Talk:Male privilege/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Well, here is something for everyone to shoot at

I thought the previous version of this page to be completely unreasonable, so I have completely rewritten it. In doing so, I am aware that I will have trodden on a lot of sensitivities, so let battle commence to arrive at a form of words that will represent a neutral description of male privileges and what should be done about them (if anything).

User:David91

All due respect, I think all the equivocation is PPV. It's just not encyclopedia talk to say things like "from the perspective of people who use the term..." -- how does that distinguish uses of "male privilege" from uses of any other term or word? I rewrote the first sentence or three to be more direct, more clear, and less grammatically garbled. I also moved the Foucault section down, since Foucault didn't *really* contribute to the debate about male privilege. He wrote about power a lot, but so did Machiavelli. Foucault's stuff on sexuality isn't generally considered a contribution to feminist theory.

This is useless. The text, aside from the bizarre citations, is mostly unreadable. I came here to understand this point of view, but left baffled. Stop reading off statistics without any reference to the source. Whatever you are trying to say, don't let 20 line paragraphs happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.143.136 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikification

Not that it matters but I placed the authors in the chronological order of their contributions which I thought was the neutral thing to do. As to the return of this page to Wiki, I admit my newness amd inexperience. Would it not have been helpful to explain the nature of the problems perceived so that those of us who have contributed to the page can address them and produce a version that all can find tolerable. As it is, I have no idea why the page has been returned to wikify. --David91 29 June 2005 08:00 (UTC)

The page was returned to wikify because, quite simply, it wasn't wikified. Wikification is the inclusion of all the little links that go to other articles in the encyclopedia. However, wikification wasn't the only problem with this article--it was long and rambling, with no specific point that I could make out. I have rewritten the entire article, focusing solely on male privilege as a power system/manifestation of power systems. I think this will make further adjustments and additions easier. I removed all "blurbs" about the authors, as there are far more than three, and the blurbs themselves were facile in the extreme. I've included a "Texts on Power Systems" section that, while far from complete, includes both what was written here and some more important contributions. For the record, Foucault's History of Sexuality is most certainly counted as a contribution to feminist theory. I personally studied it at least thrice as a women's studies major. --onesong 03 Aug 2005

Thank you for taking the time to clarify the Wikification point. I am still struggling intellectually with a system that links all words that have a Wiki page. I think it patronising to the average readers to assume them incapable of understanding everyday words, but I am attempting to adapt to the local culture. I also apologise for my discursive style. I do tend to be less direct — it is a generational and cultural inhibition. I have standardised the spelling and grammatical usages between your text and mine. I hope that the result is not too controversial. If you feel that I have not preserved your meaning or that the one or two examples I have added make the piece too long, let us exchange ideas and hope to reach consensus. -David91 11:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have wikified some of your additions, and just as a note, I don't believe it's necessary to spend time editing Americanized spellings of words to the British version, but I agree that standardizing them (whoops, there we go again ;) ) keeps coherency. That said, I've left them as is. I like the additional information, and it all seems to be in keeping with a much more coherent point. Onesong 16:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)onesong

I am about to go into hospital. If I am lucky enough to survive the operation, I look forward to working with you again. -David91 17:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Other views?

