This detailed article argues that Kanazawa didn’t even accurately report the findings from which he drew his dubious inferences.
Kanazawa’s disgraceful pseudo-scientific claims about the relative attrativeness of black women has brought LSE into disrepute, an official letter from the institution notes. LSE is restricting his teaching and publication abilities for one year. In his letter, Kanasawa says he deeply regrets the unintended consequences of his blog post.
Is this enough? Was the post merely bad science?
Dr Mikhail Lyubansky, a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois, said the posting failed to consider possible “anti-black bias” in the perceptions of the respondents and interviewers.
“Without this kind of methodological analysis, Kanazawa’s entire premise – that there is such a thing as a single objective standard of attractiveness – is fatally (and tragically) flawed,” he wrote.
Not all bad science is morally corrupt, but this instance seems at least close to that.
Yesterday, Stoat posted about a truly appalling racist, sexist psychology today article. Now there’s a petition to sign.
On May 15, 2011, Psychology Today contributor, Satoshi Kanazawa posted an article entitled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” (now removed from their website, but reblogged here). We demand that the Psychology Today editorial board publicly account for how and why this racist and sexist article was allowed to be published on the Psychology Today website, and take transparent steps to prevent this from happening in the future.
Have you ever suspected that evolutionary psychology – or at least some of its practitioners – are resolutely battling on the behalf of what they see as a status quo that privileges men? If so, Satoshi Kanazawa’s piece in his Psychology Today blog provides some confirming evidence. Entitled “Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil,” it might be meant tongue-in-cheek, but I don’t think so.
So what to do? Waste one’s time taking it apart? Well, it might just be enough to juxtapose a passage from SK’s piece with something from Bob Herbert of the NY Times. Doing that might make the differences in the quality of thought behind the pieces fairly easy to discern:
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
According to police accounts, Sodini walked into a dance-aerobics class of about 30 women who were being led by a pregnant instructor. He turned out the lights and opened fire. The instructor was among the wounded.
We have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that the barbaric treatment of women and girls has come to be more or less expected.
We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation’s entertainment.
The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry — much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations.
Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation’s women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female.
Indeed. Against the backdrop of this reality, SK’s views are just a bit weird.