Talk:Male privilege/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent edits by Rgambord

I have restored the sourced material that was removed. In addition to the removal of the sourced content, I feel that it further causes undue weight to be added to the criticism section, which has not been well integrated. I agree that the article does not do a good job in addressing the global perspective, but the remedy for that is not to remove what is, overwhelmingly, sourced content, but to add additional content on non-US perspectives, or at least tag with {{globalize}}. I welcome additional conversation and consensus-building about this content, as I am not all that happy with it, but it has not been a priority for me (or, apparently, for others.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

Thread retitled from "This article is terrible.".

I came here wanting to learn what, exactly, "male privilege" is, and noticed a plethora of issues. First, I removed all of the unsourced speculation and original research that does not belong in an encyclopedic article. I also removed some of the sources that violate WP:IRS. Primary journal articles are not adequate sources. Male Privilege#Against the notion of male privilege is the only part with actual citations, but this leaves the article horribly WP:NPOV in the anti-male privilege position (although, one might argue the difference between point of view and fact).

Female Privilege redirects to a section of Men's rights movement#Female Privilege, which redirects here. The article Privilege (social inequality) Cites zero sources and is POV in only mentioning white, heterosexual, christian and male privilege in the see-also section. Rgambord (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, quite a few of the sources were vandalized and should be removed. Genital mutilation is listed as a form of male privilege, but the source was a site that discusses male genital mutilation (circumcision). Rgambord (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your removal of that reference, and was a bit confused by it. It's not as though this is an article subject to WP:MEDRS sourcing guidelines. There is widespread and extensive use of journal articles as references in the social sciences articles. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit more? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the relevant guideline here, and this article clearly satisfies it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at your link and concede. Primary sources are acceptable, but I'd put them at the minimum acceptable level of citation, and I'd argue that one source is not sufficient to establish any sort of academic consensus. I'm not familiar with social sciences on wikipedia (I mostly edit hard-science articles, where individual research papers would never fly as reliable sources). To me, it sounds very wishy-washy and POV-inviting.

Furthermore, there is little-to-no evidence on this page that there is such a thing as male privilege, aside from assertions made from feminist (biased) writers, and therefore I think it is prudent not to write the article as if male privilege is a real-world phenomena, but as a social hypothesis, with supporting and opposing viewpoints within the social sciences, and well-referenced examples. This article should not, for example, make a case that a wage-gap exists, but instead should link to the article on the wage gap, and ONLY cover discussion of the wage gap as it relates to male privilege, with reliable sources. Does that make sense? As it is currently written, it appears that the reader is expected to agree that income disparity equates to "male privilege", even though the article on the wage gap clearly states that the consensus is that it arises due to personal choices, and not due to societal pressure, and there are no provided sources which connect higher earning to privilege, and therefore the section constitutes WP:OR and should be deleted. This article appears to want to exist in some microcosm where feminist theory is regarded as irrefutable. Rgambord (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Flame-war commence

I edit on plenty of hard science articles where the standard for RS is different, so I understand confusion there.

I'm not sure what you mean by "feminist (biased)" so maybe you could explain that a bit more? My understanding is generally that the "privilege" term is an attempt at providing a framework to talk about inequality that avoids talking about blame. And with social phenomena, particularly contentious issues like those surrounding inequality, there is the risk of undermining the page itself by inserting too much mitigating language, narrowly construing things so as to be less offensive to some people. This does a disservice to readers, I feel. the topic is widely discussed in scholarly circles, certainly within the feminism and gender studies fields, but also is referenced in diverse disciplines like anthropology, law, and medicine.

That said, I do feel it needs a good rewrite. I simply don't have the time to do much more than comment on the talk page occasionally. If you feel up to the task of trying to draft new language for it I would be willing to help out to the best of my ability. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop undoing all of my edits. I removed improper sources, and put citation needed in every spot where conjecture was made for you to see what I'm talking about. This article is very unbalanced; wikipedia is not a soapbox. I didn't want to remove content without discussion, but most of it I would have tagged as {{IRRELEVANT TO TOPIC}} if there was such a tag (wikipedia policy demands deletion). This article, as it stands, is not even remotely encyclopedic. Content, if unrelated to the topic, should be deleted, not sourced. Rgambord (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the article cites multiple journal articles that do not cover male privilege. Gender inequality is not male privilege. The link between the two needs to be in the source, or it constitutes WP:OR. I'm going to revert your revert because I don't know why you re-added unsourced and improper content to the article. The first step to fixing this mess is to cut out the cancer.

