Talk:Male privilege/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Male privilege. 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

←

RfC about sociological concept vs phenomenon

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Should the first sentence of the lead define male privilege as a concept in sociology or as a phenomenon that indisputably exists? NightHeron (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

This is a loaded RFC, since "indisputably" was added as a form of editorializing. Since this RFC is in response to a specific edit, listing both versions without commentary would be appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Response: There was no intent to editorialize. A vote for concept means a vote for the wording "concept in sociology," so I wanted it to be clear what a vote for phenomenon means. I was thinking of giving both versions of the first sentence, but WP:RfC says to be as brief as possible. Here are the two versions:

concept version: Male privilege is a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex.

phenomenon version: Male privilege is the system of advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex.

NightHeron (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Phenomenon version - The term's usage in sociology certainly could be explained in the lede, but there is no valid reason to imply that this is exclusive to that field. To borrow NightHeron's example above, it would be strange and misleading to describe evolution as a concept within biology. Among other things, "male privilege" and "evolution" are both commonly used by a range of academic disciplines, and in non-academic settings as well. To imply otherwise would be incorrect or (at best) misleading. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether, as the OP and the most recent contributor of the phenomenon version (subsequently reverted), it's okay for me also to vote, but if so, then I obviously support the phenomenon version. Male privilege has been around for thousands of years. It's an undeniable fact. Sociology has existed for about 150 years. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Both to prevent the motte and bailey Pretty much the same comment as over on White privilege, or really any privilege article. There's a trivial definition of privilege which is a phenomenon, then there's "social privilege" which includes a moral framework in it's definition. The moral framework version, and it's derivatives should only be called a concept. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RFCs are intended to invite outside editors to the discussion, and they are not expected to be familiar with comments on another page. With that in mind, could you please explain what this would look like? Specific sources which discuss this distinction would also be helpful. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, we'll start with the trivial definition of privilege, which is a dictionary definition: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group." Then there is social privilege which is "a special, unearned advantage or entitlement, used to one's own benefit or to the detriment of others; often, the groups that benefit from it are unaware of it." (emphasis added). The key note here is the addition of the term unearned. Earned, and unearned are concepts related to the concept of value and are intrinsically linked to the concepts of right and wrong. That's what makes the second definition a concept and not a phenomenon, the inherent moral claim with the term unearned. And to make clear, the point of my original comment is to not equivocate the two definitions. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not disputing any of that, but that's not what I was asking. Could you explain what this would look like in this article? What would be changed, and which sources would be used? Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It would mean reading through the sources and seeing which definition they are using, from a cursory glance the section on Son Privilege falls into the first definition, whereas the section on scholarship has content that falls into the second. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The lede is an abstract of the body, and at the moment the body offers the sociology, but no indisputable phenomenon. Disputing the phenomenon is a topic of this article, or isn't it? –84.46.52.79 (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede is an abstract of the body. Correct. Please read the first paragraph of the Overview section, and then the Scope section. The body of the article presents male privilege factually, not just as a concept in sociology. The body also discusses sociology (e.g., the second paragraph of the Overview section). The body of the article shows that male privilege is first and foremost a phenomenon and secondarily a concept in sociology. NightHeron (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I found the phenomenon in the 2nd paragraph of the 4th source (PDF), an unacknowledged male privilege as a phenomenon with a life of its own compared with a phenomenon of white privilege in a personal account. The 1st source references the 4th source, and enwiki describes a phenomenon as an "observable fact" (I'm more familiar with axioms in math.) –84.46.52.225 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Phenomenon with the sociology concept also being a significant part of the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Phemonmenon – males carry an invisible knapsack of privileges around with them, of which they are largely unaware, that redound to their benefit through no achievement of their own, but merely due to their sex, and to which women are not privy. A search for "matriarchal societies" turns up around six societies worldwide, so this is not limited to a 21st century Anglo-Saxon or first world phenomenon. Complicating this Rfc, is the fact that about 3/4 of editors are male and that there is an acknowledged systemic bias at Wikipedia. I didn't see advice of where this Rfc has been publicized, but that should be remedied. To their credit, NightHeron has listed it at one forum, and I have added two more. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Listed: at WT:Feminism
