Talk:Male privilege/Archive 4

MRA claims
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 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 and streamlined the prose and references. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The material has been reorganized under . —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 and  for a start. There are also the sources that you removed        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 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)

Orelus
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 have moved the source to "Further reading". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 23:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC))

Neutrality (November 2017)
The wording in this article implies that the existence of male privilege is an undisputed fact, which is certainly not the case. For one, there are several threads discussing the neutrality of the topic in the talk page as of this writing, in addition to countless debates in the mainstream. Also, even if there are numerous academic sources supporting the idea of male privilege, the fact is that this idea originates from "intersectionality"-- a specific topic within sociology which assumes that different races, genders, sexualities, etc. with the exception of white males suffer structured levels of oppression. At the very least, the article should mention the source of these ideas instead of simply passing them off as a given fact that is disputed by no one other than a fringe group of anti-intellectual men's rights activists. The NPOV tag is certainly justified. PurpleDiana (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What specific improvements would you propose within the bounds of NPOV? "Threads on this talk page" and unnamed "countless debates in the mainstream" are not sufficient to show the existence of neglected views from published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Go see how the intelligent design article is worded. Note how the topic is presented as an idea held by those with particular ideological views who do not present scientific evidence to support their claims. The topic of male privilege is just that-- an idea within a highly controversial branch of sociology with little to no empirical or measurable evidence to support it. The NPOV tag should stay until one of the following is met:
 * 1) The article is modified to present the topic as a disputed idea held within a particular branch of sociology, and not treat the topic like evolution or gravity for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support these ideas.
 * 2) If sources demonstrating the reality of male privilege do exist, these sources should be referenced in the article and the article should be modified to not be overly reliant on feminist writers and professors as it currently is.
 * Even if there exist numerous references to academic sources talking or writing about male privilege, the topic should not be presented as an undisputed fact without multiple references to sources presenting rigorous evidence in support of this claim. Until this is satisfied, there is a clear neutrality/bias issue in the article which should be identified. PurpleDiana (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have provided no sources to back up this view. Academic sources such as the ones cited in the article are in fact generally the most reliable – see WP:SOURCETYPES. Male privilege being an idea within a highly controversial branch of sociology with little to no empirical or measurable evidence to support it appears to be your own personal analysis. To demonstrate a breach of NPOV, you must present reliable sources that disagree with these so-called feminist writers and professors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid rationale. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The opinions of feminist writers and professors are being presented as fact in this article, a clear violation of WP:YESPOV. Unless sources can be referenced showing male privilege to be a fact and not just a topic discussed by people with similar social and political views, it should be treated as an opinion. The onus is on people to provide sources showing male privilege to be a fact, not on me to provide sources proving the contrary. PurpleDiana (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't suggested any specific action to correct the perceived neutrality breach. Instead, you are essentially saying that it's up to others to prove that the POV tag doesn't belong on the article. That's not going to resolve any problems. Cleanup tags are an aid to fixing specific problems, not a badge of shame. You're welcome to question specific statements and sources here or at WP:RS/N. Until then, there isn't enough here to justify the POV tag. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have suggested that one of the following be done: 1) The article is modified to not present opinion as fact in its wording. 2) References are made to sources quoting scientific findings on the existence of male privilege, or at the very least extend beyond the opinionated analyses of the feminist writers and activists referenced in the article. PurpleDiana (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Opinion" is a red herring here, I think. Virtually every important scientific topic, from the germ theory of disease to natural selection, could be described as "opinion". The opinion of a majority of scholars, based on the best available evidence, generally doesn't require attribution. The article cites several scholarly sources. You are the one saying there is a neutrality problem, so it is up to you to provide evidence for that position, by providing other reliable sources that disagree with the existing ones. It is not anyone else's job to prove that the article is neutral to your satisfaction, or to find the sources that you yourself refuse to supply. If you are unable to accept the views of subject matter experts as reflected in the published, scholarly sources cited, that is certainly your right. But it doesn't mean that there is any problem with the sources themselves. That they are "feminist" sources is, once again, evidently your personal analysis, nor does it mean that they are unreliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to compromise and just fix some of the more obvious issues and just leave it at that. Deal? PurpleDiana (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "obvious issues" related to neutrality, so I have no idea what is being proposed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The way to deal with "obvious issues" is to bring them up here, one at a time, preferably as a separate discussion and deal with them one by one. Keeping in mind that if one is used to privilege then equality feels like oppression. Carptrash (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Go see how the intelligent design article is worded. Note how the topic is presented as an idea held by those with particular ideological views who do not present scientific evidence to support their claims. "

False analogy here. Intelligent design is an argument for a deity being responsible for most or all forms of living organisms and their development, proposed as an alternative to natural selection. Far-fetched, but since we can not prove or disprove the existence of deities, not incompatible with certain world views.

