Talk:Male privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Male privilege article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents 1 Well, here is something for everyone to shoot at 2 Wikification 3 Other views? 4 Alternate views

[edit] 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.

User:Kendallgclark

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)