Publications
Partners
What happens when pseudo-science and racism meets? Bullshit. That’s what.
People have been studying beauty, the origins of beauty and the effect of beauty for thousands of years.
What makes a woman beautiful? Is it her tiny feet (foot-binding!); small, sharp teeth (tooth-filing!); blonde hair (peroxide!); tiny waist (corsets!); long legs (high heels!); willowy figure (anorexia!); large breasts (push up bras and silicone!); snub nose (rhinoplasty!); or any of the many insane ways people try to squish beauty into some kind of measurable way.
Well, according to evolutionary psychologist, Satoshi Kanazawa you just have to look at the mixture of testosterone and genetic mutation and you’ll come to the “right” conclusion: black women are ugly.
Hitting back
Unsurprisingly, Kanazawa's post (which appeared in Psychology Today) drew huge backlash and, after slightly tweaking the headline, the publication deleted the post. But this is the internet, and everything has staying power – and, boy, is this a topic to get riled up about.
Everything about the article hearkens back to the days of having Saartjie Baartman as a "scientific study". Is it the level of prejudice? Or the way that science could still be twisted for such skewed purposes?
In a world where beauty has been defined as everything from fuller figures in the 16th century to Halle Berry's petite frame and Alek Wek's striking features, you would have thought that you couldn't base a study on such a shaky premise.
Do you think beauty can be defined objectively?
People have been studying beauty, the origins of beauty and the effect of beauty for thousands of years.
What makes a woman beautiful? Is it her tiny feet (foot-binding!); small, sharp teeth (tooth-filing!); blonde hair (peroxide!); tiny waist (corsets!); long legs (high heels!); willowy figure (anorexia!); large breasts (push up bras and silicone!); snub nose (rhinoplasty!); or any of the many insane ways people try to squish beauty into some kind of measurable way.
Well, according to evolutionary psychologist, Satoshi Kanazawa you just have to look at the mixture of testosterone and genetic mutation and you’ll come to the “right” conclusion: black women are ugly.
Hitting back
Unsurprisingly, Kanazawa's post (which appeared in Psychology Today) drew huge backlash and, after slightly tweaking the headline, the publication deleted the post. But this is the internet, and everything has staying power – and, boy, is this a topic to get riled up about.
Everything about the article hearkens back to the days of having Saartjie Baartman as a "scientific study". Is it the level of prejudice? Or the way that science could still be twisted for such skewed purposes?
In a world where beauty has been defined as everything from fuller figures in the 16th century to Halle Berry's petite frame and Alek Wek's striking features, you would have thought that you couldn't base a study on such a shaky premise.
Do you think beauty can be defined objectively?