Listed: at WT:WOMEN
Listed: at WT:WIR Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Phenomenon, noting the suss framing of the RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Phenomenon, Wollstonecraft published about male privilege in 1792, before the term/field of sociology was defined by Comte in 1838. From Aristotle's philosophy considering women to be lesser men, of little rational ability, to Roman public law, which recognized women only as being subject to family jurisprudence (i.e. father/husband), privilege was codified into various systems. Thus, clearly an overarching phenomenon and not limited to sociology: "Unearthing the principles of masculinity as a societal phenomenon encourages dialogues about power and privilege..." p197, "The men, in other words, were able to rapidly increase their cultural and social capital relative to the women. Teresa Nance(1996) noted the same phenomenon ..." p 267, "The distinction between positive and negative privilege is not merely two ways of expressing the same phenomenon". p 115 SusunW (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Concept: This is a concept in sociology. Whether or not you think it coincides with reality depends on which sociological theory you prefer. As Mathglot notes, there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia, though I would argue that the political and national biases of the editors have a far stronger effect than the gender bias. This has led to sociological concepts that are in vogue among American liberals being declared to be true on Wikipedia, despite the serious criticism of the foundations of those concepts. Critical Theory is being treated as if it were a scientific truth, which is not the position Wikipedia should be in. It's really discrediting the encyclopedia. Be careful what you wish for: you may get an encyclopedia that affirms your political beliefs, but you'll end up discrediting it among people who don't share your beliefs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Concept - it's a way of framing a phenomenon; it's the sociological term we apply to reality. Privilege, in any form, is just a term that is applied to the social interactions of humans and cultures. Privilege cannot be measured or gathered, it is just a concept. Calling it a concept does not credit or discredit it. I think the difference should be clear. I won't go into any more detail since this seems to be a losing cause and I don't feel like starting a debate.‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Privilege cannot be measured?? Really? What about gender wage gaps? What about women in the US being barred from the vote for a century and a half, barred from admission to elite universities throughout most of their history, overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence? "just a term...just a concept"? Would Wikipedia even be debating this issue if it weren't for the fact that only about 1 out of 6 editors is a woman? NightHeron (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of something existing is not the same as something being measurable (do you not see the difference). Also note that I specifically said that calling it a concept does nothing to reflect upon the validity of it. But it's still a concept that we apply to the history of humankind, as opposed to some extant and measurable force which has changed society. But whose fault is it that most WP editors are men? Is it mine? Yours? Jimmy Wales? I also don't see how that matters to having a rational discussion about an issue. I think that political views and other ideologies are the antithesis of what WP is about, which is neutrality and unbiased information. So let's keep this rational and neutral. I'm not going to debate you, though. It's clear you have the majority. I'm not going to change anyone's mind and I don't want to be lectured or grandstanded to. I just wanted to share my opinion on an issue. Which I'm entitled to do, regardless of gender, race, creed, or political belief. Thanks. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're interested in RS containing measurements of male privilege and gender inequality, the United Nations regularly publishes its country-by-country Gender Inequality Index as part of its Human Development Report, and the World Economic Forum issues a Global Gender Gap Report . NightHeron (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Phenomenon, of course. Male privilege has existed in civilization for some 3,000 years at least. The fact that sociologists argue and discuss male privilege does not make it theoretical. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It feels to me like some of the arguments in the survey above are going off the rails a bit. Some of the points on each side seem to be shading towards a determination of what is WP:TRUTH, rather than what they ought to be doing, which is what the reliable sources say. It also seems like a mirror of a central theme in the philosophy of science, which has echoes in epistemology, namely: when scientists say we "know" something (like, say, the universe is expanding), what do we mean by that? Some of the arguments above about whether male privilege "exists" in reality (which is how I read "indisputably") or is something merely described by sociological journals (hence has dubious "existence-ness") remind me exactly about this debate in science, which goes back to Plato. However, luckily for all of us, Wikipedia is not in the business of determining whether something exists. We should get back to basic principles of WP:Verifiability, and report what the reliable resources say, and if they differ, report them in proportion to their presence in sources. This is not an epistemological debating society. Mathglot (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Defining as something that exists rather than just a theory

