ACTION ALERT: Contact Psychology Today RE Their Racist Attack on Black Women (212)260-7210
Monday, May 16, 2011 at 12:38PM The Blogmother Can't go into too much detail right now, but popping in at lunch to let you know I have seen the article. It is racist GARBAGE backed by junk science and Psychology Today is aware of the article and is refusing to take it down or even offer a dissenting viewpoint.
The number to Psychology Today is 212-260-7210. You can read the offending article Why Black Women are Rated Less Attractive Than Other Women for yourself. Its racist junk science and they know it.
Call and raise HELL all day today. DEMAND to speak with the CEO and not the editor show is basically trying to direct your anger into email. Yes you need to call even though at this time they are giving the run around.
CALL THE ADVERTISERS
Now that Psychology Today knows of this racist screed backed by junk science and refuses to take it down or at least peer review it, the time has come to start to call each and every advertiser whose ad appears on the website next to the Article.
Right now Argosy University is running an ad- their number is 1800 275-2448. As new ads appear begin to contact the advertisers directly.
Psychology Today has made a business decision to race-bait for page clicks. You need to make a decision to see that they do not profit from it.
DEFUND THIS RACIST GARBAGE!
The Blogmother
The article has been removed without explanation or apology.
71 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (71)
Here is a copy and paste job of the article. Sorry I didn't get a chance to take screenshots.
Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?
Why black women, but not black men?
Published on May 15, 2011 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
There are marked race differences in physical attractiveness among women, but not among men. Why? 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.
From these three scores, I can compute the latent "physical attractiveness factor" by a statistical procedure called factor analysis. Factor analysis has the added advantage of eliminating all random measurement errors that are inherent in any scientific measurement. The latent physical attractiveness factor has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
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.
In contrast, races do not differ in physical attractiveness among men, as the following graph shows. Men of all races are more or less equally less physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent.
This sex difference in the race differences in physical attractiveness – where physical attractiveness varies significantly by race among women, but not among men – is replicated at each Add Health wave (except that the race differences among men are statistically significant, albeit substantively very small, in Wave III). In each wave, black women are significantly less physically attractive than women of other races.
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. In Wave III, Add Health asks its respondents to rate their own physical attractiveness subjectively on the following four-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very. As you can see in the following graphs, both black women and black men rate themselves to be far more physically attractive than individuals of other races.
What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among 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.
There are many biological and genetic differences between the races. However, such race differences usually exist in equal measure for both men and women. For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness (because physical attractiveness is a measure of genetic and developmental health). But since both black women and black men have higher mutation loads, it cannot explain why only black women are less physically attractive, while black men are, if anything, more attractive.
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.
Jo Coleman is the CEO and his number is (646) 600-9151
Iams (Pet Food) is also an advertiser. 1-800-675-3849 It took 5 mins to reach a live person and then I was redirected to someone from the media department's VM. Keep calling ladies!
Just noticed that the article is down. Thanks Kia for getting the text of the ariticle here.
I didn't have time to copy the article; I was too busy making calls and sending emails. Way to ruin my vacation, Psychology Today. I'm so heated right now I could spit.
Just mailed a letter to the editor:
Kaja Perina
Psychology Today
115 East 23rd Street, 9th Floor
NY, NY 10010
So shocking! Thanks to Kia and Gina for bringing this "scientific" article to our attention.
I want to thank you Gem and many many others at WAOD,Twitter,Facebook, and many other outlets who have stood in support of black women and girls today.I noticed that there were men and women of all different 'races",religions, and non religious,backgrounds defending us which is something that seems like a very rare occurence.
Thank you so much for calling the contact numbers, sending letters,e-mails etc. and demanding Psychology Today be held accountable for their racist sexist attack on black women and girls.You are greatly appreciated!
they seem a bit annoyed with us all, huh? :) :) :)
Well , after reading this, I am literally sick to my stomach.
No doubt I am angry, hurt and saddened with the content of this article. How dare they? Why?
How does this information benefit anyone? What is this all about?
Thanks Mildred; gonna post that information on my Facebook wall. I refuse to read the article for many reasons but a few of my online & real-life friends read it and their reactions were enough for me (reason #1 why I refuse to read it).
And they publish this as if it was objective. No mention of what country the subjects who gave the ratings were from. No mention of the potential for racism playing a part. No mention of whether any other race thought themselves to be more attractive than others see them, which I might expect since people tend to see beauty in those closest to them.
..mailing my letter now...smh
Spoke to them this morning. I was told that the entire editorial staff was unavailable. LOL! For black women to be so unimportant and less valuable, people sure do spend a whole lot of time focusing on us.
