Misplaced Pages

Talk:Male privilege

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.187.209.35 (talk) at 17:54, 29 March 2019 (→Female Privilege). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:54, 29 March 2019 by 24.187.209.35 (talk) (→Female Privilege)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Male privilege article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Male privilege article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Neutrality (November 2017)

The wording in this article implies that the existence of male privilege is an undisputed fact, which is certainly not the case. For one, there are several threads discussing the neutrality of the topic in the talk page as of this writing, in addition to countless debates in the mainstream. Also, even if there are numerous academic sources supporting the idea of male privilege, the fact is that this idea originates from "intersectionality"-- a specific topic within sociology which assumes that different races, genders, sexualities, etc. with the exception of white males suffer structured levels of oppression. At the very least, the article should mention the source of these ideas instead of simply passing them off as a given fact that is disputed by no one other than a fringe group of anti-intellectual men's rights activists. The NPOV tag is certainly justified. PurpleDiana (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What specific improvements would you propose within the bounds of NPOV? "Threads on this talk page" and unnamed "countless debates in the mainstream" are not sufficient to show the existence of neglected views from published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Go see how the intelligent design article is worded. Note how the topic is presented as an idea held by those with particular ideological views who do not present scientific evidence to support their claims. The topic of male privilege is just that-- an idea within a highly controversial branch of sociology with little to no empirical or measurable evidence to support it. The NPOV tag should stay until one of the following is met:
1) The article is modified to present the topic as a disputed idea held within a particular branch of sociology, and not treat the topic like evolution or gravity for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support these ideas.
2) If sources demonstrating the reality of male privilege do exist, these sources should be referenced in the article and the article should be modified to not be overly reliant on feminist writers and professors as it currently is.
Even if there exist numerous references to academic sources talking or writing about male privilege, the topic should not be presented as an undisputed fact without multiple references to sources presenting rigorous evidence in support of this claim. Until this is satisfied, there is a clear neutrality/bias issue in the article which should be identified. PurpleDiana (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you have provided no sources to back up this view. Academic sources such as the ones cited in the article are in fact generally the most reliable – see WP:SOURCETYPES. Male privilege being an idea within a highly controversial branch of sociology with little to no empirical or measurable evidence to support it appears to be your own personal analysis. To demonstrate a breach of NPOV, you must present reliable sources that disagree with these so-called feminist writers and professors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid rationale. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The opinions of feminist writers and professors are being presented as fact in this article, a clear violation of WP:YESPOV. Unless sources can be referenced showing male privilege to be a fact and not just a topic discussed by people with similar social and political views, it should be treated as an opinion. The onus is on people to provide sources showing male privilege to be a fact, not on me to provide sources proving the contrary. PurpleDiana (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't suggested any specific action to correct the perceived neutrality breach. Instead, you are essentially saying that it's up to others to prove that the {{POV}} tag doesn't belong on the article. That's not going to resolve any problems. Cleanup tags are an aid to fixing specific problems, not a badge of shame. You're welcome to question specific statements and sources here or at WP:RS/N. Until then, there isn't enough here to justify the {{POV}} tag. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have suggested that one of the following be done: 1) The article is modified to not present opinion as fact in its wording. 2) References are made to sources quoting scientific findings on the existence of male privilege, or at the very least extend beyond the opinionated analyses of the feminist writers and activists referenced in the article. PurpleDiana (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"Opinion" is a red herring here, I think. Virtually every important scientific topic, from the germ theory of disease to natural selection, could be described as "opinion". The opinion of a majority of scholars, based on the best available evidence, generally doesn't require attribution.

The article cites several scholarly sources. You are the one saying there is a neutrality problem, so it is up to you to provide evidence for that position, by providing other reliable sources that disagree with the existing ones. It is not anyone else's job to prove that the article is neutral to your satisfaction, or to find the sources that you yourself refuse to supply.

