This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
What the hell! I just got an e-mail from the organization Color of Change that has me sitting here in disbelief. I am going to pass the mail right on to you. I can’t add anything to what Color of Change is saying. They say it all well and besides, I am trying to get my blood pressure back to normal after reading about this and listening to the blogger’s article. (I could not find it, so called a friend who had saved it on her hard drive and read it to me). I am astonished that Psychology Today would have allowed this to be printed on their web site (or anywhere else) in the first place. Sure they have retracted it, but have not responded to the scores of complaints. As a woman, a citizen of the world, and as the mother of people of color, I am stunned and upset. I often read Psychology Today and many of my clinician friends advertise with them.
Here’s the e-mail from Color of Change. Make up your own minds, but if you feel their having allowed this blogger to publish this was as awful as I do, and many others do, let Psychology Today know and take a stand.
“Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women”
Dear Iris,
Since Monday, more than 50,000 ColorOfChange members have called on Psychology Today to address it’s decision to run an article that uses false science to argue that Black women are “objectively” less attractive than women of other races. Still, they’ve remained silent.
Can you help us get to 70,000? It takes a second to add your voice to the call, demanding PT apologize and explain how this won’t happen again. Once we get to 70,000, we’ll deliver your petitions to Psychology Today’s headquarters to increase the pressure.
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday
Thanks and Peace,
— Rashad, James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha, and the rest of the ColorOfchange.org team
May 26th, 2011
These women aren’t as attractive as White, Asian, Latina or Native American women? That’s what Psychology Today has said. Demand that the journal apologize, explain how this happened, and ensure that it won’t happen again. |
|
Dear Iris,
Nearly 20 years after a black parent documented how hard it was to hear, “Mommy, I want to be white,”1 Psychology Today reinforced the false and hurtful sentiment that Black women aren’t attractive.
Last week they published an article claiming it to be scientific fact that Black women are less beautiful than women of other races,2 penned by Satoshi Kanazawa, who is notorious for hiding behind pseudoscience to promote discredited racist and sexist ideas.3
By giving Kanazawa a platform and validating his ideas, Psychology Today dehumanized Black women and girls everywhere. After widespread public outcry, they removed the article from their website.4 But that alone won’t erase the damage they’ve done by validating these discredited ideas — the editors need to apologize, explain how this happened, and let us know that it won’t happen again. Please join us in demanding they do so immediately, and then ask your friends and family to do the same:
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday
Kanazawa’s article is flawed from top to bottom.5 Using a dataset from an unrelated study of teenagers, he draws the obviously false conclusion that Black women are “objectively” less attractive than women from other racial groups.
Kanazawa has a long history of hiding behind pseudo-science to express racist and sexist views. He once wrote an article asking “Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?” and another suggesting that the US should have dropped nuclear bombs across the entire Middle East after 9/11 because it would have wiped out Muslim terrorists.6
So why does Psychology Today continue to give him a platform? Black women constantly face both subtle and explicit messages that they are valued less than women of other races — messages that are especially damaging to Black girls. Now Psychology Today has served as launching point for yet another attack, this time in the name of science.
Almost as if to cover up the racism inherent in his piece, Kanazawa says that black men are, “if anything more attractive” than their counterparts of other races because of “greater testosterone.”7 But even here Kanazawa relies on the same pseudoscience to describe black men in familiar terms — brutish, hypermasculine, oversexed, exotic. And that’s dangerous, too.
He uses a modern-day version of the faulty logic used to dehumanize blacks as inferior for hundreds of years, from the social Darwinists and eugenicists of the 19th century to The Bell Curve just 15 years ago. Psychology Today has a responsibility not to give such false logic a stage, nor validation.
To undo the damage it’s done, Psychology Today needs to explicitly reject Kanazawa’s ideas. Please join us in demanding that their editors apologize, explain how this article was published in the first place and what they’ll do to ensure it won’t happen again in the future. It takes just a moment:
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday
Thanks and Peace,
— Rashad, James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha, and the rest of the ColorOfchange.org team
May 23,2011
Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU — your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/205?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=7
References:
1. “Growing Up in Black and White,” Time, 5-17-1993
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/828?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=9
2. “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” Psychology Today, 5-15-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/829?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=11
3. “The Illustrious Career of a Crap Psychologist,” Jezebel
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/830?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=13
4. “The Pseudoscience of “Black Women Are Less Attractive’,” ColorLines, 5-17-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/831?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=15
5. See note 3
6. “How to Debunk Pseudo-Science Articles about Race in Five Easy Steps,” Racialicious, 5-17-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/832?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=17
7. See reference 2
Photo by Angela7Dreams|Flickr
This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
What the hell! I just got an e-mail from the organization Color of Change that has me sitting here in disbelief. I am going to pass the mail right on to you. I can’t add anything to what Color of Change is saying. They say it all well and besides, I am trying to get my blood pressure back to normal after reading about this and listening to the blogger’s article. (I could not find it, so called a friend who had saved it on her hard drive and read it to me). I am astonished that Psychology Today would have allowed this to be printed on their web site (or anywhere else) in the first place. Sure they have retracted it, but have not responded to the scores of complaints. As a woman, a citizen of the world, and as the mother of people of color, I am stunned and upset. I often read Psychology Today and many of my clinician friends advertise with them.
