Template talk:Boys and men sidebar

Welcome!

Welcome to the brand new Boys and men sidebar!

Why does this exist?

I sensed a need for a sidebar that could accompany articles like Man, Boy, Father and Masculinity that covered masculinities/men's studies/boys/men in a broad way. Although there is a Masculinism sidebar, it has a fairly heavy focus on "men's movements".*

How did you pick topics for this?

Some of the ideas came from reading through The APA's Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men and writing down key terms like hegemonic masculinity, toxic masculinity, John Henryism, trans men, etc.

Isn't "men and boys" way too broad of a subject for a sidebar?

I think that's a legitimate concern. But still, I think it's shaping up nicely, don't you?

No, I think the topics you picked for it are all wrong!

Well, it's a work in progress. Give me your own ideas and let's collaborate.

Why didn't you include any information about men's movements?

I think it's worth considering adding info about them, but 1. As noted, there's already a sidebar that focuses on men's movements. 2. I worry about any men's movement section metastasizing and, ultimately, completely dominating the template. 3. Men's movements are, well, fraught, politically charged territory. So if they're added it should be done with care. 5. To be honest, while I've made some confident statements about men's movements in the past, I'm realizing now just how little I know about them. (Working and thinking about this template and other men's-studies-related-stuff has actually inspired me to request a book from the library related to them to educate myself a bit.)

What is the scope of this sidebar? I tried to limit the scope of it by excluding any articles that are not primarily or exclusively about men. For example, many men are religious, but I didn't include Religion, because it is a gender-agnostic article. Instead, I linked Monk, as monasteries are generally male-only. Similarly, instead of linking transgender, I linked trans men, etc. Of course I cheated a bit with the "Gender differences" section, and there I included a bunch of male vs. female articles. And there are some other cases where the question of inclusion gets fuzzy. Is the Heterosexuality article exclusively about men? Well no, but...you could say a heterosexual relationship necessarily includes a male, so...maybe it fits? Or maybe that one needs to go... WanderingWanda (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*This is kind of necessarily true because of the name "Masculinism"/"Masculism", which doesn't mean "the study of men" or "men on the whole", but instead it apparently means "men's advocacy". I did briefly push to broaden the scope of those templates by changing their names to "Boys and men", however, I realized it was better to just let those templates be what they are, and instead create this new template with a broader scope. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]