If you are unable to accept the views of subject matter experts as reflected in the published, scholarly sources cited, that is certainly your right. But it doesn't mean that there is any problem with the sources themselves. That they are "feminist" sources is, once again, evidently your personal analysis, nor does it mean that they are unreliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise and just fix some of the more obvious issues and just leave it at that. Deal? PurpleDiana (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any "obvious issues" related to neutrality, so I have no idea what is being proposed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The way to deal with "obvious issues" is to bring them up here, one at a time, preferably as a separate discussion and deal with them one by one. Keeping in mind that if one is used to privilege then equality feels like oppression. Carptrash (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Go see how the intelligent design article is worded. Note how the topic is presented as an idea held by those with particular ideological views who do not present scientific evidence to support their claims. "

False analogy here. Intelligent design is an argument for a deity being responsible for most or all forms of living organisms and their development, proposed as an alternative to natural selection. Far-fetched, but since we can not prove or disprove the existence of deities, not incompatible with certain world views.

The male privilege concept derives from historical data on legislation and social norms which excluded women from education, political rights, and rights within the larger labor force. We have for example a nice list called Timeline of women's suffrage, which explains when were women granted the right to vote in certain states and jurisdictions, from the 18th century onwards. Whether a male privilege existed or exists with any given state or society can be tested using data from history, legislation, and (to a lesser extent) observations on social norms. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussing the lead

I think what the OP here is referring to is the extensive usage of feminist sources as statements of fact. This topic should be put forward as what it is: a categorisation methodology used in feminism to identify areas where women are disadvantaged, rather than a series of statements of fact that men are always privileged relative to all women (which is a view only held by a small subset of radical feminists). I mean, feminists do not identify or focus on the areas in which women have privilege (or men are disadvantaged--which is the same thing). This is how it should be, as the topic 'male privilege' doesn't have to do with any of that, but it can create a feeling of cherry picking or false equivalence if presented in the wrong way. Also, depending on the source, our article does not make it clear whether the source is referring to western secular society, or to actual patriarchal societies. Our article also does not make it clear whether the source is referring to Patriarchy#Feminist_theory or to societies overseas/in the past that are a true "Patriarchy" in the dictionary definition and anthropological sense (sources themselves are not generally very clear on this point either). All of this means that the OP sees the article as 'biased', but really it is just an issue of false-equivalence based on ambiguity. I suggest that we present the article as what it is; a piece of feminist theory, rather than trying to pretend that opinions of feminist scholars count as statements of fact about all men or all women, especially in a controversial topic such as this one. I propose that we revert the lead back to the version before it was cut down to a single sentence and rewritten: 

Male privilege is a concept for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class.

The use of male pronouns in language to refer to both sexes is often cited as an example, as well as the preference for sons in some cultures.

Male privilege is often examined alongside the concept of patriarchy within the feminist movement, while many men's rights activists dispute the existence of male privilege at all in modern western society.
  1. Phillips, Debby A.; Phillips, John R. (2009). "Privilege, Male". In O'Brien, Jodi (ed.). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Vol. Volume Two. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 683–684. ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
  2. Coston, Bethany M.; Kimmel, Michael (2012). "Seeing Privilege Where It Isn't: Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege". Journal of Social Issues. 68 (1): 97–111. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x.
  3. McIntosh, Peggy (2003). "White Privilege and Male Privilege". In Kimmel, Michael; Ferber, Abby L. (eds.). Privilege: A Reader. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 3–25. ISBN 978-0-8133-4056-2.

