D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Here's a quote your post I was replying to:
The next post:
So the context you were replying in, and of the discussion, was politics as mentioned by you explicitly. If you wanted to make a broader statement that did not apply to just politics, it's up to you to expand the context just as explicitly, not on us to read your mind.
I'm glad you pulled the quotes out-- everybody can decide for themselves whether I was referring to "a study that looked at the discrimination of black politicians vs. female ones." Hilarious that you think that these excerpts work in your favour-- power to you.
I acknowledged a major confounding variable,
After I brought it up.
but there is a similar confounding variable in the Senate. Neither of us can quantify how much "more divorced" it is, that's a baseless claim on your part.
For you to obscure, and attempt to equivocate elected representatives from regions where black people are the majority and select a black person to send to congress, vs the Senate where each state (none of which possess a numerical black majority) sends 2 people to represent them is.......Goebbelsian. If this is the standard of intellectual honesty that I'm working with, I see no point in discussing this with you further.
I would agree you should drop this discussion. Your primary example is not arguing about differing levels of discrimination faced, and on whom it has a worse effect. It's saying that the hiring of white women in academia has the effect of exacerbating racism, and points out how some of the most racist people in the country are less sexist than racist (I certainly don't disagree here).
It puts out percentages in hiring compared to the general faculty, but does not compare them to the percentages in applications, and does not make the claim that blacks face more discrimination in hiring, just that they are hired less. For example, in 1995 the University of Oregon had 36.3% female hires and 8.4% non-white hires (shorthand of 36.3/8.4). Is that based on an application rate of 36.3/8.4, or 30/15, or 45/6? By 2003, the composition of both had risen to above the 1995 hire rate (42/9).
There a lot of unpacking to do, but none of it compares whether the effect of racism is larger or smaller than the effect of sexism. I don't know why you misrepresented the contents of this paper, but that misrepresentation means I have even less confidence in your claim than before.
I listed it as a manifestation, which it is. It isn't a paper on the mechanism in which discrimination differently impacts black people from white women.
I have read paper on the intersection of race and gender. They are about the effects can multiply instead of add, making the oppressive experiences of a black woman typically more severe that those of a black man + white woman. I don't recall any that decide to pull out a comparative measuring stick. I haven't heard of any serious researchers who are into those sorts of comparisons.
Try pulling out another paper with whatever process you use. Maybe you'll get lucky.
Yes, but when things multiply, are they multiplying as constant numerals? Or are the numbers that are multiplying different from factor to factor? Congrats on engaging with a context at the narrowest ****ing level.
*waves bye bye*