Cuz it's fun to crow. Come correct next time.
I shouldn't follow your example?
Again, I'll let the audience decide whether the confounds of senate vs. congress with respect to barriers to being elected are equal. If they are, I'm curious to hear your hypothesis on why there are currently more female senators in the United States than there have been black senators in all of American history (even when you control for population size, the discrepancy is palpable).
I don't know that they are equal, but I do know until you can remove inherited wealth (and other benefits) from the situation, you can't really compare the effects due to racism/sexism. As I'm sure you're aware, even when barriers are lowered, the historical effects persist for generations. Perhaps you have not considered that these historical effects fall harder on oppressed groups who don't have family members in the favored classes, or the degree to which this is an effect.
One example where white women face greater effects of discrimination is public-sector wages. At least one study has found black men's wages, when accounting for differences in education, etc., comparable to white men's, while women still show unexplained gaps. Now, racism does play into getting those qualifications in the first place, but you only asked for one area.
The association between average occupational earnings and within-occupation racial disadvantage reveals a much overlooked source of racial earnings inequality which constrains the opportunities available to upwardly mobile black men in the private sector. This association cannot be explained by measured individual characteristics, nor by the status, demographic composition, or skill demands characteristics of occupations. In the public sector, on the other hand, racial earnings inequality is not systematically associated with average occupational earnings, and is instead more closely tied to individual human capital and occupational placement. We consider the implications of our results and suggest directions for future research.
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-28.pdf
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_...f-8232fe70a45c/compendium---sans-appendix.pdf
In fact, here's a challenge-- I challenge you to find social metrics/outcomes where white women fare worse than black people (or black men, whatever makes this comparison easier for you).
I doubt there is any metric where black women would be fare better than white women.
One example where white women face greater effects of discrimination than black men is public-sector wages. At least one study has found black men's wages, when accounting for differences in education, etc., comparable to white men's, while women still show unexplained gaps. Now, racism does play into getting those qualifications in the first, but even them it seems, compared to what white men earn in the public sector, white women are at 1-2% lower than black men overall.
I have not checked into military service specifically, but in that and similar testoserone-fueled environments (sports?), I would be surprised if you didn't find black men ahead of white women.
Even before I get into the mechanism and the historical mechanisms of oppression that black people have faced and continue to face,
You think I am not aware of them?
On that very page, black men with a bachelor's degree (or more) are equal in wage to white women with a bachelor's (or more), and my first inclination would be that more of the women have advanced degrees.
Or, use these interactive charts to see which strata of SES black boys vs. white girls fid themselves in
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/make-your-own-mobility-animation.html
OK. Black men born poor are more likely to be rich, or to stay poor.
The thesis of this is that race is the central social reality of the United States, pure and simple.
For a black, educated, cis-genered, heterosexual, abled man (such as the author), race is indeed the central social reality of society.
The idea is a good one-- because it is 1elieved (and I'd agree) that oppression must be fought on every axis in order to be able to defeat white supremacy, or the patriarchy, or heteronormativity.
The problem with this, is that white feminism (historically a tool of oppression against black people) weaponizes this to the extent where white women have made gains since the 60s, whereas black men and women haven't.
This would have been more correct if you said neither group has made substantial progress since the late 1970s.
The proof is in the pudding-- of all dimensions of oppression, if you look at the outcomes seen in some of the links I've posted, groups of people where which white people compose a majority (white women, white LG communities) have generally made the most progress.
The effects of wealth are sufficient to explain this.
I think I've provided enough information for you to glean that oppression rooted in race is stronger than oppression rooted in gender.
We often see strong evidence for what we believe. However, the confounding of historical wealth inequalities and the intersection of wealth on both groups makes this connection open to question.
