Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 42

A 'Wow. Just. Wow' article: 'Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist,  wrote a completely sick column over at Psychology Today's "The Scientific Fundamentalist" called "Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"

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.

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.

As I hold back my temper thinking as a woman, I already have cultural pressures to be something other than what I am in terms of a beauty standard, but I cannot believe this complete failure of an attempt to scientfically prove I'm less attractive than a white woman (assuming the same general characteristics).

What is absurd about the premise is what is he basing it on? "Black" women run the gamut of able to pass for white, to dark-skinned afro-centric features. We have dead straight blonde hair to ultra-nappy fros. Who participated and what did they look like? Who knows, that information isn't there.

Any "scientific analysis" is fool's gold without any context to historical sociological or ethnographic impact on majority and minority populations in regards to notions of physical attractiveness. Yet Kanazawa is trying so hard to make it work that you get the feeling that he gave himself a migraine.

The fact that Kanazawa poses his thesis as a question is also the tip of the hand -- he has his stats, but this tells him nothing  - he can't truly discern as a reason for this alleged branding of black woman as inferior physical specimens of beauty.

And this sounds like something out of the junk science we see against gays. I sh*t you not:

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.

While my blood boils, you can leave your comments.

Brian Brown reveals NOM's anti-gay game of divide and conquer

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Several of my blogging compadres were on the scene as the National Organization for Marriage teamed up with NY legislator Ruben Diaz in a march to supposedly "save marriage" from us "evil lgbts."

But based on what NOM president, Brian Brown, said at the rally, folks need to ask just who is evil - lgbts wanting to be able to declare love for each other legally and protect the interest of said loved ones by marriage or someone (Brian Brown) who will tell lies in the name of God, like in the video clip below:

Starting at 2:55, he said the following:

" . . . kids as young as kindergarten are taught in Massachusetts that their parents are bigots because they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

Brown is referring to NOM's lie, which has been refuted time and time again (most completely by Politifact), that "learning about gay marriage" is a part of kindergarten school curriculum in Massachusetts - a state that legalized gay marriage.

But with his statement, Brian took the lie to a level lower than the belly of a snake. 

Brown's statement is not only a lie but a blatantly ugly lie. But this lie perfectly captures NOM's game plan - intentionally playing a nasty zero sum game by creating a fictional competition between same-sex households and heterosexual households.

I have to wonder why an organization who is supposedly standing up for a "moral issue" such as marriage does so by pitting people against one another.

In Maryland, NOM played the African-American and lgbt communities against one another.

At this rally in New York, it played the Hispanic and lgbt community against one another.

Generally, it's playing every other state against Massachusetts as it seeks to paint that state as an example of the so-called "rabid gay agenda" taking over.

And now we see NOM playing same-sex couples against heterosexual couples.

Is setting people against one another a tenet of morality?

Is the exploitation of ethnic, cultural, and religious differences a tenet of being "pro-family?" 

Is repeating ludicrously outrageous lies designed to scare people about the well-being of their children a way to properly preserve tradition?

Whatever the case may be, Brown has proven something that I have always known:

In the history of the world, more harm has been done by people claiming to act in God's best interest than any supposed "homosexual agenda" conjured up from the most fevered of imaginations.


Don't like what Brown said? Complain to Politifact at truthometer@politifact.com

Hat tip to Joe.My.God. 

Related posts:

Politifact gives NOM 'Pants on Fire' rating for lying - Speaking of Politifact, it just so happens that last month, the site gave NOM a "Pants on Fire" rating for lying.

NOM knows that it lied in the New York ad and does not care - NOM sidesteps answering charges that it lied in a recent television ad it put out in New York.

More barriers broken: CNN anchor Don Lemon kicks open the closet door

UPDATE: Don's official statement has been added to this post. This is awesome news and it's another milestone reached as CNN's Don Lemon, puts not only his sexual orientation on the record, but bravely navigates the third-rail territories of colorism and sexual molestation in his new book Transparent, which officially drops on June 16.

The New York Times has a piece, "Gay CNN Anchor Sees Risk in Book," that breaks the news about the 45-year-old reporter's decision to go public.

