Article discusses areas of dependence and commonality, elements of independence, and complementary potentials between the more established women's studies and the emergent men's studies.
BrodH. (1992). The case for men's studies. In BrodH. (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies. New York: Routledge.
2.
ClatterbaughK. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women, and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3.
DoyleJ. A. (1995). The male experience (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
4.
FileneP. (1992). The secrets of men's history. In BrodH. (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies (pp. 103–119). New York: Routledge.
5.
KimmelM. S. (1987). Teaching a course on men: Masculinist reaction or “gentlemen's auxiliary”? In KimmelM. S. (Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 278–294). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
KimmelM. S. (1992). The contemporary “crisis” of masculinity in historical perspective. In BrodH. (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies (pp. 121–153). New York: Routledge.
7.
RosserS. V. (1989). Revisioning clinical research: Gender and the ethics of experimental design. Hypatia, 4(2), 125–139.
8.
UrschelJ. K. (1999). Four pedagogical issues encountered in psychology of men and gender courses. The Journal of Men's Studies, 8, 1–10.
