Talk:Male privilege/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Adding a criticisms section is warranted

If nobody objects, I will be adding a section on criticism to the article as this theory/idea/whatever you want to call it has been roundly challenged Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, a criticism section is sorely needed. "In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data." — Merriam Webster

I contend that the male privilege hypothesis is not supported adequately by data. From this article's overview section:

Positive advantages include having such things as adequate nutrition¹, shelter², and health care³, whereas negative advantages accompanying male privilege include such things as the expectation that a man will have a better chance than a comparably qualified woman of being hired for a job⁴, as well as being paid more than a woman for the same job⁵.

Let us go over these claims and show why they are wrong and that indeed in some cases, the opposite holds.

1. The authors of Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition (Thurstand et al., 2020) state:

Results 74 studies were identified: 44/74 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In 20 which examined wasting, boys had higher odds of being wasted than girls (pooled OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.40). 38 examined stunting: boys had higher odds of stunting than girls (pooled OR 1.29 95% CI 1.22 to 1.37). 23 explored underweight: boys had higher odds of being underweight than girls (pooled OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26). There was some limited evidence that the female advantage, indicated by a lower risk of stunting and underweight, was weaker in South Asia than other parts of the world. 43/74 (58%) studies discussed possible reasons for boy/girl differences; 10/74 (14%) cited studies with similar findings with no further discussion; 21/74 (28%) had no sex difference discussion. 6/43 studies (14%) postulated biological causes, 21/43 (49%) social causes and 16/43 (37%) to a combination.

Conclusion Our review indicates that undernutrition in children under 5 is more likely to affect boys than girls, though the magnitude of these differences varies and is more pronounced in some contexts than others. Future research should further explore reasons for these differences and implications for nutrition policy and practice. In every country, men die younger than women, yet research is mostly targeted at women.

2. Men make up the vast majority of rough sleepers. See here for data from the UK where men make up around 86% of rough sleepers, although this is a global pattern. There have been multiple cases where men have been denied homeless shelter on the basis of their sex, see e.g. here, here and here (page 2).

3. In the UK, prostate cancer now kills more people than breast cancer, yet receives less than half the funding. In general, women's health services receive more funding than services for men and all across the globe, women have a higher life expectancy.

4. Evidence on this claim is mixed. The authors of Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment (Birkelund et al., 2021) state:

Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, [all other things being equal], while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.

[W]e need to update our knowledge of gender discrimination and the belief that women are always the disadvantaged group. This belief might have been correct earlier, but today, at least for the occupations we examined [(cook, receptionist, store assistant, payroll clerk, software developer and sales representative)], we found no evidence of hiring discrimination against female job applicants in any of the six countries included. Rather, we observed hiring discrimination against males in female-dominated jobs, whereas female applicants were favoured in female-dominated occupations and not discriminated in the other occupations we included.

They also explain why this is not at odds with previous findings:

However surprising, the presented evidence is not at odds with previous research on hiring discrimination. The key to explaining divergent results likely lies in the occupations studied. For balanced studies, including both female- and male-dominated occupations, and gender-neutral occupations, the aggregate outcome would be close to zero gender discrimination in hiring. For more unbalanced studies, like the GEMM study, which includes two clearly female-typed occupations, and only one strongly male-dominated occupation, we might expect an aggregated pattern showing hiring discrimination against men. In principle, the same logic should apply for unbalanced studies including a higher proportion of male dominated occupations, but then we would expect an aggregated pattern of hiring discrimination of females. Yet the findings regarding the male-dominated occupation we included cast doubts on the symmetrical nature of hiring discrimination by gender. Interestingly, when scholars plan to study gender differences in hiring discrimination, we tend to think about discrimination of women, not men, yet previous experiments seem to include more female- than male-dominated occupations. More research including more occupations is needed.

Similar results can be found in Gender discrimination in hiring: An experimental reexamination of the Swedish case (Ahmed et al., 2021):

Male applicants were about half as likely as female applicants to receive a positive employer response in female-dominated occupations. For male-dominated and mixed occupations we found no significant differences in positive employer responses between male and female applicants.

See also In-group gender bias in hiring: Real-world evidence (Carlsson & Eriksson, 2019) which found:

We investigate in-group gender bias in real-world hiring decisions by combining administrative data with data from a large-scale field experiment on hiring in which fictitious resumes with randomly assigned information about gender were sent to Swedish employers. Our results suggest that women (female recruiters or firms with a high share of female employees) favor women in the recruitment process. In contrast, we do not find much evidence that men (male recruiters or firms with a high share of male employees) favor men.

This is consistent with other results from psychology that women have a strong automatic in-group preference, whereas men lack such a mechanism and also favor women (see e.g. Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men?, Rudman & Goodwin, 2004).

