Talk:Men's studies

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hawhite13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psych2021wgs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Omgitsgracey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In my research on the field, I have found from various sources that Men's studies is an inaccurate and a misleading term and that the field is most commonly referred to as 'Masculinities studies'. I do not want to relocate this page to masculinities studies if it is not valid, but I saw other editors bring up the same question, so if anyone has any input please let me know! I have also put in a request for a name change to see if that is a valid option. Hawhite13 (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

perhaps the literature on masculinities (Connell, Kimmel, Klein, etc) should be included in the article to give it more substance and make it more representative of the field. The term men's studies must refer to masculinity studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.6.141 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The name of the field is "masculinity studies" or "critical studies on men and masculinities". "Men's studies" is highly problematic since it refers to a field in rivalry and competition with women's studies and gender studies, in other words, the masculinist and/or misogynst and patriarchal camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.194 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the problems with the article below could be resolved if there were in-text citations as well as a more complete reference list. As it stands, this article is a stub, and is biased to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.54 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I find it interesting that the editors of both this page as well (as the editors of the men's studies anchor link on the main gender studies page) saw fit to emphasize an academic's warning about the "atomisation of masculinity studies" (in other words, insinuating that we should question the very need to study masculinity distinctly from the rest of gender at all) in the men's studies article, but the criticisms section of the women's studies article tends to consist of mostly criticisms of the study of femininity being too narrow (the idea that femininity is being studied in the wrong ways, that it's effectively not being studied enough.)

It's really not possible to be encyclopedic or objective with this kind of discrepancy, but then again, it shouldn't surprise you to see this, because this field (both on the feminism and the masculism "sides") tends to self-select for combative people with a persecution complex. It's a shame more actually Socratic people don't filter into it, because gender is actually an inherently interesting topic if one has the humility and self-discipline to deliberately drink none of the ego kool-aid that is flavored by one's own sexual histories, biases, preferences, and traumas. but then again, humble people don't become "social issues" writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.205.142 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Men's studies have claimed that the loss of male privilege is a form of male oppression, pointing towards child custody and domestic violence laws that, without a jury trial, criminalize men."

This bit is terribly biased, and very confusing as well. First off, would anyone care to elaborate just what exactly are these "lost male privileges", and providing the source for the specific claims of "Men's studies"? Because I sure don't think being considered innocent until proven guilty to be a "male privilege". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.203.177 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

True for these "male privileges" to have ever been "lost" they should've had them to begin with, there has never been a period in history that domestic violence laws covered blokes and not shielas, nor has there ever been a period where child custody was disproportionately given to blokes, it's almost as if it were written to redcon modern male problems that have existed before Feminism or the idea of gender rôles and were somehow caused by a loss of "male privilege", this reads oddly enough like both anti-Feminist and anti-Men's Rights at the same time, I suggest a rewrite or even a complete removal.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you exactly mean by men's study? Stuff that is taught/examined at universities or colleges? Then I've never heared of men's right's advocacy or masculism being part of the schedule. I thinks they see themselves more as a movement than a body of theory. Maybe I missed out on something - it would be great if you could make this more precise.--84.131.23.170 19:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that the discussion has been obscured by someone who has subsequently filled half the first paragraph with a digression on men's rights issues, which I had only originally included in passing (as most men's studies scholars distance themselves from men's rights). I'll edit the first paragraph to remove any mention of men's rights and relocate the discussion to the final paragraph, which seems a more suitable spot. -- Thewatchmaker, 23 November 2005.

This page sees to contain many 'weasel' words and terms concerning those that believe 'womens' studies' has an oppresive nature. --CMH

[National Organization for Men] or [National Organization for Men against sexism] - these organisations represent two very different strands of the men's movement. As the first one is not anti-sexistist in the way meant here I have changed it. to NOMAS. But then it says "was". Maybe there usesd to be an anti-sexist organisation called the same? But this has to be made clear so no one will mix this up. --BarbD 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I'm quite sure now you were talking about NOMAS - they've been existing for 25 years. --BarbD 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am currently too tired to argue, but this article is full of weasel words, and inaccuracies...Karpeth (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Karpeth I don't see the NPOV problem you're pointing to. This is terribly sourced (or just unsourced) but I don't see weasel words. There's some probable OR in the "course are continually changing" lines but that's about it. Where exactly do you see this article condemning masculism?--Cailil ^talk 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Ironically" is such a word... Karpeth (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what was meant by that sentence ("ironically a minority ...") the grammar was atrocious. I can see where you get the weasel word impression but I don't read it as a characterization "condemning" masculism. Anyway I've rephrased the line--Cailil ^talk 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are we cool with opening up a tab on this topic? The fact it is oppressed and pushed out of academia by feminist powers is arguably even more notable than the academic study itself.A metal shard (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Per the article's lead: this is

an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to topics concerning men, masculinity, feminism, gender, and politics.

It draws upon feminist theory in order to analyze different ideologies having to do with masculinity,

Therefore, I added the feminism sidebar, as this is an article related to feminism.

Springee removed it, saying no per wp:point.

I understand someone thinking that the article might not be feminism-related based on the title, however if you actually read the article it is clear that it is. It is also clear that the feminism side bar is more appropriate than the "masculinism" sidebar, although one could argue for its inclusion as well, which is why I did not not remove it.

Please explain why you think this article shouldn't have a feminism sidebar when most other feminism articles have one. Please also explain why you are accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This removal does not seem to WP:Assume good faith and does not seem justified by an earnest and neutral assessment of the article. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry no, adding a sidebar that is tangentially related at best is not reasonable here. The article directly links to "feminist theory" when mentioned. Just because an article mentions feminism or something similar doesn't mean the sidebar should be added. Given the number of similar edits you have recently made it comes across as WP:PUSH or WP:POINT. That may not be your intent and I'm willing to accept your proclamation of good faith but that doesn't mean the change should be accepted. Springee (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't just mention feminism tangentially: the article, in my view, is presenting this subject as fundamentally feminist. Perhaps my interpretation is incorrect, however. I will ask for feedback from WikiProject Feminism. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is this[1] considered a reliable source for this article? BecomeFree (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I believe the sentence that mentions Male Privilege should either be taken out or completely rewritten. I couldn't find a source explicitly talking about this within the study and I'm sure it's there but, I don't think it's significant enough to be mentioned. There are many more topics talked about more frequently within this study that could take its place. Psych2021wgs (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply