A recent story on the BBC site suggest that men who have soft, round, 'feminine' faces are funnier and that younger siblings are more 'amusing'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6135148.stm

Of course, this will quickly give rise to yet another gender myth that feminine-looking men are funny and our chiselled handsome hunks are not, such is the speed with which research gets simplified with centrifugal certainty into black and white opinions on gender characteristics. But, after some considered thought, I think that this piece of research is, well, baloney.

The research took 20 of the top male comedians and morphed their features into one homogenous whole. Hence we get the 'fat, girly' features as being the end product. What it doesn't say is how those different features were weighted. Did a fat face and a thin face get 'averaged'? And also, if we were to take any random sample of the male population and morphed them onto each other, what kind of face would we get then? In the same article, they then said that David Cameron, leader of the Tories, had a funnier face. Does that make him more likeable? Well, in that particular picture, the similarity of the chin to that of Michael Schumacher might just remind one of arrogance and a certain willingness to cheat. Not that I think that look are in any way defining.

That is the problem here. Who decides what is 'feminine'? These facial characteristics are taken only from men, and yet they are labelled 'feminine'. And what will the effects be of associating humour with femininity? Well, the researchers draw the conclusion that 'feminine' faces are 'agreeable' and 'co-operative'? They are friendly and funny. So does that mean 'masculine' faces are by definition 'threatening', 'scary' and 'unfriendly'? Poppycock!