5. The available evidence shows that once variables such as job choice, hours worked, commute time, educational background, etc. are taken into account, the gender pay gap effectively disappears. See e.g. payscale (2021) which finds the controlled gender pay gap (the "median salary for men and women with the same job and qualifications") to be merely 2%. An in-depth global analysis by Korn Ferry (2018) of 12.3 million employees in 14,284 companies in 53 countries across the globe found that for the same level, same company, and same function, a woman earns about 99.5 cents for every dollar a man makes, whereas in the US that figure was found to be 99.1 cents for every dollar a man makes. Both of the aforementioned studies do not account for all variables, such as the likelihood of negotiating one's salary and choosing non-wage benefits such as health-insurances which could account for the unexplained differences in earnings. Starowner (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I will second this and add that, at the very least, the page needs to mention the key critics of this theory. Warren Farrel's "The Myth Of Male Power" should be on here. As should this Journal article. perhaps NightHeron would like to weigh in on this. Surely this concept is not immune to criticism? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

By what metric have you determined that those two are "key critics"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Warren Farrel is a political scientist, a famous feminist, and critic of modern feminism who is semi famous and has a long track record as an opposing voice on TV and radio. The other was intended as a balance, as it's a feminist author criticising the concept of universal male privilege from within feminism. Considering Farrel has been on TV multiple times, was chosen by The Financial Times of London as "one of the world’s top 100 thought leaders", was in charge of a chapter of NOW, and has many other accolades I really think he has earnt a small mention in the criticism section of this hypothesis about men. And even if he hasn't, there is plenty of precedence for a criticism section to simply use facts and figures that are freely available to discuss an opposing point of view. If you feel the opposing arguments are as weak as has been said before, I have no doubt you would have no problem citing sources against them Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I also have an extremely academic book called "Perspectives in Male Psychology" which is very well reviewed. Its goal is totally avoid politics and simply apply science to gender and test theories scientifically. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(I will continue this at the bottom of the page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiggyTheTerrible (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating the Criticism Section

So I think it's obvious that we need a criticism section. As NightHeron has requested, I'm suggesting the following lines be added to the article. Firstly, I would like to change the "Cultural Responses" section to be the "Criticism & Cultural Responses" section. At the top of this section, I would like to add the following: "Academics have criticised the idea that male-dominated societies grant privileges to the average male, and have stated that the theory does not align with the average male experience. Particularly that such systems mostly force men into roles of duty and service rather than privilege, while prioritising the safety and comfort of women. In these systems, only a small handful of men ascend to roles of power; which convey additional duties. Meanwhile, women may marry into their success. Critics also note that the systems of power and privilege in society appear to be largely class based." It might then be good to point to other problems with the theory, such as the idea of men easily finding shelter being a very strange statement in the face of the massive male homelessness crisis. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

You have suggested adding Academics have criticised... without citing any of the relevant academics. Unless you meant Warren Farrell? Assuming he counts as an academic (which is generous), that's just one. Seems to me that what you're presenting here is a WP:FRINGE position, i.e. an outlier from the academic mainstream. In order to include that, we'd need to rely on independent secondary sources rather than the fringe sources themselves (of which, again, you've only provided one). Generalrelative (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Pulling my question down from the section above: By what metric have you determined that those two are "key critics"? (I see you've only included Farrell here; you also mentioned this article by Jamie R. Abrams above in your comment about key critics). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Generalrelative To copy my point from above, Warren Farrel is a political scientist, a famous feminist, and critic of modern feminism who is semi famous and has a long track record as an opposing voice on TV and radio. The other was intended as a balance, as it's a feminist author criticising the concept of universal male privilege from within feminism. Considering Farrel has been on TV multiple times, was chosen by The Financial Times of London as "one of the world’s top 100 thought leaders", was in charge of a chapter of NOW, and has many other accolades I really think he has earnt a small mention in the criticism section of this hypothesis about men. And even if he hasn't, there is plenty of precedence for a criticism section to simply use facts and figures that are freely available to discuss an opposing point of view. If you feel the opposing arguments are as weak as has been said before, I have no doubt you would have no problem citing sources against them. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I also have an extremely academic book called "Perspectives in Male Psychology" which is very well reviewed. Its goal is totally avoid politics and simply apply science to gender and test theories scientifically. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare NightHeron I'm assuming this is acceptable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Silence is not consent. In this case the flaws in the case you've presented are too fundamental for me to explain in a way that feels fair to me and my time, and I'm under no obligation to do so. Suffice it to say you haven't persuaded me that these sources are WP:DUE for inclusion. GorillaWarfare, of course, can speak for herself if she chooses. But Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated (per Wikipedia:Consensus). Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied silenece was consent, Generalrelative, but that's why I was aksing for clarification. However, if you are unable to explain why valid sources and valid criticsm should not be included then is it safe to say you are opting out of the vote and won't contest the criticism section? Or the ionclusion of homelessness statistics to counter the idea that men have special privilages affording them extra privileges? Perhaps GorillaWarfare or NightHeron can help me here? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not. It is never safe to assume, nor is it enough to state that your sources and criticism are "valid". You need to actually persuade others, and so far all I've seen is argumentation that betrays a lack of familiarity with WP:PAG. I would suggest starting with WP:NPOV and, as EvergreenFir suggested below, WP:SYNTH (or rather WP:OR, which is the general policy to which SYNTH belongs). I understand that you may feel frustrated by running up against opposition to your preferred edits, but that is the reason why it's typically advisable to stay away from controversial topics until you have more experience under your belt. Generalrelative (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get the sections from these books that I'm citing if you want. I also have some regarding the generally poltical & activist nature of Gender Studies and its unreliability as a source of factual information. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixing sources on the page

