Talk:Male privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Geographic scope[edit]

Formerly Americanocentric

The section contexts cites as examples of "predominantly male" government, the Presidents of the United States, the United States Senate, and the United States Congress. This focuses exclusively on the United States and does not offer a global perspective. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some sources that address this. Article needs lots of work to be honest - sourcing is poor and there's some OR in there. Could be so much better. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality 2017[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Male privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

MRA claims[edit]

The suspicious amount of citation clutter in the lead regarding the claims of certain men's rights activists, and the existence of a whole section on the question of the § Existence of male privilege, raises certain red flags concerning undue weight. Isn't this more or less like discussing flat Earth theories in an article about geology? Any suggestions for sources that place the actual standing of the MRAs' arguments among actual scholars and researchers in context would be appreciated. Ideal sources would be secondary or tertiary ones that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, per WP:BALANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's arguable that the existence section is due, however I'm not aware of any particular debate in academia about it. It's either ignored or accepted as true in everything I've read. The bit about MRA's believing that men are victimized by women in the lede, while true, is obviously undue. There is no serious discussion about men being victimized by women in Western Culture. It is a WP:FRINGE view by every definition and does not belong. I'm removing it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that giving denial of the existence of male privilege its own section draws undue attention to that viewpoint, whatever the contents of the section may be. It's like devoting a section of the page about the Apollo program to Moon landing hoax theories (they currently receive a terse two sentences within "Cultural impact"). Therefore, I've moved the reliably-sourced material about men's rights advocates into § Global perspective and streamlined the prose and references. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The material has been reorganized under § Cultural responses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf your change to the article originally, cutting half of the material in the 'criticism' section and burying the rest in the 'cultural responses section in a different random paragraph is not an improvement. The lede is obviously worse the way it is now with no information. The controversy about the appropriateness of the term 'male privilege' is, outside of academic spheres, the most notable part of this topic. But our article has been butchered so many times that it now doesn't even mention this in the lede at all any more, and the only mention is buried in a random paragraph that isn't really related to direct criticism of the topic at all. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously I don't agree that the appropriateness of the term is the most notable issue. But in any event, we judge that based on what reliable sources say, in keeping with due weight. What are some reliable, secondary or tertiary sources that put the criticism into its proper societal context? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you want, see [10] and [11] for a start. There are also the sources that you removed [12][1][2][3][4][5][6][7] There is literally no end to the number of opinion pieces published by reliable sources about the inappropriateness of male privilege (i.e. this piece in Time magazine, this piece by Mark Latham in the daily telgraph, this piece in the Sidney Morning Herald, and this infamous piece by Janet Bloomfield which has been widely discussed on the internet and in MRA circles). While these opinion pieces can't be used in the article, (except possibly the one by Mark Latham with attribution) I bring them up here to demonstrate the prevalence of the controversy and why we should cover it in the article. Obviously the article shouldn't be shifted away from the central view of where it is, most sources definitely agree that male privilege is a thing, however, the idea that we shouldn't have a 'Criticism' section in an article that clearly attracts a lot of controversy doesn't have much merit, especially when there is a whole movement which almost by definition refutes the central argument of 'male privilege'. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 19:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Having checked as many of those sources as I'm able, I can say with some certainty that I'm not seeing where the existence male privilege is debated in academia in them. I do see a rejection of the concept in certain areas of popular culture, and that is reflected in part by your sources. But that would belong in a "cultural response" section. Privilege is, predominantly a scholarly term that has been adopted and widely cited by social activists. But when social activists use it, they still use it in its academic sense. So it seems fairly clear to me that the academic meaning of the term should be the primary focus of this article.