This older version was much more clear about how the subject is defined without resorting to ambiguous terms. The current version refers to "how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm" which is confusing to those that are not knowledgeable about feminist theory and do not realise that things such as race, sexual orientation, and social class, as well as wealth all come into the equation when discussing 'ideal masculine norm' (from a feminist lens). — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I do think the recent edits have alleviated my issues with this article to a large extent. It no longer states male privilege to be a definite fact, but instead mentions that it's a concept within feminist philosophy which is accurate. PurpleDiana (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The concept is not a product of "feminist philosophy". It originated within women's studies, but is now a topic of study within sociology in general. See e.g. Rohlinger, Deana (2010), "Privilege", in Ritzer, G.; Ryan, J.M. (eds.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 473–474, ISBN 978-1-44-439264-7. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Feminism is a subset of sociology, so of course you are correct, but you would be hard pressed to find a sociologist who writes about male privilege that is not also a feminist scholar. I mean, this article is "Part of a series on feminist philosophy". It is both a "sociological concept", as well as a "concept within feminist philosophy". The second is more clear to the reader, which should always be our goal. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This notion of "feminist philosophy" doesn't appear in any of the RS I've looked at. Is that your own analysis? Also, feminism is much more than "a subset of sociology". Sociologists who write about male privilege may also be feminists, but conflating the two would be improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, nearly all of the sources used in this article are by feminists (or used for statistics), but the main reason I have said so is because of the giant sidebar that says that this article is "Part of a series on Feminist philosophy". Is it, or isn't it? — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: why not use both? see my current edit. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
A "Feminist philosophy" sidebar (the creation of Wiki editors) is not the same as having a reliable source use the term. Nearly all of the sources used in this article are by feminists may or may not be accurate, but that is unrelated to the topic of the article. They may be Democrats too, but we wouldn't say that "Male privilege is a concept used by Democrats". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess the feminist philosophy sidebar is not appropriate for this particular article then (without a source to support that it is). I have removed mention of "feminist philosophy" from the lead, and also removed the feminist philosophy sidebar. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: The "controversy" over the existence of male privilege is a feature of certain reactionary elements of Western society, and plays out mostly in right-wing publications and Web forums. I'm not aware of any controversy among actual experts such as sociologists and other researchers. I've removed the reference to men's rights advocates from the lead section to avoid giving undue weight to this "controversy". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
MRAs are MRAs, like them or leave them, but they have thier views and these views have long been considered WP:DUE for inclusion in this article, a half sentence that concisely describes thier views on the subject seems WP:DUE for the lede. It would be WP:UNDUE to write the article from the POV of MRAS, or to have half of the article based on MRA views (this is a part of feminist philosophy after all), but a short paragraph in the body and half a sentence in the lede is not UNDUE. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I like your edit that outlines a full view of the men's movement in general (both 'sides'). It is an improvement over both my version and including nothing at all. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@PurpleDiana. You reverted this edit, which I have restored. Given that myself and Sangdeboeuf are in agreement that this edit is a good one, could you please discuss the edit here? The content seems to be supported by the "Cultural responses" section, contrary to your edit summary (stuff in the lead is not required to be referenced if it is supported by referenced material in the body). — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I definitely feel it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to a marginal viewpoint. It's only given one sentence in the article, and, if anything, that sentence is probably undue - it is not significant enough to cover in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
"Ideal masculine norm", though, is what the sources actually focus on - access to male privilege depends on how well people reflect those views. That sentence has to summarize the "scope" section, which is entirely about that masculine norm and makes almost no mention of race, sexual orientation, or social class. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Under "Scope", I think those qualities are summed up as "white, heterosexual, stoic, wealthy, strong, tough, competitive, and autonomous". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"Western secular society":

Secularization in the Western world is far from complete, with several European countries having official state religions and/or giving de facto privileges to certain religions. The Christian democracy political movement across the continent derives its values from their interpretation of Christianity and outright rejects secularism. The clergy of the Church of Greece are considered public servants, receiving salaries and pensions from the Greek state. There is also the matter that separation of church and state does not exist in certain European constitutions (such as Finland's) and is poorly defined and executed in others (such as France's).

Having a grandfather who spend his entire lifetime and political activities advocating secularism, and complained to his deathbed about the clergy's privileges, you do learn to notice some things about modern Europe. Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words

Since my edit was reverted with the note:

"Removing tag – phrase "many men" is no more WP:WEASELish than multiple other statements, which are likewise reliably-sourced"

The statement is exemplary as per Misplaced Pages. The statement is also not sourced per the source given as far as I can tell. Additionally a (very) quick read of the source makes it seem unreliable. A source from the sources "Further Readings" would be far better.

That it is no more (or no less) WP:WEASELish than multiple other statements is exactly what I was criticizing in the article. Multiple Weasel Words are used in the Cultural responses section of the article and are unsourced even though non-relevant sources are linked.

I am aware that the article deals with a very controversial topic and am open to any discussion of the topic. I will probably be doing some more edits to the article since I think it needs some help adhering to Wiki standards and am happy for any feedback and help.