I've edited the first sentence in the lede so as to define Male privilege as something that exists rather than as a concept in sociology. The RfC on this question has been going on for over a month, with no new comments or votes in the last week. I count 6 editors in favor of phenomenon and 2 in favor of concept. NightHeron (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This should have been closed by an uninvolved editor. Yes there is a clear consensus but that’s still not how this is supposed to work. But same difference I guess. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron If you need an univolved editor (per above), please let me know. // Timothy :: talk 02:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Sure, thanks. As I wrote, the RfC has been up for over a month. NightHeron (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron /agree 100% just didn't want this reopened/reverted on a technicality. Thanks for your work here. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Done Consensus reach in favor of phenomenon and changes implemented. // Timothy :: talk 19:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim without a source

Can we have the source of "Men who have experienced bullying and domestic violence in youth, in particular, may not accept that they are beneficiaries of privilege."? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The source is already included:

Keith, Thomas (2017). "Patriarchy, Male Privilege, and the Consequences of Living in a Patriarchal Society". Masculinities in Contemporary American Culture: An Intersectional Approach to the Complexities and Challenges of Male Identity. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-31-759534-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

The citation is at the end of the paragraph, which is common practice. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I fail to find it in the source, can you point me out to the page/paragraph? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This specific point is the first paragraph of the second page of the the first chapter (which is one page after the link). You can search for the phrase "many boys grow up" if specific sentences would help, but the surrounding context is important and useful and sources should not be stripped of context when used in articles. As this is the introduction, it's likely this is discussed elsewhere in the book also, but I do not know for sure. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The passage says however "Many boys grow up being bullied in school or abused at home, and these boys understandably do not connect with the idea that boys and men receive privilege simply from the fact that they are male", which is different than "Men who have experienced bullying and domestic violence in youth, in particular, may not accept that they are beneficiaries of privilege.", as the firmer means they do not relate to a concept while the latter statement implies they deny something that is already a truth, I wonder if we can just report what the book says instead of this summarization that does not seem to fully reflect the affirmation of the book? I'm not even sure the source can be considered truthfull as there would be a clear interests conflict from the author on the topic and the book seems to have no reviews, do we have any other source that support this statement? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The "accept that" usage in "may not accept that they are beneficiaries of privilege" is a little awkward. To clarify the meaning and make the words closer to those in the source, perhaps we could simply insert "the idea" between "accept"and "that": may not accept the idea that they are beneficiaries of privilege. NightHeron (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no conflict of interest, and this comment suggests a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia evaluates sources and reliability. A source which discusses a concept does not have a conflict of interest for that subject, because by this standard all sources would be suspect.

Thomas Keith is a professor at multiple reputable schools. He has a terminal degree in a relevant field, and the book is published by Routledge, which is a respected academic publisher. His Wikipedia article needs a lot of work, but it suggest he has won awards for his documentary film work, also. If you have some specific reason to doubt the reliability of this source, articulate it directly, or take it to WP:RSN.

As I mentioned to you before, the surrounding context is important. My reading of the source, in its full context, is that it supports this: Male privilege exists, and men's understanding of this reality is influenced by their personal history.

Talk pages for articles related to social privilege have already had many, many tedious discussions about whether or not this is, to use your term, a "truth". Male privilege has widespread acceptance in academia. To avoid rehashing old drama, please review the talk page's archives. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is my right to challenge the consensus, which is not a "reharshing the drama" as you says, I'm also pretty sure that the author have all the interests on affirming that, which is not to say it's necessarily a lie but would rightfully rise a doubt, also because that line was taken, modify to imply another meaning, and only a single source is quoted so that could aswell be a fringe view, I see so far 2 people (me and NightHeron) that support the idea of at least modify that line, let's see if someone wants to give his/her opinion 95.247.142.163 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I agree with you that the source is fine, and there's no "conflict of interest". I also agree that the consensus that male privilege is a fact, not a mere "concept", should not be litigated again. However, logically the statement that male privilege is a fact means only that most males benefit from their gender. It does not mean that all males are beneficiaries of male privilege. In the talk page discussions some of the editors who argued against the fact of male privilege or white privilege made the logically fallacious claim that because they can think of some males or whites who do not benefit from such privilege, that means male privilege and white privilege are not real phenomena.

Here the source says that men and boys who were mistreated "understandably" may not accept "the idea" that they are beneficiaries of male privilege. The current wording in the Wikipedia article can be read as saying that they refuse to accept the fact that they are beneficiaries of male privilege. Would it be okay to insert "the idea" or "the notion" between "may not accept" and "that"? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean it surely is a fact in the sense that it existed and still exists in some countries and culture (usually under-developed nations), however to say that everyone, everywhere have a benefit just because they are males is a far stretch of the concept, the same way as it would be for example slavery, it surely existed and it probably still exists somewhere, however to say that everyone who work for someone else is affected by slavery just because of his status of not being self-employed would be a far stretch (except if you are discussing some anarchism or socialism ideology) 95.247.142.163 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Males", as a group, have access to male privilege. This doesn't mean that all individual men have it better then all women. This privilege can potentially exist anywhere and at any time, which is why it should be discussed and documented in an academic setting. The term is used to discuss this privilege wherever it needs to be discussed. Situations where women and girls have it better then men exist and are also discussed. In fact, this is widely discussed as it relates to male privilege, because these things are closely interwined. Nobody is ever saying that all men have it great all the time, nor that men always have it better then women in all cases. Male privilege is the set of privileges that men have access to. Conflating social privilege with individual success shows a misunderstanding of the underlying concept of social privilege.

