Digital Mind 🧠

🪵 The Threshold

Arbitrary-set discrimination primarily targets subordinate males, not women

Properties2
tagsja-picks, contrarian_or_surprising, singleton, xref, category/contrarian-or-surprising
aliases@jost_political_2004, loc. 3236, @roderick_m_kramer_social_2011, loc. 1220, @roderick_m_kramer_social_2011, loc. 1220

4 min read

Arbitrary-set discrimination primarily targets subordinate males, not women

Evidence

Since there is overwhelming evidence that intergroup aggression is primarily a male enterprise, there is also reason to expect that arbitrary-set aggression is primarily directed at outgroup males rather than outgroup females. If we regard normal forms of intergroup discrimination as mild forms of intergroup aggression, there is then also reason to suspect that it will be primarily males rather than females who are the targets of this arbitrary-set discrimination. We label this thesis as the subordinate-male target hypothesis. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3236 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

This gender-moderated racial victimization can also be found by use of controlled field employment audits.† For example, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) performed a small meta-analysis of some 19 employment audits, contrasting the employment outcomes for varying dominant and subordinate groups across five nations (i.e., Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States). While all of these studies showed significant levels of employment discrimination against members of subordinate ethnic groups, controlling for a number of factors, the results showed that the discrimination against subordinate men was substantially higher than that against subordinate women (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, pp. 162–172). These effects persist into the 21st century and with respect to other minority groups as well. For example, according to the U.S. Census, the 2006 earnings of white women from full-time employment were approximately 16% greater than that of black women and 42% greater than that of Latino women. In contrast, white men earned 37% more than black men and 73% more than Latino men (U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 2007; see Figure 10.1). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1220 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Sidanius and Pratto (1999) performed a small meta-analysis of some 19 employment audits, contrasting the employment outcomes for varying dominant and subordinate groups across five nations (i.e., Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States). While all of these studies showed significant levels of employment discrimination against members of subordinate ethnic groups, controlling for a number of factors, the results showed that the discrimination against subordinate men was substantially higher than that against subordinate women (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, pp. 162–172). These effects persist into the 21st century and with respect to other minority groups as well. For example, according to the U.S. Census, the 2006 earnings of white women from full-time employment were approximately 16% greater than that of black women and 42% greater than that of Latino women. In contrast, white men earned 37% more than black men and 73% more than Latino men (U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 2007; see Figure 10.1). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1220 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Intergroup discrimination targets subordinate males more than subordinate females — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3236; Racial discrimination in employment falls harder on subordinate men than subordinate women — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1220; The justice system discriminates more against subordinate men than subordinate women (+8 more)

Broader Connections

✉️

Backlinks