Talk:Male privilege

I ask Panamitsu to discuss the content they wish to add to the article rather than edit warring to force inclusion. As I stated in my edit summary, devoting an entire new section to a single survey is WP:UNDUE, and inclusion of speculation as unencyclopedic in WP:TONE. Please address these issues and achieve consensus for inclusion before re-adding, as required by WP:ONUS. Generalrelative (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 2 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raafae1234 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PhilosophyProf (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

These additions are WP:UNDUE. Compare the amount of text that it devoted to the new additions (most of whom have few citations and were not published in prestigious journals) to the much smaller amount of text devoted to eg. highly-cited foundational papers in the field. The entire section (!) given to Hugh Murray in particular was absurd - Murray has no relevant expertise (he's described as an "independent scholar" by the Mises Institute) and the journal it was published in has no connection to the subject matter, so I don't think it's usable at all, but certainly devoting an entire massive multi-paragraph section to him is absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Since this content had been re-added, I'll chime in to say that I agree with Aquillion's take here. Murray's work stands out as polemical whereas the rest of the article is largely research-based. Additionally, devoting an entire two-paragraph section to him is clearly WP:UNDUE and goes against the advice of WP:CRIT. Generalrelative (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who readded it, and I stand by my reasoning. What exactly constitutes "expertise" and "scholarship" on this topic? Peggy McIntosh is a "scholar"? Please - Peggy McIntosh is simply an activist with a background in teacher training and administration. Her famous "invisible knapsack" essay is fundamentally polemical. My perspective - the concept of male privilege is an ideological one, and not a scientific concept. Rejection of the idea is not "fringe" in the sense that evolution denial is, but simply an ideological difference, along the lines of acceptance or rejection of the labor theory of value. I do not see why Murray is any less qualified to make this critique than McIntosh is in supporting it. To automatically block any criticisms of the concept of male privilege a priori as "undue weight", which is what I see going on here, is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Is it really just the source, or are criticisms of that reject this concept simply not allowed according to the self-appointed gatekeepers of this article?

Also, on the topic of WP:CRITICISM, how is a mere essay become interpreted as general policy? Yes, it is best to have criticism more integrated throughout an article, but sometimes it really is the best structure is to lay out the views and variations on the concept according to its advocates and then a section of views rejecting the concept. Again, I point to the labor theory of value article as an example that nobody seems to have a problem with. And there really is a weird double standard on Wikipedia for articles devoted to Marxist concepts versus those that are associated with the social justice left.

My only caveat is Murray is hardly the last word on criticism of the idea, and a section criticizing the concept really should draw on a variety of authors and critiques. This can be done without turning the article into a hit piece against the concept of male privilege, though right now the article suffers from the opposite problem. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Peggy McIntosh is an extremely highly-cited academic who focuses on this specific subject; she is one of the defining scholars in the field. Obviously we're going to cite her at least once here, since her research defines the topic. The specific work from her that we devote a blockquote to has been cited over five-thousand times! You can feel it's as polemical as you like, but it is in fact highly impactful, so it makes sense for us to cover it; and McIntosh herself is highly impactful in the field, so it makes sense for us to cover her views in general - she's a senior Research Scientist of the Wellesley Centers for Women, a consulting editor to Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women, and the author of countless similar highly-cited papers. In addition to her PHD, she has received numerous honors and awards from many high-profile educational institutions. Several of the parts that you edited regarding her are cited to secondary sources that highlight her significance as a researcher and scholar on this topic. The same is not true for Murray; he is an "independent scholar" of no significance who was published by a think tank's low-quality in-house journal. Including him is WP:FALSEBALANCE; we include sources based on their impact and significance, we don't include them to "balance out" other ones and achieve what individual editors personally feel is an ideal balance. If you think that there is criticism of weight equal to McIntosh, just find a source from a similarly high-profile figure with a similar number of citations. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 to this. I'll just add that no one has suggested automatically block[ing] any criticisms of the concept of male privilege a priori as "undue weight". Research-based criticism would be completely DUE, especially if it’s WP:SECONDARY in nature. Nor have I equated the essay CRIT with policy. If you reread my comment above you will see that I’m careful to distinguish CRIT as “advice”. And CRIT doesn’t advise against including criticism but rather against clumping it into a single section. And frankly, the whole the concept of male privilege is an ideological one, and not a scientific concept schtick is untenable. Social science exists. If this is the basis for tagging the article as "unbalanced", the tag is unwarranted. Wikipedia is not based on editors' hot takes about whole branches of human knowledge. Generalrelative (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You both clearly have a tendentious definition of “science” and your views strike me as the very embodiment of a “hot take”. Would you care to explain what reasearch program the “invisible knapsack” excercise is a result of? And positing Peggy McIntosh’s ideas as a scientific truth on par with evolutionary biology or quantum mechanics is in itself a WP:FRINGE view, even if you can round up a few like-minded editors for an RFC that supposedly officializes this view.Yes social science exists, but that doesn’t mean everyone with an ideology about social policy is doing social science. This kind of thing is more on par with the claims that Marxism is “scientific socialism” than anything to do with disciplines that use the scientific method.