The fact that this article even exists shows an obvious bias in wikipedia. Privilege can go both ways. There are quite a number of instances of female privilege, which are listed as criticism of male privilege. There are also pages on white privilege and Christian privilege, for example, which is also clearly biased and euro-centric. There are many parts of the world where whites and Christians face oppression, and to say otherwise would be highly ignorant. I'd like to rename this article to Gender Privilege or Sex Privilege. The white privilege article should be "racial privilege" and christian privilege should be "religious privilege". It's not that hard to be non-neutral, which makes me wonder if feminists are purposely POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to come up with a sufficiently (to me) WP:AGFish explanation for why you would say something like "The fact that this article even exists shows an obvious bias in wikipedia." Male privilege, as noted, is a topic that has a great deal of literature associated with it in multiple domains, and is clearly worthy of an article. The terms "male privilege" and other terms that describe privilege of a dominant group are far more common than the ones you suggest, e.g. "gender privilege" or "racial privilege". In fact, I don't think I've ever seen the latter terms used anywhere. I'm hoping you might be able to explain your reasoning a bit more.

Also, I would caution you about further reversions before consensus is reached. That is edit warring. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

An WP:AGF explanation is that I'd like to provide balance to the entrenched feminist point of view in social sciences on wikipedia. If the topic has such a great deal of literature associated with it, why is the majority of the article improperly sourced or unsourced? Why are you undoing my edits that remove improper sources and tag unsourced material, without discussion on the talk page, and then accusing me of edit warring? My reasoning is that females enjoy a cornucopia of privileges in many societies, but especially in the countries the idea of privilege originated from, and to have ONLY an article about male privilege is very POV. The criticism section is well-sourced opposing discussion on the topic from people who could be regarded as experts. Not only that, but the criticism section doesn't only provide opinions opposing the concept of male privilege, but provides counter-claims of female privilege. The rest of the article is mostly either unsourced, or contains sources that are primary journal articles that simply illustrate inequality, but speak nothing of male privilege, and therefore constitutes WP:synthesis. Based not on your repeated assertions that male privilege is widely accepted, and instead on the quality and amount of sources present in the article, an impartial viewer would be inclined to think that male privilege does not exist and female privilege does, and therefore the article would need to be renamed. Women are, in fact, quite privileged in western societies, and that is why I would like to nominate a page-rename (with redirects) that covers both sides of gender privilege, rather than splitting this into two opposing pages; keep in mind, considering that a Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist, or Hindu enjoys quite a lot of privilege in many parts of the world, your proposed solution that we have separate articles for each instance of privilege, rather than one covering the topic (gender, religion, race), would require quite a few articles of insufficient length and quality to be started, and none would give particularly valuable insight into the topic.

You have absolutely no authority to determine whether the set of very real privileges given to men is overall greater or less than the set of very real privileges given to women, and neither do I. The article should properly discuss both genders and be impartial.

I looked on your talk page, and noticed others have commented on your POV pushing on White Privilege and you've managed to lock the article due to your edit warring. Do we need a DRN post for this article, as well? Rgambord (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted at the DRN discussion, I feel like it might help if we went through and discussed specific statements and specific lines or references that you find problematic, rather than deleting large sections of the article. I feel like I have tried to address your concerns after your second deletion, but have no feedback about this thus far. Unlike at White privilege, I have no long-standing relationship to you, so there is not much history to go on here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've laboriously sifted through the edits you made (which I feel consist mainly of WP:TAGBOMB) and replaced them in the sections where I have not made other edits. I do feel like part of the difficulty thus far is related to the emphasis on tagging rather than attempt to usefully rewrite the article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that large portions of the article simply are not part of Male Privilege, and don't belong in the article, no matter how well sourced. Let's start with the entire "Male Privilege in the U.S." section. I would like to remove it, because the title of the page is not gender wage gap. In place of that section, if you'd like to have mention of the gender wage gap serve as an example of male privilege, there needs to be a source that says specifically that it is such, not sources which describe the existence of the gap itself. With such a source, a small excerpt on the wage gap and a link to the full article would be appropriate. Rgambord (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "don't belong in the article, no matter how well sourced"? At first blush that sounds antithetical to the principles of WP to me, so I feel like further explanation is in order. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Although social science literature is difficult for me to access, at least one freely available paper suggests that a wage gap, specifically in faculty salaries, is attributable to some form of male privilege. There were abundant other sources on the interaction that I was unable to access. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first off, do not edit the content or wording I post or say in the talk page. Period. I don't care if you think you're harmlessly editing my chosen title for this section, DO NOT ALTER MY WORDS, thank you. Second, It's absolutely not antithetical, and I'm going to tentatively assume you aren't trolling. Please explain which part of this is not clear: "I would like to remove it, because the title of the page is not gender wage gap. In place of that section, if you'd like to have mention of the gender wage gap serve as an example of male privilege, there needs to be a source that says specifically that it is such, not sources which describe the existence of the gap itself. With such a source, a small excerpt on the wage gap and a link to the full article would be appropriate." Rgambord (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good, you found a source. Put it in the article, and remove the nonsense about the gender wage gap. The content under the section as it currently is belongs in the article gender wage gap. A link to gender wage gap would be appropriate. Rgambord (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, I think I'm going to wait until the DRN discussion moves along. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

