Racial discrimination in employment falls harder on subordinate men than subordinate women

Evidence

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

Categorization

• XREF: Complicates Allport-style race-psychology claims and corroborates an intersectional pattern where the dominant male out-group is most threatened by subordinate men — likely connects to the reader’s existing prejudice thread.
• ADDENDUM: Supports the ingroup/outgroup mechanism thread the reader is building across the Allport reassessment, offering concrete cross-national audit evidence.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1220