[H]ehas no illusions about what he is getting himself into with the book he has written about his career - and life. In "Transparent," Mr. Lemon has a lot to say about reporting for television and about journalism in general. But he knows enough about news to recognize what will get this book noticed.

Mr. Lemon has not made a secret of his sexual orientation in his work life; many of his CNN co-workers and managers have long been aware that he is gay. But he still acknowledged that going public in his book carries certain risks.

"I'm scared," he said in a telephone interview. "I'm talking about something that people might shun me for, ostracize me for."

Let me be one to say it loud and clear - we have your back, Don. Coming out is a life-changing event, be it to yourself, those close to your or to the public at large. You'll never know how many young black gay or lesbian people you are giving the strength to do the same. It's one step at a time, and all need to bolster themselves for the possible consequences -- good and bad. But no one ever regrets coming out in the end.

As a gay black men, Don Lemon's coming out is particularly powerful -- it will generate conversations that have only recently been broached about the double minority status of being gay and a person of color:

Even beyond whatever effect his revelation might have on his television career, Mr. Lemon said he recognized this step carried special risk for him as a black man.

"It's quite different for an African-American male," he said. "It's about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You're taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine. In the black community they think you can pray the gay away." He said he believed the negative reaction to male homosexuality had to do with the history of discrimination that still affects many black Americans, as well as the attitudes of some black women.

UPDATE: Don's official statement...

"Today I chose to step out on faith and begin openly living my own truth. And let me say right up front that I hope many of you will be inspired to do the same thing in your daily lives. Some of the things I've chosen to reveal in my book Transparent were very difficult to share with even those closest to me.

There was a time when I was terrified of revealing these things to the person I love most in this world - my own mother. But when I finally mustered the courage to tell her that I had been molested as a child and that I was born gay, my life began to change in positive ways that I never imagined possible. Yet I still chose to keep those secrets hidden from the world. I, like most gay people, lived a life of fear. Fear that if some employers, co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members learned of my sexuality, I would be shunned, mocked and ostracized. It is a burden that millions of people carry with them every single day. And sadly, while the mockery and ostracizing are realized by millions of people every day, I truly believe it doesn't have to happen and that's why I feel compelled to share what I've written in Transparent.

As a journalist I believe that part of my mission is to shed light onto dark places. So, the disclosure of this information does not inhibit in any way my ability to be the professional, fair and objective journalist I have always been.

My book is dedicated to the memory of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, who jumped to his death from a bridge after his dorm mates streamed his private business over the Internet for the world to see. Tyler might still be with us today if more gay men and women had chosen to live proudly and openly. It is also dedicated to the millions of young, gay people who believe they are alone when dealing with their own sexual identities. You are not alone! There are people, like me and many others, who are thriving in their personal and professional lives and although we sometimes have a hard time with it ourselves, we are here to show you by example that you too can overcome any obstacle as long as you stay strong and, most of all, stay alive."

With love and honesty,

Don Lemon

May 16, 2011

NOTE : Don Lemon will be on The Michelangelo Signorile Show on Tuesday. I can't wait to hear what Don has to say on not only coming out, but the phenomenon of colorism, something I've blogged about for quite some time. Milestone "alsos" (in the past week!):

* Milestone: NBA top exec comes out - president and chief executive of the Phoenix Suns Rick Welts

* Tammy Baldwin may run for retiring Sen. Herb Kohl's seat

* Guest column by Irene Monroe: All about Chaz

* NY Rangers winger Sean Avery supports marriage equality - and what it means

* Presbyterian Church To Allow Gay And Lesbian Ordination / Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards: What Today's Vote Means for the Church
FYI, the description of Transparent from Amazon:

In this unique memoir, Primetime CNN anchor Don Lemon takes readers behind the scenes of journalism, detailing his own struggle to become one of the most prominent African American men in television news-and inside some of the biggest stories of our times.

Never one to stop at the surface of the story, Lemon digs deep, exposing his own history with wealth and lack, with family secrets and painful revelations--and explains how those painful early experiences shaped his ambitions and gave him the tools of empathy and fearlessness that he brings to his work. Then Lemon turns the same searing honesty on the news industry itself, taking the reader behind the scenes of September 11, 2001, the DC Snipers, the epidemic of AIDS in Africa, Hurricane Katrina, the election of Barack Obama, and the death of Michael Jackson among other events.