Here are some other links if helpful:
Advertisers:
Capella University – 866 283 7921
Barilla Pasta
St. Ives
Argovy University 800 3777 0617
Editor in chief: Kaja Perina - kaja@psychologytoday.com or letters@psychologytoday.com. Her FB page is also here: www.facebook.com/people/Kaja-Perina/541248993
Kim ain't that the truth!
WTF is wrong with these people.
Why are they so obsessed with us???
Buncha jealous hating mofo's
They DID take the article down
Don't forget to go after the person who wrote this crap too. Here's his information.
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa
Reader in Management
Office: F533
Mailing address
Managerial Economics and Strategy Group
Department of Management
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 20 7955 7297
Fax: +44 20 7955 6887
Email: S.Kanazawa@lse.ac.uk
Also, here is the screenshot. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men
From what I can tell, the current advertisers are Dole, Target, Iams, Safe Kids USA, JetBlue, Kraft, Capella University, Argosy University, Verilux, and WebMD. Thanks for this post. Let's pressure these companies.
In addition to phone calls and letters, you can send an email to
letters@psychologytoday.com
OK. Read the article. I have a Master's in Psych so I'll begin with this. Factor analysis includes both component analysis and common factor analysis. More than other statistical techniques, factor analysis has suffered from confusion concerning its very purpose. Further, you are required scores on several hundred variables, but most often between 10 - 100. Factor Analysis was an interesting idea, but it turned out to be wrong. Today the College Board testing service operates a system based on the idea that there are at least three important factors of mental ability--verbal, mathematical, and logical abilities--and most psychologists agree that many other factors could be identified as well. This study is definitely FLAWED! I dismiss their findings and challenge their process.
I am guessing by the author's name that he might be of Asian/Japanese descent? That might partially explain his bigoted view against BW, and preference for white and Asian women.
Oh my goodness.....I didn't get the chance to read the article but I am so glad you guys are on it. I will write and avoid these sponsers.
So he teaches at a University? Wow does anyone know any big UK black bloggers?
Judith Rees is the director of his department at LSE
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/j.rees@lse.ac.uk
I got the following email response:
From May 2nd I have become Interim Director of LSE and will not be dealing with day to day matters relating to the Grantham Research Institute or the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. Please contact V.Pavey@lse.ac.uk. For all LSE matters please contact V.Mizgailo@lse.ac.uk
Regards,
Judith Rees
Send your email and forward the article to the two individuals listed above. This needs to go on his professional file.
Kanazawa has been more and more moving toward extremism and has now crossed the line. This research is more than just flawed. It's straight out BS and it is understandable why it was taken down. I will definitely contact the website and him personally if possible.
Yes, he is Japanese
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/s.kanazawa@lse.ac.uk
I've called and written to Psychology Today. I emphasized that the advertisers were being contacted and that I hoped that would send a message to them that Black women can negatively impact their financial bottom line. We are not powerless.
I got a tweet at work about the article; waited until I got home and immediately went to G's site. I read the article, and called. The receptionist I spoke with when I asked for the Editor and said why I was calling, indicated the article was down. And yes, the editor and the entire editorial staff were in a meeting. I am writing Perina a letter, and was going to share the mailing address....but its already up! I expected no less....
blkchik: There's a popular Diaspora message board based in the United Kingdom - Blacknet Village. There may be a few on there who, while race isn't as huge an issue as it is in the States, will definitely inform others about this.
As a Japanese American, Satoshi is seriously an embarrassment to the Japanese people. UGH. I can't stand what he writes, ever- but this is just despicable. If you want to vomit, go read his other articles. This man is just pure misogyny- and I really hope with continued pressure, he won't have any outlet for his disgusting bullshit.
I sent a message to the CEO...
You know, I think it would be awesome to do a Satoshi-watch and hound every publication that publishes him so he can't keep getting paid for writing his bullshit. The crap that he writes should sicken all women. He absolutely should not have his status as a regular blogger for Psychology Today.
This man is a charlatan ass joke. ROTFLMAO. Check him out being blasted by someone else in the science community: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php
I love you like I love myself. Black is beautiful and you know it.
Here is the link to the original CACHED article on Psychology today...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=933&source=hp&q=cache:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201105/why-are-black-women-rated-less-physically-attractive-other&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1
As a white man who finds black women beautiful, I'm glad this asshole had his insipid article taken off. What I don't understand is why an Asian guy would make these sorts of claims. I wouldn't be surprised if an Asian woman was saying these things, as she might consider black women competition, but what does an Asian guy gain from this sort of bullshit?
My letter to the editor:
I was quite dismayed to read the article by Satoshi Kanazawa entitled "Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women, But Black Men Are Rated Better Looking Than Other Men?"
