Psychology Today tries to explain what was wrong with Kanazawa’s piece pointing out that black/African women are perceived as being less physically attractive than those of other genetic backgrounds.
It’s a very politically correct and very bad fail:
The point is that there are also group differences, not in attractiveness (as Kanazawa claims), but in cultural messages about what is and is not attractive. Standards of beauty, like most other beliefs, are socialized and change not only from place to place but also over time. In both the United States and England, (where Kanazawa lives and works), standards of beauty are essentially “White” standards, because whites comprise the majority of the population and have disproportional control over both media and fashion. And while it is not just White respondents who are socialized this way (internalized racism has been well documented), it is certainly the case that White Americans and Europeans (who are less likely to have received more positive messages about Black beauty) would show the strongest anti-Black bias.
As long as this is understood and framed accordingly, there is no problem with the data Kanazawa reports. What they show is that because Black faces and bodies don’t fit mainstream White standards of physical attractiveness, both respondents and interviewers show an anti-Black bias.
This does not explain the observed facts. That people consider (or those questioned consider) black/African females to be less attractive and black/African males to be more attractive.
“Peeps don’t like blacks” or “Whitey Power!” or even ” people are acculturated to white standards of attractiveness and thus think darkies are ugly” don’t manage to explain that fact. And as we are at least attempting to talk about science a theory that doesn’t explain all the facts is wrong. Plain, flat out, wrong.
However “correct” it might be.