'This article needs work'

The article clearly needs work. Once the DRN case is closed, I would like to do so under this heading, as I feel "is terrible" is hostile. I frankly don't need or want to participate in that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you see no issue with editing another user's signed content? Seriously? AGF just went out the window. WP:OWN I'll be contacting an admin shortly, because DRN is not suitable or meant to deal with behavioral issues on the part of an editor. Rgambord (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't, actually. Editing of other users' comments is uncommon, but sometimes warranted. I felt that the title itself was harmful and sufficiently troll-like to warrant attention. Perhaps admins will feel differently, and I am perfectly willing to discuss my reasoning or deal with whatever sanctions are felt to be appropriate. It appears we have both reported me at WP:ANI already. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "terrible" is not "troll-like", and you don't have a right not to be presented with content you find offensive, sorry. But, let's be serious here, you didn't actually remove the word, you just struck it out, to push my buttons, because I think we both know by now that you're only here to play games and be difficult. I've seen plenty of talk pages with similar sections. The article truly is a terrible mess, and you've been actively suppressing any efforts to fix that from the minute I tried. Your behavior has been extremely passive aggressive throughout. Take a step back and examine your actions. I will not be editing this talk page or the article until an admin has looked at this issue, because flame wars are stupid.Rgambord (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually used <strike> specifically because I did not want to remove your signed edits, and thought that it would be less off-putting. But this is all academic at this point. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From WP:TPO:

* Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: {{formerly}}, {{anchord}}, {{anchor}}.

So, apologies for not discussing it with you first. It was not meant to be offensive or aggressive. I was hoping to ratchet down the hostility I am perceiving here, not up. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for broad re-structuring of the article

"I would like to revert to my most recent edit prior to the beginning of the edit war, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&oldid=549106687 I am aware that this leaves the article POV (critical of the concept), but I intend to continue editing it to add more balance. I feel that the bad parts need to be cut out before I am ready to start adding in content; after some basic editing, I will attempt to find an interested editor on one of the feminism groups on wikipedia who will be willing to collaborate with me to provide a balanced and informative article. [..] I will attempt to collaborate with the editors on White privilege and Christian privilege to reach a consensus on how to format these pages. [...] I also think the most neutral and encyclopedic thing to do might be to rename articles to: Gendered privilege, Religious privilege, and Racial (or ethnic) privilege. Though I do agree that white christian males enjoy a great deal of privilege in the western world, I would argue both that this does not adequately cover other regions of the world where these groups may be a minority, and also that white christian males experiencing privilege does not mean other groups or minorities do not enjoy certain privileges, and that those privileges aren't detailed in credible sources. I await input before I take any action so as not to further inflame the situation. Thanks!"

Pertaining specifically to this article, there are many sources attesting to female privilege, rather than a simple lack of male privilege. Those sources do not belong in a criticism section, but either in a new article titled Female privilege, or this article should be be made gender neutral in name, and cover both sides under Male Privilege and Female Privilege headings. Remember, female and male privilege are not mutually exclusive, and the format of the current article introduces them as being antagonistic, and I consider that to be a violation of NPOV. Rgambord (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, I went through and re-removed the offending material, which was in violation of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:Coatrack. I would like to move on and rename this page to Gendered privilege or something of the sort. I believe that the current name violates WP:NDESC, as there are complementary views of male and female privilege to present. Otherwise, the topic should be split into Male privilege and Female privilege, which would be acceptable under WP:POVTITLE, as both are common names. I find one single page to be more encyclopedic than two separate pages, considering both are so closely related to eachother that separate articles would probably share many references, and there is not enough content to justify splitting the page. Both Female privilege and Male privilege should be made to redirect to the new page. According to WP:RM, reaching consensus on this talk page is adequate to perform the suggested move. Rgambord (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest merger with sexism article

Self explanatory. Can't see why it's separate. If anything it seems to be about whether remaining sexism favours overall men or women, within the usa...which seems to be the only place it's discussed as separate from sexism. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

THIS, THIS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THIS.

Please, before this article turns into a battleground, just delete or merge this with Sexism. 2.100.13.116 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lets sweep this page under the rug of sexism. Publicarch (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard -- content issue and relation of Men's rights movement/Men's rights

I have posted at the NPOV noticeboard to solicit help in deciding whether the "against the notion of male privilege" section, as currently formulated and in the context of the remainder of the article, lends it undue weight.

