In the U.S., black women outmarry at a lower rate than Latinas or Asian women. To compound the situation, many black men prefer dating non-black women to black women. Racial arguments about black women being 'less feminine' than white, Latina or Asian women have been used to "explain" this discrepancy.
As a non-black, I cannot at all see how black women are "less feminine" than other "kinds" of women. I totally disagree with Steve Sailer's argument in his article "Is Love Colorblind?". The article implies that black women are subconsciously perceived by men as inherently "less feminine" than Asian women because they have lower body-fat content than Asian women. I am not dismissing everything ever written by Sailer, but I am leery of the 'science' behind that particular article.
My white woman friend also thinks that "body-fat" argument is pure "garbage" based on visual observation alone. According to Sailer's argument, Asian women have rounder body lines than black or white women, and thus appear softer to men. But my white lady friend says that doesn't gel with what she sees: generally, black American women are more curvaceous, and have more body fat than the yellow kind of Asian woman. That alone should make black women appear more 'womanly', i.e. more 'feminine' than Mongoloid type Asian women, if we want to follow the "body fat" argument.
Many East Asian women have bony, angular frames, and they definitely don't have the 'soft', 'round' bodies that Sailer uses as an excuse to explain the preference for Asian women in intermarriage. Even Mongoloid-type Asians agree that black and white women are "better-endowed" with physical feminine qualities than yellow women.
Anyway, that's all I have to say on the Sailer article. Another argument we commonly hear against black women is their alleged "assertiveness" and "strong personalities". Apparently, if "biological" arguments fail, people start using "behavioural", or "cultural" arguments. I think attributing certain attributes to broad populations of diverse individuals can easily cross the line into "stereotyping". But even if these allegations of black female assertiveness is true, I still have some questions.
Firstly, I'd like to ask: "Since when were assertiveness and strong wills considered unfeminine? World history is full of strong women who led nations and armies, and they were usually not considered any less feminine for it."
Secondly, I'd like to ask, "Who gets to define 'feminine' anyway? Men? Who gives them the right to decide what kind of women are less feminine? Who gives them to right to tell women what 'feminine' is?"
Black women have been so maligned by men trying to justify their own racist interracial dating preferences. Why don't some men just admit, "I'm racist, and that's the only reason I'm making my dating/marriage choices the way I am."
Sailer's argument was fairly clever, depending on body fat percentages. But a percentage conceals as much as it reveals, unless anyone seriously believes Idaho is 12.3% black. The fact of the matter is, Oriental women carry their fat more around the waist and less around the hips and bust.
The second half of the issue is how one defines 'feminine'. Then one gets into the whole issue of how any definition would be innately ethnocentric; while 'matriarchal societies' were just a manifestation of 19th-century ethnocentric assumptions that heirarchy was universal, there's still a great deal of variation in what's masculine and what's feminine.
All in all, the reason black women don't date outside their race is probably simple endogamy taboos, with the associated double standard wherein males are allowed to break the taboo more than females. It's just like the old white/yellow issue; society is set up to favor one kind of relationship over the other. (In the white/yellow issue, this is even more apparent. Mail-order brides and all.)
FYI, Steve Sailer has been exposed as a fraud with no scientific backing. See Racism, Interracial Marriage, Lies. He has a racist agenda for propagating this pseudo-science.