Posted on May 24, 2011

U.K. College Lecturer Under Fire for Blog Post Calling Black Women Ugly

Joshua Rhett Miller, Fox News, May 20, 2011

As an investigation by the London School of Economics continues into a blog posting by one of its lecturers who questioned why black women are “less physically attractive” than other women, a growing number of critics are calling for his ouster.

In a blog posting Sunday that was removed from Psychology Today, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, a lecturer in the London School of Economic’s management department, wrote that black women were rated to be less attractive than women of other races on average, although black men were not rated less attractive than men of other races.

“The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone,” Kanazawa wrote, according to cached versions of the posting. “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.”


“The views expressed by this academic are his own and do not in any way represent those of LSE as an institution,” the school said in a statement to “The important principle of academic freedom means that authors have the right to publish their views–but it also means the freedom to disagree. We are conducting internal investigations into this matter.”


“Our bloggers are credential[ed] social scientists and for this reason they are invited to post to the site on topics of their choosing,” Perina wrote. “We in turn reserve the right to remove posts for any number of reasons. Because the post was not commissioned or solicited by PT (in contrast to a magazine article), there was no editorial intent to address questions of race and physical attractiveness.”


Meanwhile, a number of prominent psychologists, columnists and authors continue to blast Kanazawa, whom one critic described as the “Rush Limbaugh” of evolutionary psychology.


Jenice Armstrong of the Philadelphia Daily News also wrote on the subject, recalling Kanazwa’s previous “pseudo-scientific” work in Africa.

“In 2006, he claimed that residents in sub-Saharan Africa were in poor health because of their low IQs–discounting the effects of poverty, war and famine,” Armstrong wrote. “Now Kanazawa has turned his attention on black women’s looks, of all things. That’s a touchy subject, given all that African-American women have gone through not only to embrace our own unique features but to be considered beautiful in a country where a white female aesthetic continues to be seen as the ideal.”


Students at the University of London, however, continue to call for Kanazawa’s dismissal, citing his previous articles entitled “Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?” and “What’s Wrong with Muslims?”

“Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology,” read a Facebook posting by Sherelle Davids, anti-racism officer-elect of the London School of Economic’s Students’ Union. “As a Black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on Black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty.”

Another student, Amena Amer, wrote that Kanazawa’s “research” threatens the academic credibility of the university.

“We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa’s research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups,” Amer wrote.

[Editor’s Note: An earlier article about this matter can be read here. A list of writings by Satoshi Kanazawa can be found here.]

26 responses to “U.K. College Lecturer Under Fire for Blog Post Calling Black Women Ugly”

  1. alexander says:

    “U.K. College Lecturer Under Fire for Blog Post Calling Black Women Ugly”

    Telling the blatant truth in the UK is a serious no no.

    Ostracize him until he apologizes for being accurate.

  2. Martin L. Kuhn Jr. says:

    Do the protectors of racial orthodoxy actually believe that if they manage to silence people like Dr. Kanazawa that the rest of us won’t notice that pure-blooded sub-Saharan Black women are not attractive? Do they believe that we can’t see that even mixed-blood specimens such as Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey are capable of making facial expressions that would scare off a junkyard dog? Did they think we didn’t notice?

    Click on the link to see a picture of Michelle Obama apparently getting pumped up to attack Lord Greystoke.

  3. Louise B. says:

    “Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, a lecturer in the London School of Economic’s management department…”

    How is this topic related to economics?

    “while black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.”

    The misguided Asian professor has apparently based his theory on the opinions of black males since they also believe that black women are ugly and that black men are God’s gift. (In which case, I hope that God keeps his receipts!)

  4. john says:

    Poor Kanazawa. He’s not used to Western PC, where simply stating the indisputably obvious can land one in personal and professional trouble.

  5. Anonymous says:

    “We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa’s research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups,” Amer wrote.”


    Sure you support free speech, if it demonizes and threatens Whites, but NEVER if it offends nonwhites and religious minorities! Who is really “fueling the hate” morons? Oh, I forgot, it is those mean nasty neo-nazi groups, right AMENA AMER? It is always the racially aware White guys/gals, right?

    Wonder what race Amena Amer is?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Meanwhile, a number of prominent psychologists, columnists and authors continue to blast Kanazawa, whom one critic described as the “Rush Limbaugh” of evolutionary psychology.

    Not that Rush actually talks evolutionary psychology. Or racial differences. I for one wish he WOULD — and there may yet come a time when he can and does — but for now generally he does not (except in vague and indirect ways).

    Limbaugh says many smart things about economics and governance that we can all agree with — but we all know that as a major media presence he must shy away from open discussing racial differences. If he did, the FCC would pounce on him, apart from whatever advertiser revolt there would be.

    So once again we see a leftist using the name “Rush Limbaugh” as shorthand for “All That Is Evil”… without actually ever having listened to Rush Limbaugh’s show. Truth is, in broaching the unmentionable topic of racial differences, the LSE’s renegade Prof. Kanazawa — God bless his truth-talking, sushi-loving soul — has proven himself far more “right wing” and “racist” and “unacceptable” than Rush!

  7. says:

    Stating that black women are ugly is racist.

    Stating that non-black men are ugly is not racist.

    Seems like a double standard.

  8. Heap Big Smart says:

    He needs to be locked in a train full of morbidly obese black women endless shouting into their cell phones until he gets an attitude adjustment.

  9. Aaron says:

    I want to see what his criticizers’ spouses look like.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Part of the problem is that the man is a provocateur. He has written the same things for a long time. In fact, in the UK, you can get away with far worse things than in the U.S.

    I’ve read some of his articles and he is very blunt, in fact, I would even say he is often race-baiting.

    I could see this coming, but aside from that, he is right about most issues concerning race and looks/IQ.

  11. george00 says:

    Kanazawa’s conclusions:

    black women:

    flat nose, big lips=”less physically attractive than women of other races.”

    black men:

    flat nose, big lips=”more physically attractive than men of other races.”

    Kanazawa, go back to the drawing board.

  12. Bernie says:

    The future of freedom is in Asia, where there is no political correctness or left-wing fundamentalism on issues of race, sex and religion.

    I”m sure Prof. Kanazawa can find work back in Japan while his colleagues in the West continue to write well-funded pseudo-science about “white skin privilege” and “tyranny of the patriarchy.”

    After all, we all know that Whoopi Goldberg and Esther Rolle are as nice looking and desirable as Pamela Anderson, Lucy Liu and Jennifer Lopez.

  13. Duran Dahl says:

    Remember folks, “pseudo-science” is research-driven evidence that does not support “progressive” mythology…similar to “hate-facts.”

  14. Mike H. says:

    Naturally, much like the people who cried and screamed about James Watson and Arthur Jensen, no actual refutations regarding Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa’s work will be forthcoming – of this I’m sure.

  15. diversity = adversity says:

    His research is based on testosterone levels he concludes that black women have a higher testosterone than the other women having higher estrogen and lower testosterone. Therefore, black women are less chemically attractive. The assumption is that men prefer estrogen in women, while women prefer testosterone in men. His errorenous conclusion that black men are more attractive is based on their higher levels of testosterone.

  16. Anonymous says:

    As a proud alum of the distinguished LSE, I’m profoundly disturbed by the quality of research emanating from my Alma mater. Back in the day, LSE professors introduced the formal discipline of Econometrics, theorized about the relationship between Inflation and Unemployment (refer to the Philips Curve), formalized concepts such as the Scientific Method (Karl Popper), pioneered the General Equilibrium theory (Sir John Hicks), conjectured on famine and income distribution (Amartya Sen) and provided advice to national and international bodies such as the Bank of England, the IMF and the World Bank. Now they hire people who research moronic topics as distribution of beauty an masculinity across the races! The LSE has been associated with the research of no less than 16 Nobel Laureates. Looks like there won’t be a 17th any time soon. Idiots like Kanazawa masquerading as researchers are a waste to limited research grants and fired from prestigious academic institutions. The British taxpayer, not to mention generous private benefactors deserve a better return from funding academia.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Debate on who the best looking girls and boys are aside,

    I once heard black men and women should simply be proud of and have confidence on their dark own appearances, instead of trying to lighten their appearances to attempt to be who they are not.

  18. Reformed says:

    One interesting thing to note is that blacks are more attractive than Whites and Asians only when you control for intelligence.

    Average Black Male IQ: 80

    Average White Male IQ: 100-102

    Average East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 105

    So, if you adjust for 20 to 25 IQ points, the difference between say, graduating college or being mildly mentally handicapped, blacks are more attractive than Whites and Asians. Okay, whatever gets you to bed at night.

  19. Orion Blue says:

    This is not the first time that Asian academics have published material that fails to genuflect to the absurd orthodoxy of ‘Western’ academic standards (as they have been appropriated).

    The fact that he states the abundantly obvious is not, in itself, necessarily evidence of it being invalid.

    The white ‘men’ who are swift to attack this academic are probably not ‘men’ who would ordinarily be bothered about the appearance of women. There has to be a reason for attacking your own culture and society and I suppose that formerly criminal deviancy is as viable a reason as any,

  20. Anonymous says:

    IQ has absolutely nothing to do with health.

    Maybe someone who already has diabetes or severe heart problems whose IQ is below 70 will have trouble with a complicated regime, but low IQ does not cause health problems. He probably means low IQ people can’t follow med directions and other health guidelines.

    There is an enormous amount of health advice out there that is totaly bogus. High IQ people who think they are so superior tend to follow the latest health fads; jogging till they shatter their bones, veganism until they become anemic etc. From 1925 to about 1975 people tanned themselves into skin cancer because they thought exposure to the sun would ensure enough Vitamin D and guard against osteoporosis. Then they all got skin cancer from excessive sunlight.

    When I had my children 45 years ago, Drs were advising women to gain no more than 12 pounds during pregnancy. Pre natal visits were more like a weight watchers meeting “Congratulations, 8 months and you’ve only gained 10 pounds, keep up the good work!”

    A few years later Drs conceded that a gain of 20 pds was ok. Then up to 30 depending on height was ok.

