I remember one man very passive aggressively saying something about the sisterwives being extremely "hot", as in attractive. Note: He did not say I was extremely "hot". I understood that he was trying to figure out what they were doing with me. Well placed, privileged jackass.
(yawn) I get wimmin, so many wimmin who I observe attempting to cruise one or the other of my male partners (the sisterwives) on the basis that they will no doubt want to be "trading up" to a young/er, scrawnier, lighter, whiter "model". Often I will sit and chit chat with either or both the sisterwives as we watch the wimmin make their best patriarchally competitive, thoroughly based on racist, classist, ageist, lookist assumptions, moves not even realizing that they themselves are being watched and graded according to a system of measurement they clearly know nothing about. Mine. :)
Now, I'm not saying that I'm will only support either or both male partners to have other lovers, partners, girlfriends who are radically political in ways I understand...though that would be suWEET. :)
In fact, wimmin they like, admire or are attracted to don't have to be overtly politicized at all. Many of them aren't. I just need any wimmin who approach to understand how to behave like humane, friendly, open, honest, sentient, brave, community minded, emotionally present, interactive people who know how to not move in ways that don't at all indicate a desire to subtly, passive aggressively eliminate me based on a (lack of) critique that reinforces their unearned privilege and assumptions related to who is a beauty and who is not, who deserves attention and who does not, who is worth focusing on and who is not. (mouthful? yes. wha-? just go back and read it aloud if you need to.)
hmmmm...yeah, I'd have to say that racist, internalized patriarchal, all round oppressive, mostly undiscussed, but still very influential piece is, for me, one of the more challenging aspects of affiliating with poly culture. I'd even go so far as to say that unless relationship participants (of any number or configuration) are walking with a very grounded analysis of oppression that they allow to permeate their lives, choices and desires, poly as with any other relationship style can easily end up being a smiling, subtextual soup of power plays and jockeying for status, attention, popularity, love and sex that is discounted/denied/erased/silenced because the various key players in a relationship are still smiling, still interacting, still fucking and all agree to not discuss or even admit to the existence of anything as icky and not sexy or not flirtatiously playful as oppression playing out in their relationships and loverships. That wouldn't be very much fun. Nope, not even one bit. ;)
I really am coming to grips with the fact that unless the vast majority of happy go lucky, oh so sociable, uber friendly poly cultured people I'm encountering have overtly stated and practiced ideals questioning systemic oppression, power and domination, there will be no way for me to understand poly cultured spaces as anything but completely related to/linked to the rest of the world, potentially tortuous areas where I must step with critical, analytical care, where I must stay aware of who dominates, why and how, who can be questioned/challenged/denied access to me and why, if I am to survive, if I am not to understand myself as the (willingly) dominated, she who must count herself lucky to have the attention of any lovers whatsoever, let alone lovers who are constructed by quite a few others who have little or no political analysis as more beautiful/interesting/popular/sexy than me courtesy of mass amounts of offered unearned privilege.
I don't think poly circles and communities as a whole are going to be able to collectively move beyond a vaguely liberal politic that says live and let live, don't be mean to others because you might end up dating their partners and try to smile as much as you can until the key players, the well placed people, especially those who write or gather groups of poly people together or who host online forums or who put on summer festivals support poly people who experience oppression to speak openly and challengingly and until they themselves begin to look at privilege, power and domination inside poly communities fearlessly, willingly, in short - without their indifference silencing and/or erasing the realities of some in favour of comfy, cozy denial.
Soooo, anyWAYZ...
I found this blog post over on What About Our Daughters - Unapologetic, Uncompromising, and Unbowed in Defense of Black Women and Girls.
Methinks I shall have to add it to my blogs to check list...
ACTION ALERT: Contact Psychology Today RE Their Racist Attack on Black Women (212)260-7210Can't go into too much detail right now, but popping in at lunch to let you know I have seen the article. It is racist GARBAGE backed by junk science and Psychology Today is aware of the article and is refusing to take it down or even offer a dissenting viewpoint.
The number to Psychology Today is 212-260-7210. You can read the offending article Why Black Women are Rated Less Attractive Than Other Women for yourself. Its racist junk science and they know it.
Call and raise HELL all day today. DEMAND to speak with the CEO and not the editor show is basically trying to direct your anger into email. Yes you need to call even though at this time they are giving the run around.
CALL THE ADVERTISERS
Now that Psychology Today knows of this racist screed backed by junk science and refuses to take it down or at least peer review it, the time has come to start to call each and every advertiser whose ad appears on the website next to the Article.
Right now Argosy University is running an ad- their number is 1800 275-2448. As new ads appear begin to contact the advertisers directly.
Psychology Today has made a business decision to race-bait for page clicks. You need to make a decision to see that they do not profit from it.
DEFUND THIS RACIST GARBAGE!
Update on Monday, May 16, 2011 at 7:52PM byThe Blogmother
The article has been removed without explanation or apology.
Don't forget to like our Facebook Page. We shut down our NING network. |64 Comments |
Reader Comments (64)
if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.
Here is a copy and paste job of the article. Sorry I didn't get a chance to take screenshots.
Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?
Why black women, but not black men?
Published on May 15, 2011 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
There are marked race differences in physical attractiveness among women, but not among men. Why? Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its respondents both objectively and subjectively. At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: 1 = very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 = attractive, 5 = very attractive. The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years.
From these three scores, I can compute the latent "physical attractiveness factor" by a statistical procedure called factor analysis. Factor analysis has the added advantage of eliminating all random measurement errors that are inherent in any scientific measurement. The latent physical attractiveness factor has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the "average" Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.
In contrast, races do not differ in physical attractiveness among men, as the following graph shows. Men of all races are more or less equally less physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent.
This sex difference in the race differences in physical attractiveness – where physical attractiveness varies significantly by race among women, but not among men – is replicated at each Add Health wave (except that the race differences among men are statistically significant, albeit substantively very small, in Wave III). In each wave, black women are significantly less physically attractive than women of other races.
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. As you can see in the following graphs, both black women and black men rate themselves to be far more physically attractive than individuals of other races.
What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.
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.