Oh. My. Fucking. God. Because I HAVE NO WORDS, allow me to quote from the post:
Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the “average” Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the “average” Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.
and
The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women istestosterone. 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.
Psychology Today… WHY DO YOU HURT ME SO. Where’s the reflection on the role of racial microaggression in framing this post? Where’s the discussion of the social invisibility of black women? The objectification of women — they’re just more naturally attractive, indeed!
Y’all, I am flummoxed. That someone would SERIOUSLY SAY that black women are ugly because they are too manly and that that would be printed in an… ostensibly SERIOUS periodical… really just appalls me.
ETA: They pulled the article but someone uploaded an archival copy here.
dark & lovely says
June 2, 2011 at 1:16 pmFirst of all is this article written by an educated person? Also I found this article to be sexist and racist. Why does the media always come down on black people? If it is not one thing it is another.
Slavery is over and yet this society is still looking for ways and means to bring destroy black people. Whoever wrote this article is ignorant and evil. Stopped spreading garbage.
Casey says
June 2, 2011 at 1:53 pmdark & lovely,
The guy who wrote it is some evo-psych douche named Dr. (?) Satoshi Kanazawa, and it seems his whole body of work is ignorant and evil.
Dallas Valerian says
June 3, 2011 at 10:36 amSylvia Sybil,
I believe that you are conflating attractive and attraction. People are mostly hard-wired in their attraction, either to the opposite sex, same sex, either sex, or neither sex. That means a guy might might like only women so much so that he even feels awkward expressing an opinion on the looks of another man. But he sure as heck knows which man’s looks make him envious. So even with his exclusive attraction to woman he can evaluate the attractiveness both of men and woman.
Sylvia Sybil says
June 3, 2011 at 11:18 amDallas Valerian,
I think the original article was conflating those qualities, which is the logic fail I was commenting on.
Alanna says
August 18, 2011 at 12:26 pmREALLY? He’s going to make a blanket statement like that about all black women (based on shoddy research, no less)? That’s just so wrong and hurtful. I’ve read some of Kanazawa’s BS before, and that’s exactly what it was and still is — BS. Evolutionary Psyche as a field has some serious problems, and Kanazawa just seems to use Evo Psyche as an excuse to be as racist, sexist, classist, etc. as he wants, and when someone calls him out, he goes “but look! Science said so!” without real justification. Ugh.
In addition to being more racists crap from him, it’s just so patently untrue! I guess it goes to show how naive I am that this idea came as a surprise to me, but upon further consideration, I could see how this messed up, obviously false idea propagated. Perhaps you did an attractiveness poll, and it showed something about less black 7-year-olds being considered way above average than white 7-year-olds by their teachers (that IS a creepy thing to rate…). Stop and THINK about why the results might be skewed! People look at a bunch of white girls, some of whom are considered pretty, and then see a few black girls who don’t look the same as the pretty white girls, and they decide therefore they must not be pretty — and that’s pretty screwed up. The media constantly reinforces this by telling people is that these skinny white women with certain characteristics == beautiful. Anyone who doesn’t match up == not beautiful. If you are too short, or too “fat”, or your nose is bigger, or *gasp* have some other skin color, or feature type, it’s been slammed into people brains that this is not beautiful. WTF? Yes, there are celebrities that aren’t white, but it’s a smaller number, so the comparison criteria are even smaller. You don’t look like Halle Berry or Beyonce? Too bad. UGH!
*goes off to mutter in the corner*
arnie says
October 23, 2011 at 8:16 amIs there any scientific research to back up the claim that African women have more male hormones than White or Asian women?
Also whether true or not isn’t saying anything that might be disparaging against Black people considered unacceptable racism.
Why is it that the media hail’s as beautiful only Hollywood actresses , singers etc that have varying degrees of white blood, a la Halley Berry and Whitney Houston?
Shaun says
October 23, 2011 at 10:43 amarnie,
Not to my knowledge, no. Putting aside the fact that testosterone isn’t really a “male” hormone since everyone has some, white women tend to be hairier than black women, so if anything it’s more likely to be the other way around. Kinda wonder why this question is never asked, though.
BetaCandy says
October 23, 2011 at 3:32 pmProbably because we’re dealing with the prejudices of a white-dominated media in a white-dominated society – they don’t even seem to realize how racist it is to only be able to recognize beauty when it comes with white-type features.
Shaun,
I wonder this, too. I’ve always had “excessive” body hair, according to OB-GYNs who were trying to assess my hormone imbalance. For some reason, the first question several of them asked was: “Do you have any Mediterranean blood in your background?” (I don’t, AFAIK.) Then in college I went to an African American nurse practitioner for my yearly gyn exam, and when she asked about my hair, I mentioned what the other docs had said, and she laughed and said the Irish and Scottish were about as hairy an ethnic group as you could find – well, I certainly do have those in my family background. So why were the other docs looking for some Other race to explain my oh-so-offensive hairiness? My guess is that a lot of Americans unconsciously associate ANY unfashionable physical trait with races other than white. Or something. Really, it doesn’t make any sense at all – and these are educated people we’re talking about.
Patrick McGraw says
October 25, 2011 at 11:25 amBetaCandy,
Yeah, that’s really silly. I’m also strongly of Scottish and Irish descent, and my family is hairy as all get-out. I can comb places where most people have no hair.
But since when have Mediterranean ethnic groups been especially hairy? I think you’re absolutely right.
rkb555 says
September 17, 2017 at 2:53 pmAnytime i read junk like this, it’s always based on western standards. It doesn’t take into account the global population of people not touched by western civilization. And all western measurements generally have a built-in bias toward whites. It’s borderline white supremacy. We categorize people on race and separate their subjective characteristics as being more attractive or superior.. This is nothing more than voodoo science and research..
BetaCandy says
September 18, 2017 at 9:21 amI don’t think it’s “borderline” white supremacy. I think it’s the full-on real deal.