Evolutionary psychology arguments support white supremacy.

High-profile evolutionary psychology arguments are thinly-veiled justifications for white supremacist ideology. For example, evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa argues that it is natural and biological for men to prefer blonde (white) women, because blonde hair signals youth, health, and fecundity. (He also uses evolutionary psychology to argue “Why most suicide bombers are Muslim”, “humans are naturally polygamous”, and “sexual harassment isn’t sexist”.)

If you wonder why many people consider these evolutionary psychology arguments to be white supremacist pseudo-science, read What If Black Women Were White Women? by AlienatiOn:

In “If Men Could Menstruate,” Gloria Steinem makes the persuasive argument that “Whatever a ‘superior’ group has will be used to justify its superiority, and whatever an ‘inferior’ group has will be used to justify its plight.”

[…]

What if suddenly, instantly, the power of white femininity were transferred to black women?

The answer is clear: Black women would represent value, purity; and based on their natural traits would be worthy of protection and instantly become the objects of universal desire. White women would represent the opposite.

[…]

White female features would be declared violent. Their “jagged” thin lips, “knife sharp” noses, and “harsh” jaw lines would be nature’s way of expressing why men have a natural preference for the soft features of black women. Soft lips, soft cheekbones, and soft, round noses would be proof of natural femininity. Full, pink lips and large, dark eyes would become associated with virginal black girls whose purity must not be compromised. Black female features would thus be said to represent youth.

[…]

The anti-aging properties of black female skin combined with soft, curvy bodies would be proof of the overall reproductive health of black women. Scientists would argue that black women were naturally preferred as long term mates and mothers because they were “healthier.” Men’s attraction to women is based on overall health and fertility, after all.

[…]

Statistics would equate the fact that white women make up the majority with their “overpowering” and “strong” population. This would be proof that they could handle unsafe neighborhoods. The “strong culture” they would have created amongst themselves would enable them to withstand their lack of protection from predators and criminals. Statisticians would argue that men were attracted to black women innately because they made up a small percentage of the population. “We tend to value what is rare,” they might say.

Men would proclaim that white women deserve sexual objectification because “flat buttocks” allow for deeper penetration. In ghettos across America, men would stand on street corners and yell “Damn! You got a flat ass!” to remind white women of their sexual status in society.

[…]

White women’s “hard” bodies would be deemed more “capable” of fighting off sexual attackers, while the soft curves of black female bodies would become worthy of police protection. White women, despite being at high risk of being victimized by violence and sexual crimes, would not “need” police protection.

Movies would feature black women as the main objects of men’s desire across racial lines while stereotypes of evil, bitter, and oversexed white women would further prove why men of all races simply did not prefer blonds. “We can’t help those to whom we’re attracted,” men would say. “Preference” would become an unconcealed acceptance of discrimination against white women. White women’s anger towards and sadness about the status quo would show their unreasonable jealousy of the innate superiority of black women.

The entire text of What If Black Women Were White Women? addresses more than just evolutionary psychology; read the whole thing. (Via Womanist Musings)


Related posts:

9 Responses to “Evolutionary psychology arguments support white supremacy.”

  1. henrik Says:

    I love it. Pointed, revealing, funny.

    I had a look at Kanazawa’s article in Psychology Today and its just incredible to see what nonsense gets published as science. Some of his evolutionary “truths” are ridiculous, if not plain deceptive. Most suicide bombers are Muslim men because of polygynic society and the promise of 72 virgins? What about Hindu, Buddhist, female Muslim suicide bombers? The vast majority of suicide missions were NOT carried out by Muslim men.

  2. Restructure! Says:

    According to Robert Pape, who actually did research and didn’t just base his assumptions on what was on the news, most suicide terrorists are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, “a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families”.

    Kanazawa also writes things like this:

    It seems to me that there is one resource that our enemies have in abundance but we don’t: hate. We don’t hate our enemies nearly as much as they hate us. They are consumed in pure and intense hatred of us, while we appear to have PC’ed hatred out of our lexicon and emotional repertoire. We are not even allowed to call our enemies for who they are, and must instead use euphemisms like “terrorists.” (As I explain elsewhere, we are not really fighting terrorists.) We may be losing this war because our enemies have a full range of human emotions while we don’t.

    This has never been the case in our previous wars. We have always hated our enemies purely and intensely. They were “Japs,” they were “Krauts,” they were “Gooks.” And we didn’t think twice about dropping bombs on them, to kill them and their wives and children.

    He then goes on to argue that Ann Coulter should have been the President of the United States, because she would have nuked the Middle East:

    On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.

  3. henrik Says:

    So it’s clear what we need individually and as a society in general: more hate! Quite a remarkable conclusion for a psychologist.

    What a nutcase.

  4. Restructure! Says:

    I’m not even sure if Kanazawa is a psychologist. His department is Management at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

    His PhD is in Sociology from University of Arizona. He does not disclose his earlier degrees. I doubt he has a background in psychology or biology, given the types of things he writes.

  5. NancyP Says:

    There’s no science in popular evolutionary psychology. EP is “Just So” stories supporting the status quo, and such pseudo-scientific stories have been around for centuries.

    (There may be some science in evolutionary cognitive psychology, but the public finds cognitive psychology boring).

  6. patrick Says:

    Hi!

    ok, the idea that lighter skin signals youth, and fertility is 100% accurate. Same for shiny hair, and good skin and breast symmetry. Every scientist knows that. So I don’t see the point.

  7. Restructure! Says:

    If it was about fertility, then why do many men find women of colour with full, curvy bodies less attractive than white women with thin bodies?

    No, not “every scientist” thinks that. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

  8. Alienati0n Says:

    Restructure!,

    THANK YOU! For posting this. Actually I am quite flattered due to the fact that I found your blog today and have been reading it all day + comments during free moments at work! I was thinking while reading it “why haven’t I found about this earlier”? And I’ve actually read everything which is why I’m back in January. Great analysis THROUGHOUT the blog, and I will continuously read on…Thank you.

  9. Evolutionary Psychology Bingo Card « Restructure! Says:

    […] Evolutionary psychology arguments support white supremacy. by Restructure! […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: