Other people are interested in studying women's unique and specialized evolved cognitive systems.

For example, they study how women's preferences in mates shift adaptively over the course of the ovulatory cycle - in study after study, women's preferences for men with physical indicators of health and robustness peak during the high fertility phase of the ovulatory cycle (symmetry, facial masculinity, muscularity, height, dissimilar MHC genes, etc.). Good luck explaining that from a strict social constructionist perspective.

Sailorman, the statistical average is a scary thing that doesn't always exist in real life.

Here's an example that was used in my stats class, the average human being has one breast and one testicle... But you don't see too many of those walking around, do you?

"I don't appreciate physical characteristics identified as masculine and feminine as though there is a static way to look manly verses looking feminine. Why is a square jaw masculine? "

It's a statistical description. Men, more than women, have squarer jaws, higher brow ridges, smaller eyes, etc. Testosterone fuels development of these traits. In contrast, estrogen promotes more gracile jaws, larger eyes, etc. Hence the reason it is referred to as "masculinized" vs. "feminized". Sometimes those labels are dropped for more neutral labels (e.g., estrogenized)

"So I suppose this study relies on fixed categories of masculine and feminine to prove its logic, but we already know that is problematic."

The study does the EXACT OPPOSITE. They manipulated a set of male faces so that they ranged from extremely masculinized to extremely feminized. Within males.

UCLA,

Men on average have smaller eyes?! Says who?

"If you want to believe that women are mentally just carbon copies of males, go right ahead."

I think it has less to do with believing men and women are the same than with believing that all men act the same and all women act the same (have the same motivations, etc.). There is more variation within the sexes than between the sexes.

I have not read extensively in the field of evolutionary psychology. What have read has left me unimpressed. I'm not talking about being unimpressed with the results, I'm talking about being unimpressed with the methodology.

Perhaps there's some great evo-psycho work going on out there, but if there is it's getting reported faithfully or correctly in the mainstream media.

Sigh, another "is it biology OR culture" post, with people having a knee-jerk reaction against the application of evolutionary principles to human behavior.

The simple fact is that EVERY single behavior or preference relies on the deployment of evolved mechanisms interacting with environmental and social stimuli. This includes every behavior from heart rate and breathing to mate preferences, cooperation, formation of social norms, love, etc.

The interesting question is how do different environments evoke different evolved responses, what evolved structures or systems support any given behavior, and how social stimuli interact with these evolved systems

Seeking mates is a critical evolutionary behavior. It is a fundental human social motive. There has been tremendous variance in what people find across across time and across cultures.

Evolutionary psychologists are interested in examining whether systematic factors underlie these changes. Some of the factors driving these cross-cultural preferences include prevalence of parasites in the environment, the linkage of certain traits with high or low prestige, stress in the environment, prevalence of food stores, male vs. female control of resources, etc.

What's the problem with identifying (maybe) evolutionary/developmental explanations for human behavior? Studies like this help us understand why our brains work the way they do, which in turn can help understand and even change social norms. The idea that brain chemistry and other evolutionary factors of behavior are totally separate from social norms and expectations is false and potentially harmful (as in, "Homosexuals choose/are conditioned to be gay, so they can therefore choose/be conditioned not to, so homophobia and persecution is their fault"). Humans socialize in the ways we do BECAUSE of our brain chemistry, etc. It's why cats don't socialize the same way. I agree with sbsanon: The study tested a group of women on their knee-jerk reactions to photographs of men. Nobody asked what kind of fathers these (nonexistent, as the photos were doctored) men would actually be. The point of the study was to learn something about attraction and the human brain.

It always amuses me to see these studies come up in the news, because I actually went along and took part in the experiments to earn beer money as a student. The photographs which participants rated (at the stage when I took part a couple of years ago at least) were of members of the student population at the same very small - approx. 4500 undergrads - and insular university, and of course were drawn from the pool of students who are willing to give their time for small sums of money. The chances of seeing the face of someone you knew, or at least recognised, were very high. This was extremely creepy and if nothing else, it seriously threw you off your face-rating stride.

"I think it has less to do with believing men and women are the same than with believing that all men act the same and all women act the same (have the same motivations, etc.). There is more variation within the sexes than between the sexes. "

If you believe that, then you are thinking like an evolutionary psychologist!

Evolutionary psychologists are testing the following things:

A) Are there traits that, on average, differ between men and women?

B) What factors explain variances in behavior and preferences within each sex, and how do different environments evoke these preferences? For example, why do some men take an aggressive strategy in response to confrontations and why do others take a submissive approach?

C) How do behaviors change within a given individual (e.g., when hungry, when ovulating, etc.).

D) How do hormonal and genetic factors respond to different environmental stimuli, and what role do they play in behavior?

"Perhaps there's some great evo-psycho work going on out there, but if there is it's getting reported faithfully or correctly in the mainstream media."

Well that is certainly true - the media latches on the sexiest and most controversial findings and these get alot of attention. If you want an idea of what ev psych folks study on a daily basis, look here:

http://www.ehbonline.org/current

" I'm not talking about being unimpressed with the results, I'm talking about being unimpressed with the methodology."

Well that is not something I understand at all. That's what is so exciting about the field! Lots of creative new methodologies!
Surveys, carefully manipulated computer stimuli, measuring hormone levels before and after a stimuli, wearing t-shirts for 48 hours to capture body scent, eye-trackers that measure attentional biases, large-scale national data-sets, a great deal of work cross-culturally and with indigineous peoples, etc.

Replicability of findings.

As a side note, a study of mine got a lot of press last month that basically had the same findings.

Evolutionary scientists propose that exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics are cues of genes that increase offspring viability or reproductive success. In six studies the hypothesis that muscularity is one such cue is tested. As predicted, women rate muscular men as sexier, more physically dominant and volatile, and less committed to their mates than nonmuscular men. Consistent with the inverted-U hypothesis of masculine traits, men with moderate muscularity are rated most attractive. Consistent with past research on fitness cues, across two measures, women indicate that their most recent short-term sex partners were more muscular than their other sex partners (ds = .36, .47). Across three studies, when controlling for other characteristics (e.g., body fat), muscular men rate their bodies as sexier to women (partial rs = .49-.62) and report more lifetime sex partners (partial rs = .20-.27), short-term partners (partial rs = .25-.28), and more affairs with mated women (partial r = .28).

Here are more details:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/muscular-men-have-more-flings-partners-affairs-13670.html

Aigh. I knew this would turn up here.

The lead author on this study is my friend, Dr Lynda Boothroyd. Let me certify not that she's not crazy, misogynistic, or evil.

Now, I'm as dubious about the sort of bollocks-y "evoluntionary psychology" that turned up a few weeks ago (purporting to explain why blondes really are better!) as the next feminist. Actually I thought that one was hysterical. This, however, is not that. I've done a bunch of her studies, I've rated a lot of faces (and they do try to get as wide a sample of test takers as they can, and no, I didn't know anyone pictured.)
I'm glad not everyone on the board is taking the media's portrayal of this study at face value, because of they're making a hash of it.

As mentioned above, this isn't about who IS a better daddy, or long term partner, but about who we perceive as having that potential, based on facial features and structure. We do it - we don't always follow it, or believe our instinctive initial reactions, or anything else - but we do have reactions. You're right, there are uncontrolled influences - but Lynda's not speculating, she's reporting. That's science. The conclusive speculation can come later, from the likes of Zoe Williams and other nutters who read the intro to a study as yet unpublished, and decide they know what it's about and what it means.

"Furthermore, I have met tons of men that are super nurturing and don't have what would be considered feminine features. "

But that isn't really the point, is it?

I've met many women who are taller than many men. That doesn't change the fact that most men are taller than most women.

The point of science, especially social sciences, is to identify systematic patterns.

One area of inquiry is about stereotypes - how do we perceive people of different genders, ethnicities, attractiveness, etc?

This study shows that we also have definite stereotypes regarding facial masculinity.

Where these come from is a question in need of further study. Is it through systematic observation? Is it partially pre-wired? Is through personal experience? Is it all three? Is the stereotype accurate?

The cool thing about Homo sapiens is that we've developed past strict instinctual reactions to everything. But that doesn't mean those instincts aren't still there.

Wow Alex. Looks like you've done the exact thing you accuse me of doing -- making assumptions.

I made the reference to Descartes because I sincerely did not know whether or not you had studied philosophy. A lot of your comments here seem very science-heavy, so there was a fair chance you *hadn't* studied it -- particularly given your aforementioned willingness to simply accept pseudo-scientific fields with little questioning of the methodology, let alone the more pressing epistemic concerns I touched on.

So sorry if I hit a sensitive spot... I do think it's interesting that you read *my* comment as "stagger[ingly] ... arrogan[t]" when you're the one who admits he was "seeing red," because extreme, disproportionate anger is itself a sign of arrogance. Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended, and you're certainly free to remain angry if you feel that's necessary.

Faerylore, I absolutely understand that there is no such thing as scientific certainty, and everything we "know" scientifically is actually only highly probably, but not objectively provable. I think my call for absolute certainty on this issue is related to your notation of the flawed methodology, namely, that they are not directly studying attraction, but rather a filtered, imperfect expression of it from imperfect, non-omniscient human beings.

This comes partly from the skepticism problem that I mentioned earlier. Consciousness is a trickier beast than any other observable phenomenon. Accordingly, getting a handle on what it "really" means is kind of always out of our grasp. Just as we can never know for sure that we're not strapped to the mad scientist's table, similarly we can't demonstrate that the brain activity we monitor is objective proof of a person's thoughts or consciousness. We can only know that X brain pattern is highly likely to result in a person saying or doing Y. But we can never know whether it actually means a person FEELS or THINKS Y, because thoughts and consciousness are not physical. They appear to have physical consequences, but again, science can only test what is directly observable, and people's thoughts and feelings are not directly observable.

