Talk:Male privilege/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Neutrality & Factuality

Thread retitled from "Not Neutral / Factual".

This article does not appear to be neutral, nor does it appear to be factual. What especially baffles me is that while there is factual data on gender and sex disparity issued by governments they are not actually used in any of these articles. Especially the alleged economic advantages can be proven with this data but this is completely avoided in the article.

As Peggy McIntosh , a feminist literary scholar, discusses male privilege with respect to white privilege, she states that “the denial of men’s over-privileged state takes many forms”. Privilege is not a result of a concerted effort to oppress those of the opposite gender, however, the inherent benefits that males gain from the systemic bias put women at an innate disadvantage.

The quote ends followed by an unsourced statement taking the quote as fact. Needs a source to prove the statement otherwise it should be removed.

Thus, biologically "male" privilege is only one of many power structures that may exist within a given society

Source [7], Foucault, Michel The History of Sexuality, Volume I, does not govern this statement. This statement should be removed.

Although some people protest the existence of male privilege and claim that specifically male privilege within the realm of white privilege is a myth perpetuated by feminists, academic scholars generally support and acknowledge the fact that male privilege exists.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, needs a proper source to prove the statement. Without neutral source this statement should be removed.

. Male privilege may be viewed as an invisible package filled with unearned privileges that are constantly at work, but which are unspoken and most people remain oblivious to. The benefits of this unspoken privilege range from special provisions, tools, relationships, and various opportunities. Although the fact that women are at a disadvantage in many respects is acknowledged, only rarely will a man go beyond that to admit that they enjoy an unearned privilege from being a man. In fact this privilege may actually negatively affect men’s development as human beings, and few men question society’s constructs or that the existing structure of advantages may be challenged or changed.

A controversial essay that is both unsourced and not peer-reviewed is hardly a credible source that can back up such broad claims. Please keep Wikipedia scientific and factual.

Society’s systemic preference for men can take many shapes and forms.

A nondescript statement without source, should be removed.

As discussed by Paula Rothernberg in her novel Invisible Privilege: A Memoir About Race, Class, and Gender, male privilege often takes institutionalized and embedded forms from which men may directly benefit. These instances of male privilege systems may attribute to male over empowerment and can help explain man’s sense of centrality in some of the most powerful institutions. An example of male privilege in institutionalized academic settings can be observed by the prevalence of men in how curriculums are formed and history and literature is taught across the United States

A memoir is a personal point of view, this is not a credible source and not a neutral point of view. You can quote relevant opinions but you cannot state claims based on quotes that aren't verifiable, neutral and credible.

Within the book The Agony of Masculinity, Pierre Orelus uses his personal life experience growing up in the Caribbean in order to create "a form of self-critical reflection and interrogation to talk about…maleness, heterosexism, and homophobia." Orelus speaks of how society shaped his development and taught him to “be a man”. The patriarchal practices passed from generation to generation perpetuate gender roles and hegemonic masculinity, which both contribute to the extent of freedom enjoyed by men. Ananya Roy gives a Ted Talk about patriarchy, which relates how power dynamics and gender interact in the modern world. In some areas, such as in Haiti, the stereotype and societal definition of being a man leads to many instances of domestic abuse and the use of women as sexual objects. This abuse stems from a sense of justification in part due to male privilege and how the patriarchal norms encourage male dominance over women. Additionally, men benefit from some common double standards while women suffer. For instance, Orelus describes how women who were caught cheating were beaten, shamed, insulted, and reviled. On the other hand, when men cheated they were praised and their status rose. Ironically, men who were known to be smooth talkers who had past experience with sexual exploiting women have a greater appeal to women in the Haitian communities. By the same token, these so-called freedoms of male privilege can become barriers as some men may feel pressured by societal norms to conform to certain expectations associated with the stereotypical male gender role. Orelus mentions how male privilege may actually be detrimental to social development and gaining a sense of self. Since in a strictly traditionally sense men are more knowledgeable and able-bodied than their female counterparts, in some cultures men must struggle to maintain this expectation. Men who cannot live up to these societal standards are prone to face criticism, lose respect from their peers, and have a lower sense of self.

This whole section is based on a memoir. Once again this is not a credible source and neutral point of view to support these broad claims. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.128.139 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed a similar trend happen here on Wikipedia most notably in the gynocide page where almost all citations referred to either one book, or commentary on that book, even if it's not intentionally meant to be promotional it still lacks neutrality, but unfortunately as gender studies courses give credits for editing Wikipedia with un-neutral Feminist views and even host "Wiki-storms" pages like this will remain to be tainted, there should be a higher standard in place, and neutral moderators that first fact check sources before implementing them. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@LyThienDao1984: They don't give credit for editing Wikipedia with un-neutral Feminist views, they give credit for editing on feminist topics. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Weight & tone

Thread retitled from "Undue Weight/Editorializing in Context and Global Perspective Sections".

Right now, those two sections have a total of three sources between them. What's more they both seem to be pretty editorialized. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Language Section

Language section

I removed the references to the french and basque languages and changed the section to Gender Neutrality in English. If we want to discuss other languages we will either need to have a dedicated section devoted to it, or greatly expand this sections references to other languages. Nearly every language has gender biases, so its difficult to see how this could be done without simply linking to the articles on Gender-neutrality in languages with grammatical gender and Gender-neutrality in languages without grammatical gender. which i will do. A few specific examples don't make the article better.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit history, I was already going to comment at this talk page about this; but I was going to do so using the #Language Section - Focus on English section above. As seen here, here, here and here, you removed the non-English examples, then changed the section's title and removed Template:Globalize. I reiterate that this is not how good encyclopedias are written. All we need is a Language section, and a few non-English language examples. You stated, "Shall we discuss male and female pronouns of all languages?" No. There is no need to list every possible example; that is also not how good encyclopedias are written. Examples are examples because they don't represent the entire scope. We summarize the literature. We do not include every possible aspect there is, unless the aspects are so few that that listing all them wouldn't seem like absolute trivia. I'm not stating that what you removed should be there; I'm stating that how you went about it -- your reasoning -- is flawed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

fair enough, I could re-add the french and basque languages with a 'for example' after what I've written linking to the other articles on Gender-neutrality in languages with grammatical gender and Gender-neutrality in languages without grammatical gender if you'd prefer to have specific examples. Personally I think its clearer to simply state that there are similar issues with other languages and link to the articles where those examples can be found, but if you think its better that way I'll change it back I suppose. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You also kind of caught me in the middle of editing, my main purpose in removing those specific examples was to link to the other articles instead (but I had not yet inserted this edit) perhaps I could have been clearer in my edit summary, I'll work better on this in the future. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Historical perspective

This article needs a large expansion to include historical male privilege, as it relates to women sufferage in the past, women rights before the equal rights movement, etc. as this isn't really discussed in the article much. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  04:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I was wondering why the article was so short when this is such an important subject with such a long history. I'm agreeing but not volunteering, heh. Also, I'd like to suggest adding a section on male fragility. There's a "white fragility" section in the "white privilege" article. I'm no expert on this in the academic sense, but being a person with a brain on the (expletive deleted) Internet I am quite sure this is a thing that needs a section. Rosekelleher (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article presents one side of an argument, which is against our WP:NPOV policy so I have tagged the article. We need to preset arguments for and against the concept and not present it as a fact in order to see the tag removed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

RichardWeiss, what WP:Reliable sources would you point to for (as in support of) male privilege or disputing the existence of male privilege? There are men's rights sources, of course, but they are hardly considered reliable for this topic and are already given their due weight in the Criticism section. The WP:NPOV policy is about presenting both sides, if there is another side, with due weight; it is not about giving both sides equal weight. The notion that male privilege exists is the dominant view. As such, this article is not a WP:NPOV violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, you know we just cant present one side of an argument by claiming that only one side has reliable sources. I disagree with you re MRAs not having reliable sources anyway. You are arguing that your position should be given more weight than other people's. Nope. We need a neutral opening and that is that, merely adding stuff to the criticism section implies that the concept is factually correct in the 1st place and there is no consensus to suppose that is so out there in the world. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with flyer here sorry. You need to produce some RS that support your perspective. Your tag & edits appear contrary to what the vast majority of RS say. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing the tag and a reference without gaining consensus is not how we do things on wikipedia, worse given what you are trying to do is present a biased view of the subject. You removing my RS's and then claiming I havent provided any isnt going to resolve this, it does show that you are neutral here though, and perhaps you should consider not editing this article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. This is nonsensically vague, and ignores Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. We don't use false balance or tit-for-tat inclusion of fringe perspectives. The attempt to add sources like maledefender.com and Hardie's judgybitch.com are so absurdly unreliable that I don't even know where to begin. Unless actionable suggestions based on reliable sources can be presented, this is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the sourcing in Richard's edits was pretty terrible. Many (like the ones grayfell mentioned) aren't even RS - and those that are have very low weight (ie, opinion pieces, news reports about a men's rights speech, etc). Nowhere close to the kind of weight and depth of sourcing that would be needed to give that perspective (which, btw, is already mentionedin the lede and discussed within the article) equal weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Geographic scope