However, like I said above, it seems due to cover the pop-culture controversy over whether it exists, in much the same way as it's due to cover whether John Podesta is part of a satanic child molesting organization. In short, we should be clear that the experts are all on one side of said controversy, and that it only really exists in the minds of a minority who deny and those who respond to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm not arguing for a change in the focus of the article, far from it. I am merely arguing against what has been the wholesale removal of all criticism of the concept (primarily by men's rights activists) from the lede that has been performed as well as a (slight) expansion of criticism of the concept. The views of the men's movement seem pretty relevant to 'male privilege', I think we should include the views of some notable people on that side of the fence that have spoken out against 'male privilege', in order to improve the NPOV of the article (off the top of my head, Christina Hoff Summers [13] and Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power) would probably do). — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, specifically that the views of Summers and Farrell should be explicated in the article. I don't think that any specific criticisms belong in the lede, however. AFAIK all of the existential criticisms out there (including those of Summers and Farrell) are not taken seriously in academia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The lede should be a representation of the coverage in the article, and shouldn't only represent the views in academia. This view has resulted in the incredibly limited two line lede that we have currently and is an NPOV concern. There are a lot of other things from the article that should also be brought up in the lede that are not (i.e. son preference, gender language neutrality). — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The lede should be a representation of the coverage in the article I agree, but without a massive expansion of the lede (which is not entirely indefensible), the pop culture critiques would represent the sort of detail that the lede should well gloss over. Remember WP:GEVAL; such existential criticisms are fringe, and should be treated as such. Expands the lede to 3 paragraphs or so however, and there'd probably be room to mention that they exist, though we wouldn't want to do any quoting, naming or describing; something like "Men's rights activists and a handful of feminist authors have disputed the existence of male privilege." Then we can get into their claims in the article body. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That is pretty much what I was proposing, an expansion of the lede to cover the various sections in the article, expansion of critique of the topic in the body to include views of a few notable opponents, and finally a sentence or two in the lede that represents the critique of the topic. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 02:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's debatable whether Christina Hoff Sommers represents "feminism" for the purposes of attributing her critique of the concept of male privilege. We should also beware of WP:SYNTH there. But on the topic of the pop-culture criticism, I think most of that material probably belongs in a different article – either Men's rights movement or the pages on the specific authors. Regarding the satanic child-molestation claims, they have their own article, and it would be undue to discuss said allegations in depth in the article on John Podesta. We have a similar situation here with men's-rights advocates and male privilege, I believe. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's debatable at all that Sommers represents a branch of feminism (sort of a "2nd wave was the last good one and 3rd wave is some bullshit" branch). She's widely cited, generally well-respected and given (a lot of) serious criticism by real scholars. However, I don't think we'd have much trouble finding such a source. She's usually described as a feminist author, she self-describes as a feminist, and her critiques of feminism are the main reason she gets any third party coverage. I suggested the wording based on what I expect sources will say, and it was presented as an example of how we could do it, not as a concrete proposal. If we can't find sources saying that Sommers is a feminist who says male privilege doesn't exist, then I'm obviously not suggesting we say that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Normally you and I agree on most things Hammerpants, but I would strongly disagree with you here. Sommers is described as an anti-feminist at least as often as she's described as feminist. Her own self-description is equity feminist, but notice that that link redirects used to redirect (guess someone changed this) back to her, since she basically invented the term, hardly anyone else uses it, and very few other feminists actually recognize it as "real" feminism. I'd disagree with "generally well respected" for the most part too - she gets attention, but largely for saying outrageous things. Basically, she's an iconoclast. There's a reason the American Enterprise Institute pays her bills and that she hasn't had an academic job in forever: she's decidedly outside the mainstream. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: she's almost certainly a notable critic of the concept of Male Privilege and I have no issue including her view if it's attributed and contextualized as an essentially anti-feminist critique. Would strongly oppose presenting her as a "feminist" or even as a "academic" perspective though. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Your willingness to oppose describing Sommers as a feminist is understandable. But opposing describing her as an academic is completely baseless; She's a former professor of philosophy,debates other academics and currently works for a think tank. Her career could be a archetype for academics.
See here for an RS describing and defining equity feminism. And yes, I've seen her described as an anti-feminist. But see here where her claim to being a feminist is featured as her introduction with no commentary, or here where she's explicitly considered a feminist for some pop-culture references, or here for a more scholarly reference to Sommers as a feminist. Compare that to this google search result, where the vast majority (I'm assuming not all, but all of the first few pages) of sources claiming that Sommers is not a feminist are pop-culture opinion pieces and blog posts from relatively unknown authors.
