It’s not only our Western-women-hating MGTOW brethren who like to make obnoxious generalizations about large groups of women. A couple of days ago, London School of Economics evo psych prof Satoshi Kanazawa got more than a few people royally pissed off with a Psychology Today blog post that suggested black women were, well, ugly. (PT took the post down, but you can see screenshots of it here, and a bit more about him, and the controversy here and here .)
Looking at a study that purported to measure beauty “subjectively” and “objectively” – uh, really? – Kanazawa attempted to explain why black women were rated less attractive than women of other races. After calling them fat, then dismissing weight as a possibility (“Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI”), he offered this bit of speculation:
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 difference 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.
So … good news, I guess, if you’re more of a misogynist than a racist; a bit of a mixed bag if you’re a racist who hates black men and women equally.
Evidently the fellow who posts as 6dutchman6 over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum falls into the former category. Declaring that “Science proves Black women undesirable,” he chortled:
LOL, so true, black women are the most butch, ball busting, head weaving, lying, conniving, two faced, scum bags I have ever encountered of all the women, an that’s saying a lot when we’re talking about western wimmin folk.
I thought White Ameriskanks were shit until I met a big fat ugly “princess” with the most deluded mind EVARRR. An this is in Canada.
They are INCREDIBLY flaky, want to fuck you stupid one minute, yelling rape & loser the next. They are 3x more nasty than white wimmin so it’s no wonder black men have something to bitch about.
Now science steps in an say’s “yah, black women = shit” an the hissy fit shit storm kicks into over-drive.
Naturally, 6dutchman6’s MGTOW pals jumped in to agree with him. I don’t quite have the heart to tell them that according to Kanazawa’s, er, data, men of all races are rated uglier than black women.
So, you;re saying that we could look at a culture and create a scale of ‘beauty’ based on the culture’s standards, and then rate a person’s attractiveness based on this scale? I admit it’s possible, but that goes back to what i said before, cultural /= objective. That is still not an objective scale, so I’m not sure why we’d care in this context.
Nobby: Objective /= true Objective = measurable against a test/benchmark.
Here’s an modern example: AKC Breed descriptions. They tell what makes a given dog 1: A member of the breed. Then they tell you 2: How to tell if dog is a “good” representative of the breed, and it does it for 3: the group of people who belong to the “culture” of the AKC.
Border Collie That’s an objective description of what AKC members look for in the breed of dogs known as border collie.
It’s not the definition of a “good dog”. It’s not the definition of a “good border collie” It’s not a definition of a given groups ideals.
And if you get the Breed Book for 1975, it will be a different set of “objective” standards. Because “objective /= immutable, either.
Nobby: As to why we care in this context… if the study had 1: defined the “objective” standard, and 2: explained why it was relevant to the results, then this might have been decent science.
By showing that these standards weren’t met, the methodology is shown to be false, and the actual claims can be ignored, because they are unsound (that is drawn from invalid hypotheses).
Okay, sorry, that’s a fair point about objectivity. In that case I agree.
That smirk is so great tho xD It adds to the utter ridiculosity of his racism and complete and utter understanding of statistics, history and genetics (and nething else for that matter xD) that he’s looking at us going “see how smart I am?” xD It makes him even easier to mock and take apart…. I think he should have different photos of himself, that change depending on how effective ppl are in ripping his “theories” apart xD like an RPG! He starts smug but cries when you hurt him, then goes back to smug… but as his HP lowers, he looks less smug! 😀
sorry, it is a definition of a given groups ideals. Damned cut and paste errors when trying to avoid html errors in repetitive usage.
Actually, there are objective standards for beauty. None of them are based on “race,” “gender,” or any such non-existing nonsense. One such standard which has been talked about a great deal is the degree of symmetry of the face.
@Pecunium Heh, no worries, I actually missed that typo and got what you were trying to say.
*complete and utter LACK of understanding
Francois, if you took a picture of me and photoshopped it so that it was a perfectly symmetrical face made up of two copies of one side of my face, I’m still pretty sure I’d look worse than Owen Wilson, who’s got a crooked nose.
@Pecunium, the common non-specialized uses of the term objective does not give it the meaning you claim, for example, here is Meriam-Webster’s definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective You have to get to 3b before you hit one fairly close to yours (I give you the task of dealing with the fact that it only comes close by making the factors of the test not be subjective), so it is fair to say that this term does have other common usages, and, as you can see, they do mesh with the way others on this thread having been using the word (it is also fair to say that the poor 3b definition does as well).
@darksidecat that’s not entirely fair. At least between Pecunium and I, we’re talking about the word in a research context (as it was used in the study). In that context, it does carry the implication Pecunium was suggesting.
Francois does have a point, but symmetry of the face is only a small part of it. The golden ratio plays a part as well (it’s also used in architecture, interestingly enough), and, of course, each individual’s subjective opinion will come into it regardless.
@nobby, except Pecunium’s definition does not fit with the way the word is used in the study, as the “objective” and “subjective” scale is the same in all respects except who applies it-the subject or the interviewer. As the study that Kanazawa rips his data from wanted to get some data on self esteem (it was a study on teens and health), the idea was to get some idea as to how teens viewed themselves “subjectively” compared to how the interviewers would think of them “objectively.” While there are still plenty of issues with methodology there, the definition of “objective” is consistent with the ordinary usage. Moreover, Kanazawa’s conclusions from these measures that the attractiveness variation is extrinsic to society, biological, and consistent to any viewer suggest he is using the common definition of the term “objective” as well. If Pecunium is right and “objective test” as a term of art is properly used that way, Kanazawa and his paper so did not get that memo. 😉
@David, on symmetry, I do wonder if the symmetry issue is related to the “average face” issue-that is people tend to rate averaged out faces better than individual faces, yet still think some people are more attractive than average. Kathyrn Morris from Cold Case, for example, is considered attractive by many and is generally accepted as socially attractive. It could also result from the sort of effect that OKCupid saw-that certain stand out features polarize and get more high ratings and more low ratings, whereas cute-but-not-gorgeous gets a better average. A group evaluation of a person’s attractiveness may not be as bell curvy as it is for another person.
I didn’t say symmetry was the ONLY factor. I said it was an OBJECTIVE factor. I don’t think objective factors are the most important when we decide someone is beautiful or not, but they do exist, despite the denial of most people here.
I think that, in this context, using the example of differentiating between good and bad examples of dogs from certain breeds was poorly chosen. Not trying to make anyone feel bad, but there are some implications there that aren’t pretty (no pun intended).
wow I find this man to be a complete ass. I have seen a large portion of extremely unattractive asian women…its funny because he says asian women are the most beautiful but it is a odd thing to say .
Don’t they get their eyes done to have double folds? dye their hair? bleach their skin? cause if you are naturally white you don’t have to use a whitener. get nose jobs to have more of an caucasian taller small nose? well i can keep going on about the fakeness of these women its not even funny. So to me it seems like the White woman is the most beautiful and that is why many women from other races get cosmetic survey to look like them.