Psycho-Babble Today Sez They’re Sorry. So What!

I ignored jumping too deeply into the feeding frenzy that resulted from the poison arrow lobbed at black women by the quack scientist and once-esteemed rag Psycho(logy) Today. They aimed..and missed! “We apologize…” so says, Editor-In-Chief Kaja Perina. Don’t you just feel the remorse? Nope? Me either! Well..this isn’t an Anita Baker song, so now you get the wrath and it’s time to pay the piper.

The reason why I tend to not spend more than a few minutes on reacting, protesting and being angry over such blatant and obvious attacks on black women is because those that engage in them often have a larger agenda at hand. Not to mention the fact that there are so many these days, it’s hard to keep one separate from the other. We have made huge inroads using the Interwebs to spread a message of empowerment and support that has been noticed. Hence the doubled efforts at defaming us. In this instance, people got worked up, petitions were signed, phone calls were made and that’s a good thing when compared to the utter silence that used to occur.

Now what?

Are you going to wait until the next round of mess to chase after it to “beat it down”? Meanwhile are you perhaps internalizing some of the poison spread like a mass contagion that will slowly eat away at you? We have to think long-term and strategically, however and these types of situations will continue. Are ya’ll ready for 2012 and the vile things that are going to be spread across the media during a key election year? You’d better be prepared!

The companion question that needs to be addressed (not that I’m counting on it) is while everybody jumped on this bandwagon, they ignored another equally vicious attack lobbed by yet another DBR black male [athlete]. This was discussed at What About Our Daughters and the question bears answering.

No matter what any outsider says or does, the largest and most virulent attacks against the dignity of black women are…black people! Selective outrage makes you compromised. Lack of cross-accountability ruins your credibility for “outrage”. You are either in support of combating and dismantling ALL denigration (by withdrawing support and forming alliances — not directly fighting) or not.

So the silence…and denigration continues, eh?

As far as Psycho(logy) Today goes, their “apology” has little meaning IF they do not FEEL THE RAMIFICATIONS for years to come. Can you imagine what would have happened if they’d used some hack to declare being homosexual was a disease or Jewish people deserved to be killed? That rag would’ve already been shut down. Instead, they want to be given a pass with a weak “sorry my bad”.


If you are so inclined to be fed up, here’s your opportunity to go the distance. Make sure your own house is in order first, so you’re not using up your best resources. That’s for the so-called “liberal” activist organizations like and others who are seeking credibility amongst non-blacks for being concerned about our issues to do the heavy lifting for a change. (Before anyone seeks to dispute my analysis of them in particular I had an exchange with one of their editors two years ago who wrote some nonsense about black women being over-educated and how they’d die alone with 12 cats, with nary an apology so they have zero credibility with me). There’s funding and accolades involved in that sort of thing you know. Nobody else does things for free people.

  • You can make a sustained effort at getting Psycho(logy) Today removed from every college and university science/humanities department as Shark-Fu suggested on her Twitter stream. She wrote a good response as well.
  • Keep putting pressure on London School Of Economics to fire Satoshi Kanazawa. Just know that somebody else will hire him be it a private think tank or other school. So you win some…you lose some.
  • What about the Editors that approved the article to begin with? Should they keep their jobs? The parent company is Sussex Publishers and their CEO is John P. Colman. He’s a licensed therapist. Perhaps you’d like to reach out and share the love..with the Medical Review Board for what you may feel was inappropriate conduct. That article was some Nazi-style propaganda that would further dehumanize black women and leave them vulnerable to more Dunbar Village-style atrocities. Believe it!
  • When someone seeks to harm you, you don’t turn the other cheek. You SLAY them! Quickly and without remorse. It’s YOU or them!
  • The sustained response that will yield the greatest benefit will be for more black women to use their Charm Offensive and marry the most powerful men on the planet, just as Khadija recommends.


I had forgotten about the TLC song, Unpretty but isn’t it so appropriate right now? I miss them! We so need more black women recording artists, politicos, etc.  who have something important to say who have a forum they control! The song Beautiful works as well. Psycho(logy) Today [along with all the other denigrators/opportunists of black women] can kick rocks and eat dirt!