I may be misunderstanding, but NightHerron mentioned that a source I cited was unreliable because the article's own citations are incorrect or poorly understood by the writer. I was wondering how this might be applied to the other sources here. For example, this one - which is citation one on the page. As far as I can tell, the author mentions names but does not give actual citations. In that sense, there's no way to verify any of this information. Moreover, if much of the information is from the 1970s, we should probably reorganise the article to reflect this by adding dated sections. Basically what I'm saying is that large amounts of the information is old schollarship written in the present tense - giving the reader the impression that this is the current state of affairs. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You really can't tell the difference between a polemicist writing for the Washington Examiner, known during its brief existence for spreading right-wing disinformation about immigration and climate change, and a tertiary source written by academics (see [1])? NightHeron (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Having investigated & read quite a lot about academic fraud in the field of gender studies.... not really. If a source lacks backing, it lacks backing. And every one has an inherent bias. However; my main point was that the article should probably be arranged by date and explained as a sequence of developments rather than as if all data was current. Since you seem to like when the article reflects the sources, and when the sources are backed up by evidence, I thought you'd approve? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Rather than grandiose plans for rewriting and reorganizing the article, what you should start with is a single sentence that accurately reflects a high-quality source. You haven't done that. The problem is that you have such a strong POV on the subject that you have difficulty adjusting to the way Wikipedia works. Your user page states that your purpose in editing Wikipedia is to change what you see as "bias" on the gender issue. In other words, you have a special purpose account. While SPAs are allowed, in practice they rarely contribute much to improving articles because they're blinded by their POV and continually try to edit against consensus in order to skew articles on controversial topics in their preferred direction. NightHeron (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll grant you the pay gap article. But how are a political scientist and a textbook not legitimate sources? Not even for the claim that their writers object to the concept of Male Privilege? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Does it help if I mention that Warren Farrell openly praises feminism in the intro to his book? And that it has a massive number of positive reviews from famous critics? Or that the book itself has its own criticism section on wikipedia? Please just let me know what would be acceptable in a criticism section on this page. Give me at least a description of structure, maybe? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

Remove the line "Positive advantages include having such things as adequate nutrition, shelter, and health care, whereas negative advantages accompanying male privilege include such things as the expectation that a man will have a better chance than a comparably qualified woman of being hired for a job, as well as being paid more than a woman for the same job." from the Overview section and remove the line "The invisibility of male privilege can be seen for instance in discussions of the gender pay gap in the United States; the gap is usually referred to by stating women's earnings as a percentage of men's. However, using women's pay as the baseline highlights the dividend that males receive as greater earnings (32% in 2005).[1]" from the Scope section. As I have shown with reliable sources on the talk page under Adding a criticisms section is warranted, this information is false, misleading or only supported by mixed evidence (some of which indicates the opposite). Starowner (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Starowner Though I would prefer to modify the the section & add citations showing it is an easily debunked claim. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those sentences is clearly written, and both could use some editing. But they are not false. In the first sentence I'd have no objection to deleting "shelter" and rewriting the sentence perhaps as follows: "In many societies men tend to have better access than women to adequate nutrition and health care, and they have a better chance than a comparably qualified woman of being hired for a high-paying job." The second sentence simply states a mathematical fact. If John earns $100K/year and Jane earns $75K/year, then you can say that "Jane earns 25% less than John" or that "John earns 33% more than Jane". Both statements are correct, but the first gives a lower impression of the difference than the second. The point of the sentence is that if you want to focus attention on the injustice of the situation, you use the second version; while if you want to minimize the issue, you use the first. NightHeron (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Starowner (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please directly address all my claims in your next response to make this discussion as unbiased and rational as possible. In my following response, I have labeled them for your convenience. Perhaps we could increment these labels with each of our statements so that your next statement would be labeled (8); I think our discussion could greatly benefit from that.

"Neither of those sentences is clearly written, and both could use some editing. But they are not false."

(1) I object to the claim that these statements are not false. Please give evidence that these statements are true in a similar fashion I have done using empirically obtained data or insights, and explain why the information in your sources outweighs the information I have already presented under Adding a criticisms section is warranted.

"In the first sentence I'd have no objection to deleting "shelter" and rewriting the sentence perhaps as follows: "In many societies men tend to have better access than women to adequate nutrition and health care, and they have a better chance than a comparably qualified woman of being hired for a high-paying job.""

Let us further divide this claim into its subclaims and modify each subclaim to more accurately reflect their implied meaning (the last part about the pay gap is addressed later in (6), so I will not include it here):

(2) "In a majority of societies men tend to have better access than women to adequate nutrition." I contest this claim and assert the opposite is the case. Please see my comment under Adding a criticisms section is warranted.

(3) "In a majority of societies men tend to have better access than women to adequate health care." I contest this claim and assert the opposite is the case. Please see my comment under Adding a criticisms section is warranted.

"The second sentence simply states a mathematical fact. If John earns $100K/year and Jane earns $75K/year, then you can say that "Jane earns 25% less than John" or that "John earns 33% more than Jane". Both statements are correct, but the first gives a lower impression of the difference than the second. The point of the sentence is that if you want to focus attention on the injustice of the situation, you use the second version; while if you want to minimize the issue, you use the first."

(4) The 2005 study referenced in the second sentence is outdated by now as there have been many more recent in-depth analyses. For some references, see point 5. in my comment which I have linked to previously.

(5) Let us define privilege: "a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others" (Merriam Webster)

(6) The gender pay gap is due to average differences in job choice, working hours, education, company, position held in the company, etc. and not due to women being paid less for the same level, same company and same function within that company (see point 5. in the comment I have linked to previously). To show that women's lower average wages and respectively men's higher average wages arise due to men being privileged (given benefits that are not available to women, see (5)), one has to show that a male candidate is given preferential treatment over an equivalent female candidate in one of these categories (e.g. preferential treatment w.r.t. hiring, promotion, or other practices that discriminate against women and result in women's average wages being lower than men's).