Here’s the e-mail from Color of Change. Make up your own minds, but if you feel their having allowed this blogger to publish this was as awful as I do, and many others do, let Psychology Today know and take a stand.
“Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women”
Dear Iris,
Since Monday, more than 50,000 ColorOfChange members have called on Psychology Today to address it’s decision to run an article that uses false science to argue that Black women are “objectively” less attractive than women of other races. Still, they’ve remained silent.
Can you help us get to 70,000? It takes a second to add your voice to the call, demanding PT apologize and explain how this won’t happen again. Once we get to 70,000, we’ll deliver your petitions to Psychology Today’s headquarters to increase the pressure.
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday
Thanks and Peace,
— Rashad, James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha, and the rest of the ColorOfchange.org team
May 26th, 2011
Dear Iris,
Nearly 20 years after a black parent documented how hard it was to hear, “Mommy, I want to be white,”1 Psychology Today reinforced the false and hurtful sentiment that Black women aren’t attractive.
Last week they published an article claiming it to be scientific fact that Black women are less beautiful than women of other races,2 penned by Satoshi Kanazawa, who is notorious for hiding behind pseudoscience to promote discredited racist and sexist ideas.3
By giving Kanazawa a platform and validating his ideas, Psychology Today dehumanized Black women and girls everywhere. After widespread public outcry, they removed the article from their website.4 But that alone won’t erase the damage they’ve done by validating these discredited ideas — the editors need to apologize, explain how this happened, and let us know that it won’t happen again. Please join us in demanding they do so immediately, and then ask your friends and family to do the same:
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday
Kanazawa’s article is flawed from top to bottom.5 Using a dataset from an unrelated study of teenagers, he draws the obviously false conclusion that Black women are “objectively” less attractive than women from other racial groups.
Kanazawa has a long history of hiding behind pseudo-science to express racist and sexist views. He once wrote an article asking “Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?” and another suggesting that the US should have dropped nuclear bombs across the entire Middle East after 9/11 because it would have wiped out Muslim terrorists.6
So why does Psychology Today continue to give him a platform? Black women constantly face both subtle and explicit messages that they are valued less than women of other races — messages that are especially damaging to Black girls. Now Psychology Today has served as launching point for yet another attack, this time in the name of science.
Almost as if to cover up the racism inherent in his piece, Kanazawa says that black men are, “if anything more attractive” than their counterparts of other races because of “greater testosterone.”7 But even here Kanazawa relies on the same pseudoscience to describe black men in familiar terms — brutish, hypermasculine, oversexed, exotic. And that’s dangerous, too.
He uses a modern-day version of the faulty logic used to dehumanize blacks as inferior for hundreds of years, from the social Darwinists and eugenicists of the 19th century to The Bell Curve just 15 years ago. Psychology Today has a responsibility not to give such false logic a stage, nor validation.
To undo the damage it’s done, Psychology Today needs to explicitly reject Kanazawa’s ideas. Please join us in demanding that their editors apologize, explain how this article was published in the first place and what they’ll do to ensure it won’t happen again in the future. It takes just a moment:
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday
Thanks and Peace,
— Rashad, James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha, and the rest of the ColorOfchange.org team
May 23,2011
Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU — your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/205?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=7
References:
1. “Growing Up in Black and White,” Time, 5-17-1993
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/828?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=9
2. “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” Psychology Today, 5-15-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/829?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=11
3. “The Illustrious Career of a Crap Psychologist,” Jezebel
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/830?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=13
4. “The Pseudoscience of “Black Women Are Less Attractive’,” ColorLines, 5-17-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/831?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=15
5. See note 3
6. “How to Debunk Pseudo-Science Articles about Race in Five Easy Steps,” Racialicious, 5-17-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/832?akid=1995.229625.kMgufC&t=17
7. See reference 2
Photo by Angela7Dreams|Flickr
Share this: