PressEthic

A study conducted at St. Andrews Perception Lab has found that there is a direct link between how attractive a woman is and her estrogen level. Although I thought this was an old theory, this study has been getting some news coverage, mostly internationally, and I am curious to see if any major papers will be carrying it tomorrow. Top Tech Newsreports on the study:

Scientists who showed men the faces of young women found that females with higher levels of estrogen were rated as more attractive, healthy and feminine-looking than those with lower levels. The research suggests a deep-rooted evolutionary link between beauty and reproductive fitness which has helped men to identify mates who will bear them large numbers of offspring.

The article goes on to quote psychologist Miriam Smith, the director of the study, who utters three variations of the phrase “feminine face” in three paragraphs. She says, "In evolutionary terms, it makes sense for men to favor feminine, fertile women, those that would have had more babies."

I am familiar with the age-old belief that men are attracted to women with larger hips and younger features because humans are really just animals, and we were put on this Earth to reproduce. But what exactly is this “feminine face" that Smith speaks of? Is there only one kind of feminine face? Isn’t it kind of politically incorrect these days to go around spouting the belief that there is a paradigm of how a woman should look?

I understand that the study is meant to be backed by theories of evolution, so analysis of it based on cultural trends are not appropriate. I guess I usually just take it for granted that gender is a social construct, and is as fluid and malleable as the other ways in which people choose to present themselves. If we begin to make assumptions of what a feminine face is, then we can generalize that assumption to a number of other features: hair, body language, voice, etc. And none of these qualities exist in a vacuum, they are in fact rooted in daily life and cultural trends.

Next in the article we hear from Dr. Nick Neave, an evolutionary scientist: “A feminine face is rounder with gentle features, big eyes, small nose, and big lips. While women invest more in their partner, men really just want someone young and pretty who is fertile.” Ok, give me a mintue to regroup here. Women invest more into their partner? Men really just want someone young and pretty who is fertile? What kind of strange time-capsule was this study conducted in? Neave seems to be saying that while the sole purpose of women is to carry babies, men are far more complex, and there is more for women to consider when picking a mate than just fertility.

Where is the study that looks at why women find men’s faces atrractive? And why men find men’s faces attractive? And why women find women’s faces attractive? Or does this study's conslusions become completely debunked when we bring it into the 21st century?

All of the reports on the study so far have done little to ask such fundamental questions, and are instead spewing out titles such as,"Men See Women as Walking Hormones," "Hormones 'make women prettier,'" and my personal favorite, "How make-up masks that feminine glow."