The male privilege concept derives from historical data on legislation and social norms which excluded women from education, political rights, and rights within the larger labor force. We have for example a nice list called Timeline of women's suffrage, which explains when were women granted the right to vote in certain states and jurisdictions, from the 18th century onwards. Whether a male privilege existed or exists with any given state or society can be tested using data from history, legislation, and (to a lesser extent) observations on social norms. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussing the lead
I think what the OP here is referring to is the extensive usage of feminist sources as statements of fact. This topic should be put forward as what it is: a categorisation methodology used in feminism to identify areas where women are disadvantaged, rather than a series of statements of fact that men are always privileged relative to all women (which is a view only held by a small subset of radical feminists). I mean, feminists do not identify or focus on the areas in which women have privilege (or men are disadvantaged--which is the same thing). This is how it should be, as the topic 'male privilege' doesn't have to do with any of that, but it can create a feeling of cherry picking or false equivalence if presented in the wrong way. Also, depending on the source, our article does not make it clear whether the source is referring to western secular society, or to actual patriarchal societies. Our article also does not make it clear whether the source is referring to Patriarchy or to societies overseas/in the past that are a true "Patriarchy" in the dictionary definition and anthropological sense (sources themselves are not generally very clear on this point either). All of this means that the OP sees the article as 'biased', but really it is just an issue of false-equivalence based on ambiguity. I suggest that we present the article as what it is; a piece of feminist theory, rather than trying to pretend that opinions of feminist scholars count as statements of fact about all men or all women, especially in a controversial topic such as this one. I propose that we revert the lead back to the version before it was cut down to a single sentence and rewritten: Male privilege is a concept for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class. The use of male pronouns in language to refer to both sexes is often cited as an example, as well as the preference for sons in some cultures. Male privilege is often examined alongside the concept of patriarchy within the feminist movement, while many men's rights activists dispute the existence of male privilege at all in modern western society.

This older version was much more clear about how the subject is defined without resorting to ambiguous terms. The current version refers to "how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm" which is confusing to those that are not knowledgeable about feminist theory and do not realise that things such as race, sexual orientation, and social class, as well as wealth all come into the equation when discussing 'ideal masculine norm' (from a feminist lens). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think the recent edits have alleviated my issues with this article to a large extent. It no longer states male privilege to be a definite fact, but instead mentions that it's a concept within feminist philosophy which is accurate. PurpleDiana (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The concept is not a product of "feminist philosophy". It originated within women's studies, but is now a topic of study within sociology in general. See e.g. . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Feminism is a subset of sociology, so of course you are correct, but you would be hard pressed to find a sociologist who writes about male privilege that is not also a feminist scholar. I mean, this article is "Part of a series on feminist philosophy". It is both a "sociological concept", as well as a "concept within feminist philosophy". The second is more clear to the reader, which should always be our goal. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This notion of "feminist philosophy" doesn't appear in any of the RS I've looked at. Is that your own analysis? Also, feminism is much more than "a subset of sociology". Sociologists who write about male privilege may also be feminists, but conflating the two would be improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, nearly all of the sources used in this article are by feminists (or used for statistics), but the main reason I have said so is because of the giant sidebar that says that this article is "Part of a series on Feminist philosophy". Is it, or isn't it? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT: why not use both? see my current edit. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A "Feminist philosophy" sidebar (the creation of Wiki editors) is not the same as having a reliable source use the term. Nearly all of the sources used in this article are by feminists may or may not be accurate, but that is unrelated to the topic of the article. They may be Democrats too, but we wouldn't say that "Male privilege is a concept used by Democrats". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess the feminist philosophy sidebar is not appropriate for this particular article then (without a source to support that it is). I have removed mention of "feminist philosophy" from the lead, and also removed the feminist philosophy sidebar. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" over the existence of male privilege is a feature of certain reactionary elements of Western society, and plays out mostly in right-wing publications and Web forums. I'm not aware of any controversy among actual experts such as sociologists and other researchers. I've removed the reference to men's rights advocates from the lead section to avoid giving undue weight to this "controversy". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MRAs are MRAs, like them or leave them, but they have thier views and these views have long been considered WP:DUE for inclusion in this article, a half sentence that concisely describes thier views on the subject seems WP:DUE for the lede. It would be WP:UNDUE to write the article from the POV of MRAS, or to have half of the article based on MRA views (this is a part of feminist philosophy after all), but a short paragraph in the body and half a sentence in the lede is not UNDUE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I like your edit that outlines a full view of the men's movement in general (both 'sides'). It is an improvement over both my version and including nothing at all. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @PurpleDiana. You reverted this edit, which I have restored. Given that myself and Sangdeboeuf are in agreement that this edit is a good one, could you please discuss the edit here? The content seems to be supported by the "Cultural responses" section, contrary to your edit summary (stuff in the lead is not required to be referenced if it is supported by referenced material in the body). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely feel it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to a marginal viewpoint. It's only given one sentence in the article, and, if anything, that sentence is probably undue - it is not significant enough to cover in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ideal masculine norm", though, is what the sources actually focus on - access to male privilege depends on how well people reflect those views. That sentence has to summarize the "scope" section, which is entirely about that masculine norm and makes almost no mention of race, sexual orientation, or social class. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Under "Scope", I think those qualities are summed up as "white, heterosexual, stoic, wealthy, strong, tough, competitive, and autonomous". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"Western secular society":