I think alternative views would be helpful. For instance, the list of sex- or gender-based differentiation examples does not include those to the advantage of women, such as education, military conscription, physically dangerous work, social concern for health and well-being, family law, and possibly circumcision and so forth. Do these amount to female privilege, or something else? —Ashley Y 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV always requires an article to address a topic in a balanced way. Please give examples: I know that the Singapore conscription system only requires national service of men but the armed forces do welcome female enlistment, but you obviously have a comprehensive list of the relevant countries and their laws. Please save me time by posting it here. Many thanks. David91 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure privilege encompasses more than law, otherwise we could barely claim "male privilege" in much of the Western world. —Ashley Y 18:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking your example of military conscription, the gender issue is already addressed on the conscription page where countries that conscript women are identified. So, if you would care to cite the relevant authority on female conscription and its advantages sufficient to breach male privilege, we can include it. As to the other elements you have identified, please list the advantages and your verifiable sources. And it always does come down to laws on every area because without formal intervention, male privilege prevails. David91 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In most countries, women are exempt from military conscription, and that is clearly a social advantage. It should certainly be listed as an example of "sex- or gender-based differentiation". And I note no citation of relevant authority has been made for the other examples, and it hardly seems any more necessary for this one (and others). —Ashley Y 04:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the books and the survey cited include the material referred to. None of the books include reference to military conscription. David91 10:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that you have entered an assertion that women enjoy some rights which mitigate male privilege. To make such an assertion in this context requires very specific citiation. Please provide it here before making an amendment on the page. If you cannot provide such verifiable authority, it will be assumed that this is simply your opinion and it will be removed. David91 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are currently very few citations in the article, though there is a bibliography. I count three, including two links, all in the "Determining Male Privilege" section. The other sections do not have any "very specific citations". —Ashley Y 04:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is one of generality and, since very few specifics are referred to, in-line citations have not been included up to now. The topic is the framework of male privilege which is more than adequately discussed in the literature cited. NPOV allows any editor to include material which represents an alternative POV. Thus, no responsible editor on this or any other page would dispute your right to include such material. However, this topic is extensively covered in the literature cited. If there is literature on an alternative POV relevant to this topic then you are free to cite it here and draw on that material to provide balance. But Wiki is not a forum for personal opinion or original research. If you cannot produce verifiable publications to support what you write, the inference is that you are asserting your own opinion. Take your example of male conscription: cite positive authority in which this is discussed: what is the context of privilege as applied to military service? On a global basis, how many countries have conscription and what proportion only conscript men. I believe that a majority of states allow voluntary enlistment by both sexes. Thus, the male privilege of only men serving in a military context is breached which might be thought highly desirable for women who, for too long, have been denied to right to fight for their country in the formal armed services. Women have, of course, a long and distinguished track record of fighting alongside men in asymetrical conflicts. I will leave the NPOV tag in place for a few days to see what the consensus view is. If no-one else supports you tagging the page. I will remove it. David91 05:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some serious open questions concerning, for instance, whether advantages given to women (such as exemption from military conscription) count as privilege or not. These are not being discussed in the article. Nor is it enough to claim "generality" or synthesis from the bibliography: if assertions must be sourced (which is a good rule), specific citations must be given. I will leave the remaining unsourced assertions for a few days to allow you to finish, after that I shall remove them or mark them with the cite template, as appropriate. —Ashley Y 20:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Please identify the specific assertions that you wish me to source. And many thanks for the referenced material on conscription. It is most useful to demonstrate that two countries, at least, are seeking to correct their laws for gender bias. David91 02:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in the new footnotes system. It's a bit more work, but it looks nicer for the reader. —Ashley Y 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

removed.

Alternate views

I have added the NPOV tag because alternate views and counterarguments on "Male Privilege" are clearly present, as noted in the debate above, but have NOT been included. This is unacceptable and flies in the face of Wikipedia:NPOV. With a controversial article like this, there was likely to be bias, anyways, and it should also be checked thoroughly for weasel words. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. To make things worse, people have got the bright idea into their head that they can stuff content into the article without checking their sources first or still worse, not providing any sources at all. NPOV, Uncited Sources and unverified sources make this article a mess.--Saintlink 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Things are getting better. More work is still needed, however. I've got some stuff for the other side. Wrad (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Factors Regarding Male Privilege POV

This section, rather than assuming an objective, neutral view, openly argues the male privilege agenda. This needs to be fixed. Wrad (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material

The vast majority of this article seemed devoted to listing examples of differing conditions among males and females, with the implication that this is evidence of male privilege (unfortunately, that implication amounts to original research). Other material was unverified, long tagged, or generally non-conformant to verifiability or neutral point of view policies. As a result I've trimmed the article down to what apparently seems verified, while attributing views to their proponents. Blackworm (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting WP:OR way too strictly, personally, but am willing to talk it over. Since these are major changes, I would prefer breaking it down piece by piece. I have reverted the page back to how it was so we can see what it is we're talking about. Wrad (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about this paragraph: The existence of male privilege is by no means universally accepted. For example, conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly has argued in the course of her campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment that “of all the classes of people who have ever lived, the American woman is the most privileged. We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.” [26] For example, she points to the traditionally nonreciprocal obligation on husbands to financially provide for their wives, legal privileges granted to female employees and immunity from the conscription.[27]

What exactly is wrong, again? This is clearly directly related to the subject and is cited. Wrad (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unsourced, and non-neutrally implies that the concept is accepted by a majority. Women being "most privileged" actually does not preclude the idea of "male privilege," since the latter may simply mean privilege in certain areas, thus the relevance of the rest of the paragraph is doubtful. The only thing I see remotely relevant about it is her view that "woman is the most privileged" -- which seems a contrary view to the notion of "male privilege," but even that seems like WP:OR. The second sentence cites a different source as an example of the first source, which seems an example of synthesis of sources. Again, the central point of my edits is that we cannot point to sourced examples of discrimination or different status of men and women, and then claim by implication that these examples are evidence of male privilege. If a source specifically discusses "male privilege," then it is relevant; if it does not, then it is not.