(7) If you can adequately address claim (6), we should add the information to the Wikipedia article so readers do not mistakenly come to believe that the gender pay gap arises due to women on average being paid less in the same level, company and function (I assert that as it stands, they will come to mistakenly believe precisely that). Starowner (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, you can't actually come here and demand that each and every one of your points be addressed to your satisfaction. Either persuade the community or do not. Assuming good faith is a requirement, but unlimited patience is not. See also WP:TEXTWALL. Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

From your link: "Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful." Please assume that I am here in good faith. I already tried to convince the few people active on this page with the comment preceding the one you just addressed; as the topic is easily obscured by layers of language, an in-depth discussion with precise language is required to see exactly where our disagreement is. As it stands, those two sentences I requested to be removed are not supported by empirical evidence. Starowner (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A good start in showing that you're here in good faith is not to misquote me. I never suggested an edit saying "in a majority of societies" (which would be a meaningless statement, since how do you count societies?). I said "many". There's a vast literature documenting discrimination against women in many health systems, including the U.S. one, as well as in nutrition. Wikipedia goes by the preponderance of reliable sources. The notion that male privilege doesn't really exist is a fringe view. NightHeron (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"A good start in showing that you're here in good faith is not to misquote me. I never suggested an edit saying "in a majority of societies" (which would be a meaningless statement, since how do you count societies?). I said "many"."

As for your concern regarding the countability of "societies": I agree. So let us instead modify each claim and replace "society" with "country". I modified your claim to more accurately reflect their implied meaning, and I pointed that out in my comment. When I say "majority", I mean a relative majority. I.e., your claim implies that there are more countries in which women have worse access to adequate nutrition/healthcare than the reverse. I contest this claim and assert that instead, the opposite holds. If your claim is NOT that this is the case for a relative majority of countries, then that would imply that there is an equal or greater number of countries in which women but not men have access to adequate nutrition/healthcare, or that there is a lack of information for the unaddressed countries, in which case I would draw your attention to my first comment which contains global information about access to nutrition.

"Wikipedia goes by the preponderance of reliable sources."

I did provide reliable sources; the article fails to provide any.

"There's a vast literature documenting discrimination against women in many health systems, including the U.S. one, as well as in nutrition. Wikipedia goes by the preponderance of reliable sources."

I suggest citing this literature in the Wikipedia article, and mentioning that it only applies to the U.S. As for the term 'reliable sources', what do you consider a reliable source? In science, a reliable source should always be based on empirically derived facts where available. By preponderance, do you assert there is a greater amount of literature demonstrating women's lack of access to healthcare/nutrition than literature demonstrating the reverse or no discrimination?

"The notion that male privilege doesn't really exist is a fringe view."

I do not think this is relevant to this discussion as I never used those words, not even in a modified form. I am merely contesting the claims made in the two sentences I quoted, not the concept as a whole. Starowner (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Starowner, you appear to be doing WP:SYNTH, i.e. you are using WP:PRIMARY sources to reach your own conclusions about a specific topic. You cannot find a handful of publications that support your view and claim X does not exist. The Thurstand et al. article is a meta-analysis and is the type you should be looking for in general... if this article was about sex differences in youth malnutrition. But you cannot find one niche health issue where the trend is reverse and claim the entire thing is bunk (again, WP:SYNTH). You need to find articles that explicitly tie the finding back to male privilege. Until you start engaging with sources about male privilege, will not make any headway here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The claims made in the Wikipedia article need to be backed up by empirical evidence. I am not asking for my sources to be included, but simply disputing the claims made and asking for them to be removed OR backed up by empirical evidence.

"You need to find articles that explicitly tie the finding back to male privilege. Until you start engaging with sources about male privilege, will not make any headway here."

The claims made in this Wikipedia article are false independent of the lack of resources tying their falsehood back to the concept of "male privilege". Starowner (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Starowner: Do the claims you dispute have sources and do those sources mirror the claims in the article? This time with ping EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Starowner, it would be easier to read your replies if they were all together on one line & quotes were just "" marks. EvergreenFir how about the warren farrel book & the academic book we talked about before? I feel those are good sources, so we should include them. They are certainly better than whatever is cited for men having more access to shelter as an unearned privilage. It's faulty to say that men just get more access to resources when they work the majority of full-time jobs and are also the majority of the homeless, whilest women mostly work part-time in lower paying industries and seem to have less trouble being homeless. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Warren's book does address male privilege directly and could/should be included in any discussions on critiques/criticisms IMHO. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thank you. If there are no objections, I will re-read the sections in question over the next few days and come up with an abridged summery of his criticisms for consideration & voting. I would also like to add in some aditional info from the textbook if possible. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: A critical discussion on "male privilege" is also included in pp 87-104 in The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_5 Starowner (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: "Do the claims you dispute have sources and do those sources mirror the claims in the article?" — The two sentences I dispute (please refer to the beginning of the Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022 section) are cited from Encyclopedia of Gender and Society (Jodie O'Brien, 2008, pages 683 to 685). However, if one reads this source, it will become apparent that "adequate nutrition, shelter, safety, and health care" does not specifically refer to male privilege, but serves as a general description of privilege w.r.t. "race, gender, class, sexuality, and other forms of social classification". The manner in which this source is misquoted in the Wikipedia article is misleading. Furthermore, even if one interprets this claim generously as referring to male privilege specifically and not to privilege generally, the textbook in question cites no sources which empirically verify these claims. Concerning the pay gap, it makes the claim that "For example, in 2005, women’s wages were 76 percent of men’s wages in the United States; in other words, women earned 76¢ for every $1.00 earned by men.", again without citing a source and without explaining how this relates to male privilege as I have explained under (6) in one of my previous comments; furthermore, this data is outdated. Suggestions: (1) clarify the two sentences and provide counter-evidence in a Criticisms section as Tiggy The Terrible suggested; (2) completely delete those two sentences. Starowner (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll check out the source later. But I want to clarify that WP:NOR (WP:SYNTH) means that we as editors do not independently peer-review citations. We, as an tertiary source, just report what the source says. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"[…] we as editors do not independently peer-review citations [and instead] just report what the source says" — Yes, but we are not entirely uncritical of them either, see WP:DONTUSETERTIARY:

Better sources available: While a good tertiary source can usually be used without incident to source non-controversial facts, such citations can and should be superseded by ones to reliable secondary sources. WP:Identifying reliable sources tell us: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." It is extremely rare for a tertiary source to be the best such source, for anything, in any context; they're simply often the most readily available and easily digestible (being somewhat predigested). Sometimes a tertiary source can even be replaced with a primary one; for example, a dog breed's actual breed standard (the primary source) is more reliable for the breed's defined characteristics than a tertiary dog breed encyclopedia, though the latter might be very useful for differences and commonalities between varying standards published by different organizations, and may be a good source of additional details, like demographics and breed history. […].

"I'll check out the source later." — Thank you. Starowner (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay! @Starowner:@EvergreenFir:@GorillaWarfare:@NightHeron: So I've re-read enough of The Myth Of Male Power to grab a couple of good sections. If there are no objections I'm going to change "Cultural responses" to "Criticism & Cultural Responses" and add following, which is cited from The Myth Of Male Power: "However; critics such as Warren Farrell have countered this by noting that while CEOs and male politicians have power, the average man is entirely powerless to change his position in society. Indeed - unlike women, men are often called in great numbers to fight and kill specifically to protect women and children. Often sacrificing their own lives in great numbers to do so. "Ironically" Farrel adds "(this is) to protect the sex that now considers him an 'oppressor'"" Any thoughts on this? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

First, the section title isn't good, since criticism is part of the cultural response. You could title it simply "Responses", and that term includes negative as well as positive responses. Second, in several places you imply in your word choice that Wikipedia agrees with Farrell. Certain words that make that implication (such as "countered this", "noting", "Indeed") should not be used in wikivoice. Please read [2]. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: fair enough. I don't see an issue with those requests, though I do think that what you say heavily implies that Male Privilege should be treated as a theory rather than an outright fact or phenomena that Wikipedia itself endorses. If there are no reasonable objections, I will add the section as 'Criticism' with the agreed changes. (I.e. words like 'noted' will be changed to ones like says/counters/objects/etc. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please not "counters" (which implies a correct rebuttal). It's better to include critical and supportive responses in the same section (but probably different paragraphs). I'm sorry I wasn't clear in distinguishing two things. Questioning the existence of male privilege or claiming that it's only a "theory" rather than a phenomenon is a fringe viewpoint. But particular theories analyzing this phenomenon and particular claims about examples of male privilege do get criticized in mainstream sources. This article should reflect what reliable sources say. NightHeron (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: If criticism of Male Privilege as an idea is only a fringe viewpoint in gender studies, I'd say that's likely not because it's unassailable but because the people who came up with this theory are female, inordinately privileged, and persistently exclude all contrary opinions. Especially male ones. The chief counterargument to Farrel giving a public university lecture is not to attend it and rebut it with facts, but to assemble a mob and pull the fire alarm. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read what I've written before you get on your WP:SOAPBOX. I wrote that criticizing the existence of male privilege is fringe. Saying that it's nothing but an idea or theory that came about because of feminism is also fringe. It existed long before the field of women studies or gender studies existed, in fact, before universities existed. But different feminist theories or non-feminist theories about its nature can obviously be criticized on Wikipedia, provided that those criticisms are properly attributed and cited to reliable sources. NightHeron (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. Though I think that, if that is the case, it needs a separate article called something like "gender based social privileges and disadvantages" which would cite pure statistics. The article here cites pure feminist theory, and thus should really be classified as a limited theory *about* said advantages which neglects to cover the disadvantages. In other words, what I'm saying is that the article is in a very odd position if it is purporting to be absolute fact since it cites nothing scientific or statistical. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I have verified that this article is in a bad position because it lacks rigorous empirical evidence. Thus, I agree that a new article called "Gender Based Social Privileges and Disadvantages" or something with equal semantics is warranted. @NightHeron: "Questioning the existence of male privilege or claiming that it's only a "theory" rather than a phenomenon is a fringe viewpoint." — We have to differentiate between the gender studies concept of "male privilege" and privileges ("right[s] or benefit[s] that [are] given to some people and not to others") associated with being male. While critique of the former is rare because of the overall fringe status of gender studies in the sciences, this is not the case for the latter. The fringe status of gender studies in the sciences is evidenced by its low citation rate in other disciplines, implying that the field does not pique the interest of other academic disciplines. Starowner (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the claim that men are privileged w.r.t. finding shelter, I also just remembered Ethnic and Gender Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis of Correspondence Tests, 2006-2017 (Flage, 2018). Specifically, they state:

[I]ndividuals belonging to the majority are more than twice as likely to be chosen as Arab/Muslim applicants. Female applicants are almost 30% more likely to be chosen than male applicants. However, this result differs depending on the group of applicants: women belonging to an ethnic minority are 34% more likely to be selected by an agent than men belonging to the same minority. This result is even higher when we compare Arab/Muslim women with Arab/Muslim men: women are 50% more likely than men to be favored. Finally, a woman belonging to the majority has “only” 20% more chance of being chosen than a man belonging to the majority. Therefore, ethnic and gender discrimination interact: gender discrimination is greater for minority-sounding names than for majority-sounding names. Thus, female majority- sounding names are the most favored, while male minority names are the most disadvantaged (especially Arab/Muslim males).

