It’s been an ugly, ugly 48 hours, given the racist “study” conducted by Santoshi Kanazawa who concluded that Black women are “uglier” than other races –while contemplating the conundrum of why Black men are so dang handsome.

After reading bits and blurbs of his pseudo-psychological study,  I instinctively knew that this “study” was going to be on the same scientific level as the Nazi-era phrenology, that is, scientists who throw objectivity out the window and instead spend their careers trying to prove the inferiority (or superiority) of one “race” over another based on how “different” people look from white/European, blonde-haired, blue-eyed apexes of human beauty.

 

And, guess what? I was right.

The article outlined how evolution had basically made Black women “uglier” because they have more genetic mutations because we are the genetic “Eves” –and therefore, mothers– of the world. The article which was published on Monday received a flurry of backlash and blogger-lash, wherein, PsychologyToday.com, quickly changed the title to: “Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

According to Kanazawa:

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.

Read the entire article here

Huh?

While refusing to admit wrongdoing in publishing a blatantly racist and sexist tome to the hideousness of Black female femininity, Psychology Today’s silence was interpreted as complicity. When Psychology Today couldn’t spin anymore re-titles, they decided to just shut down the article… and removed it.

An unapologetic Kanazawa has no remorse and his past articles have included such outcomes as all women are basically prostitutes.

Given that his peers have distanced themselves from him in the past –and continue to do so– it was irresponsible, unprofessional and questionable as to why his article was even posted.

As of May 18, 2011, PsychologyToday.com has posted a link to an article by Dr. Robert Kurzban titled, “Stopping Stereotyping and Prejudice“. However, the article seems more in defense of evolutionary psychologists and the field of evolutionary psychology rather than addressing the underlying racism attached to the article and the damage done to a group of people in the name of science.

Blacks, in particular, have a very sketchy history with the “scientific community” and there have been countless Black women whose bodies have been used, dissected, put on display, prodded, and probed, in the name of science.

In 19th-century France, South African Saartjie (pronounced Sart-key) Baartman was put on display at a natural history museum in France while the public probed and remarked at her naked, African shape as something “odd” and inhuman.

Ota Benga was a Congolese Mbuti “pygmy” who was paraded around at a human zoo while “scientists” marveled at whether or not he was human.

In the 20th-century there were more famous cases such as the Tuskegee Experiment where Black men in impoverished Macon County, Alabama, were knowingly injected with placebos as a part of a study to track the outcomes of the sexually-transmitted disease syphilis. In exchange for their lives –and the lives of the people they continued to infect– the men received free burial insurance, “medical care,” and meals. They were never treated for syphilis.

There’s also the story of Henrietta Lacks who’s body was reportedly used as an experiment when it was discovered that her cells never died in a laboratory environment, wherein cells previously died outside of the body within 24 hours. Henrietta Lacks’ cells are now called HeLa cells and are used in every laboratory experiment calling for human cells. She died penniless and her family never knew that they’re mother/grandmother/great-grandmother was used in a scientific experiment until scientist and journalist Rebecca Skloot researched and wrote her book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.

There are more examples of how some scientists and some members of the scientific community use biased studies to shield their own racists beliefs beneath the cloak of objectivity and science.

As the public becomes more familiar with these tactics, there are some scientists who are combating these studies and questioning the validity of flawed studies from the past and present.

Psychology Today should use this incident as an opportunity to more closely examine their own ethics and to re-examine how studies are conducted and their validity.

References:

• Voice Your Concern! Sign the Petition to show Psychology Today that this study (and studies like it) are unacceptable in a scientific publication
• Salon.com
• Huffington Post
• The Grio