I came across an article the other day regarding a British study that apparently measured the continuation of new trends affecting old public attitudes linking appearance and behavior. Let me first start off by saying that I’m not going to focus on gender differences, or on evaluations thereof. Nor will I touch upon any evaluations or value judgments on the sources of influence on evaluating gender differences. I’ll leave these kinds of considerations to you, the readers. So that there are no misunderstandings, let me clarify that I’m writing this piece simply to try to understand (by triggering discussion on) whether different trends have emerged between the United States and Europe regarding this specific topic (represented by Britain) as stated in the British study and its journalistic coverage, and if these differences are informed by diverging cultural, societal, and value foundations/makeup across the Atlantic.
It’s reasonable to assume that the results of any appearance-behavior correlation are informed/ affected by cultural and social ideals for what constitutes the “ideal” (i.e. the ‘mainstream’) male or female. Likewise, the “ideal” male or female has often been defined in the corridors of the communications area and of the specialized/ targeted media: fictional television and film drama, in magazines like Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health, Women’s Health, in photographic magazines/websites like FHM, Maxim, and Askmen.com, and finally in talk shows like Tyra and Oprah. These kinds of social (if we include gossip/rumors and everyday person-to-person interaction) and cultural influences—commercial and non-commercial—and the penetrative impacts they have had on appearance-behavior judgments are nothing new. So are the relationships and gaps between public and private perceptions linking appearance and behavior (as defined by the above-mentioned norms, ideals, influences) on the one hand, and the public and personal realities of appearance and behavior, on the other. So, what is new, and very frankly surprising to me, is what the recent study claims as new trends affecting male-female relationships.
For example, the article mentioned that “Women see masculine-looking men as more unsuitable long-term partners but men with more feminine features are seen as more committed and less likely to stray, researchers said Wednesday.” These feminine features—cited as “finer facial features, fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows”—were more desirable to women than masculine features (cited as “square jaws, larger noses and smaller eyes“) because the former demonstrated a “better bet for long-term relationships.” The masculine features, however, were reported as demonstrating “significantly more dominant, less faithful, worse parents and as having less warm personalities” among men.
If we take these results as representative of Westerners, this is a significant jump or even reversal, in attitude from nearly seven years ago. Then, prominently in high school (secondary school) and somewhat later and lesser so in college, I distinctly remember how much emphasis for males/by males was placed on bodybuilding and rugged sports activity (especially American Football)—considered “masculine” characteristics---as indicators for success in both social and professional relationships. In such an environment, the high school male jock, the high school football quarterback, these were the people that mattered, that got the most attention from the general public, media, fictional drama, and from members of the opposite sex. Judging by the lesser attention from this environment, the public and personal attitudes were significantly different for a larger chunk on the other side of the high school environment aisle. Here, the studious and academically bright, the ‘serious’ individual, the family-oriented male, the non-athlete, the smart Chess player, or anyone else who didn’t qualify as having what was seen as a glitzy background, were considered not to have the personal and social skills needed for bright, glitzy success. To put mildly, they were “average.” And some segments among them were labeled what I would, with relative euphemism, substitute as “below-average” for the much more commonly labels of “loser,” “nerd,” or “geek.”
Which is why I am surprised when I now read that there is “ ‘high amount of agreement’ between women about what they see in terms of personality when seeing a man's face and they may well use their impression to decide whether or not to engage with him.” That women, according to the study and the article, find men with “older faces” more favorably than their counterparts with “younger ones.” Just as the promoted contrast between muscular/atheleticism and non-muscular/non-athelete is taken as a metaphor to contrast general “masculine” and “feminine” charactersitics, so too can the apparent level of seriousness and maturity be taken as a metaphor for the contrast between the same two groups of gender characteristics. If seriousness and maturity were/are not associated with masculinity then/now, then the reported preference of “older faces” over “younger ones” is a significant jump in female attitudes, assuming of course that older appearance = greater seriousness and younger appearance = less seriousness.
It’s reasonable to assume that the results of any appearance-behavior correlation are informed/ affected by cultural and social ideals for what constitutes the “ideal” (i.e. the ‘mainstream’) male or female. Likewise, the “ideal” male or female has often been defined in the corridors of the communications area and of the specialized/ targeted media: fictional television and film drama, in magazines like Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health, Women’s Health, in photographic magazines/websites like FHM, Maxim, and Askmen.com, and finally in talk shows like Tyra and Oprah. These kinds of social (if we include gossip/rumors and everyday person-to-person interaction) and cultural influences—commercial and non-commercial—and the penetrative impacts they have had on appearance-behavior judgments are nothing new. So are the relationships and gaps between public and private perceptions linking appearance and behavior (as defined by the above-mentioned norms, ideals, influences) on the one hand, and the public and personal realities of appearance and behavior, on the other. So, what is new, and very frankly surprising to me, is what the recent study claims as new trends affecting male-female relationships.
For example, the article mentioned that “Women see masculine-looking men as more unsuitable long-term partners but men with more feminine features are seen as more committed and less likely to stray, researchers said Wednesday.” These feminine features—cited as “finer facial features, fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows”—were more desirable to women than masculine features (cited as “square jaws, larger noses and smaller eyes“) because the former demonstrated a “better bet for long-term relationships.” The masculine features, however, were reported as demonstrating “significantly more dominant, less faithful, worse parents and as having less warm personalities” among men.