This meta study covered 15 OECD countries and totals over 110,000 letters and should suffice according to EvergreenFir's criteria. Starowner (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Starowner: That's certainly an understatement. This article literally repels evidence and critical thought at every turn. However, I don't think anyone is going to stop this criticism section from bringing at least a tiny amount to the table. I think it's about time I added it. @NightHeron: if I get the wording wrong, please do let me know or fix it rather than reverting. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay then! As you may have noticed, I've added the edits! I'd also like to add this section directly after the ones added there: "Farrell also contends that while a man must work long and hard for his success, a women has no such barriers to wealth and privilege. Instead, Farrell says, she can simply marry him to gain access to all of it for herself - as well as any gifts he gives her - then divorce him and walk away with a considerable sum of his earnings. Thus the man bears almost all the financial risk of marriage, and the woman bears all of the rewards. This, Farrell claims, is a major reason why men are losing interest in marriage." @NightHeron: @EvergreenFir: Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You and your friend should be very careful about altering the article in ways that are not supported by consensus of other editors. Have you read the Wikipedia policies that other editors have urged you to? The policies WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:UNDUE all are relevant here. Much as you like Farrell, quoting him at length would be disproportionate coverage of one man's opinion. When you do quote him (briefly), you should quote things he says that reflect his own expertise, not some snarky misogynist comment about how men go off and die to defend women who say they're oppressors. NightHeron (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I have indeed read those, thank you, but it's good of you to bring them up. As far as I can determine, most of this article is WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE. It repeats feminist theories, which remain largely uncited by the source material, while framing them as unarguable facts. It claims men have privileges - but doesn't really explain what they are, how they function, or give statistical evidence. And, lastly, it tries to frame itself as fact whilst being mostly ideology. And yet, strangely; while every single one of my words is picked over for flaws that would allow arbitrary rejection, the rest of this article remains in an extremely sloppy state. Not to be blunt, but it must have been written by someone who only skimmed the sources. However - if you are unhappy with my truncated version of what Farrell says about the expected burden of male duty toward women, children, and society then I will happily work with you to expand it with key details so it sounds less snarky. What would you like to include, and what part is misogyny? Is it misogyny to point out that feminist theory calls men oppressors, or to say all women believe that kind of power/privilege theory? You may not like the tone I took but - believe me - if you find that sexist, you haven't read a lot of feminist theory. Indeed, I look at this entire article as a single venomous defamation attempt against the entire male gender/sex. It has already been picked up on its terrible WP:SYNTH of sources, so I'll leave that be for now, but you have to realise that you are more or less the only objector here. Me, Starowner, and EvergreenFir all agree on Farrell's inclusion as a valid critic - and the only objector is you. You are not a consensus, and you cannot use WP:ONUS to block valid criticism. If you can, then you need to get onto every article with a Criticism section and demand their removal. Heck, there are entire articles that are nothing but criticism. So what is your problem here with adding a little discussion and pushback? Is it that this article is just your flavour of WP:POV? Is it that you wrote the article and don't like other contributors? Please do help me out here. I am trying to find a middle ground, and to keep my additions small so we can pick over them together with ease. If you are happy to look over a larger section, it would likely remove the parts of the tone you find objectionable. But, please, realise that I don't really view you as the voice of the consensus. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again: Please stop misattributing to me things that I never said. I never said that Farrell couldn't be used. In fact, I suggested that he be used for a statement that reflects his own specialized knowledge. I objected to inclusion of a misogynist statement of his ridiculing women. I also never said that the article in its present form is fine and not in need of improvement. I'm fully aware that some feminist writings have made overly-broad unsupported statements. However, some of the things that you've been saying are even worse. You ask: "Is it misogyny to point out that feminist theory calls men oppressors, or to say all women believe that kind of power/privilege theory?" Yes, it is misogeny to claim that "all women believe" that men are oppressors, since it is so obviously contrary to fact and reflects hostility toward women on the part of the speaker. Another reflection of the speaker's bias is lumping together all feminism and claiming that all feminist theory labels all men as oppressors. This is simply false. I take you at your word that you'd like to find a middle ground and work cooperatively with other editors. To do this it would help if you get off your soapbox and stop making extreme claims.

And no, I didn't write this article or even a significant part of it. I've only made a few minor edits (not counting reverting bad edits). You can check this easily by clicking on the "History" of edits. NightHeron (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: As a show of good faith I've changed the problematic wording to add nuance. This is still in line with Farrell's opinion, seeing as he is clear to point out that he's referring to feminist activists who view men as an "oppressor class". However, I'd like to refer you back to our conversation in another section where you said they should not be included, but that you didn't have time to tell me why - or, at least, that's the impression I got from you at the time. I'd also like to mention that saying all men have an invisible backpack full of privileges they aren't even aware of is both ironic and sexist. It also doesn't really bear up to examination, when you consider the historic lynching of black men (often on the word of white women). Which is another Farrell argument to consider. If you think criticism should be included then, by all means, please do feel free suggest some lines that could be added. Likewise, if you feel any of the other sources are overstepping - then I'll happily talk corrections and deletions with you. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

