GeniesLoki

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.

Having read downthread, it seems like the proposed idea is simply turning feminist lenses onto men, which is something that already happens quite often.

But maybe with the addition that it's "feminist literature written by men", which seems ... honestly common enough these days.

You're welcome to provide citations rather than just being unhelpfully dismissive without saying anything constructive if you like?

Here I picked a random feminist paper I recently read (about hermeneutic injustice, so it's relevant to OP), it's written by a man and its concepts are broad enough that it can be applied well beyond "women". https://repository.wellesley.edu/object/ir226