Talk:Male privilege

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 [their] 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

[1] 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

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.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia’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/wiki/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/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

"Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is very clear about WP:YESPOV and WP:In-text attribution. You also need to realize that, per WP:Neutral, being neutral on Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia: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

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)

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 [2] as part of its Human Development Report, and the World Economic Forum issues a Global Gender Gap Report [3]. 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.

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)