As for the specific proposal, awkward or not, "idea" appears to me to be a filler word. I do not see any functional difference between the two versions. If there is some way to embrace "privilege" while rejecting the "idea of privilege", the source doesn't explain it, and to be blunt I don't think it could explain this. If (and this is speculation based on other sources I have read) these men who reject being the beneficiaries of privilege believe that it means "all men are always better off", these men do not share the same understanding of privilege as reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell and NightHeron that the source is fine and doesn't have any apparent conflict of interest. I think inserting "the idea" to bring the sentence closer to the source isn't a bad idea and may blunt further argument on the sentence. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I inserted "the idea", which I do not think is merely a filler word. When a boy or man who's been badly mistreated hears the words "male privilege", it's understandable (as the source says) and natural for him to think, "Well, that certainly doesn't apply to me". In other words, he refuses to accept the idea that he has benefited from male privilege. We can't say that he's necessarily wrong. Perhaps he hasn't benefited. The article's lead says that access to male privilege varies a lot. NightHeron (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Access to privilege varies in a way, but male privilege itself is still only accessible to males, by definition. We cannot personally say that these men are wrong when they say they have not benefited from male privilege, and we certainly should not imply that people should be blamed for their misfortunes, but even phrasing it that way suggests a fundamentally different understanding of the term. If they are using a different definition, and refuting that definition, we could say they reject the idea of male privilege, but which idea? Are they rejecting the term as used in academic discussions (which is the topic of the article) or the words as they would, reasonably and appropriately, be understood in conversation? As we've already seen many times on this page, these are two different ideas. I am concerned that using "idea" here is inviting more of the "concept" debate from earlier. For this reason, I am skeptical that it would blunt further argument. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, 95.247.142.163. I have this page on my watchlist and while I didn't initially recognize your IP address, I read what you said and realized you were the same person I have been speaking with for the past few days over at Talk:Incel. As I have advised you over at Talk:Incel#Sources have to be reviewed heavily, where you were also challenging existing consensus, if you wish to restart conversation about a decision that has already been established through consensus it is best to come bearing new sources that contradict the approach in the article. Attempting to restart a conversation with no new sources is not generally likely to lead to a new outcome.

As an aside, have you considered creating an account? It comes with a few benefits—for one it would make it easier for people like me to recognize who we're speaking to across articles, and it will also help if your IP address changes again. It will also hide your IP address, if you are privacy-minded, along with a handful of other benefits at the link I've left. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gorilla, glad to see you here too, I am not challenging the consensus, I was speaking about a single line that seems to differ in sense from the source itself, I also wondered about the reliability of that specific source and I was met by a "we established consensus on the reference of the use of the "truth" term", which was not my point nor my intention to challenge the consensus on, but the way it was presented to me sounded like "sho, sho" hence I affirmed it was my right to do so if so I wanted, at least to what I understood, which is not to say I want to do that but just so to make it clear to the user, sorry if it seemed like i wanted to challenge the consensus on that, as I don't, if it makes sense my explanation. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we are entertaining the Italian IP 95.247.142.163 which is the same person posting crap at Talk:Incel under this IP along with Special:Contributions/79.17.135.167 and Special:Contributions/95.244.61.22. This terrifically bad post should settle the question of who we are talking to. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You may want to review the following policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks also the "crap" helped to highlight an issue in that page and expand it if you bothered to read it, so you may want to respond with arguments instead of attacks on who post something, also would like to note that Special:Contributions/79.17.135.167 and Special:Contributions/95.244.61.22 are not from me, just for sake. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That crappy post was made by one of these other IPs. Are you claiming that it wasn't you while also defending it? As for the other IP there are far, far too many similarities.

That specific post was very bad for many reasons, regardless of its outcome. Comparing the literal meaning of the term "incel" with stereotypes about a religion is absurd and offensively inflammatory.

Further, that topic is related to this topic, and on both talk pages you have shown a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia deals with reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, it would not shock me if there was some offwiki discussion of the Incel article on one of the Italian incel communities which brought about multiple IP commenters. While our 95.247.* friend here may not understand Wikipedia policy super well, and although at times I have gotten a little frustrated with them, I do believe they are here in good faith. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

More information We've gone fully off-topic from any suggested changes to this article, so I'm hatting this before it escalates further. GorillaWarfare 00:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC) ...

We've gone fully off-topic from any suggested changes to this article, so I'm hatting this before it escalates further. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I mean, I have not created any page so the two pages you linked can't be mine, I just posted comments 95.247.142.163 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which pages you're referring to. However I will again reiterate that it would be useful if you would be willing to create an account so this confusion would stop being an issue. IP addresses can change frequently, and so someone commenting in a discussion may suddenly have their IP address change partway through, which can lead to confusion such as above where it's unclear if multiple IP commenters in a discussion are the same person or multiple different people. If you create an account, it does not matter if your IP address changes because your username will always remain the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The special pages s/he linked, I have not created any page so it can't be from me, I made a parallelism to explain a core concept but didn't create any page, anyways if you have to argument things you should go with facts and logic, the "but it offended me!" doesn't sound like a good argument outside gender studies 95.247.142.163 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Those contributions pages are automatic, and just show all the edits a user (or IP address) have made. You have one too: Special:Contributions/95.247.142.163 As for your last comment, I would recommend not making jabs at gender studies like you just have... that kind of behavior reinforces Grayfell's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You should have some words for his/her attitude in how s/he approached the discussion, moreover the approach of gender studies (previously feminism studies) is a well-known ground, if you think the "but it offends me" point is a valid point, that would be thin ice where the foundations of the discussion would be 95.247.142.163 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You made a bad post, which was so bad it is disruptive. One example of how it is disruptive is that we're still talking about it. It would still be disruptive even without this discussion, because it introduces an unrelated and pointlessly inflammatory issue into an already heated topic. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Your posts on a Wikipedia talk page can and will be scrutinized. You have the ability to post offensive crap, and we are also allowed to say that it is offensive crap. You do not get special treatment for posting offensive comments. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you fail to find the logical errors in your statement, it does not mean someone else is at failure:

1) I was not the one to bring up that topic up again

2) It was an example on how to not use a statistic on a small group to describe the whole group, you can word it with various examples (some people are rapists -> all people are rapists; football players earn much -> everyone that play football earns much; some left-winged people have communism ideals -> all left-winged people are communists, etc. etc.)

3) It does not add anything to the discussion the fact you think it's inflammatory/offensive, so I wonder why are we still talking about this, but still

4) Saying that something, even more on another page in another discussion, is offensive to you seems more disruptive than me making an example to explain what I mean 95.247.142.163 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Doubts about the 2nd 3rd sentence in the lead

@Binksternet: The sentence you restored reads: Feminist scholarship in the area of women's studies during the 1970s produced the earliest academic studies of privilege. Is this really correct (and are there sources that say this)? Certainly various forms of privilege have been studied academically much before the 1970s (e.g., Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class to give just one example). Male privilege was also written about (e.g., by Friedrich Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State). It might be correct to say that the term male privilege didn't come into common use until the 1970s, but I'm not sure about that.

A problem with the ~~2nd~~ 3rd sentence in the lead is that it can be interpreted as supporting the false claim that male privilege, rather than a phenomenon that has existed for millenia, is merely a theory invented by feminists in the 1970s. That sentence is a holdover from the days when the first sentence of the lead defined male privilege as a concept within sociology. NightHeron (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not evaluating the sentence in question for its meaning. The revert I made was against vandalism: someone using an Irvine IP chopped into the paragraph, indiscriminately removing text to make gibberish. Feel free to improve the article as best you can. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. NightHeron (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lede

@ChefBear01: The sentence I put back is needed so that the first sentence is not interpreted as claiming that all men benefit equally. Inline citations are not required for the lede if there are citations in the main body. In this case the sentence is supported by two inline citations [1] and [6] in the "Scope" section. It is not biased or ideological. All it says is that the extent to which men benefit from this form of privilege depends on whether or not they conform to prevailing notions of manhood and masculinity. NightHeron (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The opening statement usually have citation to show the notability of the topic as per WP:NOTE ChefBear01 (talk)

Please see WP:LEADCITE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

~~{rto|NightHeron}}@GorillaWarfare: I have met half way with NightHeron and have added a supporting statement. ChefBear01 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)~~

NightHeron:

Male privilege is the system of advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm.

ChefBear02:

Male privilege is the view that a men / boys in society are granted greater access to resources and/or political / sexual access to women's bodies and labor. The extent of this view can vary depending on certain circumstances such as social and economic standing and is not the same for all men/boys.[a]

^[a]ChefBear01 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No, those sentences are far worse than what's there now. First, a system of privilege is not a "view". Second, it not does involve only "access to women's bodies and labor". Depending on the society, it can involve many other things, such as opportunities for promotion to manager/boss/leader, higher pay for comparable work, etc. Third, the lede is supposed to summarize the main body. Your sentences don't do that. Please read the "Scope" section of the article to see what's being summarized by the second sentence.

You haven't given any justification for replacing or altering the first two sentences of the lede. 10:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron:@GorillaWarfare: The lead I added said everything it needs to say, I can only add what is supported by the citation I have provided. It says what the article is about (Male Privilege) and provides a brief description of the topic (see my text).

This is backed by an academic in line citation that goes into detail about the topic alongside the scope section.

It also includes the additional clarification that it is not the same for all men/boys.

My citation and the scope section both go into detail about the topic and cover the various sub areas you mention. (please see my text as modified above)

Male privilege is the view that a men / boys in society are granted various benefits. The extent of this view can vary depending on certain circumstances such as social and economic standing and is not the same for all men/boys.