With his clear and compelling storytelling and the rich detail of an Emmy-winning journalist, Lemon reveals his own painful journey from a little boy who dreamed of broadcasting in segregated Baton Rouge in the early 70s, to his current perch at CNN in a fascinating and compelling look at the world of television news and his own experiences reporting in it.

Take a look at NOM's retread anti-gay "what about the children!" mailer in NY

All I can say is I'd like to be able to see the faces of Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher witness passage of marriage equality in the Empire State. It will eventually happen, and the National Organization for Marriage will have blown away millions of dollars.

Being on the wrong side of history will suck, NOM; leaving a paper trail of such ignorance will benefit the next generation by providing a clear understanding of what homophobia and bigotry are. From http://nomexposed.org/:

Milestone: NBA top exec comes out - president and chief executive of the Phoenix Suns Rick Welts

With all of the recent discussion about public homophobic comments by sports figures, it is of great interest that executive leadership of sports teams speak out and up against homophobia. And this news is surely a blockbuster that will keep the dialogue going (NYT):

Last month, in a Midtown office adorned with sports memorabilia, two longtime friends met for a private talk. David Stern, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, sipped his morning coffee, expecting to be asked for career advice. Across from him sat Rick Welts, the president and chief executive of the Phoenix Suns, who had come to New York not to discuss careers, but to say, finally, I am gay.

In many work environments, this would qualify as a so-what moment. But until now, Mr. Welts, 58, who has spent 40 years in sports, rising from ball boy to N.B.A. executive to team president, had not felt comfortable enough in his chosen field to be open about his sexuality. His eyes welling at times, he also said that he planned to go public.

...Mr. Welts explained that he wants to pierce the silence that envelops the subject of homosexuality in men's team sports. He wants to be a mentor to gay people who harbor doubts about a sports career, whether on the court or in the front office. Most of all, he wants to feel whole, authentic.

"This is one of the last industries where the subject is off limits," said Mr. Welts, who stands now as a true rarity, a man prominently employed in professional men's team sports, willing to declare his homosexuality. "Nobody's comfortable in engaging in a conversation."

It's a long feature and a good read. It's ironic that after he had that conversation with Stern, the next day Kobe Bryant called a referee a f*ggot.

This kind of milestone -- showing that gays are involved in teams sports all along the food chain -- up to the top, and that irresponsible, hateful and ignorant remarks denigrate people they work with and know. It's beyond past-time to address these last bastions of tolerated homophobia in the name of masculinity.

'The Homosexual Agenda and the US Military': batsh*t rant by former Navy SEAL & member of MENSA

Yet here is the US military, a mainstay of American society, openly embracing the homosexual lifestyle. And lest you think that polymorphous perversity is hip, slick, and cool beyond words, permit me point out that psychopaths are often polymorphously perverse. Also, like many homosexuals, psychopaths often indulge in anal intercourse (as do many Muslim men with their wife, or wives-more about that shortly).

-- Jim O'Neill, in his embarrassing essay, "The Homosexual Agenda and the US Military".

If you're going to puff up your chest and share your credentials as a Navy SEAL and "genius" status as a member of MENSA, one would think that you'd not type out sad, paranoid, and homo-obsessive sh*te like this. Jim O'Neill's essay is worthy of parody, but he's dead serious when he belches out pearls of wisdom like this to define the boundaries of gay/straight and good gay vs. bad gay (note my emphasis):

It is good to keep in mind that there is a vast difference between having had a homosexual experience, and being an active homosexual. For example, you can hardly fault the victim of prison rape, or child molestation for having had homosexual encounters.

...Similarly, those who have had homosexual experiences because of ignorance or curiosity, and then changed their ways (which is the meaning of the word "repent") are worthy of understanding and support-as are those who are sincerely trying to change their ways. In addition, I should mention that I strongly condemn any violence directed toward homosexuals, simply because they are homosexual.