Thread retitled from "Americanocentric".

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

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

Neutrality 2017

Collapsed extended arguments by blocked user containing personal attacks

There are people who don't believe in the sex-gender distinction and the " sexism" of the English language. Any suggestions to overcome this slant?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) How is that a "slant"? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, reflecting views in proportion to their prominence in those sources. That some people do not accept this view is pretty obvious, but that doesn't make it a slant, nor does that mean it doesn't belong in the article. If you know of reliable sources discussing this view, pony up. Be mindfull of false balance. Obscure sources and passing mentions don't cancel-out the weight of all the rest out there. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) You assume that all reliable sources say that gender and sex are different from each other; such an assertion is horseshit. And we don't edit based on "truth", so please shut up about how it is "true" that only sources who say that gender and sex are different are reliable; such a baseless assumption should not interfere with the encyclopedia's sake. And finally, obscurity=/= lack of reliability. Be mindful of false balance. SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) When there is a vast majority of reliable sources that take one view, and a very tiny minority that take another, Wikipedia follows the former, not the later per WP:WEIGHT. This is a feature, not a bug. InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Yes, assuming that the vast majority actually takes the former, for which you have no provided evidence.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I mean, merely saying something is fringe without providing any reliable sources is editing based on "truth" is it not? Such editing is not and should not be allowed in Wikipedia.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I didn't say anything about fringe. I don't have to provide sources, the article itself is full of them. If you want to roll out a change, you must provide the sources to demonstrate that it is not a tiny minority (which you won't be able to do). Also, trolling on Wikipedia talk pages... really? InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Just because there are many reliable sources that claim gender and sex are different says nothing about whether the opposing side is the minority. And you're the one making the claim not me, so you have the duty to provide sources, not me.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) You are in WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT country now mate, I can't help you there. InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Well, I refuted your point, so clearly not.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "No you" is not persuasive. You're the one trying to change the article, so the burden is on you to provide sources and build consensus. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Does my lats statement look like a "no you" to you?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) And since you have failed to prove to me that the opposing viewpoint is fringe, accusing me of refusing to get the point while YOU refuse to get the point by insisting that he many sources already cited is proof of the other viewpoint somehow being fringe, is absolutely ludicrous. And believe it or not I have sources, but they are fewer by three than the sources of the article. Why is that? Is it because the opposing viewpoint is fringe? No, because I am shit at exploring the internet and also at finding sources. If you refuse to get the poin then congratulations, you just denied this article's right to be objective.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Also, since whether or not gender and sex are different is irrelevant to this article ( none of my sources mention male privilege,), I'm not going to add them here. However, I absolutely vouch for the removal of the sources that state that gender and sex are different under the same reason.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Status quo takes precedent, the onus is on the one who is proposing changes to cite policy and sources that support that change. No one except you has said anything about fringe. What sources do you have, and what statements would you like to add that are supported by those sources? InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC) To be fair, I did mention fringe in one edit summary. I stand by the position that the MRM's influence on male privilege as a concept should not be overstated, and would need substantial reliable sources before expanding any further. A small group of detractors should not be used to diminish the legitimacy of the entire concept. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (Well, Greyfell said something about fringe) As I have said, my sources do not mention male privilege, but they do go against the gender-sex difference narrative being pushed in the article. What I am suggesting is that the gender-sex difference sentences, which are not directly related ot this article, should be trimmed to provide just enough context for the terminology of Male privilege. If those proposing that gender and sex are not entirely different should not be added here, Why should those proposing that gender and sex are different be here too, save for a little bit of terminological context? Also, regarding male privilege, I haven't really found the kind of source I'm looking for, though my sources come close. SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC) @Greyfell; of course, but that's assuming that only men's rights activists oppose the male privilege narrative, which is just absolute bollocks. Lots of other people oppose this feminist concept. And no, it isn't legitimate just because lots of feminists (obviously biased towards this narrative) say so.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Sex and gender identity are treated as distinct by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. This isn't a controversial position, and actively searching for sources which support your position risks ignoring a mountain of sources which don't. This isn't the place to challenge this consensus, either. Sources at many, many articles make this distinction: sex assignment, gender identity, gender role, sex and gender distinction, sex, etc. While they may differ on how much emphasis is placed on the distinction, all of these accept that it's useful when discussing these issues. This isn't the place to fight this battle, and if you're looking for sources, you cannot ignore the bigger picture and only include the slim minority which support a specific point of view. Being feminist doesn't make a source unreliable, and labeling a source "biased" doesn't, either. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Oh well, so you say. But let me just say, to deny the involvement of hormones (like testosterone) and therefore sex on your gender, and to assert that gender is nothing but a social construct, is to deny science, which goes against the mission of this encyclopedia.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) And no, the amount of sources on one side says nothing about the amount of sources on the other side. I just can't accept your claims of "fringe"ness without evidence, can I?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Nobody is denying that sex is involved with gender. Even phrasing it like that acknowledges that the two things are different. Social constructs are influenced by biology and other factors, and nobody is asserting that gender is "nothing but" a social construct as though that made it meaningless or arbitrary. Science isn't that simplistic, anyway. What about androgen insensitivity syndrome? What about mosaicism? Intersex? What about the scientific discipline of psychology and sociology, do those not get a say? Wikipedia isn't the place to advocate for a pseudo-scientific simplification of gender and sex. That would also be WP:FRINGE perspective. You claim you have sources, but you haven't produced anything usable at all. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Of course, some aspects of gender are a social of construc ( like blue color for males and pink for females) t, and I'm not saying that they are ENTIRELY the same, I'm saying that they're not entirely different. And no, I am not trying to advocate any pseudo-scientific views here. If the men rights activists say that sex and gender are completely the same, fuck them. Also, the sources in this article state that gender "refers to socially constructed norms that are open to interpretation", which clearly shows a denial of biology. Now who's the pseudo-scientific ones here? And, as for psychology and sociology, they are fairly young sciences, and there are a lot of problems with them. For one thing, humans are difficult to measure, as they behave unpredictably and often irrationally. I'm not saying that the social sciences are all 100% horseshit, what I'm saying is that they can get dangerously close to pseud-science. Also: [[1]].SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) As for intersex people and the like, of course they exist, but they are not regular parts of humanity, are not necessary for sexual reproductions (the goal of gender and sex), so they can't be considered new genders by themselves, if they were genders, they would be as common as , say, males or females, or at least hetero- and homo-sexuals. If you find an abnormally formed guitar in an instrument factory, would you consider it a new type of guitar? of course not!SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Not regular parts of humanity? You're brushing off all sociology and psychology, in a discussion page for a sociological topic, as being only mostly horseshit, but are willing to make sweeping, unsubstantiated generalizations of what qualifies as human? How far do you think that's going to get you? Your very flawed, very dehumanizing comparison of humans to guitars is so bad I don't know where to begin. How does gender and sex have a "goal", and why are you the one who gets to define that goal? As the article on evolution explains, evolution has no goals or plans. Guitars are made by people for a purpose, and "abnormally formed" guitars can sometimes be new instruments. The comparison is pseudoscience. These are people you are talking about, not guitars. Being "open to interpretation" doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or is irrelevant. It means that they are interpreted instead of being determined. Isn't that exactly the point? An op-ed in a paper which doesn't mention male privilege isn't usable in the article, but it also doesn't clearly support your point. Incendiary headline aside, that article also supports that gender is partially a social construct, as it specifically discusses David Reimer, That case is well-known to many psychology students. Reimer's misery was because he was assigned a role in opposition to his identity. This would not even be meaningful without a socially constructed gender distinction in place. One lesson learned from that is that assigning a gender role to people against their wishes is disastrous, and that the social construct of gender has a real-life impact. None of this would've been studied or documented without the field of psychology, and its willingness to admit even the most tragic mistakes, as the scientific method demands. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC) HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm using an analogy, I'm not dehumanizing humans to the level of guitars! ALso, huamsn are physicla beings, formed by the sloppy laws ofnature, just like guitars are physical beings, formed by the sloppy machineries of the factory, aren't they?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Of course evolution has no goals or plans, when I said "goal" I meant a "pseudo-goal" something that helps a species thrive. Also, teh comparison isn't flawed since genes are physical, determined by the laws of physics, just like guitars by the sloppy machineries ("laws") of the factory, so there is no flaw you turd. While their is no intended purpose, the laws of nature, with the different environmental conditions, favour generic male and female types an dcertain physical structures through natural selection, just like a brainless factory does. Stop pretending to understand science. As for psychology, I'm not saying it is horseshit, not even MOSTLY horseshit, what I'm saying is that it CAN, and OFTEN DOES, become horseshit. And my probvlem is not"open to interpretation", but "is a social construct",which definitely isn't true. SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC) There is absolute biological proof that nature, brainless with no conscious goals, favours certian physical stuctures through the laws of physics, just like a factory, brainless with no conscious goals, favours certain physical structures through its physical mechanisms.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Also, no personal attacks. Stop accusing me of dehumanizing people.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, so now you're just trolling. Well, you've very clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about, and your edits are no different from vandalism. I think this discussion is over, and your WP:TAGBOMBs can be reverted as entirely non-productive. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Because you say so, dumbass? And no, there is no way this is a consensus. You know who else determines intersex people as abnormal?[[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeederOfTheDugudup (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) The gall to call out another editor on Personal attacks and then call them a dumbass... InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) "Turd" is at least sort of amusingly old-fashioned. I think behavior like that exhausts AGF completely enough to no longer treat this as sincere. Perhaps that point came a while ago, though. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) So what? I'm showing them what being on the other end of a personal attack is like.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) I guess we just wait on an admin to come by and visit the 3rr or vandalism noticeboard... nobody so far. Munches popcorn. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Yep, I'm here waiting with my popcorn too.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020163216/https://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf to http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Homeless men are privileged?

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

Yes, there are definitely some areas where women have systemic or statistic advantages. That's not the same as privileges when used in an academic setting. As the article makes clear, male privilege doesn't mean that "men always have it easy". That's never been what this term has been about when used by academics, and this article favors academic usage (for several reasons). Male privilege is a set of socially bestowed advantages that would not generally be available to women, or not as readily. Male rough sleepers still have some advantages compared to female rough sleepers, and effeminate rough sleepers have privilege compared to macho rough sleepers.

Finding specific examples, such as homelessness, of places where men have disadvantages doesn't alter this issue, and without reliable sources, is original research. That said, what about female and trans rough sleepers? There are fewer of them, but also, it seem like there are problems they face in much higher numbers than men. Sexual assault is one. This should never be used to trivialize or diminish those problems men face, including sexual assault. I cannot stress that enough, but we have to be able to use proper terminology when discussing these disparities. That is what the term "male privilege" is for. Addressing these concerns by looking at the full picture, not for dismissing them. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Male rough sleepers don't have any advantages or privilege. Being male doesn't work in their favour at all - quite the opposite - it works against them and often has contributed to causing them to become homeless and prevents them from being housed. They're more disadvantaged than the much smaller number of female rough sleepers, who are much more likely to be housed when homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. I don't know what the stats are for trans people, but I would think they would be more likely to become homeless, because many are disowned by their families and many employers are reluctant to employ trans people. The disadvantages suffered by trans people is a separate issue from men supposedly always being treated favourably over women. Many men never benefit from any type of privilege - and many of them suffer the opposite. Jim Michael (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Jim, please read WP:NOTFORUM; this is not the place to discuss the subject, but to discuss changes to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been aware of that for years. I'm saying that the article should be changed to state that not all men benefit from privilege. I tried to do so, but was reverted. Jim Michael (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You have pretty much ignored what I said, though. You're not realistically discussing how to improve the article, and your not answering my concerns. I really, really tried to emphasize that privilege is not about men "always being treated favourably". It's not about men always having the advantage in every situation. If there's an article about men always being treated favourably, that's a problem that should be addressed somewhere else. This article is about privilege, which is something else. If you have reliable sources about privilege and homelessness, I would very much like to see them. Otherwise this isn't a productive use of anyone's time. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No where does the article suggest that all make the best use of their male privilege. They have it, for what ever reason they don't use it. Carptrash (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Privilege (social inequality) defines privilege as special rights or advantages. This article claims that all men benefit from it - but the truth is that there are many men who never do. The article should be changed to state that some men never have the opportunity to benefit from male privilege. They don't merely not use it or make the best use of it - they never have any advantage or rights by being male. Jim Michael (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Privilege doesn't mean having an advantage in every situation. Not every advantage any specific man has is male privilege, just as not every disadvantage a man has is female privilege. There is beauty privilege, and health privilege, and young privilege, and tall privilege, and white privilege, and so on, and some people have all of those things and still have incredibly shitty lives. That's important. Some people have privilege and still have very serious problems, and that's not something that should ever be held against them. This isn't a card game, and nobody is saying that male privilege always trumps homelessness or anything.