ChefBear01 (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You have not responded to the first and third points I made above in explaining what's wrong with your proposed replacement for the first two sentences. By the way, you're not supposed to change your earlier text after it's been responded to. By deleting the part of your earlier text about women's bodies and labor, you've made it look as if my second point makes no sense. You've also given no justification for claiming that there's something wrong with the first two sentences of the lede in their current form. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the text originally quoted and moved the updated version to the section discussing the updates.ChefBear01 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not have an inline citation as per LEADCITE, this was pointed out by User:GorillaWarfare, I also disagree with the wording

Male privilege is the system

You have provided no citation to support that statement

of advantages or rights that are available to men

I have written this part as is supported by a citation but altered it slightly to say various benefit, the citation and scope section go into more detail.

solely on the basis of their sex.

It is unnecessary to state this as the article name and content state that this is intended to refer to one sex (male).

A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm

I have written this section in a way that doesn't connect negative connotations to the concept of male norms and instead use more neutral wording.

There was a detailed discussion here on the talk-page in 2020 about whether male privilege is a "concept" (a "view" in your words) or an actual phenomenon, that is, a system of privilege that exists in society. The consensus of editors was that reliable sources support referring to male privilege as a phenomenon, not a view. Please see .

The first two sentences as currently written are far clearer than your rewrite. NightHeron (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

My primary argument was that it does not have an indent citation and therefore should not have been added.

I am only aiming to make minor or major changes to the first two sentences in order to ensure they are prompt, clear and backed by an indent citation as per WP:LEADCITE, I do not want to engage in an argument regarding the main topic as this would fall under WP:STICK. ChefBear01 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you read LEADCITE? "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." If editors think citations ought to be added to the lead they can be added from the article text, but the current lead summarizes the article body just fine. I agree with NightHeron that it is far preferable to ChefBear's suggested change. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

References & Footnotes

[1]
"Male Privilege & Masculinities - Privilege and Intersectionality". Rider University. November 23, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[a]
"The assumption that being a male in a patriarchal society gives a boy/man greater access to resources—economic and political —including sexual access to women's bodies and labor" Male privilege/male dominance. (2013). In J. Myers (Ed.), Historical dictionaries of religions, philosophies, and movements: Historical dictionary of the lesbian and gay liberation movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers^[1]

'Hegemonic male privilege' is a theoretical framework and should not be presented as fact

Citations debunking key concepts of "Male Privilege" should not be removed from the article just to maintain its Ideological stance

Neutrality

Given that many experts have expressed scepticism of the concept, the article has to describe this as a theoretical concept rather than a phenomenon.

Paragraphs such as the following are problematic: "The invisibility of male privilege can be seen for instance in discussions of the gender pay gap in the United States; the gap is usually referred to by stating women's earnings as a percentage of men's. However, using women's pay as the baseline highlights the dividend that males receive as greater earnings (32% in 2005).[1] In commerce, male dominance in the ownership and control of financial capital and other forms of wealth has produced disproportionate male influence over the working classes and the hiring and firing of employees. In addition, a disproportionate burden is placed upon women in employment when they are expected to be solely responsible for child care; they may be more likely to be fired or be denied advancement in their profession, thus putting them at an economic disadvantage relative to men.[2]"

Given that several economists and sociologists posit that the difference in earning between the sexes are not due to discrimination, this should be heavily edited. --TheobaldShlegel (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed and a firm consensus has been reached. See recently closed discussion on talk page. // Timothy :: talk 19:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have read the above debates. Even if there is not willing to acknowledge the biased nature of the entry, the paragraph about the wage gap should be deleted (or at least heavily edited).

There is robust debate as to how much (if any) of the difference in earnings is due to prejudice.

--TheobaldShlegel (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No, and it doesn't matter. This talk page isn't a platform for debate, "robust" or not. The article summarizes reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can pick up reliable sources too. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

From reading the debates, it honestly seems that you are using this page as a vehicle for your own politics. That is not what this is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8300:1b50:7db3:5cae:67e2:6172 (talk • contribs)

That's not a news piece from CBS News, it's an opinion piece from one career coach (a profession without standards) quoting another career coach. These guys are defending male privilege by saying men choose higher paying jobs, for instance ones that are more dangerous. But they completely ignore the lower pay that women receive for working the same exact job. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

During the COVID-19 pandemic the jobs where people can continue to work at full pay from home tend to be high-paying jobs where men are heavily represented (such as high tech); the jobs where people either are furloughed or else must come to work and risk infection tend to be low-paying jobs where women are heavily represented. Obviously the latter jobs are more dangerous than the work-at-home jobs. NightHeron (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How about this as a source, then? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC) — TiggyTheTerrible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

An opinion column that cherry-picks and exaggerates is not a good source for refuting the consensus of RS. No one denies that choices play a role, but it's really a fringe view to claim that there's no discrimination against women. Moreover, in many cases the "choice" is determined by where women are welcomed and where they are not; if they face discrimination, harassment, and a "glass ceiling" at certain male-dominated professions, they might "choose" to enter a different profession even though it means less pay for comparable work. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's an article quoting a Harvard economics professor. I can get you Forbes saying it too. Where is the actual proof for this so-called PayGap? I've seen research that suggests women actually earn more and that there is a hiring bias in their favour. Frankly, I consider the PayGap debunked. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have re-added the POV tag as I feel it is justified. Contrary to what Nightherron says, I don't see any consensus on this article. In fact, I see a lot of contest to its neutrality and very little to back up the idea that it is neutral. I have posted about this several times, and have yet to have a satisfactory response. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron. Please stop reverting all changes without conversation. You seem to be trying to imprint your POV on the page while preventing all attempts to balance the article. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

When you find evidence that in some situations men don't have privilege, you're not refuting the statement that male privilege exists and is a phenomenon rather than merely a theory. Of course male privilege doesn't show itself in all possible situations. Similarly, someone could cherry-pick sources to "prove" that rich people's privilege doesn't exist but is only a theory. For example, in some parts of the world at certain times rich people run a high risk of being kidnapped for ransom, whereas poor people do not run that risk. Rich people often travel by private plane, and private plane travel has a much higher rate of deaths per passenger-mile than commercial air travel -- so rich people run a higher risk of death in a plane crash. What does that prove? Nothing.

You have fewer than 150 edits on your TiggyTheTerrible account, and you're clearly not bothering to read the Wikipedia policies that apply to what you're doing, namely WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, and WP:EW. If you continually run afoul of Wikipedia policy and engage in disruptive editing, you're likely to be sanctioned.

When your edit is disputed, you have to wait until/unless there's a consensus among editors that supports adding your edit. You are not the one to decide whether or not the arguments made against your edit are valid. That's decided by consensus, not by one editor's opinion. NightHeron (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron Male Privilege as a concept is a subset of Social privilege, which is very much declared to be a theory. The Male Privilege page is filled with references to its roots in feminist theory, sociology, and so on. It almost exclusively cites theorists. Its claims are also very easy to debunk. For example: if the majority of the homeless on the streets are men, how can they possibly have any 'extra' way to gain shelter? Especially as men are considered low priority when it comes to social housing. It's very frustrating that I can't even mention critics of the idea like Warren Farrel. This is why I'm saying you are acting in a way that is POV Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Defining male privilege as a phenomenon, not a concept within sociology

I changed the wording in the first sentence so that it wouldn't appear that male privilege is merely a concept within sociology. Male privilege is a phenomenon that existed long before sociology existed as a field of study. A similar issue has been debated on Talk:White privilege, where the consensus of editors seems to be that white privilege should be defined as a phenomenon and not just an academic theory. NightHeron (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Describing this as a concept within sociology is subtle distancing language and is therefor a form of editorializing. Direct language is not editorializing, it is the opposite of editorializing. It is also inaccurate in this case. Privilege exists regardless of how it is used in sociology. Son-privilege, for example, exists regardless of if sociologists examine it. By implying that it is primarily used as a way to "examine" certain advantages, it is implying that privilege is distinct from these advantages, but this is not supported by the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with this change. It is not editorializing to point out, correctly, that this is a concept in sociology. That's what it is, isn't it? It's a straightforward, non-judgmental explanation of what male privilege is. In contrast, the "direct language" being proposed here takes an editorial position on the correctness of this concept. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a phenomenon and also a concept in various academic fields. Defining it as just a "concept in sociology" suggests that the phenomenon might not exist. That's a fringe viewpoint in this case, just as it would be to define evolution as a "theory" or "concept." Note that in the Evolution article the first paragraph of the lead defines it as a phenomenon and the second paragraph uses the term "scientific theory." NightHeron (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Privilege exists, and sources which are already cited accept that it is "correct". It is not exclusively a concept in sociology, and presenting it this way is incorrect. Son-privilege is one example which is already discussed in the article. Son-privilege is a phenomenon which has existed long before the field of sociology even existed. Since nobody has proposed any policy-based reason this should be disputed in the first sentence of the article, there is no reason to preserve this version other than as a proxy-battle over the white privilege article. Valid reasons have been proposed for why this should change. The burden is on those who wish to retain the previous version. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

