Picture-perfect men

THIS JUST IN from the department of strangely unscientific-sounding studies that make headlines anyway: Women evaluate men’s potential as good fathers by looking at their faces. The study, which was published in a British science journal Wednesday, involved 29 Santa Barbara women from 18 to 20 years old who were asked to look at photos of men and rate them in terms of four qualities: “likes children,” “masculine,” “physically attractive” and “kind.”

As it turned out, the women had an uncanny knack for spotting the men who liked children as well as the men who were most “masculine.” These masculine men, who had higher levels of testosterone and who, according to the study, tended to have strong jaws and heavy beards, were least responsive when shown photos of babies. Not surprisingly, when the women were asked which men looked like better long-term partners, the baby-lovers won handily.

Dario Maestripieri, an associate professor of comparative human development at the University of Chicago who coauthored the study, told the Times of London that, in selecting the baby-friendly, the women might be responding to the “more rounded features, smaller chins, friendlier expressions and eyes that are relatively large compared to the size of their heads.”

Without seeing the photos themselves, it’s difficult to know for sure what unconscious, biologically determined machinations went on in the minds of these women. Since presumably they were not being asked to choose between a photo of a volunteer English teacher surrounded by his Nepalese charges and a guy in a mosh pit, it seems plausible that there’s something to be learned here. But what that is exactly remains as open to interpretation as terms such as “masculine,” “physically attractive” and “kind.”

For starters, are 29 volunteers in Santa Barbara a representative sample of anything? And how many 18- to 20-year-old women know a suitable long-term partner from a suitable long-term pair of boots? When I was between 18 and 20 -- and, come to think of it, pretty much until I was in my early 30s -- my idea of long-term compatibility had to do with whether someone liked Neil Young. As for notions of physical attractiveness, it’s old news that both genders tend to prefer symmetrical facial features, smooth skin and certain waist-to-hip ratios.

But apparently the grizzled, square-jawed icon of masculinity embodied by the Kennedys and anchormen everywhere has been replaced by fresh-faced, doe-eyed grinners whose smiles seem to say: “I love babies, I won’t leave you for a yoga instructor, and I do laundry.”

Well, maybe. What’s perplexing to me about this study, or at least the way it’s being interpreted, is how it suggests that having an affinity for children is the same thing as being good parent material. Granted, liking something is an important step toward taking responsibility for its welfare. But isn’t it possible that masculine men, who still scored high in the short-term partner category (no, that’s not a strong gust of wind, it’s their collective sigh of relief), might be falling victim to a stereotype that says more about our narrow views of good parenting than the actual nuts-and-bolts of raising kids?

Let’s face it, in this era of modernist beds for toddlers and Hello Kitty paraphernalia for adults, the trappings of childhood are not altogether separate from those of adulthood. When grown men can buy Mr. Potato Head pajamas, it’s easy to assume that the post-boomer generations love kid culture as much as the pre-boomers loved stiff martinis and cigarettes. But being able to enjoy a martini isn’t the same as being able to make one, and it’s foolhardy to assume that seemingly kid-friendly men, soft chinned or not, make better fathers than their chiseled counterparts.

Of course, there’s plenty of data, both anecdotal and scientific, suggesting that men with higher testosterone levels are more likely to stray from families, which obviously doesn’t help a kid no matter how square a jaw he’s inherited.

And recent research from UCLA and the University of New Mexico even raised the possibility that during ovulation, women are more likely to cheat on their partners if those partners are less sexually attractive than, say, the genetically gifted tennis pro at the club (presumably with the unconscious intent of bearing a junior athlete who will be nurtured into championship form by an unwittingly cuckolded, round-faced dad.)

So, maybe all we can make of this is that we’ll never really never know what to make of the rules of attraction. Signs of fertility may always be a factor. But now that men are being graded on their affection for baby pictures as well as their affection for their 401(k)s, their abs, their mothers and (oh, yeah) their partners, we might do well to give them a grace period so that the manly men can catch up.

Otherwise, the next generation will have a serious shortage of Kennedys and news anchors (or even Kennedys who are news anchors.) It’s also possible that the uber round-faced Karl Rove will make People magazine’s sexiest-men-in-America list. And that’s not an America I want to live in.