The problem with fields like this is that there is so much room for subjectivity; in the right context, I would agree without reservation that Sommers is an anti-feminist. (Hell, in some ways I'm an anti-feminist, but if you asked me to describe my views to you, you'd almost certainly conclude that I was a feminist.) But in a different context, I would refute the assertion wholeheartedly. What does it mean to be a feminist? Are 1st wave feminists still feminists (since 2nd wave feminists have their feminism subject to debate)? What about those who won't call themselves feminists, but still assert a gender inequality? What about those who assert their feminism, but don't believe there's any appreciable gender inequality left? This sort of armchair social science -in which I include almost all pop-culture discussion of feminism- is just too subjective to have meaningful debates about categorization. So if we find a source that says Sommers critizes male privilege as a feminist, we shouldn't debate whether the source is accurate, but instead just attribute it. I'd be fine with "according to feminism/academic/journalism author Jane Doe, even some feminists such as Sommers dispute the existence blah blah blah"
I don't think it's productive to let discussions on feminism spill onto this page. Although it can be useful in some areas (politics, for example) to account for things like source bias and our own knowledge (not beliefs!) when evaluating sources and information, I don't think that practice would work well in feminism-related articles such as this one.
I do agree with CleverPhrase that the lead could stand to be expanded. This is a complex subject, and the part of the article that gets read the most portrays it pretty much the same way MRM's claim feminists portray it; as a simple, pervasive and inescapable fact that would be obvious to anyone who just thought about it. But that's not at all what it is (well, it is pervasive and a fact, but it's not simple and it's certainly not obvious). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Well this part the vast majority... of sources claiming that Sommers is not a feminist are pop-culture opinion pieces and blog posts from relatively unknown authors. is very easily rebutted. But I agree this is something of a tangent that is probably not productive to get too far off on here. The sources in that link alone should be enough to convince anyone that there's a weight/npov issue involved in using Sommers here though - I'm not opposed to including her views about male privilege we just have to be very careful about how we word it to avoid giving undue weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not refutation, as I gave you the evidence, which clearly speaks for itself. Evidence is irrefutable. It's contradiction, where you provide counter evidence (which, of course, I'm not contesting). The problem with it is that my statement was not that Sommers doesn't write anti-feminism, or isn't ever considered an anti-feminist. Indeed, I admitted that she's often referred to as such several comments back. So it doesn't really refute the "Sommers is often called a feminist and rarely if every positively argued not to be a feminist by RSes," which was my position. See my comments above about the comparison of this subject to politics: In politics, I would be fine dismissing an otherwise reliable source that advances a fringe view for a claim of fact. But in a social science (a particularly subjective one, at that) with as much mainstream, non-scholarly discussion as feminism, I'm unwilling to dismiss a minority view out of hand.
My concern here is that your argument seems to suggest that you would oppose the use of any source which describes Sommers or her work as feminist, or as a part of feminism. I think, to quote a certain someone in the thread you linked to that " A reliable source is a reliable source..." On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine with using a source that doesn't consider Sommers to be a feminist, or even a source that labels her an anti-feminist. It all depends on what the sources say. Again, I remind you that the "proposal" I offered was based off what I expect the sources to say, not a concrete "Aye or Nay" proposal for which we should find sources to support, verbatim.
My argument is not that "Sommers is a feminist. End of," but rather "I expect if we search for sources claiming that the existence of male privilege is not universally accepted within feminism that Sommers will be cited as a feminist who doubts it and that such might merit a mention in the lede, provided it is properly expanded upon in the body." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems like this is all pretty abstract until someone coughs up a source that actually says that and proposes some text anyway - I drafted a more in-depth reply here but it's probably just better to wait until we have something more concrete to talk about before prolonging the "how do we characterize Sommers" discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Kimmel, M. S. (1987). "Men's Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century". Gender & Society. 1 (3): 261–283. doi:10.1177/089124387001003003. 
  2. ^ Clatterbaugh, K. (2007). "Men's rights". In Flood, M. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. p. 430–433. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6. 