We're not talking about a scientific theory like evolution here. I appreciate that you guys are very convinced of this particular sociological concept, but comparing it to evolution is just absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But the academic sources describe it as fact, so we need to reflect that. If you think it is something whose "correctness" is in question, whatever that means (something you've implied is the reason you prefer the other version), you need academic sources of comparable weight expressing that. Otherwise it seems to me that your version is just an MOS:ALLEGED-style expression of doubt that isn't reflected in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify how this thread originated, so that no one suspects that recruiting/canvassing occurred. During discussions on Talk:White privilege, User:SprayCanToothpick twice mentioned that the article on male privilege defined it as a concept in sociology rather than as a phenomenon and argued that the two concepts white privilege and male privilege should be treated the same way. I agreed, and expressed the opinion that the latter article should be changed so that both are defined as phenomena, not theories. That's why I, and probably other editors, came over here from the white privilege talk page. I didn't recruit or canvass anybody. NightHeron (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just been reading this up to now, but as NightHeron mentions above, I am also here because of mentions in White Privilege, which I came to due to reading an Rfc. I believe an Rfc may be helpful here in achieving WP:CON. // Timothy :: talk 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"Male privilege" is directly related to "white privilege", so following a link from the other talk page is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. My concern about this being a "proxy battle" is that we should, as always, evaluate each article by its own sources, and each discussion on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Another text that points in opposite direction https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=mjlr just to quote one. If we call the Darwin's Evolution Theory as a theory despite almost all the sources and researches support it, there's a reason. Male Privilege is a concept or, at best, a theory, that have never been unindisputably proved, the highest status we can, in good faith and to the best of our knowledge, assign is the status of a theory. 79.44.146.69 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This has already been extensively debated and decided by consensus (see immediately below). NightHeron (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Declaring a consensus is beyond disingenuous. The so-called reliable sources are comprised of pseudoscientific drivel born out of the incestuous echo chamber that is modern academia. Foundational "research" such as Peggy McIntosh's are pure opinion-based conjecture with zero evidence or scientific methodology to support her premises. You might as well present the existence of God as an undisputed fact because there's consensus among evangelical Christians to that effect. That is the level of editorial standards on display on this and other articles such as white privilege, critical race theory and intersectionality where conjecture and opinion are presented as science by liberal Wikipedia editors who are using this site to advance their preferred worldview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.129.129 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss your concerns with the sourcing all you like, but please comment on content, not contributors. Personal attacks about liberal Wikipedia editors who are using this site to advance their preferred worldview are not helpful. Also, FYI, you are commenting on a conversation that is six months old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely necessary to highlight this issue everywhere we see liberal editors controlling the narrative on Wikipedia to advance their worldview. Pretending there is consensus by polling a set of liberal Wikipedia editors is dishonest. Removing posts that point this out is exactly the type of behavior I called out in my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.129.129 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing talk page messages that attack other editors and make unfounded accusations about their behavior is perfectly standard per WP:TPNO. You are more than welcome to suggest specific changes you think ought to be made to this article accompanied with reliable sources to support them. But attacking and assuming bad faith of the editors here is not acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The removal of words like "theory" heavily implies an ideological agenda on this page. We do not remove the word theory from other sociological concepts, so why this? Saying it has "existed long before sociology" is a non-argument. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC) — TiggyTheTerrible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This has been discussed at length, and the consensus of editors has been that male privilege is a phenomenon and not merely a "theory". There has been no new consensus to change that. Your edits have become increasingly disruptive. Please read WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, and WP:EW. NightHeron (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I'm disrupting here is the ideological bias - but I'm happy to cite papers calling it a theory if you want. In any case, if it is not a theory we need to remove all the feminist theory in the article and put it somewhere else. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a citation calling Male Privilege a theory and I can get more.^[1] Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I said it's not merely a "theory". Something can be both a theory and a fact. Like evolution. NightHeron (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To be a fact, it would need to have proof. And there's a huge amount of evidence against it. BTW, since nobody has objected to me adding a criticism section to the article I feel it's a good time for me to go right ahead and add one.Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You really ought to read the relevant Wikipedia policies, such as WP:BRD. You're free to make whatever edit you want, but if it's inconsistent with consensus it will be quickly reverted, and you'll have to discuss it on the talk page. If you fail to achieve a consensus for it, it stays out. It's clear from earlier comments of various editors that there's no consensus for adding a criticism section. Similarly, there would be no consensus for adding a criticism section to the article on the "theory" of evolution.

In matters of social science, a fact does not have a mathematical proof but rather is established through the preponderance of coverage in reliable sources (which is not to say that there can't be sources, usually of dubious reliability, that dispute the fact). NightHeron (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

So you agree this is a theory based in social science rather than an objective fact of reality? I've yet to see any strong evidence of Male Privilege, and the examples on display here seem extremely weak. For example, the idea men have easy access to shelter seems to be contradicted by men being the majority of the homeless. Do you have anything to say in response to that? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you're having difficulty understanding anything I'm saying. So instead of our getting into a debate on this, why don't you follow the suggestion that Generalrelative made to you on my talk page, start a new section at the bottom of this talk page, and simply propose the exact text you'd like to add, starting with a small amount, like one or two sentences. Indicate where you think it should go in the article and give your sources. Then other editors can agree, disagree, or suggest modifications. NightHeron (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Let's do that. NightHeron Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1628&context=theses. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)