If we take these results as representative of Westerners, this is a significant jump or even reversal, in attitude from nearly seven years ago. Then, prominently in high school (secondary school) and somewhat later and lesser so in college, I distinctly remember how much emphasis for males/by males was placed on bodybuilding and rugged sports activity (especially American Football)—considered “masculine” characteristics---as indicators for success in both social and professional relationships. In such an environment, the high school male jock, the high school football quarterback, these were the people that mattered, that got the most attention from the general public, media, fictional drama, and from members of the opposite sex. Judging by the lesser attention from this environment, the public and personal attitudes were significantly different for a larger chunk on the other side of the high school environment aisle. Here, the studious and academically bright, the ‘serious’ individual, the family-oriented male, the non-athlete, the smart Chess player, or anyone else who didn’t qualify as having what was seen as a glitzy background, were considered not to have the personal and social skills needed for bright, glitzy success. To put mildly, they were “average.” And some segments among them were labeled what I would, with relative euphemism, substitute as “below-average” for the much more commonly labels of “loser,” “nerd,” or “geek.”
Which is why I am surprised when I now read that there is “ ‘high amount of agreement’ between women about what they see in terms of personality when seeing a man's face and they may well use their impression to decide whether or not to engage with him.” That women, according to the study and the article, find men with “older faces” more favorably than their counterparts with “younger ones.” Just as the promoted contrast between muscular/atheleticism and non-muscular/non-athelete is taken as a metaphor to contrast general “masculine” and “feminine” charactersitics, so too can the apparent level of seriousness and maturity be taken as a metaphor for the contrast between the same two groups of gender characteristics. If seriousness and maturity were/are not associated with masculinity then/now, then the reported preference of “older faces” over “younger ones” is a significant jump in female attitudes, assuming of course that older appearance = greater seriousness and younger appearance = less seriousness.
But wait a minute, the study was conducted in Great Britain on British females, not in the United States on American females. Now, among most educated Caucasian Americans and perhaps among a significant number of Brits as well, Great Britain has been historically and traditionally viewed as the closest of European countries to the United States in terms of culture, societal values, and political alliances and interests. Absent current rifts or differences on pivotal/ sensitive issues between leading American and British policymakers (such as on the Iraq War?), the claims of Anglo-American proximity and affinity are even stronger. Yet, despite the political, legal, and societal differences between Great Britain and the rest of the European Union, and despite these special and complicated Anglo-American commonalities, a strong claim could also be made that Great Britain is still very much a part of the EU with a still very strong European cultural, social, and political orientation. And as British policymakers see their position and status wane in the European Union, undoubtedly they will battle to restore them by demonstrating greater affinity for European values and political interests. These demonstrations not so much in the form of “anti-American” stance. But they could materialize in a stance that displays a tougher “pro-European” tone politically, culturally, and socially.
So while, for instance, public hug greetings and/or cheek kisses between males has been ‘traditionally’ seen as more of a sign of friendship or brotherhood in say, France, Italy, Greece, Eastern Europe, and even more so in the Middle East (at least in the Arab- and Muslim-majority countries here) and in the East (at least the Muslim-majority countries here, like Malaysia, Indonesia) in contrast to a different Anglo-American understanding over such an intimacy (which is more towards homosexuality), maybe the recent British study shows significant differences having been developed between Americans and British with the Atlantic Ocean continuing to serve as a dividing fault line between aggregations of American and European cultures overall. This fault line may continue to exist just as much for affecting Greater Europe’s influence on the British as claims between Anglo-American cultural commonness and solidarity continue to cement that solidarity.
Another crucial point to consider here relates to the age range and time range of the participants in the recent British survey. The main point is that both the time range and the age range of respondents in the British survey have to match the time range and age range of a similar study on American females’ attitudes. If studies concerning similar topics feature respondents having time and age ranges that are different in Great Britain and the United States, not much of a reasonably accurate comparison and contrast could be made. What I saw in high schools seven years ago in the States could be different now. What is prevalent among American female teenagers may not be prevalent among older American women both years ago and more recently (in other words, if they are any significant vertical or generational changes/gaps). Time and age ranges can also significantly impact what American females (both teenagers and older females) view as “long-term” or “short-term” prospects (in other words, like any significant longitudinal changes within generations or comparative extent/rate of changes among different generations then and now). The same kinds of considerations will have to be factored into any reasonably accurate appreciation of British and other European females. Otherwise, to use an old American saying, it would be like un-standardized “apples and oranges” comparison, which wouldn’t be “fruitful” at all.
Finally, we would have to fully look at the British study itself. While the article quotes the most significant findings, it gave only scant reference to its source (listing only the journal title, and excluding the report’s title and number pages). The article also left out important details such as those on when the study was conducted, when the results came out and was analyzed, and on whether the study was a follow-up to a preceding one. I checked the journal’s official website and found what strongly appears to be the article here. To be more thorough and accurate, we’d have to do the same for a similar American study.
So, what can an article headline and its coverage on a published study tell us about trans-Atlantic values and trends? Hmmm, I’ve probably left you and myself more confused by the time you have reached reading, and I have reached writing, this sentence. Just as important is another question: what about the Euro-American divide or similarity on this topic? We can come closer to understanding these questions through discussion. Any suggestions or thoughts?