Kulukimaki (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kulukimaki: Please proceed one edit at a time, don't go in and remove a bunch of what you consider to be weasel words. This is, as you have noted, a contentious article and many editors (i.e. me) while they are willing to use the "good faith" standard are nonetheless weary of a red linked editor who has averaged something like two edits a year since starting editing here. Also, your statement that you are "open to any discussion of the topic" is not really appropriate since the talk pages are specifically NOT for discussing the topic but for working out ways to improve the article. So by all means change one word, or what ever and then see what happens. Hopefully the editors here will think, "Yes, that is an improvement" and will send you a 'Thanks." Carptrash (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2017‎ (UTC)
For reference, this is the edit being referenced. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Also for future reference, words like many and some are not automatically weasel words/words to avoid. This is made clear at WP:Weasel words and Template:Who. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please raise your hand (re.this is the edit) if you are a female who does not believe that male privilege exists. You, in the back, is your hand up or you just laughing uncontrollably? Carptrash (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
tbh, I've seen a few female anti-feminists make the claim (that male privilege doesn't exist) on YouTube and Reddit. But with no RSes making it, it's a moot point. And if you search the internet long enough, you'll find plenty of people agreeing with anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, well claiming that male privilege does not exist is a great way to win brownie points with the patriarchy, which some anti-feminists want to do. And more "yes," good references, like good men, are hard to find. Carptrash (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The explanation is simpler than that, even. Lots of people like to show others that they're the "exception" who isn't like "the rest". It's human nature. And generally speaking, it's an exercise that usually ends in ironic failure. When I was a teen, all my friends wanted to rebel against mainstream society and be as nonconformist and individualistic as possible. So we bought clothes from a trendy boutique, listened to music by gold and platinum-selling musicians, dressed alike and agreed with each other about everything.
So there are plenty of women out there who parrot the exact same anti-feminist talking points as all of their friends, all while congratulating themselves for being different than all those other girls. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Dunphy (2000)

I've removed this source (diff) given that there is very little coverage of the topic in the book. There are two entries listed in the index under "male privilege": p. 119 mentions "issues of male privilege" as something that straight men confront when coming to grips with their sexual identity; p. 145 attributes to the "men's rights lobby" resentment over "having to defend against the charge of male privilege social and economic advantages". So, not much in the way of any actual explanation of male privilege. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Spectator ref

The ref says: "the easy, pampered lives allegedly enjoyed by human beings who had the fortune to be born with a penis and pale skin", seems clear enough, what is the problem with citing it. I read the sentence as needing the "allege", Flyer22. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who actually reads the article and checks the refs will see that the concept of male privilege is not about men having "easy, pampered lives". A blog post in an editorial magazine which simply attacks a straw man instead of addressing actual academic work on privilege is not a reliable source for any factual claims, and I see no reason to consider Brendan O'Neill's opinion noteworthy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Cultural responses section

Template:Formerly

Critics of feminism have taken issue with the narrative of male privilege, arguing that disadvantages faced by men are often overlooked or minimized. These have included comparatively harsher legal penalties, less positive messaging in young adulthood than is directed toward women, a greater likelihood of wrongfully incriminating episodes and in some cases disadvantageous hiring practices.
  1. Coulombe, Nikita. "We think women are better but they're not". Medium. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
  2. Young, Cathy. "Hate on Jordan Peterson all you want, but he's tapping into frustration that feminists shouldn't ignore". L.A. Times. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
  3. Starr, Sonja. "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases". Lw & Economics Working Papers. University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository.
  4. Zimbardo, Philip. "Young Men and the Empathy Gap". Psychology Today. Retrieved 15 August 2017.
  5. Benatar, David. The second sexism: discrimination against men and boys. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 128. ISBN 978-0470674512.
  6. Benderly, Beryl Lieff. "Women have a hiring advantage in the scientific stratosphere". Science. Retrieved 29 April 2015.

When I see an argument between an established editor and a red linked editor who has one edit to his (I am pretty sure this is a guy, but if not, please speak up) name, I am going to take a closer look. So I started looking at the sources given and at least the first two seem to not speak to male privilege at all. They are about how tough it is to be a guy these days, but that is a different issue. Male Privilege does not clain that every guy will end up being a CEO 2 years after leaving high school. Etc. So that is as far as I got, but if you think/feel that this stuff belongs in the article, this is the time and place to make that known. Carptrash (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It took you 39 minutes to post what you had deleted, and then you start edit warring over it. Judging users based on red links fails our WP:AGF!assume good faith guideline, you then Aadmit you haven't even bothered to check three refs that you deleted. It strikes me you don't want to see any criticism of the concept but we need criticism based on our neutrality policy. Absolutely it belongs in the article, you should open the thread BEFORE removing sourced content. I'll restore until there is consensus for your removal. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above commentary. I think this section belongs, notwithstanding how deep my edit history is. The opinions in the sourced articles are representative of a commonly defined critique and there are plenty of other examples of sources that could reflect this.
I also have to add that your comment: "They are about how tough it is to be a guy these days, but that is a different issue. Male Privilege does not clain that every guy will end up being a CEO 2 years after leaving high school. " makes it seem like you are simply personally opposed, but the above comment is unrelated to the sources. Which don't reflect that characterization and I think are perfectly relevant to this article. I think it's more of a problem if this article has a cultural response section that excludes a common criticism in favor what looks to me like intentionally weak ones. It raises a question for me of neutrality.
I think the section I added is reasonable and makes valid points that don’t merit deletion. I could see some good faith criticism that the second source strays from the topic and the WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE guideline could apply, but I think my addition does belong and should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbb (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Remove I scanned the sources I'd not looked at, except one that is a book and I don't have access to it and NONE of them had a hit for "privilege". Which is what the article is about. They all seem to be discussing some disadvantages or another that males have but they do not speak to the issue of male privilege. @RichardWeiss:. I would be interested in seeing why you think this belongs in the article called "Male privilege." Do you feel that the references given speak to that subject, as it is defined by the article?Carptrash (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"but we need criticism based on our neutrality policy" No, we don't. Read again Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view:

  • "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. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and miniscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