19 Replies to “Psycho-Babble Today Sez They’re Sorry. So What!”

  1. Ugh. Why do people say sorry after the damage is already done? You mean to tell me they didn't know that post would be "inflammatory" and "offensive"? I'm suspicious of people who act as if they didn't know their actions were suspect before the fact.

  2. (continued)

    I would also like to stress that LSE upholds the principles of equality in all areas of university life – discrimination in any form is not tolerated here. The School deeply regrets the effect of the article on LSE’s commitment to widening access and participation from under-represented groups and its recruitment of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds. This commitment is central to the School’s mission, values and strategic priorities.

    Yours sincerely,

    Warwick Smith

    Head of Press and Information

    1. Well what a surprise. The school's PRESS OFFICER claims LSE doesn't tolerate discrimination and blah blah blah. How about if students start pulling out and boycotting the school and take their tuition money elsewhere? How about spnsors and funders pull out as well? Then what are they going to say?

  3. (continued below)

    I hope you will understand that we cannot prejudge the outcome of that review.

    I would like to stress, on behalf of LSE as a whole, that the university does not endorse the opinions he sets out in this article. Our Director, Professsor Rees, has made clear that she finds them objectionable. At an institution such as LSE, academics are given the freedom to research, write and publish on the topics that seem important to them. This freedom of inquiry is one of the things that helps to advance human knowledge.

    There are rare occasions when we may vigorously disagree with the premises, the scope or findings of academic study and I entirely understand that this is a case in point. We very much regret that people have been angered and offended by it.


  4. Faith, here's the reply I got back from LSE today:

    Dear ,

    Thank your for an email which you recently sent to the Philosophy Department at LSE regarding a recent article by Dr Kanazawa (who, for the record, is not a member of that Department's faculty). I hope you will not mind if I reply on behalf of LSE.

    Several people have joined you in expressing their vigorous opposition to his views and we are now conducting internal investigations into this matter.

    LSE has informed Dr Satoshi Kanazawa that in the opinion of the School’s directorate his recent article appears to lack a sound academic foundation and therefore threatens the School’s reputation for research excellence. Dr Kanazawa’s head of department has now set in train a formal review of the issue and has asked Dr Kanazawa not to publish further writings in non-peer reviewed publications or other channels pending the outcome of this process.

  5. Thank you for your words of wisdom (again), Faith. I'm also a UofL alum… will be emailing my letter shortly.

    1. Well, thank YOU for responding. See, if no one has a problem with the defamation or engages in empty venting how will things ever change?

  6. The link you put up Faith was to email a CEO at Psychology Today called Jo Colman, who yes is a man because a man's pic was on the page with his details. But no matter, I emailed Jo Colman an email SO very long that I had to to break it up into two parts! Typical! LOL

    1. I don't why they have it spelled 2 ways as if one is the female version of the male name. Maybe to throw us off? Or major typo that noone corrected probably. Idiots. I hope you forwarded it to the Medical Review Board as well.

  7. Anyway here's the general and 'automated' email that was replied back to me:

    Thank you for your enquiry. The Department is currently experiencing a high volume of emails therefore there may be a delay in responding to your message. We aim to respond within 3 working days.

    Please note you may be able to find the information you are looking for from the Graduate Admissions Office, contact details are as follows: Graduate AdmissionsEmail:

    Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7160(select option 3 to speak to the team)Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6137
    With many thanks for your patience, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method

  8. I know how the real world works. I know that if LSE fires Kanazawa, that he will or may just get another position at another university or some 'private think tank' because in life, 'you win some, and you lose some' but why should that sully the reputation of one of the University of London's best colleges?

    Mr. Bovens, turn 2011 around for LSE as soon as possible especially if it's in, or mostly within, YOUR power.

    Yours sincerely,

    Was I too subtle? Was I not forceful enough? I dunno…. Was I too 'incognito'? I'm sorry because I don't trust anybody at all anymore in general anymore.

  9. Dear Mr. Bovens,

    I am currently a student within one of the University of London colleges. I am writing this email to say that you should fire Satoshi Kanazawa with the utmost urgency and speed. I once looked up to and admired the London School of Economics and wanted to even transfer there from my current University of London college, now in light Kanazawa's ignorant and backward 'eugenics' I will never feel that way anymore, or I at least won't take attending LSE lightly.

