-Satoshu Kanazawa writing for Psychology Today
It was the above quote that sent me over the edge today when I read the blog entry at Psychology Today originally found here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201105/why-are-black-women-rated-less-physically-attractive but later removed after a firestorm on Twitter and Facebook.
It's not that I am against science asking the question as to whether there is a perception of black women being unattractive or attractive relative to whomever. What I objected to, most strenuously, was the fact that this person tried to state his findings as "objective" when there was no evidence presented by him that shows that physical attractiveness as determined by the group was not subjective.
Understand that I am not disputing this person's actual findings. That is, I am not disputing that the group represented by Add Health did not in fact rate black women as "least attractive" as I am aware enough to know that such statistical findings are not anomalous. They are not representative of some Klan element or fringe elements of society but rather it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the general conscious or subconscious feelings of those sampled and is supported by evidence such as the Cirroc foolishnes, Ne-Yo's commentary that ""All the prettiest kids are light skinned". And if you'd like an international example we have the erasure of Black women in Brazil. And of course "our own" will regularly put black women away in the closet as they proclaim the future of black womanhood to be, well, not so black:
You can find the data on the Add Health group at the UNC Carolina population center website. It is generally a collection of people who have filled out questionnaires on a variety of subjects who have been followed over a number of years. I would be simple and easy to find a sample of brothers and sisters who would rate black women at the top of the attractiveness scale. However, that would not prove anything other than I know a set of people who hold physical black womanhood in high esteem. So there is no point in me or anyone else proclaiming that we think the data is faulty or our own affection for Black women. Rather we should look at the data and how it affirms what our great African thinkers have told us before.
In terms of censorship, which was suggested in a follow up piece by Psychology Today It is not that I or anyone else that I know wishes to censor this person but rather that his conclusions twice stated that black women were objectively the least attractive women coupled with his bizarre explanation were so far off the mark as to be a total insult to the intelligence of black people...yes...people. With that let's examine the piece.
The piece opened up with:
There are marked race differences in physical attractiveness
among women, but not among men. Why?
This is a fair question. For me it was more surprising to find that there was not a marked different in physical attractiveness among men of different races. But that can be explained by some of the possible conclusions discussed later in this post. Anyway, the "study" was described as follows:
Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its
respondents both objectively and subjectively. At the end of
each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness
of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: 1
= very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 =
attractive, 5 = very attractive. The physical attractiveness of
each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three
different interviewers over seven years.
Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women...Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.
What's important about the above quote is that the author claims that by removing intelligence or BMI as factors, black women were still considered unattractive relative to all other groups. This is important because if it's not body size or shape or apparent intelligence that is influencing perceptions of attractiveness of black women that leaves the following attributes:
Skin color
Nose shape
Hair texture
In other words it leaves the very things that make black women black women. This fact seems to have escaped this person as he went on to suggest that the "problem" vexing black women is that black women are more masculine due to their own genetic makeup!
Black Woman as masculine?
The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race differences in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.
Yes folks. This shit is actually being floated in 2011.
If this is "masculine" then call me gay.
This bullshit right here reminds me of stuff I read where white scientists determined, scientifically of course, that black women were "hyper-sexual" because they had "huge" buttocks and "huge" lips that were "obviously" and scientifically proven to be made expressly to enhance sexual relations. In fact a black woman was a feature at a zoo in America due to her "odd" so called "animalistic" features where white men (and their families) paid money to stare at (and possibly poke). I also recall how it was claimed that black women were so less human and less woman than other women (particularly white women) that doctors said that they did not even feel pain during child birth.
I kid you not.
I won't even get into the "science" of phrenology (Yeah, The Roots were trying to school us with that CD) where "scientists" tried to argue that the African was inherently less intelligent due to the shape of his head.
These are the kinds of things that leapt to mind when I read that explanation. How any so called "expert scientist" in 2011 could, with a a straight face add to such racist notions of black humanity and womanhood and still be employed at a so called "respectable" publication would boggle most minds. But in the interest of "science" let's run with it for a minute here because I think there is something to be gleaned from the conclusion reached by this fellow.
First off. The only way this fellow could show that his theory has any water would be for him to find people who have not been exposed to outsider cultures and present them with images of different men and women ask them to rate the attractiveness of each. If his theory is correct then he should see a similar pattern. No such study has been done and the Add Health group does not meet this requirement.
Secondly let's assume that this fellow is correct that the African has a higher level of testosterone and therefore more "masculine" than any other race of humans. Since one of the primary purposes of the male species is to be threatening in order to gain and protect his turf (and access to females) the African man is therefore, by this guy's conclusion more "threatening" to all other races of males. We already know that black males are perceived as threatening by white people even when they are not making a threatening face! How does that square with our good sister Dr. Welsing's observations as discussed in her collection of essays known as The Isis Papers?
To take Fuller's account a step further, it should be noted that , in the majority of instances, any neurotic drive for superiority usually is founded upon a deep and pervading sense of inadequacy and inferiority...more profoundly, is not "white" itself the very absence of any ability to produce color?[my emphasis]
...The genocide of non-whites must be understood as a necessary tactic of a people (white) that is a minority of the world's population and that because it lacks the genetic capacity to produce significant levels of melanin, is genetically recessive in terms of skin coloration, compared to black, brown, red and yellow world majority...
...acutely aware of their inferior genetic ability to produce skin color, whites built the elaborate myth of white genetic superiority...
White males...fantasized identification with black males' capacity to give conceptual products of color to white females --something white females desperately desire but white males cannot fulfill.
...Even more significant is the fact that the white male could not abstain from making sexual aggressions towards the black female, Indeed some of the most important founding fathers of the so-called Unites States of America were involved actively and continuously in relationships with Black women....This pattern of sexual aggression of the white male towards the black female continues unabated to this day. Ultimately, it is little wonder that black stockings, black underwear and black sleepwear are items of sexual stimulation for the white male collective.
Doesn't the data that Kanazawa provides fit this theory better than the "testosterone" theory? It would explain why black men are seen as "attractive" across the board while the black woman is projected as being the least attractive? Wouldn't the apparent rejection of black women's physicality (their skin color and hair texture) be in stark contrast to the sexual fetishization of black by whites?
Clearly then, I don't buy the "testosterone" theory because of my understanding of the system of white supremacy. Let me be clear that I understand that in every society they see their women (and culture) generally as being superior to everyone else. This even happens within groups. For example when I was growing up, we claimed that Queens, NY had the best looking women, whereas Brooklynites always claimed theirs as the best. This underscores the social determinism of beauty standards. It's expected that whites would, as a consequence of setting up a global system under which they are at the top would place their women as the pinnacle of womanhood. If we look at what they produce in their popular media the ultimate woman is white, blue eyed and blond haired. Is not the popular Disney fairy tail that of Snow white? The white female with skin "white as snow"? Is it not the case that the story of Rapunzel as known in this society (USA) that of a white skinned "fair maiden" who has long blonde hair? Is it not the case that all children under white supremacy are fed this story at an early and impressionable age that the "mirror" has determined that the "white skinned" Snow White is "The fairest of them all"? That Rapunzel with her long flowing blonde hair is the "fair maiden" that "real brave men" will come to rescue? How does this so called "expert" on "evolutionary psychology" miss this plain as day evidence of the purposeful social engineering of the depreciation of black women?
How does this "expert" miss that the standard of beauty and physical femininity in "The West" is the exact opposite of the African woman? Is it of any surprise that the data shows attractiveness ratings in descending order directly related to apparent whiteness? White females being considered most attractive, Asians seen as second most attractive (or in the case of wave III women more attractive), Native American women (being brown) being next to last. What do all these women have in common? Straight hair (relatively). The evidence suggests that this is no accident.
No, rather than Kanazawa or Mikhail Lyubansky who came to the "defense" of Psychology Today, attacking the culture of White Supremacy as the basis for these subjective judgements which is the real deal reasons for the data. For them a "testosterone" explanation, on par with the pseudo-science of yesteryear, that black women are "objectively" the least attractive women on the planet is defensible. For them, and a great deal of people pointing out the culture of white supremacy is a no-no. It is perhaps worse than critiquing Israel.
Are we "holding" people who spew racist nonsense to "a higher standard" than other "bloggers". No, We expect that a so called "professional" publication would know better than to allow its contributors to spew yesteryear white supremacy theories about black people on their website. No Mr Lyubansky, this isn't about holding science to a "popular vote". This is about science. Kanazawa made an outrageous and insulting conclusion for which he had no "objective" data to support. End of story.