Think about it this way: Women benefit from advantages in some situations, such as emergency housing. Likewise, men benefit from male privilege some of the time. Sometimes, men have problems that are worse because of their gender, but this isn't about that. We have articles about discrepancies in cancer, suicide, longevity, etc. This article isn't about every single aspect of being a man. You do not get to define what is and is not male privilege, and then come back and say it doesn't exist because some males don't have it. If men don't have some, specific privileges, then it's not part of male privilege. Do you understand what I'm saying? For the third time, this is not saying that "all men have the upper hand in every situation". That would be stupid and wrong. This article is about the set of advantages that men can access by virtue of being identified as men. These are not a "get out of jail free" card. These advantages exist even if some men have a much harder time accessing them than others, but they still exist. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it falsely claims that all men have male privilege to some degree. Some men never have the opportunity to have male privilege - they don't merely have a harder time accessing it. Do you accept the fact that some men never benefit in any way from being male? Jim Michael (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

They're likely to be harassed and discriminated against because they're homeless, poor etc. - regardless of their gender, so that's not a gender issue. They have no rights or advantage over women - and hence no privilege. In fact, homeless women are treated less harshly than homeless men, because homeless women are generally viewed as victims of domestic violence, whereas homeless men are generally viewed as lazy drunks. If privilege is about accessing services, then there are far more available to homeless women than homeless men. If privilege is about there being fewer obstacles, men have far more obstacles. Men are far more likely unemployed, to be victims of violence and to be stopped and searched by police / security guards. Men are much less likely to go to university, much more likely to have heart attacks and many times more likely to be sent to prison. Most women receive free drinks, restaurant dinners, flowers, chocolates, holidays and jewellery from men. Very few men are given those things by women. Most men have to spend a huge amount of time, money and effort to get sex - whereas women can get it for free with extreme ease whenever they want it. Men (homeless or not) suffer a range of discrimination, obstacles and disadvantages and costs that women don't. To say that all men are privileged is preposterous. Here's a ref: I hate to break it to feminists, but 'white male privilege' is a myth Jim Michael (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is definitely in WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTFORUM territory. And a blog post in a political-opinion magazine is hardly equal to the reliable, academic sources that we cite. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOURCETYPES. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I could find three sources about this topic the spectator (blog), Huffington post (blog) and the telegraph. Of these, the first (also mentioned by Jim above) and the second are opinion pieces and would need attribution to the author (if determined to have due weight for inclusion). The third is not a blog, and is about the gendered issue of homelessness, but does not make use of the term "privilege". I recommend the Huffpost source as a good read for Jim Michael in order to understand the difference between the definition of "privileged" and being 'advantaged', at least in the academic sense of the word (which I totally agree is really dumb and very different from the colloquial definition of "privileged"). The difference between the academic use of "privilege" and its colloquial use is the reason why 'male privilege' often seems nonsensical, and why people often misunderstand it (in both directions, as a white male I certainly have some of the privileges outlined in the huffpost source, but socioeconomic class is much more important). Also, proponents of male privilege tend to totally and completely ignore 'female privilege' (which wikipedia does not even have an article on because the sources don't bother discussing it...) and these same people don't relise that this ends up being a cherry picking exercise. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 10:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The source I gave is a professional blog. The lack of sources is due to very few journalists or academics being willing to challenge the established, fashionable myth of male privilege.