I have also made a proposal on WP:ANI that this article be considered under article probation along with Men's rights movement, since I feel this article is substantially about "Men's rights (broadly construed)" which is the formulation used in the article probation statement over at Men's rights. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Blanking of the section Against the Notion of Male Privilege

This section is well sourced to what's being said. We don't remove content that is sourced because it is critical of a subject just because there isn't enough content to promote the subject. If this is a well established concept then finding sources that support it should not be a problem.--Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The section gives undue weight to critics of the idea, specifically Herb Goldberg and the men's rights movement. This is not an article on the men's rights movement, but about an idea from critical theory. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean, feel free to roll the removed content back into Men's rights movement or other related articles, but over half the article before the removal was given over to criticism of the topic, which is a well-established concept in the social sciences. Or please feel free to propose an abbreviated section here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And finally, I will also propose the possibility of rolling back the article to this version. Certainly it needs some work, and i would be happy to support more constructive editing of the article if you're willing to work on it in good faith. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:UNDUE says "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" right now the only published reliable sources are the one in the section you're blanking so it is not possible for them to given undue weight in this article. Also there is no way that I am going to support a restoration to that older version of the article. All of that content is either unsourced or improperly sourced, and a bunch of Original Research. If you know of other reliable secondary sources which cover the topic of Male Privilege, and wish to add that content to bring what you would see as balance to the article I encourage you to do so. However the content you wish to remove is properly sourced, and is given enough weight for the amount of information given. There are 4 sources there used in three short paragraphs. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourced, but irrelevant. Publicarch (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

this seems to me like a clear misreading of the WP:UNDUE policy. If your reading were the intent, then simple addition of fringe sources would be adequate to change the balance of an article where the bulk of an article relies on summary and judicious selection of sources. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that these are fringe elements? Why are you once again ignoring attempts at consensus building, and ignoring the section I created just a little bit up this page? Instead, you feel the need to come in here and start edit warring, again, and start POV pushing, again, and start taking things back to ANI, again. There is absolutely no justification for leaving out criticism of the ~~theory~~ hypothesis. I previously invited you to add sourced information on the feminist viewpoint on "male privilege", and you instead ran off and called me a sexist and racist. The critism stands as per basic wikipedia policy. The lack of decent body content is never justification for removal of criticism. Publicarch, I will be addressing your comments on ANI; you are the one coming in here and making this page a battleground by immediately splitting editors into "misogynists" (me and kyohyi) and you the "valiant protectors of truth!!!!!!" (you and UTCL). Of course, you don't see it that way, but POV warriors rarely do. Add sourced information, or don't. I fully intend to find sourced information, but I'm not an expert on feminism, and I probably won't do a very good job; I am a well-trained scientist, which does make me quite qualified to determine the quality of sources provided, and whether they address the content in the article or not. Rgambord (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the accusatory comments. I guess what I was saying is that I found the page offensive when I landed on it last week, which led me to come in here, something I almost never feel the need to do on Wikipedia. When I saw your title "This page is terrible," I thought that you were going to be a voice of reason, but I'm not so sure based on some of your comments. I see that UseTheCommandLine proposed to revert the article to this version, and I think that is a good start towards getting the pages sourced and better written. Most of the NPOV issues just need to be reframed, not removed; most of the citations needed are clearly factual statements pointing out obvious discrepancies that shouldn't be hard to source. I can go through it in the next few weeks and attribute sources, but I don't want to deal with the drama of someone who has an agenda, so prove me wrong. Publicarch (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(I'm reposting my comment from the NPOV noticeboard) The problem is original research in addition to undue weight. For example, the paragraph about Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter is original research because the source never actually discusses male privilege. The paragraph about Warren Farrel has similar problems. Editors have picked out examples such as conscription and dangerous jobs but Farrell never actually discusses these things in connection to privilege. The only think he says about privilege is "providing property was a sign of obligation, not privilege" and "Neither sex had rights--both sexes had obligations and expectations and, if they fulfilled those expectations and obligations well, they received status and privileges". The Farrell and Schlafly paragraphs should be removed per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE and replaced by a paragraph stating that men's rights activists such as Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg have disputed that men are privileged relative to women [1] and that some men's rights activists believe that female privilege has become the norm [2]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

First I've looked over the schafly source, and it doesn't really mention Male privilege so it shouldn't be in a Male privilege article. Second, there are two Farrel sources, and the second source doesn't really deal with male privilege. However, the first source, which is currently 404ing does. However I don't think we can simply reduce the section down to "that they have disputed that men are privileged relative to women", we should leave in examples as to how they show it. What's more, noting that some men's rights activists believe that female privilege has become the norm doesn't seem appropriate for this article. Rather seems like it would fit better in the MRM article or an article about Female privilege. --Kyohyi (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

9 May 2013

Thread retitled from "Re-introduction of Original Research and unsourced material.".

Today {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&curid=1885001&diff=554246745&oldid=553607364%7Cthis} was added back to the article. Most of it is the content that was removed back on 4/9 for being Original Research and failing WP:V. While it appears to be an attempt to add sources, the content discusses patriarchy, and not Male Privilege. This being the article about Male Privilege, and not Patriarchy the addition of this content is WP:OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Replaced blanked content

I have taken the liberty of replacing some of the content that was blanked during an edit war some time ago. I believe it to be more-or-less appropriately tagged, though the user who did so (who voluntarily retired after some difficulty with community standards) definitely could be considered guilty of tag-bombing it.