Also, please note that your reason for wholesale re-inclusion of the unverified, non-neutral, and irrelevant material is not valid. I am glad to discuss specific objections, as you have made above. Blackworm (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll note now that the source, http://www.frederica.com/writings/phyllis-schlafly.html, is a blog site and not a reliable source -- it is attributed to Schlafly, but the source in fact is a critical review of the book, not the book. Thus the unreliably sourced material must be immediately removed. Note also that the second sentence (unrelated to "male privilege") references Schlafly's book but names Ann Coulter as co-author -- which is incorrect (see [1]). Coulter seems to have written the foreword, but that does not make her a co-author. Blackworm (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Point one: The existence of male privilege is by no means universally accepted. is supported by the sources later in the paragraph, as they demonstrate reasons given by scholars as to why it shouldn't be accepted. So it is not true that it isn't supported by sources, nor is it true that it says that that a majority are against male privilege. All it says is that it is not "universally accepted," which means that there are some people, somewhere on the planet, who don't agree. There is no implication of majority. Wrad (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Point two: The second sentence cites a different source as an example of the first source, which seems an example of synthesis of sources. That is not what synthesis is. There is nothing wrong with providing two sources for the same fact. Synthesis is when you take two facts from two sources and combine them to create a fact that exists in neither source. Wrad (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Point three: Women being "most privileged" actually does not preclude the idea of "male privilege," since the latter may simply mean privilege in certain areas, thus the relevance of the rest of the paragraph is doubtful. The only thing I see remotely relevant about it is her view that "woman is the most privileged" -- which seems a contrary view to the notion of "male privilege," but even that seems like WP:OR. Your analysis is itself OR. OR is information that comes from your head rather than from a source. The information in the article is sourced. Your analysis is not. I also think it would be over-hasty to demand it be "immediately removed" since it is a blog. Obviously, since it is a book review, the right way to go about things would be to get a hold of the book and add it that way. Wrad (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Point four: The central point of my edits is that we cannot point to sourced examples of discrimination or different status of men and women, and then claim by implication that these examples are evidence of male privilege. If a source specifically discusses "male privilege," then it is relevant; if it does not, then it is not. I really think this is a stretch. Male privilege has everything to do with such examples. We shouldn't be concerned with whether the source specifically says it is connected with male privilege, because it inherently is. There is no debate on that point. The idea of male privilege would not exist if such examples did not exist. I would ask, Blackworm, do you deny that any of the things listed are examples of male privilege? I really don't see how you could. It would then seem that you are removing them based on a set of strict principles revolving around OR, but OR doesn't apply when something is undisputed. For example, if I saw the unsourced statement "George Washington fought in the American Revolutionary War," I wouldn't remove it as OR. What I would do is probably put a citation needed tag on it. Do you see what I mean? Wrad (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Final Point: I believe that all the examples in the article are "directly related" (to quote WP:OR) to the article and should not be deleted. Perhaps they need better sources, yes, but the answer is not to delete them and create a bare bones article that is nothing more than a list of facts. The answer is to leave them in their imperfect glory for someone to come along and improve. Maybe mark them or something, but don't delete them. Wrad (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:V calls on us to aggressively remove material that is unsourced. Since we seem to disagree on basic, fundamental issues such as the application of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV policies, I suggest we ask for outside input in the form of a formal third opinion or a request for comment on the content. Which is your preference? Blackworm (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure which of my points you are referring to. The entire paragraph we're talking about is sourced, so actually, you are removing sourced material, not unsourced material. Is there a page that says you can remove sourced material aggressively? A third opinion? We've only exchanged a few posts. I don't think we're in any sort of deadlock, here, are we? My compromise solution is a request that you merely tag things, not delete them. Wrad (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note at the Gender Studies project. Wrad (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not sourced; a blog is not a reliable source. Much of the other material I removed has no source at all, or has been tagged as "citation needed" for as much as a year or more. Furthermore, besides being sourced facts, the material must be relevant to the topic. For example, an editor couldn't create an article called "feminist hypocrisy" and then proceed to include tidbits of information from varying sources criticizing what they view as contradictory positions by specific feminists -- there would have to be a unifying concept called "feminist hypocrisy," discussed as one concept, with sources specifically referring to that concept by name. This is recognized, for example, in edits I made to sexism -- sources showing differences between men and women were deemed irrelevant to that article unless the source specifically argued that sexism was present. Here, in this article, there is a collection of such sourced differences, where the sources do not discuss "male privilege," but instead Wikipedia editors argue by the inclusion of the material that the source points to male privilege. That is original research. It's not allowed. It must be removed. WP:OR states: "...to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article,..." (Emphasis in original.)