My first thought on perusing the title was "According to who?". Like Presidential Approval Ratings and Gallup Polls, I suspect the results of Mr. Kanazawa's study are strongly weighted towards the opinions of a single ethnic group that shares a socio-economic class who have in addition further self-selected by being available for the study (implying free time and an Internet connection) rather than representative of the larger population of Humans across ethnic and socio-economic groups.
In addition, more credible scientific studies I've encountered have all come to the conclusion that facial SYMMETRY rather than particular features is the overwhelming factor in "attractiveness" across ethnic and social lines.
I'd like to know what process Psychology Today follows when an author submits such a potentially explosive topic. Was this research peer reviewed?
As is, it reads like the screeds purported by advocates of Eugenics in the 50s. I'd like to think that an organization of your caliber would think twice or at least demand through documentation before publishing what seems to be a poorly researched and racist piece.
It's nice to see propoganda disguised as science. Boy, this certainly doesn't remind me of any other event in history.
Apparently ToureX is going on MSNBC to speak out on our behalf.SMGDH.I hope it is not true.This is something I hear from twitter.
I believe that WE need to do all we can do to stop this from happening Gem.
ToureX is not our friend.He himself has constantly made disparaging remarks about black women.
The worse thing that he can do is speak for us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/ Their Contact info.You can write an e-mail
MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
You can also mail a letter to:
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
http://www.whataboutourdaughters.com/waod/2010/3/22/happy-phil-griffin-day-msnbcs-nuclear-option-honorable-menti.html
He belongs on a terrorist watch list. He should never be able to come to the USA.
I thought what he wrote should pass as a hate crime in the UK since they aren't about "Free Speech" as much as we pretend to have it here.
Whatever they are doling out, there's no science coming from Psychology Today. They need to be bankrupted.
This "Dr." Kanazawa reminds me of another "doctor".....Oh yeah, Dr. Josef Mengele......
This is a race-based eugenics study trying to pass off as real science. Dr. Kanazawa is no better than the racist "doctors" of the Third Reich!
Kanazawa has form
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research
I am not suprised that Misogynistic Supremacy Today gives him a platform, but the LSE, UCL and Birkbeck should be ashamed of themselves.
@Truth P
Ugh, you mean ToureX - he of the "black female slaves seduced Massa" fame? I quite agree, he should NOT be allowed to speak on our behalf.
Searching for brownie points or something now is he?
Please send e-mails to the Dean of the London School of Economics to get this man sacked.It is not the first time he has written a racist piece about black people.We need to act and act now her name is Judith Rees and her email address is
j.rees@lse.ac.uk
Google Cached Original Article Here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Fblog%2Fthe-scientific-fundamentalist%2F201105%2Fwhy-are-black-women-less-physically-attractive-other-women
I swear, we Black women must be superior humans. After hundreds of years of this kind of nonsense not only are we still standing but we are thriving. I'm so proud of us. So, so proud. This guy really can't touch us. He can try but better have gone at us and we've survived.
But, Psychology Today must go down. There is no excuse for a mainstream publication to have allowed this junk science to get by their editorial staff.
Please keep sending e-mails of complaint to the LSE in London and keep complaining until he is fired.It is not the first time he has done this he has been preaching that AFICAN PEOPLE ARE LESS INTELLIGENT FOR YEARS.I got this response and will continue to let LSE sponsers and backers know this man is a racist and is teaching there.
keep protesting we should not take this at all
Thank your for your email of 17 May regarding a recent article by Dr Kanazawa. Several people have joined you in expressing their opposition to his views.
I would like to stress, on behalf of LSE as a whole, that the university does not endorse the opinions he sets out in this article.
At an institution such as LSE, academics are given the freedom to research, write and publish on the topics that seem important to them. This freedom of inquiry is one of the things that helps to advance human knowledge.
There are rare occasions when we may vigorously disagree with the premises, the scope or findings of academic study and I entirely understand that this is a case in point. I very much regret that people have been angered and offended by it.
The principle of academic freedom works in two directions – it means not only that academic staff can express themselves as they see fit but also that others have the right to disagree and to contest their views. I know that many people have already made this author aware that they strongly disagree with him.
I would also like to stress that LSE upholds the principles of equality in all areas of university life – discrimination in any form is not tolerated here.
Kind regards,
Judith Rees
Veronique Mizgailo
Proud to be apart of change. Sent an email. :0)
Just e-mailed LSE and will post here any response returned.
I just sent LSU about 10 angry emails and Kanazawa himself around 7. I am so greatful that someone had the HEART to get the ball rolling for this boycott. Too often we sit and bitch and complain but do nothing! Absolutely fabulous. Today I walked around with my head held high, BECAUSE OF OUR MOVEMENT!
Also could someone please tell me if that awful Toure X went on MSNBC? I hope he was "boycotted" as well.