Most males just ferment into compost instead of cook into a meal.
Create an aggregate example of a male and female human, remove all affectations, shave them bald, and the male will more closely resemble a child than the woman. An out of shape male especially will almost always look more childlike than an out of shape female.

The point of saying this is to demonstrate that male theory often does not align with reality, and the same males who claim that women in general resemble children will simultaneously believe that every individual child more resembles their male parent (even more perplexing that this supposedly applies especially to female children). It’s a paradoxical belief that can be easily explained as the dissonance produced when male subjectivity is incorrectly interpreted as universal objectivity. If evopsych says that children look like males to increase paternal investment and prevent infanticide, evopsych cannot also say women look like children because children make men so aroused they selected for females who look more like children. I could more easily believe the first since there are known mechanisms in place which could produce the effect, but the latter is just an exercise in magical thinking only possible with a piss-poor understanding of how sexual selection functions. More men than not believe their primitive male ancestors had the restraint to keep their dicks in their loincloths because ‘2/10 elbows too pointy’ in order to genetically engineer women of the future to better resemble sexy prepubescents (already an oxymoronic premise), which should further convince you to be skeptical of every claim they make. Everything males say is bullshit, as misogyny takes precedence over the truth. He will argue a logical paradox without taking a single breath in between sentences so long as both statements best follow the misogyny-first-principle. Men get a paranoid thought or dick twitch and call their exhaustive list of rationalizations to justify them science and intellect.