  3. ^ Messner, M. A. (1998). "The Limits of the "Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse". Gender & Society. 12 (3): 255–276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002. 
  4. ^ Dunphy, R. (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5. 
  5. ^ Flood, M. (2007). "Men's movement" (PDF). International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. pp. 418–422. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6. 
  6. ^ Clatterbaugh, K. (2007). "Anti-feminism". In Flood, M. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6. 
  7. ^ Coston, Bethany M.; Kimmel, Michael (2012). "Seeing Privilege Where It Isn't: Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege". Journal of Social Issues. 68 (1): 97–111. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x. 

Homeless men are privileged?[edit]

The article makes the ridiculous claim that all men are privileged. In what way do homeless men who have to sleep rough and live in severe poverty benefit from 'male privilege'? The large majority of homeless rough sleepers are male - housing policy discriminates against men. There are many other aspects of life in which males are disadvantaged, including having much shorter lives, being much less likely to survive cancer and much more likely to be murdered. Jim Michael (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are definitely some areas where women have systemic or statistic advantages. That's not the same as privileges when used in an academic setting. As the article makes clear, male privilege doesn't mean that "men always have it easy". That's never been what this term has been about when used by academics, and this article favors academic usage (for several reasons). Male privilege is a set of socially bestowed advantages that would not generally be available to women, or not as readily. Male rough sleepers still have some advantages compared to female rough sleepers, and effeminate rough sleepers have privilege compared to macho rough sleepers.
Finding specific examples, such as homelessness, of places where men have disadvantages doesn't alter this issue, and without reliable sources, is original research. That said, what about female and trans rough sleepers? There are fewer of them, but also, it seem like there are problems they face in much higher numbers than men. Sexual assault is one. This should never be used to trivialize or diminish those problems men face, including sexual assault. I cannot stress that enough, but we have to be able to use proper terminology when discussing these disparities. That is what the term "male privilege" is for. Addressing these concerns by looking at the full picture, not for dismissing them. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Male rough sleepers don't have any advantages or privilege. Being male doesn't work in their favour at all - quite the opposite - it works against them and often has contributed to causing them to become homeless and prevents them from being housed. They're more disadvantaged than the much smaller number of female rough sleepers, who are much more likely to be housed when homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. I don't know what the stats are for trans people, but I would think they would be more likely to become homeless, because many are disowned by their families and many employers are reluctant to employ trans people. The disadvantages suffered by trans people is a separate issue from men supposedly always being treated favourably over women. Many men never benefit from any type of privilege - and many of them suffer the opposite. Jim Michael (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been aware of that for years. I'm saying that the article should be changed to state that not all men benefit from privilege. I tried to do so, but was reverted. Jim Michael (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You have pretty much ignored what I said, though. You're not realistically discussing how to improve the article, and your not answering my concerns. I really, really tried to emphasize that privilege is not about men "always being treated favourably". It's not about men always having the advantage in every situation. If there's an article about men always being treated favourably, that's a problem that should be addressed somewhere else. This article is about privilege, which is something else. If you have reliable sources about privilege and homelessness, I would very much like to see them. Otherwise this isn't a productive use of anyone's time. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No where does the article suggest that all make the best use of their male privilege. They have it, for what ever reason they don't use it. Carptrash (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Privilege (social inequality) defines privilege as special rights or advantages. This article claims that all men benefit from it - but the truth is that there are many men who never do. The article should be changed to state that some men never have the opportunity to benefit from male privilege. They don't merely not use it or make the best use of it - they never have any advantage or rights by being male. Jim Michael (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Privilege doesn't mean having an advantage in every situation. Not every advantage any specific man has is male privilege, just as not every disadvantage a man has is female privilege. There is beauty privilege, and health privilege, and young privilege, and tall privilege, and white privilege, and so on, and some people have all of those things and still have incredibly shitty lives. That's important. Some people have privilege and still have very serious problems, and that's not something that should ever be held against them. This isn't a card game, and nobody is saying that male privilege always trumps homelessness or anything.