Going to Wikiproject: Feminism (now called Gender Studies) is one avenue, but not one I suggested or support, nor does it qualify as dispute resolution. Blackworm (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What about going to the OR noticeboard? --Malkinann (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What is male privilege again?

I've spent a bit of time trying to make sentences clearer, and shifting references from 'further reading' to footnoted references. So far, I've avoided changing the actual content to any great degree. However, I think a major overhaul is in order. To start with, I'd really like someone to chime in with some definitions on what male privilege actually is. Much of what is currently in the article is about sex/ gender discrimination. I don't think that's all this topic is... The white privilege article, by contrast, specifies
"White privilege differs from conditions of overt racism or prejudice, in which a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. In essence, theories of white privilege assert that discourses on racial inequality do not truly discuss differences between white and non-white social status, but only discuss the failure of non-white groups to achieve normal social status, effectively turning race into an issue that does not involve whites."
I thought this was more what the concept was about. All I have read on the topic is more aligned with that approach. As such, a lot needs to be added, and a lot deleted, form this article. Does anyone have thoughts/ citations/ comments to add to support or oppose such fundamental changes? I'd rather discuss it here before making changes to the front page.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence you quote seems off; I don't believe racism or prejudice necessarily involves actively seeking to oppress or suppress. The lead paragraph of racism, for example, makes no mention of this, citing instead "the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." But male privilege isn't sexism, male privilege refers to the view that society benefits males, and that males hold a privileged position over females. I'm not sure how widespread the view is. I know few people who hold the view. I know it is popular in the feminist movement. Blackworm (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"critics" not necessarily "activists" or "anit feminist"- unless proven otherwise

I've revised an edit, saying that "Men's rights activists and anti-feminists allege that women are more privileged than men, or that women are also privileged, but in different ways to men. " to "Critics state that women are more privileged than men, or that women are also privileged, but in different ways to men." because people who disagree with how male privilege is presented are, by definition, critics of the term, but not necessarily "activists", involved in "male rights movement" or "anti feminist". If we could prove, definitively, that they were, this would belong in an encyclopedia, but we can't (for example, we'd have to deal grey area with people like this: http://blogs.smh.com.au/executive-style/allmenareliars/2006/09/12/themythofmal.html )

(I also thought that the word 'allege' was a bit value laden, and replaced with the more neutral 'state') WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Against the notion of Male Privilege

The section 'against the notion of Male Privilege' was deleted a month or so back, without discussion here. Is there a valid reason why it should not be reinserted?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Section: Determining male privilege

Basically this section sticks out like a sore thumb. Two reasons:

The content is an objective measure of current social differences between men and women without elaborating on their cause. This is gender inequality rather than male privilege, here defined as "the special rights or status granted to men in a society." Since we have a distinct article for gender inequality we should move this section there, where it is most relevant. Secondly, the relevance of the top and bottom ten countries is tangential to either article, and this data at least in part depends on volatile sociocultural factors that can easily become out of date (with no analysis of historical trends, we simply cannot know).

The visual gives this study disproportionate emphasis. On my computer it takes up nearly 8 inches of vertical space, enough to obscure everything below it until I scroll down (which totals, until the See Also, only 16 inches). As a single study its most important information is the methods that were used to quantify the gender gap, and any historical trends (rather than simply listing out country names from a measured instance). These can be summed up in paragraph form without significant loss.

Thanks for your attention and thoughts. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a month. I've recently realized there is in fact an entire article devoted to this (which is much more up to date), see Global Gender Gap Report. Therefore, barring opposition, I'm going to delete the section. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Tone" of the article

The first section of the article, Male_privilege#Cultural_factors_regarding_male_privilege, reads like a high school level persuasive essay rather than like a Wikipedia article, complete with topic sentence and [citation needed] after [citation needed]. Can someone please fix this?