I would very much like to rework this article in the coming weeks. Hopefully there are editors of good faith out there who are willing to work with me towards that goal. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this for the same reason it was removed in the first place. The content either doesn't satisfy WP:OR or WP:V. If you want to improve this content, I suggest taking it to your userspace, and dropping a link here for anyone who wants to help. As it stands that content does not even remotely meet wikipedia content policies, and really has no place in article space. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you were interested in actually helping improving the article rather than simply naysaying changes to it, and pushing an agenda I see as consistent with your edits over at Men's rights movement. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing content which does not meet WP:OR and WP:V is not naysaying, it is improving the article by removing material that does not meet with the core content policies. And I have tried to help you by giving you advice as to how you can improve the article, which would be by adding content that is in line with the core content policies. What's more, I would appreciate it if you would keep out any opinions you have as to what "agenda" I have outside of article talk space since this area is for discussions as to improving the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose your activity over there is simply a coincidence. my mistake. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed text in Language section about African Languages having only a masculine pronoun

I removed the statement about some African languages having no feminine pronoun.This statement was taken from a work on Rastafarianism (NOT a work on language) and looking at the source work there is no supporting information provided. On the other hand I found multiple other works specifically on African language which state explicitly that "sex-gender systems are relatively rare in African languages" and "a masculine-feminine-neuter division is quite rare", i.e. in typically there are neither feminine nor masculine pronouns in most African languages.

For example see this work "Language in Africa: An Introductory Survey"

http://books.google.com/books?id=w4lytWv1JKAC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reading further it seems that where there are gender-specific pronouns there typically are at least 3 (masculine/feminine/neuter) but occasionally 5 or more (up to 20).

InTheTrees (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Language Section

I've been looking over the additions to the language section and this sentence jumped out at me. "Associating a man with something feminine and calling him girl, sissy, or wimp (from wimple, a head covering worn by women) is usually considered an insult." I'm curious as to how this is related to male privilege, and where the source provides this link. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a reasonable question. Also the etymology of relating "wimp" to "wimple" seems dubious. It does appear in the cited reference (http://books.google.com/books?ei=b71mUoWAJeHX2QWBoYCABQ&id=4-ezAAAAIAAJ&dq=Women%27s+studies%3A+an+interdisciplinary+anthology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=wimp) but it's not attributed there and I can find no other supporting material, leading me to wonder if it was invented in that source). I think removing that sentence is reasonable or at the very least removing the "wimple" etymology unless there is some supporting evidence for it. InTheTrees (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