Think about it this way: Women benefit from advantages in some situations, such as emergency housing. Likewise, men benefit from male privilege some of the time. Sometimes, men have problems that are worse because of their gender, but this isn't about that. We have articles about discrepancies in cancer, suicide, longevity, etc. This article isn't about every single aspect of being a man. You do not get to define what is and is not male privilege, and then come back and say it doesn't exist because some males don't have it. If men don't have some, specific privileges, then it's not part of male privilege. Do you understand what I'm saying? For the third time, this is not saying that "all men have the upper hand in every situation". That would be stupid and wrong. This article is about the set of advantages that men can access by virtue of being identified as men. These are not a "get out of jail free" card. These advantages exist even if some men have a much harder time accessing them than others, but they still exist. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that it falsely claims that all men have male privilege to some degree. Some men never have the opportunity to have male privilege - they don't merely have a harder time accessing it. Do you accept the fact that some men never benefit in any way from being male? Jim Michael (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For starters, a homeless man is unlikely to be sexually harassed, or discriminated against purely because of his sex – that's one "positive advantage" virtually all men have. But that's irrelevant to the article – any changes to the text must reflect reliable sources. Analyses or interpretations by individual editors do not qualify. Please provide a reliable source that backs up these claims, and specifically relates them to the concept of male privilege. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

They're likely to be harassed and discriminated against because they're homeless, poor etc. - regardless of their gender, so that's not a gender issue. They have no rights or advantage over women - and hence no privilege. In fact, homeless women are treated less harshly than homeless men, because homeless women are generally viewed as victims of domestic violence, whereas homeless men are generally viewed as lazy drunks. If privilege is about accessing services, then there are far more available to homeless women than homeless men. If privilege is about there being fewer obstacles, men have far more obstacles. Men are far more likely unemployed, to be victims of violence and to be stopped and searched by police / security guards. Men are much less likely to go to university, much more likely to have heart attacks and many times more likely to be sent to prison. Most women receive free drinks, restaurant dinners, flowers, chocolates, holidays and jewellery from men. Very few men are given those things by women. Most men have to spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to get sex - whereas women can get it for free with extreme ease whenever they want it. Men (homeless or not) suffer a range of discrimination, obstacles and disadvantages and costs that women don't. To say that all men are privileged is preposterous. Here's a ref: I hate to break it to feminists, but 'white male privilege' is a myth Jim Michael (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is definitely in WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTFORUM territory. And a blog post in a political-opinion magazine is hardly equal to the reliable, academic sources that we cite. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOURCETYPES. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could find three sources about this topic the spectator (blog), Huffington post (blog) and the telegraph. Of these, the first (also mentioned by Jim above) and the second are opinion pieces and would need attribution to the author (if determined to have due weight for inclusion). The third is not a blog, and is about the gendered issue of homelessness, but does not make use of the term "privilege". I recommend the Huffpost source as a good read for Jim Michael in order to understand the difference between the definition of "privileged" and being 'advantaged', at least in the academic sense of the word (which I totally agree is really dumb and very different from the colloquial definition of "privileged"). The difference between the academic use of "privilege" and its colloquial use is the reason why 'male privilege' often seems nonsensical, and why people often misunderstand it (in both directions, as a white male I certainly have some of the privileges outlined in the huffpost source, but socioeconomic class is much more important). Also, proponents of male privilege tend to totally and completely ignore 'female privilege' (which wikipedia does not even have an article on because the sources don't bother discussing it...) and these same people don't relise that this ends up being a cherry picking exercise. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 10:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The source I gave is a professional blog. The lack of sources is due to very few journalists or academics being willing to challenge the established, fashionable myth of male privilege.
The Huffpost article is predominantly about 'white privilege', not 'male privilege', and the author admits that as a woman she is privileged in that a substantial part of her rising above her poor roots was by marrying up. She points out that some things which are supposedly white privilege - such as living in a good area and having nice neighbours - are class privilege rather than race.
The Telegraph article points out that the large majority of homeless rough sleepers are men, but that's not often mentioned and most of them don't receive the help they need. One of the reasons for that is that society doesn't care about disadvantaged men.