In any event, I’ll concede to you what’s effectively article ownership here. What I will not concede is that you are right on matters of fact or that you are adhering to WP:NPOV in good faith. I also think it is good for these discussions to be brought up periodically to underscore that there is far from universal consensus in the Wikipedia community that the “social justice point of view” represents any kind of objective truth or allowable exception to NPOV. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2025 and 11 October 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Konofre11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fawnnl33 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2026 and 15 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janiel07 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Orb abq (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I invite Janiel07 to discuss the content they wish to add here rather than edit warring. Three editors have now reverted this content. As written it does not make sense. Editing for an assignment does not entitle you to add dubious material to Wikipedia, and frankly your instructor should know better. Generalrelative (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not being entitled in any way. I am simply doing my assignments, and only one editor reverted it for "not making sense". The other wanted me to fix my citation, which you would know if you read. My edit was relevant to the topic and was from a valid and current source. And until March 15th, as stated in the message above, I will be making edits for grades. Instead of being hostile towards me, you guys could simply have some decency to understand that I am obviously a student trying to earn a grade with the guidelines my professor has provided. Thank you. Janiel07 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No one is being hostile to you. Wikipedia is simply not for the purpose you're using it for. And your professor is not entitled to have their students disrupt Wikipedia. That goes double for a designated contentious topic like gender and sexuality. The content you sought to add fails to meet our standards, as three of us have stated in different ways. See Wikipedia:Student assignments for more information. I suggest that your professor read it too. Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The concept of arguing with a stranger over a wikipedia article is beyond me. And again, only you and one other person thought as though my addition made no sense. The other simply wanted me to fix my citation and we had separate conversations about that, but you seem to be too ignorant to comprehend that. I will not be making any more edits until March. Thank you, and have a great day :) Janiel07 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You all need to leave the poor kid alone. Their edit was in relevance to the topic of male privilege in the workforce, hence the mention of experience in business and entrepreneurship. It is not hard to be kind. Wikipedia is for everyone, that includes students. Loboarch (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you really create a brand new account just to say this? That's awfully suspicious behavior. 22:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I did not. Accusing me of that is just borderline weird. What is your deal? I am refraining from engaging in this situation anymore. I have left my edit out and will let it be. Please leave me alone. Janiel07 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are free to stop responding at any time. It is a matter of record that this was the account Loboarch's first contribution to Wikipedia. When I said Did you really create a brand new account just to say this? it was a direct reply to their comment. Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, you people need to chill. I used to have a wikipedia account for the same reason as them a couple of years ago; a university course. It’s a real thing. I am currently writing an article regarding feminism and toxic masculinity in institutions, hence why I was reading the article in question.

I quietly watched this student’s edits get removed from the start, and I saw how they were struggling. I, and many others, suffered from the same experience simply for trying to earn a grade. I wanted to give @Janiel07 some advice going forward, so I created an account, no big deal there.

As soon as the course is over, you can remove all of the edits they may need to make. Their professor will still be able to see them via the history page, which I informed them about.

It is people like you who give Wikipedia a bad name. Nothing is that serious; this is not your job. Loboarch (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This reads like an admission that you are only here to hurl insults and bitch and moan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are, in fact, behaving in a very entitled way. You are not entitled to keep your edits on the page when they are disputed by other editors. You are not entitled to edit war over them. If you disagree with someone removing your content, it is your responsibility to come here and convince them, not their responsibility to convince you to stop. If this edit warring continues, I will ask an admin to intervene.

Finally, simply having a valid source is not enough. Your source needs to support your content. If multiple editors need to keep reverting you, then you are already misbehaving badly enough to have your editing privileges revoked, which I promise you is not going to reflect well in your grade. You need to re-evaluate your approach here, because you are hurting yourself, not anyone else with this nonsense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think it might be worth looking at the relevant part of the source in question to see if we can summarize it better and with more appropriate context; the issue, to me, is that this sentence looks weird out of context (it comes across as implying that the reason for the gender gap, in the previous paragraph, exists is because women are just magically lower-ranking and less experienced - I doubt that that's what the editor intended, and it certainly isn't really what the source is saying in context.) Here's the full context the bit in question was paraphrased from:

Note that it is specifically talking about academic entrepreneurship; women in academia are less likely to come from a background in business. This quote also sort of pulls one bit out of the middle and ignores the rest. A more complete summary might read something like Women were historically excluded from academic entrepreneurship; while numbers have improved in recent years, even today, disparities in seniority, business background, and gendered assumptions in training contribute to a gender gap. That's just a rough first stab at summarizing the entire section rather than just one sentence, but it gets the idea across. Whether we need to summarize this source is another question, but I think that when the entire section is summarized it's mostly in line with what other sources say about similar topics. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Your version is close to the reading I arrived at when I finally located the source the student editor was using. I hadn't really parsed the content they added, but looking at it again after this section was opened, I could definitely see where the complaints came from. I have no objections if Janie (who asked to be left alone) wants to recreate the edit with the text you proposed or some refinement of it, using that source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Aquillion's sentence is perfectly cogent and a solid summary of the source material. In general I'm not a fan of inclusion for inclusion's sake –– our responsibility is to the reader –– but it wouldn't actively detract from the article. Generalrelative (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds dumb, but could someone clarify what the term "academic entrepreneur" means? I had never heard the term "academic entrepreneur" or "academic entrepreneurship" until this thread, and I don't know who it refers to. Does it mean university administrations, or university fund-raisers, or people who start new universities, or something else? NightHeron (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It refers to a practice where academic engage in entrepreneurial efforts based on their academic work. So when a new tech startup spins out of MIT's labs, that's an example. It also -in this paper and elsewhere- seems to refer to the culture and systems in academia which encourages and supports such endeavors, including aspects which serve some financial benefit to the institutions. For example; if a tech startup spins out of MIT's labs, only they're using tech that is the IP of MIT, so MIT licenses them the rights to that tech in exchange for a share of the profits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)