After re-checking the cited work, I have removed this sentence. Lang's (the citation) wording is discussing the idea that men want to establish themselves as "not female" to secure their "alignment with male privilege" and that presumably the insult weakens that process. A discussion of what might help or hinder group membership does not provide an example of any advantages that such group membership may or may not provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheTrees (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosenberg argues that men align themselves with male privilege through the lexicon, i.e., language. "...reaffirming their separation from the mother figure and alignment with male privilege, authority, and power through the lexicon. For instance, a time-honored insult to men is to, in some way, label them feminine. To be called a girl, or a sissy, or a wimp..." Whether you and I agree with Rosenberg's example or not is immaterial. You appear to be a very new editor; please read WP:Opinion. I'll restore the source and adjust the wording to clarify that "wimple" is one of several possible origins [3] of the term. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided my rationale for removing the sentence in the edit above yours, but you don't show any sign of having considered it, so I'll rephrase and expand it. I've read the Lang reference, and agree that Lang is stating that boys/men try to do things to solidify their "alignment with male privilege". However Lang never describes the insult as either an example of male privilege or a lack of male privilege, it is ONLY functioning in Lang's text as something that influences membership in the privileged group. We're editing a section that is describing Examples of Male Privilege; the sentence that you restored is only talking about how questioning "maleness" (via the insult) might weaken (in Lang's wording) "alignment with male privilege, so it's not good content for that section. If you are proposing a section that discusses how men can gain male privilege, and/or have male privilege diminished, then I would agree that this sentence and citation could be appropriate content. If you see something in the Lang citation that is an actual example of a benefit of Male Privilege, can you please point it out? Thanks. InTheTrees (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant passage from the source. Rosenberg argues that the "alignment with male privilege, authority, and power" happens through the lexicon, i.e. language. Then she gives an example of how language can help maintain the "alignment with male privilege, authority, and power": Femininity is devalued in language so that men consider the linguistic association with something feminine (e.g., "Your such a girl, dude") as the "ultimate put-down". Please reach consensus before removing the sentence again. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Rosenberg arguing that femininity is devalued? The section you quoted doesn't imply this, instead it implies that attacking a male's Masculinity by associating him with something not masculine weakens their alignment with male privilege. However this is not an example of male privilege in and of itself. It would do well as an indicator that male privilege exists in some form, but not what that form is, and I'm reading the examples section as being descriptive of the form of male privilege. As such I don't really think this sentence belongs in that section. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosenberg states clearly and unambiguously that language ("the lexicon") is an expression of the alignment with male privilege, authority, and power and then she cites the humiliation men feel at being linguistically associated with something feminine as an example. "...alignment with male privilege, authority, and power through the lexicon". Through the lexicon being the operative words. I think that a sentence that is sourced to a reliable source and discusses male privilege in connection to language belongs in the section about language. We could attribute the POV to Rosenberg if that is what this is about. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just a section on language though. Language is a subsection of examples as such it would be a section on examples in language. The sentence isn't an example of, it is an indicator of. Examples provide hard form as in This is male privilege, whereas indicators show Male privilege exists. Indicators show existence, but not form, examples provide form. To provide a comparison if you have a flat tire on you're car, that is an example of a problem with your car. If you're check engine light comes on, that's an indicator, you know the problem exists but not what it is. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been any new discussion on this topic for a few days, but I have come up with a potential resolution. I'm going to remove the "examples" section heading, making Language and Son-Preference their own sections, instead of sub-sections of Examples. I believe this will resolve our conflicts. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The disagreement here is not over what the cited reference says, but whether it's an example of male privilege or not. As both Kyohyi and I have noted (in agreement with you), the citation is describing an insult that is intended to weaken "alignment with male privilege". The problem is that the sentence does not provide an example of Male Privilege itself (nor does the citation claim it to be such), and so it doesn't belong. InTheTrees (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosenberg clearly sees the fact that being linguistically associated with something feminine is cause for humiliation (whereas being associated with something masculine is not) as an example of male privilege. That is why the woman writes "...alignment with male privilege, authority, and power through the lexicon. For instance, a time-honored insult to men..." Your agreement with Rosenberg's view is not necessary for inclusion, sorry. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with Rosenberg, I'm disagreeing with you, and your proposed decision as a wikipedia editor. Please bear in mind the original disagreement, which is whether or not inclusion of a sentence describing an example of an insult applied to men belongs in the section on examples of Male Privilege. The source doesn't claim "alignment with male privilege" is an "example of male privilege"; thus far I've only seen you putting that opinion on the source (ie, "Rosenberg clearly sees") when the source doesn't make that claim. And since the source doesn't even claim "alignment" as an "Example of Male Privilege", inclusion of the "insult" (which is a counter-example that weakens that "alignment") in the Examples section seems even less plausible. As I proposed to you before, it's a perfectly valid, sourced citation, and it may be appropriate content for a different section on this page, just not the "Examples of Male Privilege" section. InTheTrees (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Other genders?

Shouldn't the opening of the article say that male privilege is afforded to males and denied to other genders, rather than just women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.60.11 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to edit the page in accordance with this request. However, I don't necessarily agree that other genders besides male and female are noteworthy (discussed in this context in other reliable sources) enough to include in the lede, and might just add unnecessary wordiness and confusion. As it stands, I don't believe any of the sources in the article currently address other genders, at all; I also intuitively would think that the concept of male privilege would only be expected to apply to "cis-gender" men, so a source might be needed to change it from "basis of sex" to "basis of gender". I've made both changes, though I somewhat disagree with them, and await further comment so we can work towards better wording that satisfies the encyclopedic goal of wikipedia. Rgambord (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Being "noteworthy" in this context is, ironically, a clear example of privilege. --76.175.30.126 (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if wer'e talking about male privilege we're definitely talking about cis-men. If most people won't know what it actually means, then I guess it's a wonderful occasion to mention all the "messy gender stuff" with links to the appropiate articles.

If the point is the links/sources, I can start working to get whichever of them we need. But I think it's extra-important to mention all the genders so usually "forgotten" to be mentioned. Luxxxbella (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wimp etymology

Thread retitled from "A Case of Folk Etymology".

"Associating a man with something feminine and calling him girl, sissy, or wimp (from wimple, a head covering worn by women) is usually considered an insult."

This is most likely dubious. All reputable etymological dictionaries will have something of the following (if anything)): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wimp&searchmode=none

Vidtharr (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Merrian-Websters and freeonlinedictionary both say "origin unknown". I suggest removing that parenthesized text. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Vidtharr (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think my addition has been misinterpreted as being an example of the etymological fallacy. It is not. It would be best to discuss here before removing, but alas.

Anyhow: the words, in terms of its etymology, means "human" and "human race" - as my source indicated. My source also indicated that the definition of "mankind" is "human race." There is clearly no etymological fallacy.

Since you mention other (?) sources, here is one: Benatar, David. "Sexist language: alternatives to the alternatives." Public Affairs Quarterly 19.1 (2005): 1-9.

Vidtharr (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I've been combating vandals for the past couple hours and I'm sometimes a bit too quick on the reverts. It did seem like side commentary debating the etymology and not about concept of male privilege. If Benatar has a rebuttal, might it go in the "criticisms" section? Seems like it would be a good addition if so. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll re-word it along with the new source and add it to the criticism section. Vidtharr (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've noticed that a lot of the sources used in the article are feminist sources (which is to say, 'self-disclosed' feminist journals and materials). There's also not much in terms of balance (e.g. a source has suggested one interpretation, which is quite apparently false, and there is no corrective for it). Anyone can say something in a journal and put it here, but that's not what Wikipedia is for.

Basically, it's all quite a mess. Vidtharr (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That exactly what Wikipedia is for. We report what others say about something. Moreover, male privilege is part of feminist theory and scholarship, so it only makes sense that we cite what feminists say about it. Otherwise it would be false balance and WP:UNDUE. I see there is already a criticism section. If you know of other sources that discuss male privilege and use it as a theory, please include them. Also, what thing appears false to you? (That said, I wonder why the NPOV tag is still here... will investigate). EvergreenFir (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. As I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as such it is appropriate to include what feminists have to say about something that they write about (etc), but not just that, and not to be a platform. Anyhow, I'll redirect my attention to the criticism section if my interpretation of WP:SOAP is incorrect.

As for what "male privilege" falls under: it is not solely part of feminist theory (and there are other people discussing it besides feminists - yes, I'll find sources). Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by "balance" (in this case)?

As for what appears false: a great deal. There are a range of false claims (e.g. that of "wimp," prior to being removed). I've already removed one thing, and I'm not sure if I'm in the mood to go through the same process to remove every other false claim. Others include that of "man" and "mankind." Beyond that, assertions made without anything to back them up (both in the sense of absent citations (which is not coincidental), but also in the sources being cited in the article).

I'll have to work on it at some other point. Vidtharr (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion on Sexism about what is "balanced" and if the majority of the article being about women was appropriate. We decided so far that it is because that's what the RS say. The weight given to discussing sexism against women was proportionate to the space devoted in the article. That's "balance". The same must be true here. I know others talk about male privilege, often to criticize it, but it does seem to primarily be used in sociology, gender, and feminist research.

As for "mankind", in modern usage it has gendered connotations. "Man" is the default (i.e., androcentrism) according to sociology, gender, and feminist researchers. It may not have been gendered in the past, but is now (that's what I was talking about with the etymological fallacy). But as you mentioned above, if there's a rebuttal, by all means include it.

I'll see if I can dig up specific examples of male privilege as used in the literature to help clarify the article if that helps. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are still scholarly even if they are feminist. The topic 'male privilege' is of interest to feminist scholars and hardly anybody else, which is why there are so many good sources from feminist research and analysis. I don't think there is a problem here. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexism or misogyny category

I do not feel misogyny is the appropriate category for this page as it does not relate to the "hatred or dislike" of women. Sexism, however, does encompass the structural and macro level aspects of gender inequality and thus seems to be a more appropriate category here. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This page should not be affiliated with misogyny. If anything it should be in a misandry category. I agree though, Sexism is the ideal. ACanadianToker (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The See Also section

I have added a link to the wikipedia page on Misandry in the See Also section. Not having it is an oversight considering the topic of this page. Also I feel that some of the other links in that section are only tenuously linked to the topic of male privilege. I completed the following changes changes and reorganization:

BLP Vio on Warren Farrel in Reception Section

This article is about the concept of Male privilege the recent BLP information about Warren Farrel is not appropriate on this article, what's more David Futrelle and his blog are not a reliable source. I'm going to remove this content again, and it should not be re-added because it's a violation of WP: BLP --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate for this article. Not specifically about male privilege. Serves only to disparage author. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you have any problem retaining mention of the book, The Myth of Male Power. The material you are attempting to remove is very well sourced and comes directly out of the book that you are allowing to remain in the article. You cannot have it both ways: if the book is mentioned, then ALL of the book's content is permitted. If you are going to open the door, you have no grounds for complaining about what walks through. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a cross-examination. Adding that info is WP:COATRACK. We do not add info in books to an article unless it's about the article topic. See WP:OFFTOPIC. Just because the book mentions it does not mean it's The author might be a terrible person and have horrible views, but that does not mean we cannot cite it here. If you want, argue that its inclusion is undue or not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Language Section - Focus on English

I added the {{Globalize/Eng}} template to the language section. It seems like it focuses most on english which may contradict experiences of other languages. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for BRD of lead sentence.

I have reverted ACanadianToker's addition of the following sentence from the lead: The right to vote, for example, while denied to women as a group was also denied to poor or indigent men. The sentence is unrelated to the article as it's about socio-economic status and not gender. It does not follow WP:LEAD as it's not summarizing the article. Frankly if we're gonna add that sentence, race would be a more important/salient issue to mention than SES. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it lends context of the time and place - a selection of society was denied the vote, and this included women. Zambelo; talk 04:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more appropriate for the body of the article and not in the already-too-short lead? It would seem to give the statement UNDUE weight to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

While race may also be salient the main reason I added that sentence was to clearly demonstrate that male privilege is not a universal experience of males across time and space. @EvergreenFir: - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete this article?