Greggor88 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No article relating to cultural or racial privilege?

There's alot more to this subject that seems to be unreferenced on wikipedia; are there disparate articles or a grouping this should be under to connect with more than just gender disparity? It's only one facet of how culture interact with groups in a society. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about cultural privilege, but there is certainly a page for White privilege Jacobitten (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

structure

This article needs serious work. The piece is forked into sections taking 1 pov each, as well as coat-racking. There's also huge amounts of undue material. On top of that we have unsourced remarks. I'm going to start rewriting this from scratch if anyone wants to help just chime in--Cailil ^talk 19:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Against the notion of male privilege"

This section of the article contains a lot of extraneous off-topic information that doesn't pertain to criticizing the validity of the notion of male privilege. Although the section quotes prominent academics and authors, an undue amount of it reads as an essay trying to advocate broadly for other issues. The section needn't expand to focus on every specific concern that may have influenced the viewpoint of the people quoted there. I propose the material that doesn't directly reference criticism of the notion of male privilege be removed from the section. I'll wait a few days for input from other editors. Ongepotchket (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support this. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also support this, but I think it is important that some of the examples are left in place- there seems to be a different criteria for deciding what constitutes 'privilege' in these academics' articles. I think it is important that it notes that the counter points relate to homelessness, addiction, military service etc, not economic disadvantage or legal system issues. (I also think most sections of the article are similarly unbalanced)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

some rewriting

I am looking for some help in rewriting one of the subsections of "Cultural factors regarding male privilege", and would appreciate some assistance. I also intend to rename it (to "Historical and cultural context"). I would particularly appreciate help adding detail on non-Western societies, as well as citations. Current:

In every aspect of modern life in politics, the law, the churches, the business world, the schools, and the family, the issue of sexual (sometimes gender) discrimination has grown in significance. A core assumption is that sexuality and sexual behaviour are natural outcomes, a simple result of genetics or biology. An alternative view is that sexuality is a social construction, where men and women are nurtured and encouraged to become appropriate members of the ambient society, as decided by the majority. These assigned gender roles carry with them packages of rights and duties, depending on whether the individual is male or female. Baer, for example, analyzed gender roles in the U.S.A and suggested that one of the factors slowing down progress towards greater equality has been the low number of women in the higher judicial ranks. Without effective input at a senior level to correct for male bias, she asserts that historical attitudes towards women's physiology limits them in their choice of career, their intellectual maturity, their credibility and their ability to be effective contributors to the advancement of human society.

Proposed starting point:

For much of history in Western societies, males have held social, legal, and cultural positions of dominance. This has included sole decision-making power for the family unit, employability, many types of legal recognition including the ability to own or inherit land, access to educational resources, membership in professional societies and, in countries which practice representative democracy, voting.

(need something about Patriarchy and gender-based division of labor)

This division of labor has often been asserted to be a natural outcome of innate biological difference, or more recently, genetics or evolutionary pressure. Critics of this view maintain that differing gender roles are social constructions of the majority or dominant culture, and the result of men and women being nurtured and encouraged to take on socially-defined gender-appropriate roles and responsibilities. Broadly, these views can be seen as reflecting the long-standing historical and scientific debate over nature versus nurture.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I far prefer your version so far. It feels odd to write the section, then go finding sources to support our text, but it is entirely appropriate in this case. I find it odd that Peggy McIntosh hasn't been quoted more in the article- might be a good source for this section.

I'd change 'for much of history' to be 'for much of recorded history' WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Great work on the article so far- it's a bit of a mess. Is the opening sentence, ending with discrimination has grown in significance saying that discrimination has become recognised as such or discrimination has become more common or there has been an increase in the recognition of sexual discrimination? I think the last is what it intends, but would like a second opinion before changing it. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that saying it has grown in significance starts to run afoul of WP:DATED. I would probably go with something like that in the modern era is has become seen as a problem to be addressed, or perhaps simply describe the chronology of the term, or of the development of women's studies literature in academia. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I just removed this

if anyone wants to talk about why, this is the place.

:The male arguement is skewed by the above writer. Basically, most men favor equal rights for women. However, it is EQUAL rights men support. Often times feminist groups claim they only want equal representation which is totally cool. But! oftentimes it appears that all the feminist groups really want is the good part of being a man. Not the bad parts. Its fine with most men if women want to be treated equal. The general male concuss thinks that is fair. But equal entails the good AND the bad!!

