GeniesLoki

Looool normies are just structurally hermeneutically priviliged. Nice

Say what you will abt feminism or social justice or w/e but this concept is 100% real

the virgin: if feminism is fake then all its concepts are fake feminism is fake therefore all its concepts are fake vs the chad: if feminism is fake then all its concepts are fake this feminism concept is not fake therefore feminism is not fake

Feminism is 100% real but men have been structurally hermeneutically disadvantaged by the lack of a functioning corresponding masculinism. (the manosphere stuff definitely ain't it)

broke: men don't need a field of study about them woke: men need a masculinism that coexists with feminism bespoke: men have a field of study already; looking thru a feminist lens, "man" is the default hermeneutic stance in the vast majority of philosophy

Honestly I've heard variants of this take so often that it's solidly in the "broke" category. It's true that specific aspects of the male experience are very prevalent in the literature. This does not mean that the typical male experience is well understood.

Psychoanalytic literature + historical philosophy seems to do a good job at laying out the typical male stance in synchronic (present configuration) and diachronic (historical or genealogical configuration) forms respectively. Not sure what a "men's studies" could add.

Seems basically false, certainly needs way more justification than you've given, and there's been plenty of in thread discussion about what it would add that I don't really feel like repeating.