The notice of this page states "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents", however the only points are that male pronouns are the default and that two cited nations show a preference for male children. Neither of these are actually privileges, so the article is effectively empty. Just because the intellectually vacuous claim of "male privilege" gets thrown about so much these days doesn't mean we need an article to try to validate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.85.142 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The header box indicates that the article needs to be improved, not that it should be deleted. Perhaps you would like to join the work? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that there simply isn't enough evidence to be found for a fictional concept. Thus the article can either be very spare, or full of dubious material. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing fictional about the freedom and/or advantages that boys or men get in many countries or societies simply because they are male and are not female. Vice versa (girls and women getting the freedom and/or advantages instead), known as female privilege, is not much of the case. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Care to add the privileges to which you allude to the article? Or mention them here? 24.63.85.142 (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope because those privileges are very clear, especially with regard to topics such as women in Islam, and I know where discussion with you on this matter will lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, by "allude to the article," you meant "in," as in "allude to in the article." I'm not interested in editing the Male privilege article. I have it WP:Watchlisted because it is a contentious topic and I am willing to revert mess being added to its article and help a dispute on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking about a society you know well from first hand experience, such as the one you live in. "I know where discussion with you on this matter will lead". Seems like it isn't going to begin. I hear Male Privilege all the time, but I don't hear examples, and I guess I'm not going to as long as you can claim it's "obvious" and I should already know them. Sounds like it's just a crutch to support an untenable world view. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, not our own experiences. The article is fully sourced. If you want examples, you are welcome to find them on your own. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The article only has two examples. I'm calling into question the purpose of an article that lists nothing more than male pronouns as defaults (which is hardly if at all true in modern academia) and a preference for male children, which is just plain false in all western cultures except Latin and Hispanic ones. So why is there an English language article for this topic? Don't all speak at once... 24.63.85.142 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's an article on it because it's a commonly discussed and notable theory in social science. Wikipedia's job is to describe the notable concept, not to defend it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The article could indeed use more examples to help explain the concept further. But you came here asking if it should be deleted because the article doesn't defend it well enough. That is not very helpful, rather disingenuous, and appears to be POV pushing. Next time, if you see something that needs improvement, please suggest how to improve it instead of suggesting the nuclear option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To suggest, as ......142 seems to be doing that world wide, the notion that male privilege exists is "a fictional concept" is ludicrous. Go into any classroom. say 8th grade through college and ask who in the class in comfortable walking across campus at 2 a.m. The males will say they are and the females will say they are not. This is privilege. Of course this is difficult to do in places where females are not allowed to go to school at all. Hmmmm? If you want the article deleted find the proper place and make the nomination (or whatever the process requires). That is your privilege, even as an unregistered editor. Carptrash (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Debates

Thread retitled from "Should be clarified to be part of feminist theory, and not indisputable truth".

The idea of male privilege is one constantly debated, and not just within the context of MRA vs feminists. it is not part of objective truth, and is purely and only a notion of feminist theory. whomever wrote this article seems to be highly biased when he/she presented this article as factual, made clear in the opening statement of "Male privilege refers to men having unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class."

the unbiased version would be (which is a standard that should be expected from wikipedia, even though it is well known that feminists have "wikistormed" articles in the past to generate bias within them and present ideological notions within feminist theory as fact_Male privilege refers to men having unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class): "Male privilege refers to the notion within feminist theory that man have unearned social, economical [etc]..".

Like every article, this one should be subject to the same rules of neutrality, and presenting a part of feminist theory as fact is a colossal breach within this rule.

~~Bryant Suiskens, 25-8-214, 22:27 central european time~~

See WP:ALLEGED. I've removed "refers" in the lead per WP:REFERS. We present other theories as fact without qualifying them and feminist theories are no different. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly theories which are accepted in the mainstream form the basis for this article. Wikipedia respects scholarly consensus above all else. Your wish to demean such consensus is not going to work unless you change the institutionalized methods of Wikipedia to prefer the opinions of single editors. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging 76.68.246.83... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've cut and moved this

to be discussed. It seems to me that it is saying 2 or 3 different things, none of them very well.

"Male privilege may include preference of a child on the basis of its gender or the assumption of maleness, particularly in jobs which are considered to be of high value to society, such as doctors or architects."

So, anyone want to figure out what to do next? To me it breaks down into:

1. "Male privilege may include preference of a child on the basis of its gender
2. Male privilege may include the assumption of maleness,
3. Male privilege may include .... particularly in jobs which are considered to be of high value to society, such as doctors or architects."

On the latter point we need to deal with the fact (which can be easily referenced, if needed- by you)) that most doctors in Russia are women and doctors are very low paid. Food for thought. Carptrash (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)