WIth regards to your new wording of Farrell's opinions, are those words close to his? What exactly did he say? The claim that males are sent into war "specifically to protect women and children" is bizarre, so I'm wondering if he really said that. Was that the reason Americans were sent to Vietnam or Iraq? Certainly a lot of women and children died in those two countries as a result of US military actions. Similarly, is the claim that some feminist writing says that men are "full of hatred towards women" something that Farrell said, or is it your words? If this is what Farrell says, does he support this accusation with citations to feminist writings? Obviously, having "an invisible backpack full of privileges" isn't the same thing as hating women. NightHeron (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I should mention that shaming men to protect women was the entire purpose of the White Feather Campaign. He's not saying it's the exclusive reason, but it is the reason women have historically been kept out of nasty and dangerous jobs - such as war. And it's very sure that women are almost never drafted against their will there. Indeed very special attention is always paid to how women are treated, normally bundling them in with children - as if they were the same thing. It's worth scrolling down a way on that list and taking a look at how much the pain of women is prioritised, and how the pain of men is specifically excluded. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my questions about whether you're paraphrasing Farrell accurately and about whether he cites sources to support his claims about feminist writings. Your wording of what you give as Farrell's opinion is problematic, and I'm reverting it until this is resolved. I didn't ask you to argue his case. I asked you about the phrasing of the views you're attributing to Farrell. NightHeron (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It is accurate, & he does support it. In fact, you can find much of what I'm saying in the sample chapters of The Myth Of Male Power - though most of the citations for it require byuying the book. I thought this was all implied by what I had said and done. Though, honestly, does the idea that feminist theory paints men as opressors really need citations? The same to the idea that men went to war to protect women. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can just write out one or more direct quotes from him, that would help. Try to find ones that are based on facts that he cites in support of his views on "male privilege" rather than dramatic statements containing wild exaggeration. Your statements about "feminist theory" are simplistic and wrong. There is no single theory called "feminist theory". Feminist writing encompasses many approaches and viewpoints, and many writers take care to distinguish between men who are "oppressors" and men who aren't. Even if your own POV were not so simple-minded, you're missing the point that the opinions of editors are not what goes into an article. NightHeron (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I commend NightHeron for his patience in this discussion. Suffice it to say, TiggyTheTerrible and Starowner have yet to secure consensus for their preferred language and need to do so before adding it to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: his patience? To be honest, I feel like he's being obstructive. Especially as he doesn't seem to care that the phrase "Positive advantages include having such things as adequate nutrition, shelter, and health care, whereas negative advantages accompanying male privilege....." implies that adequate nutrition, shelter, and health care are male privileges even though that is absolutely not what the source says. It says those are privileges that should be universal and does not say they are male privileges. Nor is there any proof that they are. @NightHeron: I am hoping you will at least not try to revert me if I add the line "However; many academics, critics, and others object to the the idea of Male Privilege." Followed by a bunch of citations. If you do not, I'm going to assume you are malicious. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want. If you continue to make edits that violate core Wikipedia policies, they will get reverted, either by me or by another editor. You falsely accuse me of being inflexible about the sentence you quoted. I said explicitly that the article could use some editing, and in particular suggested deleting "shelter". However, there's considerable evidence in RS that in many societies men tend to get better nutrition and health care than women, in which case that's a form of male privilege in those societies. NightHeron (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. A number of editors here have shown openness to working with the new SPAs to improve the article, but they have shown repeatedly that this is apparently not what they're after. This comment in particular makes TiggyTheTerrible's intention rather clear. My patience for such disruption hovers near zero on a good day. NightHeron has gone above and beyond to engage and explain, but I suspect that we are nearing the point where WP:DENY will be the best course of action, at least until such time as the disruption rises to the level of sanction. Generalrelative (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for my outburst, but even getting feedback seems to be like climbing a greasy cliff. @Generalrelative: I don't understand how a call to remove POV bias on Wikipedia can be interpreted as an attempt to troll since POV content is against Wikipedia rules. I may be new here, but I'm doing my best and I feel as if nothing I could possibly suggest will ever meet with any kind of approval. All I am asking for right now are a few sentences giving a different perspective on this subject. It's nothing unreasonable. But every attempt to compromise has been met with further pushback. I edited out the offending phrase, and @NightHeron: reverted the entire criticism section. I am honestly at a loss as to what he thinks is appropriate. Particularly as the evidence presented here for the existence of specific male privilege is so very weak, and as far as I've seen the reverse is far more common. I will be removing the line that does not appear in the source, and I hope you will not revert it. I would also like to add a single line saying that some academics and critics object to the idea that men are especially privileged over women. I am not even going to say how they object. I'm just going to say that they do. It would simply read "Several academics and critics have said that both men and women have privileges inherent to their gender, and that they do not think men are privileged over women." with cites. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple. Your personal opinion of what constitutes "POV bias" appears to run diametrically against our policy concerning such matters, i.e. WP:NPOV. Of course Bigfoot true believers think our article Bigfoot is full of POV bias, but what matters on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say. Had you been content to simply discuss the sources, and respectfully concede when others disagree, without resorting to rallying the forces rhetoric and personal attacks, you would have found this to be an extremely collaborative environment –– a place where verifiable facts truly matter. It may be that you feel too passionately about this subject to behave in that way, in which case there is not much the rest of us can do for you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If we were to start again and try to do this properly, would you guys help me add these sources? Please just tell me what you need from me in order to add even a single well-cited line noting that there are academic critics of this theory. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It really is simple. Just propose your sentence right here, along with the citation with a link so that other editors can see that the sentence accurately reflects what's in the source. Also indicate where in the article you think it belongs. NightHeron (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

How about this article as a citation against the paygap stuff? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's just a polemical columnist's own interpretation of what the Harvard professor said. Not reliable. NightHeron (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I will check what they said, but if that's the case would that mean that we can't include sources that simply state things without citing proof? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron is entirely correct here. And note that there is already a consensus on how we discuss Claudia Goldin's work at the main article Gender pay gap. She is indeed one of the major experts on the topic and very often misrepresented to make it seem as though she were dismissing the existence of the gender pay gap. Nothing could be further from the case. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for why we cannot decide to treat her work differently here.