Hum, I agree Law Fairy, but I don't think that they should stop studying such phenomena, I just wish that the researchers who do it would be more up front about the limitations of their studies.

My main problem (and maybe this was addressed in the original paper) was that there was no discussion of the limitations of the findings. But somehow I would bet that it was the writer of the pop-psych article that probably made the massive jumps and assumption... Not the original researcher. You see it way too often, ppl twisting around neutral research until it says whatever they wanted it to say. They make mistakes with correlation and causation... and then it usually just goes downhill from there.

"I just wish that the researchers who do it would be more up front about the limitations of their studies."

We are. In pretty much every experimental article, there is a "limitations" section where we detail problems with the actual design of the study, the interpretations of the results, and the generalizability of the findings.

That's not the kind of thing that makes it into a sexy news brief designed to grab more readers and more therefore more ad revenue.

"They make mistakes with correlation and causation... and then it usually just goes downhill from there."

Correlation can sometimes indicate causation. If you don't believe that X causes Y, there is no reason to do the study.

You just try to identify confounding variables as best as possible to more safely infer that X is actually causing Y, not just associated with Y.

"correlation is not causation" is a useful thing to remember, but sometimes people forget that correlation can be an estimate of the degree to which something might be causing something else, particularly when you can statistically control for other plausible variables.

From a physical anthropological viewpoint, there is actually an identifiable difference between males and females. For instance, one of the ways that a physical anthropologist can often tell the difference between a male and a female skeleton is to look at the corner at the back of the jaw; women's are generally more rounded than men's. But as has been pointed out already, this is not to say that all women have rounded jaws and all men have square ones, just that most do. I believe our eyes are trained to see these traits, whether we realize it or not.

And this is also not to say that I agree with the article or the study, but that the comment about identifying sex differences by looks jumped out at me.

“From a physical anthropological viewpoint, there is actually an identifiable difference between males and females.�

Well, of course. The biological differences between the sexes is ubiquitous. The developmental changes that occur in the womb run the gamut from cellular, to systemic, to gross morphological. As a lifelong feminist, particularly one that came of age at the end of the first wave, I don't want there to be significant differences between male and female behavior and cognition that have their basis in biology. I was resistant to this idea for a very long time.

But once one lets go of the need to dogmatically hold to a naturist view out of a defensiveness against the ultra-long history of biology-based bigotry, then the hard nurturist position starts to look silly.

First of all, there are now a number of brain studies that indisputably show substantial differences between male and female brains. It was these that forced my rethinking.

But also, there's the simple truth that most species that have sexual dimorphism have at least some important behavioral differences. It's a typical anthropocentric view to take a human exceptionalist view of these kinds of things.

Unlike the supposed racial differences (which are really just subpopulation differences that people incorrectly correlate to a rather arbitrary set of externally visible physical characteristics), sex differences are very real and occur across all levels of human physiology, as well as most areas of the body and a great many physiological systems. We know a great deal about how these changes occur. It's a very peculiar idea, indeed, to think that the brain is the one organ immune to these differences—again, especially when you consider that in other animals, sexual dimorphism always has some behavioral implications.

The point at which I've arrived is that I fight strenuously against the EP practitioners and proponents who use, or misuse, their research in a culture war on the side of sexism. But I don't doubt that some important cognitive and behavioral differences exist and I find that, after long consideration, this doesn't really bother me as a feminist as much as I thought it would. Mostly, I think, because I realized that social justice and civic egalitarianism are not dependent upon everyone being alike. The progressive and feminist agendas can cope with men and women being different from each other in some important ways.

The biggest danger is to prevent those cultural conservatives and antifeminists who would, and do, misuse the relevant science for their purposes. But it seems to me that the best and most effective way to do this is to be on the science-friendly side of the debate and to deal with potentially troublesome results not by denying them in outrage on a matter of principle, but calmly evaluating each result as it comes in and accepting the apparently unfelicitous results that are nevertheless the product of strong science. And when that happens, we find a way to use it to our advantage. At the very least, coming to terms with unfelicitous results is better early than late.

Mostly, though, I don't think many results will be, in fact, that unfelicitous. One of the constant refrains our side has had about this subject that has always been true, is that individual variance is great and almost always makes these group differences almost irrelevant in comparison. Whatever science may find about the differences between men and women, we each are individuals and both will likely be more a product of our own quirks than anything else and, more importantly, the fundamental liberal principle is that we each get to decide who we want to be, as individuals, even (or especially) when it goes against type.

Is it possible that these results are related to the way people stereotype certain features as fem