Talk:Female privilege

Untitled
Creating talk page. Kyleshome (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
This article is bad and should be deleted 75.83.64.24 (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? 64.42.240.5 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these are symptoms of perceiving women as weaker than men. Jonw39 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Feminists use this term too, with a similar explanation to yours. So if there are valid sources, just add this information to the article. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because you disagree with them. --81.82.245.66 (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this article only exists to push reddit's MRA agenda. There's absolutely nothing encyclopedic about it. 141.218.222.223 (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You too, fix the article if it's wrong. --81.82.245.66 (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please focus discussion of deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Female_privilege — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.101.104 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the WP:AGF policy. Kyleshome (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is not bad, its a fact and it can be improved and it should but every time something new is added, some feminists delete it

Inclusion of feminist views on female privilege
It should be mentioned on this page that some feminists dispute the existence of female privilege, and that some feminists believe female privileges are actually symptoms of misogyny. 71.192.254.224 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which feminists? Kire1975 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Source
The following source should be gold for those trying to improve this article. I added it to the intro section just to get it into the article, but I have no idea if I did it right, and the actual quote should be used somewhere. "Having denied that men are privileged relative to women, this movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation. Whereas the women's movement has created new options for women, men have not been given the same range of choices.  Thus, a new sexism has been born, a sexism that thrives on male bashing and male blaming.  The agenda of the men's rights perspective is to bring about an understanding of the new sexism and to create laws that protect men against current injustices in such areas as divorce, child custody, affirmative action, domestic violence prosecution, and sexual harassment." http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/en125/grif/en125105.pdf It's at the bottom of page 11. 131.151.68.66 (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * that is the use of "female" and "privilege" together, but it does not seem to actually directly address a concept of a "female privilge" any more than it would a concept of "male degradation". -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been thoroughly argued at the article for deletion page, with no consensus reached. Those who believe that this page should stay agree with me about the source, and those who want it deleted agree with you (and, I might add, their significant edits to this article have only been the removal of content).  131.151.161.156 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also added a new section on child custody. It is not WP:SYNTH by the above source.  131.151.161.156 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is. We cannot, as Wikipedia editors, advance novel arguments.  The author made a brief mention of child custody within a couple sentences of where she made a brief mention of female privilege.  She did not suggest that the fact mothers are granted sole custody more often than fathers are in the united states is a manifestation of female privilege. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your new source appears to be even less good than the one above. Wikipedia articles do not work like papers written for school where you are encouraged to make a thesis and then find examples to examples to support your thesis. At Wikipedia, however, that process expressly forbidden in no original research. The new article doesnt mention the topic of the article (the sociological concept of "female privilege") at all and so its only connection is "I know women getting treated better than men when I see it and here is an example.." I am going to remove it. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about both of you, Kevin (kgorman-ucb) and TheRedPenOfDoom, instead of removing material...take the sources presented here and on the AfD discussion and wikify the article (including the dissent about its existence, assuming you have such sources). As I have stated elsewhere I would do this but IRL matters preclude me from really having the concentration and/or time to do the overhaul this article needs, you two however seem to have plenty of time and at least one of you experience with articles about sociological terms/concepts in this area. There is probably some policy I am unfamiliar with relating to such things even, heh. Subverted (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the AfD page, I HAVE looked and I have found nothing usable. The one promising looking article is behind a paywall, and sorry, I am not going to pop my personal cash to see whether or not it actually contains something for a viable article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed no material from this article. I mean I guess technically I have, I reverted silly vandalism at one point - but I've removed no material that wasn't clearly vandalism.  That said, I don't think the sources that have been provided are sufficient to create a standalone article, and I have no great interest in working on an article I think should be deleted that is currently at AfD anyway. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be unable to edit the references part due to a reason I am unable to determine, but if anyone could to add this in: this is the direct link to the David Mustard Study that is cited (but not linked).

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf

From the abstract.

"...after controlling for extensive criminological, demographic, and socioeconomic variables, I found that blacks, males, and offenders with low levels of education and income receive substantially longer sentences. Second, disparities are primarily generated by departures from the guidelines, rather than differential sentencing within the guidelines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celdaz (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)