    Maybe physical injury problems because of not heeding red lights or a non swimmer jumping into the deep end, but health has nothing to do with IQ.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Michelle Obama is fairly attractive.

    She’s got that square jaw, high cheekbones big eyes sort of Joan Crawford Jacki Kennedy not really pretty but photogenic face. She’s tall which helps a lot for the photos. Tall women just look better in photos. Unfair to small women, but it’s a fact.

    She is not overweight or even chubby except for the pear shaped waist to knees thing which by the way, about 70 percent of all females are afflicted with. The pear shape has a lot to do with reproduction. It can’t be dieted or exercised away.

    For centuries women created their own fashions, endless variations of tight top and full skirt that flattered the normal pear shaped woman. Then the fashion industry decreed straight skirts and pants which flatter only the 20 percent of women who have both flat stomachs and small hips and thighs.

    Don’t knock Ms obama because she is shaped like 70 percent of all women.

    She has nice long slim enough legs which are important for the photos. She has a smallish waist and medium chest and shoulders so she looks good in full and A line skirts. She has the perfect figure for the classic first lady ball gown full skirt fitted top. As long as she wears A line and fullish skirts and stays away from pants she looks good.

    She wore a real pretty southern belle garden party dress for the Easter kids party. Pink flowers and green leaves with a full skirt and fitted top that showed off her small waist.

    Her skin color may not appeal to everyone’s taste, but it is a great color with white, cream and all those bright first lady royalty colors she has to wear.With her skin color, she doesn’t need much makeup.

    She surely has a stylist to select her clothes. Maybe she has had a little plastic surgery and liposuction. So have a lot of women.

    Her looks are the only good thing about the Obama administration.

    Considering what some of them looked like, she is one of the better looking first ladies. Check out Eleanor Roosevelt.

  22. ModerateMind says:

    Something all the comments overlooked is the hormonal argument Kanazawa makes: That African men and women have, on average, higher testosterone than other races. If human’s have evolved in such a way that sexual selection favors testosterone in men but not in women, Kanazawa’s claim is valid. I think hormones do matter in sexual attraction (ie. experiments ovulating women are rated more attractive).

  23. Tom says:

    “In 2006, he claimed that residents in sub-Saharan Africa were in poor health because of their low IQs—discounting the effects of poverty, war and famine,”

    And you, oh righteous and grand liberal poo-bah, have discounted the effects of IQ on social stability and prosperity. Putting the cart before the horse is unwise if one wants to make an academic point, but tragically it can lead to famine if done on the way to one of those drops of US food aid.

  24. Anonymous says:

    He claimed that black women are the least attractive and black

    men are the most attractive ,and this is due to the level of testosterone. So which race of women is the most attractive?

    Did the doctor conveniently left this out fearing he would have

    to rank men also on attractiveness and thus would offend others?

    So he just focus on black women?

  25. Anonymous says:

    Why should I care about this professors opinions of black women. Black women range from ugly to very pretty with a lot in between. It is their horrible voices domination drive, bullying and bullying, strutting arrogant body language I detest.

    I can admire a picture of a pretty black woman, but my idea of pure heaven would be never to see or especially hear a black woman or man or child again in my life.

  26. selene says:

    uh–ok. She is better looking than Eleanor Roosevelt; but Eleanor Roosevelt did have the advantage of a sincerely well-intentioned mentality, that gave her a pleasant, even at times inspiring appearance. I don’t agree with her politics, but she was sincere.

    Mrs. B.O. appears to be a souless bastion of insincerity, and it shows. The media howlers trying to make “Jackie” out of her, just show how ugly she is by comparison when you actually look at those pictures of Jack and Jackie at state functions. They look and act so much better it hurts to watch the old film.

    I swear this is some kind of grandeloquent joke by the MSM and the globalists who set all this up.

    Sometime in 2009 I watched a talk-group of pundits, mostly young and liberal, on tv. They were discussing Pres.B.O.’s image and somebody said, unconvincingly, that maybe this administration was a continuation of “Camelot.” Almost to a voice, each person scoffed at the absurdity of that. Not with guffaws but just with absolute dismissivenss. Nobody believed it for a minute. Of course “Camelot” was not really a political ideology, it was just a sort mythos evoking certain myths of nortern European origin, and even these goofy liberals knew the Obamas had no association with it. That’s just silly.

    Comparing her to Jackie is one of reasons why honest people find her repulsive, and I don’t think that was her idea, because she doesn’t actually seem to have illusions about her “beauty”. Except for the occasional hair extentions (she and her daughters had to have long, shining hair photographed from the back for the inauguration), she isn’t vain. Can’t possibly be.

    Her repulsiveness comes from the inside, not the outside.She lost her law licence for egregious offenses in the 1990s; she’s is stinking corrupt and as bad a liar as Obama. The 20 yrs in that white-hating church and despising America and white Americans while obviously coveting in the most extreme way (or she would not be where she is) all that whites have put at the disposal of those who occupy the White House, just compound the revulsion she arouses. As looks go, she’s average for a middle-aged black woman, if size 15 shoes can be called average on a female. But somehow looking at her I see a howling demon trying to get out, and it has little to do with her jaw-line.