Talk:Male privilege#Neutrality 2017

40px This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Calgirl22. Peer reviewers: Sanilamath.

{{small|Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}

There is an issue regarding the difference between objective and subjective discourse on this page- this article describes male privilege as if to be an objectively true and scientifically certain reality. Instead, more appropriate would be to present the conceptualization of male privilege as a theoretical postulation, or, vis-a-vis, one possible idea/theory.

The first sentence of the article reads:

″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″

This implies that the described system should be inherently assumed as absolutely factual, rather than a postulation or interpretation. As reasonable postulations to the contrary exist, it would be more objectively accurate to refine this opening sentence along the lines of "According to the theory of male privilege,..[etc]".

Regarding matters of fluid and abstract notions such sociological topics, such as gender privilege, a more objective disposition better serves the discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4504:8BF0:F952:4C2F:FCDF:842C (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research. Generalrelative (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

::This article doesn't seem to include all majority and minority views though, as defined by wiki's definition. I'm not seeing what you are trying to address here. You said wikipedia is not based on 'original research', which wikipedia defines as " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". What is that addressing in the reply subsequent to your most recent reply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4504:8BF0:F952:4C2F:FCDF:842C (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

::: To add onto that, I've tried to post studies and suchlike on here that counter the claims of the page - only to have them removed. I've noticed other wiki pages seem more relaxed about studies that, for example, explain how disadvantaged young working-class men & boys are. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::::Please refer to this RfC to see how the current consensus was derived. The consensus is that male privilege is a phenomenon, not a matter of opinion. We hold RfCs for precisely this reason, so that we don't need to relitigate fundamental issues every time an IP or SPA appears with a different view. Generalrelative (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::::: I respect your vote, but the logic used is pretty tortured from what I'm seeing. Essentially: "men have some fairly debatable gendered advantages, therefore this incredibly one-sided sociological theory is a phenomena." I mean, if you want to talk about men having privileges [https://nypost.com/2021/12/07/congress-drops-provision-for-women-to-register-for-the-draft/ you can't ignore privileges conveyed to women] and pretend they don't exist. Could we not even note that this is the opposite side of the coin to Gynocentrism? Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

::::::You are free to disagree in private as much as you like. But you are not entitled to unlimited patience from the community here, nor to a WP:SOAPBOX on Wikipedia for continually airing your grievances. Generalrelative (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. However I would be interested in what dissenting authors have to write regarding the topic of Male Privilege.Leavit2stever (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Simply placing a vote on whether or not your opinions are factual isn't remotely a gauge of objectivity. If this is a standard followed by wikipedia, the intellectual integrity of the entire website is called into question.

:If you have a problem with Wikipedia:Consensus as a core policy, this is certainly not the place to complain about it. Generalrelative (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

==New Article==

Female Privilege Feel free to add content as per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Male_privilege/Archive_2] BlackAmerican (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This page clearly needs to be revised. This is supposed to be a neutral stance and it clearly is not and purports a local of crap. 98.177.111.254 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I ask {{u|Panamitsu}} to discuss [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&diff=1193701221&oldid=1193694606 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)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Southern_Methodist_University/Feminist_Philosophy_(Spring_2025) | assignments = Raafae1234 | start_date = 2025-01-21 | end_date = 2025-05-02 }}

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

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&diff=1286966773&oldid=1269574310 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 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=+%22White+Privilege+and+Male+Privilege%3A+A+Personal+Account+of+Coming+to+See+Correspondences+Through+Work+in+Women%27s+Studies%22 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 {{tq|"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 {{tq| 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 {{tq| 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)