evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW racism western women suck

Who’s the ugliest of them all?

The smirk's not helping, dude.

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.

42 replies on “Who’s the ugliest of them all?”

Yeah, I heard about that–it was on Pam’s House Blend and Pharyngula, too, and its a horrible piece of science. Besides the whole “objective” beauty standards that don’t control for racism, he manages to fuck up population genetics beyond repair by claiming that one reason black women might be uglier because they built up more mutations. While it is true that there is a whole lot more genetic diversity in Africa than there is anywhere else , the mutations have been building up at the same rate, and genetic diversity is generally considered an unmitigated good in population genetics. So that would be an argument for why Africans are superior.

I really wish I had something articulate to say about this. But as someone who is in a relationship with a Black woman, all I can really come up with is “RAAAAAAGE!!!!”

Also, Satoshi Konazawa basically just makes up sh*t, and Psychology Today is a joke.

This is political correctness to the extreme. This guy is merely speculating on possible reasons for objective attractiveness. Fucking get over it, fymynysts.

Is it true, though, that blacks have a higher level of testosterone on average? And hey, I personally find most black women unattractive. I guess in our oversensitive, politically correct society that makes me a hate-filled racist.

Ion – No, that makes you a single person with singular desires. What makes this professor dude a racist is that he’s trying to claim black women are OBJECTIVELY unattractive. That’s crap because attraction ISN’T OBJECTIVE.

Hmm, true, it’s not like you can measure attractiveness by some universally agreed standard. Well, I guess you can talk about proportions and such, but personal tastes still differ.

@Ion The idea of personal attractiveness has been brought up many times. You are perfectly fine saying you aren’t attracted to them. But trying to say that that is because they are objectively less attractive is racist and just stupid. Just as stupid as saying that you must be attracted to them, may I add.

This came up a while ago. It’s the same as saying “Having a BMI over 25 makes you ugly”. That’s stupid. Saying “I’m not attractive to overweight women” is perfectly fine, you are allowed to be attracted to who you want. But trying to pass that opinion off as an objective fact is stupid. Especially when you try to say you can judge BMI be sight, like MRAL did.

No, Ion it makes a normal person, with preferences. What would make you an idiot is thinking no black woman could possibly be attractive. What would make you a racist would be to argue there is an, “objective” standard of beauty that members of one group are incapable of meeting.

This moron just happened to “discover” that blacks are that group. Amazingly that means that yet another evopsych paper has had crappy data that supports the status quo.

Oddly enough there was another paper (also with junky data) whichdiscovered who the most beautiful woman in the world is… Naomi Campbell

There is SO MUCH wrong with the Psychology Today article.

1) Claiming beauty is objective.
2) Trying to rate beauty objectively by asking people to give a subjective judgment.
3) Only asking the researchers of the experiment (sample size = ? It’s very possible that the only person in the experiment is Kanazawa)
4) Concluding this makes ALL black women less attractive.
5) Making shit up about testosterone or whatever.

I hate racists and misogynists, but also people like Sanazawa who really should understand statistics but don’t.

“At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale”

I really want to see how he manages to defend this statement. Does anyone know what the survey says? “please rate the following person’s attractiveness objectively”? Jeeze, how does that statement even make any sense?

Oh, wait wait, even better: “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.”

Soo, not only can they measure ‘objectively’, but they are somehow able to distinguish between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ measures? With the same survey? And almost the exact same scale, except they’ve omitted ‘average’ this time? Arg, this hurts my brain so much!

Has this fool never heard the expression, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”?

Nobby: He gets a bit of slack. Everyone rates themselves subjectively.

Where he doesn’t have slack is the idea of objectivity in beauty. One can make a case for a cultural standard of beauty (and if the Gdansk study had claimed that, they’d be in a better position). If one has that, as the working definition, then one can ask people to rate beautiful things/people, according to it.

But one has to “calibrate” the raters, which means teaching them the standards. That means the, situational, objectivity is only as good as the working model.

It also means the working model is the, “objective” standard. As such it’s a convenient fiction, and should not be used as if it were a universal truth.

The problem with most (if not all) evopsych is they do that very thing, use a subjective interpretation of things, and then present it as an objectively modeled truth.

Well, i never had a problem with him using subjective standards, the issue I had was him claiming he could differentiate.

As others have pointed out, it’s a personal matter who or what an individual is or isn’t attracted to. Also, while beauty standards aren’t subjective, many of them are universal within a certain culture — in other words, some things are popular (though not necessarily liked by all) and some aren’t (though not necessarily disliked by all). Trouble arises when pseudoscientists start using science to validate culture, as Kanazawa does. And let’s be clear — evolutionary psychology IS pseudo-science. Given its absolute rejection of the reality of social conditioning, its ridiculous centrisms (Western, white, and present-day), its pretense that cultures and attitudes that don’t fit the theory simply don’t exist, its claims that human nature is rigid and entirely hard-wired, and that EVERYTHING in human behavior is an evolutionary adaption, I wonder how his claim that African women are “objectively” unattractive fits into the general evo psych theory.

– Is he claiming that black women’s “ugliness” is an evolutionary adaptation against black men’s “rapiness”?


– Is he claiming that black women are evolutionarily inferior?

Sounds a bit third-reichish, doesn’t it? Hmm, Ion? For your sake, I really hope you see the difference between “I am not attracted to African women” and “I have scientific proof of Africans’ inferiority”.

I hate it when people like Kanazawa try to argue that beauty has been a constant throughout every culture. There are a few things that remain steady – a healthy appearance and facial symmetry, but apart from that, it varies so widely. In medieval Europe, fat women were prized as being healthy and prosperous. Send a supermodel back to the 1300s, and people would assume she was a famine victim. And back then, tan women were obviously peasants, while pale women were prized. Nowadays, tan women are seen as more attractive than pale women. Some cultures have liked boyish looking women. Old China wanted women to break their feet as children as a sign of beauty. Agriculturally based communities have valued women with large hips and a muscular frame. Red hair has pinballed from being considered beautiful to being a sign that the redhead was a witch. Hell, there are old tribal songs from Africa wherein the female singer brags about how big and accommodating her vagina is.

Wait, but by what objective scale are we measuring a culture’s standards? In comparison to what? Or do you mean a scale based on the culture’s standards?

Nobby: The scale is of the standards.

It’s only as valid as the data set, but we can make, for example, some pretty good guesses about what Greeks thought made for a good looking man. We have paintings. We have statues. We have written descriptions of what made this person good looking, and that person not (e.g. Socrates, who was described as ugly, in detail, by his supporters).

So on catalogues all the data, abstracts the things which were valued, and the “objective” (that is, comparable to a benchmark) standard is created.

It’s not the, “Platonic Ideal”, because no such thing exists. It’s not each person’s standard, because each person has a personal one. It’s the cultural mean.

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).

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! 😀

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.

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 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.