Wednesday, 18 May 2011
An evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics posted a piece on Psychology Today, in which he claims that black women are significantly less attractive than other women. Satoshi Kanazawa argues that our dark-skinned sisters, on average, are heavier than non-blacks. Their average body-mass index as reported in Wave III is 28.5 compared to the 26.1 among other women, while black men and non-black men don't have such a discrepancy in common (27.0 vs 26.9). Yes, he is claiming that black women are OBJECTIVELY less attractive.
Here's a direct quote:"It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others." - Satoshi Kanazawa
However, this isn't the reason why the claim is being made, specifically. BMI aside, Kanazawa states that the level of testosterone found in blacks is higher on average. Since testosterone is a male hormone (androgen), it affects men and women differently. Taking his great scientific knowledge and putting it to the test on attractiveness, our great researcher postulates that due to the larger amount of hormones, black women are physically less attractive because they're more masculine in appearance. Black men on the other hand, enjoy the benefits of these higher levels of testosterone. Just ask Chris Tucker. His voice will surely give it away.
Soon after being posted, the article was taken down (you can read the full article here, copy and pasted from the original source: click). Psychology Today's editor-in-chief didn't have a clear explanation for the removal of the post, other than the typical spiel about how they reserve the right to remove any article posted on the website. It's easy to imagine that the backlash the article has been receiving is really bad press, so it makes sense for them to remove it. There was one slight problem, though: The Internet. Before it was erased from the information superhighway, our trusted vehicles of righteousness and anti-Scientological sentiments captured the evidence in their rear-view mirrors; the trusty, almighty "PrtScn" key. It was like an L. Ron Hubbard novel gone awry.
Should we be raising our pixelated torches and marching down this decrepit, webbed road at 56k modem speeds? Does Satoshi Kanazawa bring up any valid points?
Yes (not the valid points part). If you have enough free time, anyway. Otherwise, this idiot isn't worth anyone's troubles. Let me bring up a couple of points which completely invalidate Kanazawa's "study," in which he even uses "intelligence" as a statistical control. If science can now prove that the intelligence gap between races is almost exclusively hereditary/genetic in nature as opposed to socio-economic, I've been living under a gigantic, "dumb big" rock for the past 24 years.
The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism states that:
"Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men." - The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 7 2519-2525
To further bring home the point that differences in testosterone levels between races aren't notable, doing a quick Google search of "race and testosterone" immediately returned results from Stormfront, a white nationalist website, on the first page. We can conclude that the same goes for women because it's partly our genetic make-up and the testosterone levels present in our parents which determine our own levels of concentration, not race.
What exactly is "black" anyway? That's a really broad term, and you can't pin down any common traits if you take all people who are considered to be black worldwide. Simply generalizing "Whites" or "Asians" is the same deal. This is a major flaw in the study. Black women vary in facial features and skin tone just as much as any other race. Just take a look at the huge variation that exists between Nigerian and Ethiopian women, for example.
What about the notion that "black features" are unattractive, and the more Caucasian a black woman's features are, the better looking she is?
This is less scientific than it is a product of conditioning, especially in the West and in India. As much as you want to deny it, the standard of beauty dictates that the closer you are to being a prototypical white woman with straight hair, colored eyes and a fit body, the higher your chances of being viewed as attractive. Skin lightening creams have been HUGE in India and sub-Saharan Africa for a long time now, and in places such as Haiti, the lighter your skin is, the more upper-class you're perceived to be.
It's even present in Japan, more specifically in their video games and anime. While the characters may have facial features more akin to Japanese men and women (not in all cases), their eyes and hair are usually Western in appearance, including color. Certain Japanese fashions also rely on dyed hair and color contact lenses, giving them a similar look as well.
Similar to Haiti, it's more of a class issue in Asia. People with darker skin are viewed as inferior because it's associated with field workers (the poor), while the upper-class would remain in the shade or indoors. It's not as pronounced in places like Thailand where there are many dark-skinned citizens, but generally, the whiter you are, the better off you are. It's not a race issue, rather classism.
Most apparent of all, Christianity painted Jesus white with blue eyes, and gave him long hair along with a frail, girly figure. That's pretty close to the desired Western look, although Jesus was in all likelihood darker skinned, if the Bible is to be believed. Nowadays, the look is being adopted by "hipsters" and vegan hippie women everywhere.
Here's a scene from the 1989 movie Chameleon Street, which depicts the mental conditioning that has taken place within our society: Click me.
As I've explained, the study is clearly flawed and was gone about in a completely ass-backwards manner. Testosterone isn't really the issue here, it's perception. It's the media and the standard of beauty. If we had been conditioned to find pot bellies attractive, you better believe beer would be a popular addition to breakfast cereals everywhere.
While nothing can really be done about this, we still have our own likes and dislikes. When you begin to generalize, you get black-listed like this bullshit "evolutionary psychologist." Believe it.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Nuñez Love Doctor.
Certified with a PhD in Scientology and Bullshit.
Expect an "attractive black women" post soon.