    In light of the fiasco and bad light that Sir Howard Davies also brought upon LSE earlier in 2011, the only way to turn the whole of 2011 around for LSE's international reputation is to fire Satoshi Kanazawa right now, and not wait for any 'sabbatical' to be over. Or when Kanazawa's 'sabbatical' is over schedule a meeting then and discharge him then. (cont.)

  10. Dearest Faith, the head of the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method at LSE is Luc Bovens who's from Belgium orignally, not that that matters at all. His email address is

    I emailed from you and I must admit I sort of borrowed from your material! If you're offended by this then I apologise. This is the email I sent to him and the general email address for that department at LSE: (to be continued)

    1. This is going to be catch-all reply since your comments were segmented. Thanks for responding. It was fine for you to use this post as a template. Like I said, it'll be that rag today and some other mess tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. It would be most beneficial to have a Central Committee of Anti-Defamation for Black Women or something some DBR BM to be on the alert 24/7. At the end of the day we must think beyond the immediate, though I know this is a vast improvement over the way things used to be publicly in relation to these types of attacks.

  11. Will be contacting Mr. Colman. Your suggestions are great. Yes, there is always something we can do to ensure our continued empowerment. I called Psychology Today and spoke to a frustrated receptionist who told me that the article had been removed. Also emailed editors. I can imagine that they were surprised by the deluge of Black and non-Black critics.

    Always work to do!

    1. That poor receptionist isn't getting paid to put up such nonsense. Yes, I'd love to see Dr. Colman have to stand before a Review Board as he defends his conduct since they've allowed that quack idiot free reign over the pages for a LONG time! I'd like to see every advertiser pull out. Let them publish that rag using their money! PsychoBabble Today needs to be renamed Quacks-R-Us!!

  12. "Are you going to wait until the next round of mess to chase after it to “beat it down”? Meanwhile are you perhaps internalizing some of the poison spread like a mass contagion that will slowly eat away at you? We have to think long-term and strategically, however and these types of situations will continue. Are ya’ll ready for 2012 and the vile things that are going to be spread across the media during a key election year? You’d better be prepared!

    When someone seeks to harm you, you don’t turn the other cheek. You SLAY them! Quickly and without remorse. It’s YOU or them!"

    It is soooo important to think long-term about how to respond to future image assaults like this. I'm in a weird place with this second statement. I think swift action needs to happen, like what What About Our Daughters did by simply writing to St. Ives and and saying she wouldn't buy their products anymore and they ended up pulled their ads. But I did some of that turn the other cheek with this.

    All over the web, the only thing black women did was analyze the article and attempt to debunk the vile things he said and give examples that they were feminine (smh that bothered me) or vent about how we are always getting attacked in the media. There was plenty of venting but no action from the masses. I didn't really do a post on it, just gave my opinion and kind of "turned the other way". We complain about the situations we are in, but come time to do something about it and plan and strategize, most of us scatter and don't come back until the next assault. I can't take people seriously when they do that.

    This all reminds me about the trailer going around called "Dark Girls" or something like that. I feel like these conversations come up like clockwork every year and we wallow and vent and wallow and then the solution is a bunch of mantras "love yourself", "black is beautiful" , etc. But the actual behavior that needs to be corrected doesn't occur. These black women are still supporting and giving (emotionally, physically, monetarily) to these black men/women with the colorism issues they complain about, they still hang out and socialize with people with these destructive colorist attitudes, etc. Talk is cheap.

    God forbid you suggest these black women limit their time associating with these people, branch out to meet other folks, aka white people. They bite your head off. Personally, I don't think those colorist issues or any of the other problems in the black collective will be resolved so it's best if black women move on. I keep thinking about when, if ever, will black women collectively get to the point where venting about our situation isn't enough anymore, but actually take immediate action and hold the wrongdoers accountable?

    (sorry this post was all over the place lol)

    1. No, you're fine. I got your stream of thought. I appreciate what Gina did. She's very effective at this type of response. The BWE strategy incorporates a little bit of that AND BW strategically positioning themselves so they are protected in a way that other groups are. You're right, I don't think the attitudes related to the black on black color racism are going to go away, but I do think those that choose to publicly act on them CAN be curtailed if BW would resolve it within themselves and address outside aggression from blacks.

Comments are closed.