− These feminist groups are cherry picking! They look at a guy's life like its a buffet. Like you can just start pickin' out shit. like

− "Equal pay, we'll take some of that... right to vote, we'll take some of that... Pay for the date? mmm no. We don't like that one you can keep that one."

− I mean c'mon man! you cant do that! If its gunna be fair then it should be fair! It's an all or nothing deal!

Don't take me the wrong way, I'm totally cool with most women, its just the feminist women who won't shut up and just keep on wanting more and more perks added on to bein' a women.

− All I'm sayin is if you want equal pay, and the right to vote and what not, then in the unlikely event that we are stuck on the titanic together, then you should be standing right there next to me on the main deck listening to the guy play the cello as we're goin' down. Or if World War 3 happens, then I expect you to be dug down in the foxhole, trying to light a cigarette with half-frozen hands just like me. That's all I'm sayin'! The Comparison

To fairly compare the gender gap one must accurately compare the advantages and disadvantages of ALL the various differences in the genders.

Pro's of being Female

− the perks of courtship (male buys dinner, movie tickets etc.)

− Perks of being female in a social setting

− (doors held for females, feminine body can be utilized to gain the affection/favors of a male more so than a male can do to a female.)

− Privilege of the minority (college scholarships and grants for women are in abundance.)

− longer life expectancy

− in divorce court and child custody court women have an advantage over the male partner

− in the case of an emergency women and children are saved first

− more time off and with full benefits from work when a women has a baby.

− can hit a man 3 times before he is allowed to strike back lawfully

− do not have to sign up for the draft when turning 18.

− better bathrooms

Con's of being a women

− Child birth

− smaller stature (psychological disadvantage to men generally speaking)

− women more so than men are taken advantage of in ways such as at car lots

− more painful clothing (high heels)

− emotional distress and hormonal swings monthly

− duty of childbearing and all the pains that come with it.

− more often the victim of domestic abuse

− the possibility of rape is much higher.

− the higher up the cooperate ladder she goes, the more likely she will make less than her male counterparts.

− less representation in congress(however this disadvantage is generally not felt because it would be political suicide for male politicians to take a stand against minority rights of females.)

− social pressures to be beautiful

− usually tasked with a job, and domestic work

Pro's of being a Man

− psychological advantage over women due to stature generally

− rape is much less likely

− if you are high up in the cooperate ranks you are more likely to make more than your female colleagues

− more representation in congress (however this advantage is generally not exploited because it would be political suicide for politicians to take a stand against any minority rights.)

− less likely to be a victim of domestic abuse

− relaxed clothing

Con's of being a Man

− Difficult to find scholarships targeting males.

− Cannot hit a women until she hits him 3 times.

− Disadvantage in divorce and custody court

− paying for the date, etc.

− holding doors for women

− being the person who is called on to move heavy objects, or bear the elements outside (though rightfully so considering men are less uncomfortable in bearing the elements, and are stronger so the physical exertion of moving heavy objects is less for men than women)

− less time off from work than women

− forced to sign up for the draft at 18

− putting up with women's emotional roller coaster

− social pressures (from male peers) to remain the breadwinner and to wear the pants in the family.

− Last group to be saved in the event of an emergency (women and children first etc.)

− worse bathroom.

It might not have copied very well. I might try again. Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for this kind of discussion. As I'm sure you, as an experienced editor, are already well aware, the Talk page of an article is for discussions about the article itself, not the subject of the article (which would be WP:SOAP).

I am certainly sympathetic to your position, but my feeling is that a better way to handle this would be to start digging through the scholarly literature on male privilege and adding to it substantially. The article does need some work. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, UseTheCommandLine. I've just looked over the edit history though, and realised that the above, from "I have deleted this" to "worst bathroom" was one long quote, which Carptrash had deleted- it's not a soapbox, it's a quote from an editor, at [| this edit].

Hope you don't mind, Carptrash, I've made the quoted info in to one section, tidied the formatting and coloured it all red, so it is easier to see what is the quote.

I think it is correct to delete it- it is unsourced opinion, not appropriate for wikipedia WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bushmaster and male privilege

This may wind up effectively being like throwing gasoline on a fire, but I noticed this article talking about Bushmaster's ad campaign that pretty explicitly talks about male privilege, though in an advertising-centric way. At the moment this seems like it would be difficult to work in, but I get the sense that this is a trend in advertising for certain products, and feel like this should be addressed somehow in the article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5