On a more meta level, I'll offer a good faith suggestion for you, TiggyTheTerrible: spend some time learning before proposing changes to articles on controversial topics like this. Read the existing articles and their sources carefully; read the talk pages and their archives extensively; read noticeboard discussions that you find linked and cited there. Take your time. Become familiar with the history of the debate and the reasons why longtime editors are so often short of patience with new SPAs who appear to push the same old arguments. You will be much more effective at actually correcting the systemic biases that actually do exist, and you may be surprised to find your opinions changing as to what these systemic biases actually are. Generalrelative (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I'll drop the Claudia Goldin thing, at least until I find the actual quotes. And trust me, I am reading as much of this stuff as possible. The problem is that few of these sources really back up their claim that men are privileged over and above women. I can go through some of them with you if you are up for it, though it might be best to finish that criticism section first. Was the line I suggested before acceptable? Namely that "Several academics and critics have said that while both men and women have privileges inherent to their gender, they do not think men are especially privileged over women." I would also like to add "Indeed, they believe in many cases that women are privileged over men." I will stop there, but I'm happy to put together a list if needed. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And trust me I tend not to trust people who say this. You're now at the point where it's appropriate to ask you to please drop the stick and back away from the horse. The answer to your question is no. If you're confused as to what to do next, consider rereading my advice directly above. Generalrelative (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the "And trust me", it was simply for emphasis. I've been reading the wp info for days and everything I'm seeing suggests that a criticism section is perfectly fine. Indeed, that it's actually fairly recommended to have WP pages show a broad variety of viewpoints and sources. I've shown evidence that the source does not say what is on the page. And, even if this wasn't a mischaracterisation, I feel that this talk page is overtly resistant to mentioning that there is any academic pushback to this idea. Even in passing. I have tried and tried to be accommodating, but if the answer is always just "no" with no feedback on what's wrong with what I've said then my thoughts tend toward thinking that people here are gatekeeping. Especially when, as I've shown, the first source on the article is just giving examples of potential privileges without saying who they belong to. In fact, I thing the book is actually picking examples related to white privilege. Since the majority of the homeless are (according to Wikipedia) male, I don't think it can be seen as a specific list related to men. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: @NightHeron: Okay. So several people have agreed that we should have a small criticism section on this page. I'm willing to drop Farrell for the moment, but we have the book Perspectives in Male Psychology and a few others ready to go. Please let me know: What do we have to do to get a small criticism section on this page? Even if it's only the line "Some academics have criticised the idea of universal male privilege." I've been asking this question for a couple of weeks now and I don't think I have gotten a clear or unambiguous answer as to why I'm being given the run around. Wikipedia's overall consensus is that criticism sections with legitimate sources are a valid tool. I've offered you a well reviewed & famous book, and now I'm offering you a textbook. Will you allow me to add the section, or am I wasting my time by even suggesting that feminist theory is falsifiable? Considering that Gender Studies is nothing but a group of fringe professors reviewing each others work for ideological purity, I don't see why a textbook from a more reliable source would be a problem. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In this article it makes no sense to have a separate "criticism" section, because the topic of the article is male privilege, which is a phenomenon that indisputably exists. Having a "criticism" section would be like having a "criticism" section in the article Evolution (which does, however, contain a section on "Social and cultural responses"). The POV that disputes the existence of male privilege, like the POV that disputes the existence of biological evolution, is a fringe viewpoint that must be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE. What can of course be criticized is particular analyses or theories about male privilege. Such criticism needs to be brief, well-sourced, and placed in whatever section describes the particular analysis or theory. You also have to avoid [[WP:SYNTH]. A statement by a source is only a criticism of a theory if it mentions the theory, not if it says something that you interpret as a criticism of the theory. NightHeron (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I honestly understand your perspective. It is a problem for inclusion of the section that there are not a larger number of academic sources that criticise the theory. However, I feel that comparing the credibility of this theory to evolution - which is called a theory some 48 times on its wikipedia page - is extremely misleading for a number of reasons. My first major problem is that this isn't a careful weighing of the privileges and disadvantages of both genders which is then updated year on year, with feedback from both genders - which is something I would have no problem with. Instead, it postulates that men have vast social and systemic privileges over women and then lists off a litany of uncited examples. I have delved very deep into this, and I've yet to find any of the groundwork or studies demonstrating that men are inherently privileged in the way I describe. There is stuff out there weighing male and female disadvantages under the heading of determining which gender is worse off, but they don't tend to use terms like "Male Privilege". Instead they use bland terms like Gender differences in suicide. Which means that even though I could list you scores of female privileges better than the male ones - and male disadvantages worse than the female ones - none of it meets your criteria for inclusion because Male Privilege is really just a political term and the only people who really seem to use it in academia are people who believe in it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. How about this article, which talks about biases in the scholarship for Male Privilege? Or this, which just focuses on black men? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)