That was my – and so many others – response to the blog entry originally entitled “Why are Black Women Less Attractive than Other Women?” written by Satoshi Kazanawa and posted on Psychology Today. (PT has since removed the article). To say that a twitterstorm and FB firestorm erupted over this article today, would be to put it mildly.
Although the righteous flaming on his FB page is totally worth every minute you spend reading, I decided to highlight the responses of Black women bloggers. I think they best reflect the nature of the debate that has ensued in cyberspace and what many believe to be at stake:
“Psychology Today says Black Women Are The Ugliest?!” by Cristelyn Karazin in Madame Noire
“WTF: Psychology Today says Black Women are ‘Least Attractive’ Among All Women” by Britni Danielle in Clutch
“Physical Attractiveness Across Racial Lines, According to Psychology Today” by April Scissors in Cease and DaSista
“Black Women are less attractive. Oh really?” by Jenee Desmond-Harris in The Root
“Satoshi Kanazawa and the Pseudoscience of “Black Women Are Less Attractive” by Akiba Solomon in Colorlines
The title of these say it all:
“Why Is Satoshi Kanawa A Huge Asshole?” by Jamelle Bouie in American Prospect
“Beauty May Be In The Eye of The Beholder” by Mikhail Luyubansky in Psychology Today
“Black Women are BEAUTIFUL. F*ck Satoshi Kanazawa” by Erratic Synapse in The Daily Kos
Here’s my take on the matter – excerpted from a day-long conversation on my FB page:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist
The author is an evolutionary psychologist. Those are the folks who tend to argue that everything can be boiled down to genetics and whether your ancestors hunted or gathered. Needless to say, they are easy fodder for demonstrating why empirical approaches don’t work for every question, why research is not value neutral, and what the absence of critical reasoning looks like.
Me: Apparently, this character has been around for a while. A colleague just passed along critiques of his work:
Volscho, Thomas W. 2005. “Money and Sex, the Illusory Universal Sex Difference: Comment on Kanazawa.” The Sociological Quarterly 46: 719-736.
“Also, the factor that much of this scholarship depends on with regard to physical attractiveness, the waist to hip ratio, has been critiqued by Jeremy Freese”
http://www.jeremyfreese.com/docs/FreeseMeland%20-%20SevenTenthsIncorrect.pdf
To the challenge that I was misrepresenting evolutionary science, I responded:
I wonder how he would feel if a Black female evolutionary psychologist wrote a racist and stereotype driven study explaining how “all” Asian men developed small peckers and why they will forever be useless sexually? Perhaps he’s upset and feeling insecure because Black women who sleep with Black men are used to men who, on average, are much better endowed? How do you think Mr. Kanazawa would respond to this demeaning study, Dr. Bennett?
I forgot to respond because I had to run to class, but the conversation hummed along without me, including an informative exchange about the merits (or lack thereof) of evolutionary science. I must say that it was quite a meeting of my sociology and non-sociology FB friends. I held my breath as I read through the responses. But everyone seems to have come away intact…
J.a. McBean
Hey Natalie, can we take a step back though. I have 2 points to make. 1) is that I’m not totally convinced this is racist, or malignent [sic]. I don’t like the results either…my mother is black, my daughters (if I have any) will be black…it’s hurtful, but the fact that his study says that black men are rated far more attractive than other men would viciate claims of racism, no??? Or is that just the black man in me speaking!? LOL LOL and #2) I am curious to know who the respondents are…honestly…you and I both know that many of us black folk suffer this identity thing. Brown skin vs. dark skin, tall hair vs. short hair etc. And then again, what of his claim of testosterone. Is this medically true?? I have no idea. I do know I have met some “sistas” that have more testesterone than me… i don’t like what I read, but let’s not dimiss it too quickly
Jessica Pogrund Choplin
@ J.A. – Two responses to your earliest comments:
Second, research like this has a long and distinguished history for the relentless efforts of so-called objective inquirers to use “science” to justify their racial worldviews. For this Kanazawa character, the problem is not that black women are being designated as “physically unattractive” by whoever the “three different interviewers over seven years” (probably him and his shadows); the problem is how to explain it using pre-determined theories (he might as well have said that the size of black women’s butts was a measure of attractiveness & intelligence; he used bod mass index (BMI) instead). He settled on testosterone, i.e. black women are less attractive than other women because they have more testosterone.
In a way, he didn’t say anything new: European slaveholders, writers and shysters of the 18th & 19th centuries who had clear ideas of who “women” and “men” were, often characterized enslaved African women as manly, and thus not fit to be called “women” or to be recognized as such; instead they were more like “beasts”. And if enslaved women were more animal- than human-like, then it made perfect sense to make them do the same work as men, and to treat them with as much cruelty and disdain as one could muster.
I suppose he could have been a lot more creative and sophisticated in trying to pass off racist ideas as “science” but maybe there’s a limit to how much one can disguise such. This one was pretty transparent.
**********************
Jessica Pogrund Choplin
Excellent analysis, Natalie. I once read (I unfortunately do not remember where) about the testimony of an African man who was abducted from Africa by slave traders and sent to the American colonies. He had never seen White people before hewas abducted and when he saw those White slave traders he thought that they were the most hideous beings he had ever seen on Earth … and he was right, both outside and in. Physical beauty is cultural … the beauty of a person’s moral character is another story altogether.
*********************
Louis Davis
Don’t need to read the article to know where this crap is coming from. Simple. The idiots who make this judgement are using subjective standards that suit them.
********************
@ Louis – actually, you should read it. It’s good to understand the language and methods through which racist and sexist ideas are being conveyed. A fellow Psychology Today blogger responds: http://bit.ly/iVWnQE He also has a link to the original Kanazawa article.