That being said, I am vehemently opposed to the gay agenda of promoting polymorphous perversity, pederasty, and gay marriage. I am totally and deeply against the queering of the US military, and I am way past being sick and tired of the pro-homosexual, anti-Christian slant expressed in the various "news" venues.

The proud winner of "First Place" in the "Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award" in journalism school, continues, apparently spewing long-decried, non-reality-based assertions about gays and children, and "the parts need to fit" laughable argument:

Homosexuality is opposed to natural law, the way things are intended to be. If the idea of males and females being made for each other seems befuddling; I suggest that you go grab yourself a nut and bolt and play with them for awhile-perhaps a light will dawn for you, perhaps not. The United States of America was founded on the principles of "the laws of nature and of nature's God," and that is the nation I fight to defend-and no other. Link                

Homosexuals generally have little or no interest in children (aside from those who regard them as sexual toys), and therefore are naturally aligned with the Far Left's death cult. Their narcissistic lack of concern for future generations is evidenced by the economic suicide run America is currently on. Link    

I mean how can you turn opposition to gays serving openly into, for all intents and purposes, as an act of slo-mo terrorism, and yes, he brings up Nazis for good measure:

I realize that the PC police will not permit us to admit that the US is at war with radical Islam, but does opening the gates of our military to homosexuals, while we are in a de facto war with an enemy rife with closet queers, seem like a smart move to you?

..I'm not opposed to gays in the military because I think that they lack machismo (if you are under the delusion that all gays are effeminate, think again)-after all, the ranks of Hitler's brown-shirted thugs were riddled with homosexuals. On the "Night of the Long Knives," Hitler had homosexual Ernest Rv?hm, head of the brown shirt SA (Sturmabteilung-storm troopers), and a number of his aides murdered by the SS (SchutzStaffel-Protective Echelon). Typical Far Left back stabbing.

You can surf over and read the rest. The level of tin foil hat conspiracy in this screed is comedic.

Photos, vid from NY State Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz's self-stroking homophobic Bronx rally

Follow Andr?s Duque of Blabbeando and Steven_Thrasher today (Right) to see their coverage of the gay-bashing rally held by New York State Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx - @revrubendiaz).

And in one of his tweets, Andr?s notes that an NYPD MTA chaplain wears his badge as he participates in this homophobic rally:

Andr?s captures Diaz arm in arm with Brian Brown of NOM, who spoke.

Video from Steven Thrasher of the Village Voice of Diaz's arrival:

And now, Diaz calls "for the glory of God" against homos:

No Huckabee in the PHB 2012 GOP Clown Car

He's going to stay on the sidelines and collect that paycheck from Faux News (AP):

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Saturday he won't seek the Republican presidential nomination, choosing to stick with a lucrative career as a television and radio personality over a race that would be both costly and caustic.

"All the factors say go, but my heart says no," Huckabee, the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, said on his Fox News Channel show.

...Huckabee painted the decision as a spiritual one. "Only when I was alone, in quiet and reflective moments, did I have not only clarity but an inexplicable inner peace," he said.

"Being president is a job that takes one to the limit of his or her human capacity. For me, to do it apart from the inner confidence that I was undertaking it without God's full blessing is simply unthinkable."

JAW DROPPER! NY Times: "GOP Donors Providing Bulk of Money For Gay Marriage In New York"

The New York Times dropped a fascinating and flat out shocking report on the state of fundraising of the coalition of LGBT advocates, collectively known as New Yorkers United For Marriage. The headline pretty much sums it up:

Wealthy Donors to G.O.P. Are Providing Bulk of Money in Gay Marriage Push

The Times reports that over two-thirds of estimated $1M war chest that has been collected in the last few weeks came from donors who have traditionally, and even exclusively, thrown their weight behind Republican candidates and causes.

From the New York Times

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.

Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.

The donors represent some of New York’s wealthiest and most politically active figures and include Paul E. Singer, a hedge fund manager and top-tier Republican donor, as well as two other financiers, Steven A. Cohen and Clifford S. Asness.

