Talk:Male privilege

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Male privilege article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Feminism Mid‑importance Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Men's Issues High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

New Article

Female Privilege Feel free to add content as per [1] BlackAmerican (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wiki was supposed to be neutral?

This page clearly needs to be revised. This is supposed to be a neutral stance and it clearly is not and purports a local of crap. 98.177.111.254 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content

I ask Panamitsu to discuss the content they wish to add to the article rather than edit warring to force inclusion. As I stated in my edit summary, devoting an entire new section to a single survey is WP:UNDUE, and inclusion of speculation as unencyclopedic in WP:TONE. Please address these issues and achieve consensus for inclusion before re-adding, as required by WP:ONUS. Generalrelative (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Feminist Philosophy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 2 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raafae1234 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PhilosophyProf (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These additions are WP:UNDUE. Compare the amount of text that it devoted to the new additions (most of whom have few citations and were not published in prestigious journals) to the much smaller amount of text devoted to eg. highly-cited foundational papers in the field. The entire section (!) given to Hugh Murray in particular was absurd - Murray has no relevant expertise (he's described as an "independent scholar" by the Mises Institute) and the journal it was published in has no connection to the subject matter, so I don't think it's usable at all, but certainly devoting an entire massive multi-paragraph section to him is absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this content had been re-added, I'll chime in to say that I agree with Aquillion's take here. Murray's work stands out as polemical whereas the rest of the article is largely research-based. Additionally, devoting an entire two-paragraph section to him is clearly WP:UNDUE and goes against the advice of WP:CRIT. Generalrelative (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who readded it, and I stand by my reasoning. What exactly constitutes "expertise" and "scholarship" on this topic? Peggy McIntosh is a "scholar"? Please - Peggy McIntosh is simply an activist with a background in teacher training and administration. Her famous "invisible knapsack" essay is fundamentally polemical. My perspective - the concept of male privilege is an ideological one, and not a scientific concept. Rejection of the idea is not "fringe" in the sense that evolution denial is, but simply an ideological difference, along the lines of acceptance or rejection of the labor theory of value. I do not see why Murray is any less qualified to make this critique than McIntosh is in supporting it. To automatically block any criticisms of the concept of male privilege a priori as "undue weight", which is what I see going on here, is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Is it really just the source, or are criticisms of that reject this concept simply not allowed according to the self-appointed gatekeepers of this article?

Also, on the topic of WP:CRITICISM, how is a mere essay become interpreted as general policy? Yes, it is best to have criticism more integrated throughout an article, but sometimes it really is the best structure is to lay out the views and variations on the concept according to its advocates and then a section of views rejecting the concept. Again, I point to the labor theory of value article as an example that nobody seems to have a problem with. And there really is a weird double standard on Wikipedia for articles devoted to Marxist concepts versus those that are associated with the social justice left.

My only caveat is Murray is hardly the last word on criticism of the idea, and a section criticizing the concept really should draw on a variety of authors and critiques. This can be done without turning the article into a hit piece against the concept of male privilege, though right now the article suffers from the opposite problem. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy McIntosh is an extremely highly-cited academic who focuses on this specific subject; she is one of the defining scholars in the field. Obviously we're going to cite her at least once here, since her research defines the topic. The specific work from her that we devote a blockquote to has been cited over five-thousand times! You can feel it's as polemical as you like, but it is in fact highly impactful, so it makes sense for us to cover it; and McIntosh herself is highly impactful in the field, so it makes sense for us to cover her views in general - she's a senior Research Scientist of the Wellesley Centers for Women, a consulting editor to Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women, and the author of countless similar highly-cited papers. In addition to her PHD, she has received numerous honors and awards from many high-profile educational institutions. Several of the parts that you edited regarding her are cited to secondary sources that highlight her significance as a researcher and scholar on this topic. The same is not true for Murray; he is an "independent scholar" of no significance who was published by a think tank's low-quality in-house journal. Including him is WP:FALSEBALANCE; we include sources based on their impact and significance, we don't include them to "balance out" other ones and achieve what individual editors personally feel is an ideal balance. If you think that there is criticism of weight equal to McIntosh, just find a source from a similarly high-profile figure with a similar number of citations. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this. I'll just add that no one has suggested automatically block[ing] any criticisms of the concept of male privilege a priori as "undue weight". Research-based criticism would be completely DUE, especially if it’s WP:SECONDARY in nature. Nor have I equated the essay CRIT with policy. If you reread my comment above you will see that I’m careful to distinguish CRIT as “advice”. And CRIT doesn’t advise against including criticism but rather against clumping it into a single section. And frankly, the whole the concept of male privilege is an ideological one, and not a scientific concept schtick is untenable. Social science exists. If this is the basis for tagging the article as "unbalanced", the tag is unwarranted. Wikipedia is not based on editors' hot takes about whole branches of human knowledge. Generalrelative (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You both clearly have a tendentious definition of “science” and your views strike me as the very embodiment of a “hot take”. Would you care to explain what reasearch program the “invisible knapsack” excercise is a result of? And positing Peggy McIntosh’s ideas as a scientific truth on par with evolutionary biology or quantum mechanics is in itself a WP:FRINGE view, even if you can round up a few like-minded editors for an RFC that supposedly officializes this view.Yes social science exists, but that doesn’t mean everyone with an ideology about social policy is doing social science. This kind of thing is more on par with the claims that Marxism is “scientific socialism” than anything to do with disciplines that use the scientific method.

In any event, I’ll concede to you what’s effectively article ownership here. What I will not concede is that you are right on matters of fact or that you are adhering to WP:NPOV in good faith. I also think it is good for these discussions to be brought up periodically to underscore that there is far from universal consensus in the Wikipedia community that the “social justice point of view” represents any kind of objective truth or allowable exception to NPOV. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: IADL 1110 Introduction to Information Studies

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2025 and 11 October 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Konofre11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fawnnl33 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]