Another disadvantage of being male is that the media rarely publicise it when a man goes missing - unless he's a fugitive or a celebrity. A missing person usually has to be young, female and of above-average looks for the media and public to care about them. That's a combination of female privilege, youth privilege and looks privilege.
Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The source you gave is not an expert blog. It is a blog by a professional editor and columnist. Editors and columnists are not even remotely experts in gender issues. For that, you need sociologists and psychologists.
Furthermore, you've already shot yourself in the foot by making a sweeping (and politically charged) change to the article, then arguing for it here without any sources first, then by producing a single low-quality source, then by making demonstrably false statements about that source. Even if you were absolutely right (which -no offense- you're not even close to) you've approached this in possibly the worst method from a practical standpoint.
If that weren't enough, you have left several poignant criticisms of your claims unanswered. For example, you have ignored the disparity pointed out by Greyfell between homeless women and homeless men, instead comparing women as a whole to homeless men. Your argument is also incomplete; You have ignored the scholarly definition of "privelege" in favor of your own definition without addressing the applicability of the scholarly definition. You have not posited a causal relationship between your premise and your conclusion. You have, indeed, not posited a premise at all, merely a conclusion. You have not presented any evidence, instead relying entirely upon rhetoric. You have not done anything to address the scholarly consensus and show why it is wrong.
As a Wikipedian, presumably you have some appreciation for rationality and logic. Consider how you would react if someone showed up on a talk page on your watchlist making a claim that went against the expert consensus, had no evidence, made incomplete arguments for it, ignored any problems you pointed out with it, and misrepresented the credentials of others who agreed with his conclusion to add weight to their opinion. Would you accept that, or would you see that as a disruption? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention that Wikipedia is not the place to push claims that "very few journalists or academics [are] willing to challenge the established, fashionable myth". That's because Wikipedia is a summary of what established sources have to say. I think we can safely treat this like any other fringe claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: I don't see what "cherry-picking" has to do with anything. If sources "don't bother discussing" a topic, then obviously it has no place in an encyclopedia based on said sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf, I wasn't as clear as I could have been, and this seems to have created a misunderstanding. I was commenting on the lack of academic discourse on "female privilege" as the reason we don't have an article on the topic. There are several areas that women clearly have an advantage over men, even in the law ([14] [15]), and Jim was bringing up another (prevalence of homelessness) but these are not widely discussed in reliable sources, therefore we do not have an article on the concept of "Female privilege". Pointing out that many of the arguments of 'male privilege' proponents are the result of cherry picking will continue to be an accurate (if difficult to pin to a reliable source) statement so long as academic feminist sources continue to ignore areas where women clearly have advantages under the law; even if male privileges are greater, ignoring female ones creates a false dichotomy. Admittedly, this discussion strays into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but I felt it important to explain to Jim why the situation seems so weird from a lay-person's perspective. Wikipedia obviously isn't the place to right great wrongs but it still helps to explain to newbies why sometimes we have to follow the sources, even if it doesn't make sense to us personally. I probably could have been clearer with my language, sorry about that. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 02:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, Janet Bloomfield and r/mensrights? Both of those links are straight-up WP:FRINGE. And it's incorrect that academic feminists "ignore areas where women clearly have advantages under the law" - there is actually a ton of research on this. What you're looking for there is ambivalent sexism, also sometimes referred to as "benevolent sexism." Unfortunately our article on that topic is pretty terrible, but there's lots of scholarship out there that could be used to enrich it. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Those sources were just convenient lists by MRAs, I know that they are fringe, that's why I said that there are not any reliable sources that discuss it. I was not proposing that they be used in the article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 03:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


Do the three paragraphs summarizing Pierre Orelus's recollections really belong in such a general article? He does not appear to be a well-known scholar, nor do we have secondary-source analysis of his views. This looks like undue weight. I suggest moving have moved the source[1] to "Further reading". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 23:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC))


  1. ^ Orelus, Pierre W. (2010). "CHAPTER 1: Unmasking Male, Heterosexual, and Racial Privileges: From Naïve Complicity to Critical Awareness and Praxis". Counterpoints. 351: 17–62. JSTOR 42980551.