First determine whether the sources Shebb suggested are reliable and on topic, then we can see whether they represent a "significant" viewpoint. Shebb may be inexperienced, you don't have the same excuse. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well none of the 5 sources I removed mention "male privilege," which is what the article is about, but since then I see Shebb has been adding more. So let's see what they have to add. Carptrash (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The first one I look at says that women have privileges too. Fine, so edit the article on Female privilege. I have now checked 6 references and none of them meet what I consider to be up to wikipedia standards. Do I have to keep going on? This is why I am leery of red linked editors. Often I find their edits to be intentionally misleading (which is why so many of them end up getting blocked) but at other times brand new editors don't get that an opinion piece or a blog by an otherwise unremarkable writer is not good enough. But I am still waiting for @RichardWeiss:'s analysis of the sources that he feels should remain. Carptrash (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"This is why I am leery of red linked editors. Often I find their edits to be intentionally misleading" In my experience, several of these red-linked editors are vandals, who registered just in order to vandalize one or more articles. For the time being, Shebb seems to be making a good-faith effort, so keep in mind that Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers is a behavioral guideline. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
So does this, @Dimadick: mean that you are in favor of keeping his edits? That is the real question at hand, not Shebb's behavior or mine.Carptrash (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope. I am waiting for Shebb's arguments in the talk page. If he/she can be reasoned with, we could discuss whether the additions are all SYNTH. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
My response is that almost every critique of male privilege usually is centered around the notion that it's seen as universal and thus is based on counterarguments, the idea that the opinions in those sources aren't really a critique of male privilege based those counterexamples I don't think isn't very sensible.
"The first one I look at says that women have privileges too. Fine, so edit the article on Female privilege" - I think is pretty dismissive not a good rational to remove it from this section based on what I stated above.
This is in good faith so not just a matter of being reasoned with, I think the content of the cultural response section is lacking and didn't very well reflect the Responses that are out there, and in some ways the 2nd paragraph was itself a weaker example of the same argument. I think the addition is relevant and straightforward. It gives context with all the sources being directly related to the first sentence. The fourth source referenced could be seen as straying from the topic, but aside from that I think it belongs and doesn’t count as synthetic any more than many other parts of the article would.
I get the feeling having a stronger counter argument in this section is what is really bothering people and motivating all these deletions. I think it would be wise to hear from @RichardWeiss:.
just to clarify - I think the previous content of this section did not offer very relevant or representative examples of critical responses, which tried to edit, and when a more representative one is added it's resulted in deletions which I think are based more from a political rather than editorial complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbb (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent addition. Two op-eds (L.A. Times, Globe and Mail) and a blog post (Medium) are not sufficient for factual claims about what "critics of feminism" are saying. Neither is Sommers, who as a critic of feminism herself, is not a dispassionate observer of the dispute, which we would need in any balanced picture of the relevant points of view. As all these sources appear to be primary sources for instances of criticism of the concept (do they even mention "male privilege" at all?), combining them into a narrative about "critics of feminism" is improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I made that first revert (followup note here) mainly because Medium is a poor source. I was also concerned about synthesis. Sangdeboeuf's arguments on the matter are strong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that Sangdeboeuf is making strong arguments. The argument that a relevant critic's writing cannot be used itself, and that references instead can only be sourced from a supposedly neutral 3rd party review is not reflected in Misplaced Pages’s guidelines or elsewhere in this article. Likewise, the argument that a notable figure can be excluded because they aren't "dispassionate" is not at all a good argument, being based on a completely subjective and unquantifiable discretionary idea.
To the point of synthesis, taking the passages below my addition as just one example, a phrase like "Many men have responded to discussions." or the use of references in that passage are not any less synthetic by the same standard. In addition, those passages don't represent genuine opposing viewpoints, nor are referencing neutral reputable sources.
In terms of guidelines on synth I would direct you here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool
"If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be"
And regarding the section's sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources
"Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting :information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
On a whole it looks to me like an untenable definition of synthesis is being applied as a convenient pretext for deletion, among other guidelines, and these various objections are selectively being applied as a convenient reason to hide an opposing viewpoint simply because the editors don't like it.
If you look at the cultural responses section, not only is there no genuine opposing viewpoint, but it seems like it's been curated to have weak stand-ins in the place of a genuine counterargument. I do think a balanced picture of the relevant points of view is necessary, but when a relevant example is provided it's being taken down in a slew of deletions all weakly abusing WP:SYNTH and other guidelines. It seems to me like these editors just don't like it and are sanitizing the article to be free from the appearance of any strong counterpoint.
If the article is being maintained to minimize opposing viewpoints, I think that means neutrality is a problem. I'm editing my addition to remove some references hopefully to assuage a reasonable objection that it doesn't meet valid criteria for synthesis, in addition to removing the medium article and restoring it. I'm not hopeful, because to be honest I don’t think these deletions are motivated really neutrality, but we'll see what happens. Shebbb (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to be taken seriously please learn to sign your posts with four (4) of these ~. And I do love these editors who after three days of editing, all of it in one article, suddenly are experts on the rules and guidelines. Carptrash (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:Reliable sources is very clear about not using blog sources such as Medium. The Medium (website) article is clear that "The platform is an example of social journalism, having a hybrid collection of amateur and professional people and publications, or exclusive blogs or publishers on Medium." The average Joe can write for Medium. Misplaced Pages is very clear about WP:YESPOV and WP:In-text attribution. You also need to realize that, per WP:Neutral, being neutral on Misplaced Pages clearly does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. This site adheres to WP:Due weight. While WP:BIASEDSOURCES states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective," there is no way that we would use a WP:Fringe source over a source that is reflective of the general literature...unless we are using that source in an in-text attribution or WP:About self way. I noted why I reverted you. I couldn't care less if you believe me on why I reverted you. And, for the record, Misplaced Pages:What SYNTH is not is not a policy or guideline. It's a supplement page. You might want to read Template talk:Supplement#Criteria for use. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Shebbb: If you're arguing that Christina Hoff Sommers is relevant to the issue, please show where any academic discussion of privilege cites her views. Not blogs or op-eds, but peer-reviewed or other scholarly works, since those are the ones the article predominantly uses, per WP:SOURCES. Where sources disagree, we absolutely do rely on "secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" per WP:BALANCE. The part about "many men" is supported by just such a source, which states (emphasis added), "Upon hearing about male privilege, many men will say they do not feel privileged." What is the basis for your comment that the viewpoints and sources in this section are not "genuine" and "reputable", respectively? Keep in mind that WP:NPOV isn't about documenting every contrary viewpoint, but representing fairly and proportionally the viewpoints published in the most reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. Phillips, Debby A.; Phillips, John R. (2009). "Privilege, Male". In O'Brien, Jodi (ed.). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 2. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 684. ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Categories: