December 26, 2006, - 4:48 pm

Chickification Nation: Study Confirms Younger Americans Believe Anti-Male Propaganda

By Debbie Schlussel
All of those movies, cartoons, TV shows, and other pop culture attacks on men and masculinity are having an effect. People are less trusting of–and attribute bad behavior to–men who look masculine, a new study says.
USA Today reports on research in the academic journal, “Personal Relationships,” based on University of Michigan psychologist Daniel Kruger’s online experiments. 854 undergraduates saw digitally altered, composite photos of men’s faces. Some faces were adjusted to look more masculine, some more feminine.
The results:

“People can make snap judgments of other people based on something that’s superficial – just by the way someone’s face looks,” [Kruger] says.

Which One Would You Trust Based on Facial Looks Alone?

Justin Timberlake or John Wayne/Sylvester Stallone?

His work found that highly masculine faces were judged more likely to get into fights or cheat on their partners. The less masculine versions were thought to be better husbands and good with children. Both men and women chose less masculine faces as dates for their 25-year-old hypothetical daughters. And men selected the less masculine faces to accompany their girlfriends out of town.

But those who are biased against masculine men could be the victim of the propaganda to which they are apparently pre-disposed:

David Buss, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin and president of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, who was not involved in either study, cautions that quick appraisals might have some merit but also can lead people astray.
“There are lots of very masculine-looking guys who are really nice guys and good dads and also some – I have studied killers – some have these feminine-looking faces and these guys are real (SOBs).”

BTW, USA Today’s print edition showed a pic of Justin Timberlake, within this article, with the caption:

Safety? Justin Timberlake’s [face] may appear less threatening.

Yep, he’s more feminine looking. But I wouldn’t assign any positive behavior to the guy. Remember him and Janet Jackson at the Superbowl? Looks are definitely deceiving.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses

This is exactly what happened in Europe. European men are, essentially, eunuchs. Now, European chicks, especially the feminist type, go head-over-heals for the more manly Mohammad types. Odd, but true.
On another subject, the Islamophile rag that brought us loving portraits of the Jihadi-in-a-suit Ellison and the simulated US Air terrorist attack, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has been sold to a private equity group. I will be interested to see if they make changes in the propagan…er…newsroom and editorial office.
I would love it if they sent those traitors to Western Civilization who run the “Strib” on the next plane to Canada, England or San Francisco where they belong. Maybe the new al-Jazeera network has a place for them.
BTW: I called the executive offices of my cable provider and told them not to add any islamic propaganda networks to the line-up.

sonomaca on December 26, 2006 at 11:25 pm

A perfect example of this more feminine male ideal: Obama. I don’t think this guy would have had the chicks swooning in the 1980’s when Stallone, Willis and Arnold were prototypical. In the 1990’s, we had macho light in Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and Bill Clinton.
Now, it’s the full-blown sensitive guy, in entertainment and politics.

sonomaca on December 27, 2006 at 3:22 am

Long gone are the days when we honor the appearance and behaviors of a J.B. Books (John Wayne) or Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood). Or even Gerald R. Ford. With their rugged good looks and willingness to do the right thing against all odds, these men, both the fictional and the real life versions, are little appreciated these days.
The emasculation of men fortunately hasn’t pervaded every aspect of our lives – notice the adoration given to firefighters, etc. So, in SOME quarters outside the elÌtist ranks, men are allowed to be men. I think that the clock is turning and will eventually go full circle.
A couple of weeks ago I was at the dentist office; the female assistant ushered me into the small room and said to me out of nowhere, “You look like the white knight type who’s ready to rescue the fair lady”. I was somewhat taken aback and instinctively looked to see if she was wearing a wedding ring (chuckle). She wasn’t. But, she kept on that theme and I kinda played along not wanting to ruin her fanatsy so early in the morning. Now, I’m 6’5″ with my shoes on and about 270 lbs. (it aint hangin’ around my middle either) so I am used to remarks along those lines. It has been my expeerience over the years that there are plenty of attractive, educated women who DO still appreciate the ‘primitive’ idea of male/female roles. Sadly, I think that the current generation is not so friendly toward that ideal.

Rocketman on December 27, 2006 at 8:29 am

Good point Rocket, but Hollywood and the powers that be are trying to change you into a brute no matter what your personality.
I was just thinking, who are the new male stars (if there really are any thesedays): Johnny Depp, Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, Daniel Radcliffe, Leo, Jude Law, Elijah Wood.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the most feminine of those listed above are from the UK.
The only semi-macho stars are either 1990’s leftovers like Will Smith and Denzel Washington, or Aussie imports like Heath Ledger (although he may have permanently damaged his male credentials), Russell Crowe, and Hugh Jackman.

sonomaca on December 27, 2006 at 12:11 pm

One other point: I think the Dems have got it right. Pick either a “sensitive” man like Obama or Edwards (he of tiny hands), or a “hard” woman like Clinton. I think this is a winning formula.
So, who should the Republicans pick. Certainly not McCain, as he fits neither of these categories. Romney might fit the soft male role, but Rudy certainly dosen’t. If I were them, I would look a bit further down in the ranks and see if they can find a figure who fits the times.

sonomaca on December 27, 2006 at 12:16 pm

” … he of tiny hands” …
ahahahahahahahaha …
I LOVE it!
Reminds me of teevee shots of MNF with Dan Dierdorf or John Madden sitting next to little Al Michaels.
“Heath Ledger” ?? Ahem. Nope. Sorry. He’s chick city. And now that we know he goes both ways … .

Rocketman on December 27, 2006 at 1:20 pm

Yeah, check out his hands. They are unnaturally small (while his head seems disproportionately large).
Oh, I forgot to mention Orlando Bloom. Not sure where “sexy” man McConnaghey fits in the scheme of things, but I agree that, like Ledger, he’s more a chick flick guy than a man’s man.

sonomaca on December 27, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field