Secularization in the Western world is far from complete, with several European countries having official state religions and/or giving de facto privileges to certain religions. The Christian democracy political movement across the continent derives its values from their interpretation of Christianity and outright rejects secularism. The clergy of the Church of Greece are considered public servants, receiving salaries and pensions from the Greek state. There is also the matter that separation of church and state does not exist in certain European constitutions (such as Finland's) and is poorly defined and executed in others (such as France's).

Having a grandfather who spend his entire lifetime and political activities advocating secularism, and complained to his deathbed about the clergy's privileges, you do learn to notice some things about modern Europe. Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words
Since my edit was reverted with the note:

"Removing tag – phrase "many men" is no more WP:WEASELish than multiple other statements, which are likewise reliably-sourced"

The statement is exemplary as per Wikipedia. The statement is also not sourced per the source given as far as I can tell. Additionally a (very) quick read of the source makes it seem unreliable. A source from the sources "Further Readings" would be far better.

That it is no more (or no less) WP:WEASELish than multiple other statements is exactly what I was criticizing in the article. Multiple Weasel Words are used in the Cultural responses section of the article and are unsourced even though non-relevant sources are linked.

I am aware that the article deals with a very controversial topic and am open to any discussion of the topic. I will probably be doing some more edits to the article since I think it needs some help adhering to Wiki standards and am happy for any feedback and help.

Kulukimaki (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please proceed one edit at a time, don't go in and remove a bunch of what you consider to be weasel words. This is, as you have noted, a contentious article and many editors (i.e. me) while they are willing to use the "good faith" standard are nonetheless weary of a red linked editor who has averaged something like two edits a year since starting editing here. Also, your statement that you are "open to any discussion of the topic" is not really appropriate since the talk pages are specifically NOT for discussing the topic but for working out ways to improve the article. So by all means change one word, or what ever and then see what happens.  Hopefully the editors here will think, "Yes, that is an improvement" and will send you a 'Thanks." Carptrash (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2017‎ (UTC)
 * For reference, this is the edit being referenced.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also for future reference, words like many and some are not automatically weasel words/words to avoid. This is made clear at WP:Weasel words and Template:Who. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please raise your hand (re.this is the edit) if you are a female who does not believe that male privilege exists.  You, in the back, is your hand up or you just laughing uncontrollably? Carptrash (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * tbh, I've seen a few female anti-feminists make the claim (that male privilege doesn't exist) on YouTube and Reddit. But with no RSes making it, it's a moot point. And if you search the internet long enough, you'll find plenty of people agreeing with anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, well claiming that male privilege does not exist is a great way to win brownie points with the patriarchy, which some anti-feminists want to do. And more "yes," good references, like good men, are hard to find. Carptrash (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The explanation is simpler than that, even. Lots of people like to show others that they're the "exception" who isn't like "the rest". It's human nature. And generally speaking, it's an exercise that usually ends in ironic failure. When I was a teen, all my friends wanted to rebel against mainstream society and be as nonconformist and individualistic as possible. So we bought clothes from a trendy boutique, listened to music by gold and platinum-selling musicians, dressed alike and agreed with each other about everything.
 * So there are plenty of women out there who parrot the exact same anti-feminist talking points as all of their friends, all while congratulating themselves for being different than all those other girls. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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
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
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. .  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)
 * 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. .  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 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 '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 Please do not bite the newcomers is a behavioral guideline. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So does this, 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.
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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, What SYNTH is not is not a policy or guideline. It's a supplement page. You might want to read Template talk:Supplement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)