The Huffpost article is predominantly about 'white privilege', not 'male privilege', and the author admits that as a woman she is privileged in that a substantial part of her rising above her poor roots was by marrying up. She points out that some things which are supposedly white privilege - such as living in a good area and having nice neighbours - are class privilege rather than race.

The Telegraph article points out that the large majority of homeless rough sleepers are men, but that's not often mentioned and most of them don't receive the help they need. One of the reasons for that is that society doesn't care about disadvantaged men.

Another disadvantage of being male is that the media rarely publicise it when a man goes missing - unless he's a fugitive or a celebrity. A missing person usually has to be young, female and of above-average looks for the media and public to care about them. That's a combination of female privilege, youth privilege and looks privilege.

Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The source you gave is not an expert blog. It is a blog by a professional editor and columnist. Editors and columnists are not even remotely experts in gender issues. For that, you need sociologists and psychologists.

Furthermore, you've already shot yourself in the foot by making a sweeping (and politically charged) change to the article, then arguing for it here without any sources first, then by producing a single low-quality source, then by making demonstrably false statements about that source. Even if you were absolutely right (which -no offense- you're not even close to) you've approached this in possibly the worst method from a practical standpoint.

If that weren't enough, you have left several poignant criticisms of your claims unanswered. For example, you have ignored the disparity pointed out by Greyfell between homeless women and homeless men, instead comparing women as a whole to homeless men. Your argument is also incomplete; You have ignored the scholarly definition of "privelege" in favor of your own definition without addressing the applicability of the scholarly definition. You have not posited a causal relationship between your premise and your conclusion. You have, indeed, not posited a premise at all, merely a conclusion. You have not presented any evidence, instead relying entirely upon rhetoric. You have not done anything to address the scholarly consensus and show why it is wrong.

As a Wikipedian, presumably you have some appreciation for rationality and logic. Consider how you would react if someone showed up on a talk page on your watchlist making a claim that went against the expert consensus, had no evidence, made incomplete arguments for it, ignored any problems you pointed out with it, and misrepresented the credentials of others who agreed with his conclusion to add weight to their opinion. Would you accept that, or would you see that as a disruption? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that Wikipedia is not the place to push claims that "very few journalists or academics [are] willing to challenge the established, fashionable myth". That's because Wikipedia is a summary of what established sources have to say. I think we can safely treat this like any other fringe claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I don't see what "cherry-picking" has to do with anything. If sources "don't bother discussing" a topic, then obviously it has no place in an encyclopedia based on said sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, I wasn't as clear as I could have been, and this seems to have created a misunderstanding. I was commenting on the lack of academic discourse on "female privilege" as the reason we don't have an article on the topic. There are several areas that women clearly have an advantage over men, even in the law ([10] [11]), and Jim was bringing up another (prevalence of homelessness) but these are not widely discussed in reliable sources, therefore we do not have an article on the concept of "Female privilege". Pointing out that many of the arguments of 'male privilege' proponents are the result of cherry picking will continue to be an accurate (if difficult to pin to a reliable source) statement so long as academic feminist sources continue to ignore areas where women clearly have advantages under the law; even if male privileges are greater, ignoring female ones creates a false dichotomy. Admittedly, this discussion strays into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but I felt it important to explain to Jim why the situation seems so weird from a lay-person's perspective. Wikipedia obviously isn't the place to right great wrongs but it still helps to explain to newbies why sometimes we have to follow the sources, even if it doesn't make sense to us personally. I probably could have been clearer with my language, sorry about that. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 02:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Janet Bloomfield and r/mensrights? Both of those links are straight-up WP:FRINGE. And it's incorrect that academic feminists "ignore areas where women clearly have advantages under the law" - there is actually a ton of research on this. What you're looking for there is ambivalent sexism, also sometimes referred to as "benevolent sexism." Unfortunately our article on that topic is pretty terrible, but there's lots of scholarship out there that could be used to enrich it. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Those sources were just convenient lists by MRAs, I know that they are fringe, that's why I said that there are not any reliable sources that discuss it. I was not proposing that they be used in the article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 03:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)