The piece goes on to say, "The new donations represent roughly two-thirds of the same-sex marriage coalition’s fund-raising." In other words, conservative sources of funding have outraised traditional LGBT, progressive and Democratic sources in New York state thus far. Amazing.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (described as the "most politically centrist of the donors") is seriously engaged, hosting a fundraiser at his Upper Eastside townhouse, giving a speech at Cooper Union on May 26, and travel to Albany to make his case for a yes vote. It's worth noting, Bloomberg funded six Republican state Senate races in 2010, four of which lost.

The arguments are tailor made for GOP buy-in. The talk of the state staying competitive in a job market that is surrounded by states and districts that offer such benefits to LGBT people. There are hooks for libertarian leaning Republicans as well, as said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s chief policy adviser explains his boss' stance in the piece:

“At the core this very rational mayor is somebody who believes that government has no business in getting involved in, taking sides in or making value judgments about who you love.”

And Bloomberg is just one of many that is putting his mouth were his money is. They are reaching out to GOP Senators and making their case among conservative circles. Many of the names are the same from the group of big name business leaders that released letter of support the first week of May.

Mr. Asness, described as "among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation" and is quoted in the article saying, “This is an issue of basic freedom.”

Cohen who runs SAC Capital Advisers says: “We believe in social justice for all Americans.”

Loeb, a former hedge fund manager, says: “I think it is important in particular for Republicans to know this is a bipartisan issue. If they’re Republican, they will not be abandoned by the party for supporting this." He goes on to suggest a whole new avenue of support is likely to open up.

With 2012 showing all the promise of 2008 to be another blue sweep year in the Empire State, this would be an excellent time for a GOP Senator who would like to survive into 2013 to ask him or herself, "How can I ingratiate myself to some of the most generous of Republican donors, and shore up some credentials as a 'moderate' Republican?"

I have a suggestion for them.

WSJ: Lawyer signed contract to defend DOMA before firm vetted the case

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

One thing I despise about the religious right is how they swoop down on an issue in order to exploit it before all of the facts come in.

They act like a bunch of vultures with crosses stitched in their wings.

A perfect example of this is the recent controversy involving King & Spalding, the law firm which decided not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.

We have heard the constant whining from the religious right about how King & Spalding are cowards for refusing to take the case. We have heard junk from the religious right regarding the supposedly bullying tactics of the Human Rights Campaign in this controversy. However, the following is something we won't hear from the religious right.

According to The Wall Street Journal and The Fulton County Daily Reporter, the lawyer in the center of the controversy, Paul Clement, may have overstepped his bounds in taking the case. He allegedly signed the contract to defend the case before going through proper channels:

Clement has stated that he felt that he had the backing of the firm before he took on the DOMA case. But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding's business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.
The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.

The article also said that there was widespread opposition to the case from inside the law firm and that the case didn't fit the law firm's mission.

These facts something to keep in mind as the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, etc. will continue to put their own spin on this controversy.

My guess is that the organizations will conveniently ignore these new revelations. I wonder how many times NOM and the Family Research Council will mention this incident as an example of how "homosexuals are trying to silence people" instead of letting everyone of the real story.

After all, why let truth stand in the way of a good fundraising tool?

UPDATE - And now from the Huffington Post comes even more details about the GOP in this matter. Apparently no one knows where the House of Representatives is going to get the money to pay for the DOMA defense. And laws could have been broken because of it:

The House of Representatives has signed a contract to pay a law firm up to $500,000 (and possibly more) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. But there's a problem with this arrangement: No one seems to know where that money is going to come from, and at least one lawmaker believes House Republicans may be violating federal law.

 . . .  Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) pressed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher on the matter. Although the contract states that "the General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services," Kircher said he was told by the House Republican leadership that no funds would come out of the Office of General Counsel's budget for this purpose.

 . . . Dan Strodel, the House's chief administrative officer, is the man who, according to Honda's office, would ultimately write the checks to Brancroft PLLC. But at the hearing, he also said he had no knowledge of where the money would come from.

 . . .Honda believes that Boehner's agreement could be violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits "involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose." Knowingly violating the law could lead to being fined or imprisoned. 

Why doesn't the House of Representatives ask the National Organization for Marriage for the money? I'm sure than an organization which mysteriously goes from having  $500,000 to $10 million in a three-year span has money just laying around.

Hat tip to AmericablogGay for the update.