Talk:Man cave

Excellent CNN articles

I don't edit this page enough to really try and flesh out the content, but here's some great articles that may help someone else:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/05/02/mantuary.marriage/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/14/messy.neat.battle/index.html --the "Messy Hideaway" section

Thanks, I added the first one to the article.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Man Cave Picture

I agree that a man cave doesn't have to be anything special, simply a male sanctuary... but the picture that's up really doesn't look different from any attic office. I'd suggest one of the following pictures to give a better picture of an "ideal" man cave, rather than just some random space found around the home: http://webpages.charter.net/brent77/office.jpg http://www.rhinobuilders.com/images/basement/4/3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.125.132 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The first link is broken. But the important thing here is that we need freely licensed images for use on Wikipedia, not just images found on the web. If you can find any images that meet Wikipedia's image use policy, please do let us know! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced office image with an image of interior of a shed man cave and an exterior of same building. These depict a space that is designed and used for the primary purpose of man cave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontieria (talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

'Kentisbeare measure'

What is this 'Kentisbeare measure' and why can I not find anything regarding it with google?

A measure like this would be very interesting but I have trouble believing in it.

Being a first-timer, I don't want to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.24.187 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Playboy Mansion

Doesn't the presence of "Naked and willing women" make it NOT a male-only space, regardless of the fact that the women are there for sexual purposes, and not as wives/equals/whatever? Playboy bunnies are still women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.113.211 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. What do you think about this? I was wondering how "man-cave-ish" the Playboy Mansion was -- the reference was from a related concept "man space" from the handyman/author who listed this as one of the prime spaces. My guess is what he was trying to say was that the idea of a man-space or man-cave was a male-controlled world (like the Playboy Mansion, like an upstairs office) where a man can fantasize as he chooses. But maybe this is too much of a stretch?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I'd disagree. While the women are there physically, they are not there by definition. They would be more related to an antique firearm on the wall, than as an actual woman, in a man cave. They're used as objects for man's disposal, not as people. The playboy Mansion would be akin to a forced prostitution brothel, where physical and emotional abuse exist, but that's my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Spam link to Netherlands electronics blog

I clicked on the external link, and while some of the content may be related to the theme of "man cave" and electronics, the site is loaded with ads. Here is one:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Conrad daily deal daily has the best and most competitive offers in the areas of electronics, gadgets and technology, with dagaanbieding a discount of up to 70%. The extensive range of over 100,000 products we have always different from the dagaanbieding Categories & Office, Multimedia, Hobby, Home & Garden, Tools, Components, Energy and Auto. There is something for everyone. (translated from Dutch to English) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is what it is because it keeps the advertising out; sticking this stuff in undermines everybody's contributions here, please try to respect the process. If this link goes in, then all KINDS of links will go in all pages, and you yourself will not like having to wade through all the advertising just to find a piece of information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole article is anachronistic and stupid

'cereal boxes and mountain bikes' means 'guys rule'? in Jerry's apartment? Seriously? Girls don't eat cereal and ride mountain bikes? okayy. That apartment was like THE gender neutral, single person's apartment of the early 90s. Every single person living in the city had an apartment like that. And alot still do. I can't with that..its just too retarded. And you think there aren't tons of women out there who like doing things like this..having their own place to be themselves, express themselves? Play video games, be messy and not care what anyone thinks? Not all women/wives/girlfriends out there are hyper-feminine, Betty Crocker idiot Stepford Wives. Ugh, just the sexism in this article is blinding, insulting and laughably stupid. 24.62.95.150 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is your negative reaction to the concept of a man cave or to how this particular article describes the concept of a man cave? Wikipedians didn't invent the concept; we're merely describing what secondary sources say it is. We don't pass judgment on whether man caves are good or bad, or anachronistic or current. We must leave our personal sense of whether man caves are good or bad out of the article and try to be neutral. We're volunteers. We try our best. We do not get paid for our efforts. Some articles are great, others need work; still, Wikipedia is an excellent resource without parallel in the world. You use it often, without paying, without bothering to think that lots of people work hard to make this excellent resource available to you. The result of the millions of volunteer contributions is this -- if somebody somewhere comes along, reads the words "man cave" in a magazine and wants to know what it means, then there's Wikipedia. That's what Wikipedia does. Encyclopedia Brittanica probably has no entry on this subject. If you would like to become an active contributor instead of being a complaining fussy type who hurl epithets such as the word stupid without much forethought or mental deliberation, you can do what we did -- learn what goes on here -- but there are rules, mind you, and one of them is to civil to fellow contributors.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the anonymous contributor but I think besides the first picture of an area with WWII memorabilia, a better collection of pictures would be a nice addition..probably a picture of a man cave with seminude playboy girls on the wall and megadeath posters would be a nice contribution should anyone actually have a real man cave like that somewhere. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the anonymous contributor does have a point, in that the article presents a rather one-sided view; that is, "man caves" are described only positively, with little or balancing criticism of the concept. 109.231.193.170 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should man-caves be criticized, or portrayed negatively? Because it hurt the sensibilities of a liberal/feminine? The article is as unbiased and neutral as you can be, in regards to Wiki's POV policy. Plus, nowhere in the article did it imply women don't eat cereal or ride bikes, or are hyper-feminine. If you see the world in feminist glasses, everything looks sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, just from an idle glance-through, this article is remarkably sexist and offensive. Not to mention it's written in a rather unprofessional and objective manner that seems to clash with other, better Wikipedia articles. I don't object to its existence but it badly needs an objective hand to comb through and rewrite it. --205.154.151.227 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got to agree both with the OP and with this. When I came across this article I thought it was a joke. Sure, "caves" exist, but both men and women have them. My mom had one, her study. What about boudoirs, craft corners, or "a room of one's own" from Virginia Woolf? Mostly, what I object to is that this article doesn't come up to Wikipedia standards. It is badly written and gives poor examples (tacky lamps are hardly a male prerogative). What this article is attempting to describe is a type of personal space. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Ugh, just the sexism in this article is blinding, insulting and laughably stupid." And your use of the term "retarded" as an insult is fascist and derogatory! 46.253.186.82 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because a man-cave may sound sexist doesnt mean there shouldnt be an article for it. Portillo (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps what is also being overlooked here quite how US-centric this article is, a man-cave is not a culturally familiar phenomenon in the rest of the world, including Europe. They may well exist elsewhere but are not part of popular culture as they seem to be across the pond. I have added the words 'North American' to the first paragraph, wonder how long they'll stay.90.201.105.28 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonder if you have a source that man cave is only used in North America? Also, the term might be generational -- used by one peer group, not others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a stupid article. I don't watch US TV (in Canada) and never heard the expression "man cave". This is wikipedia, not Urban Dictionary, and a proper article would be, first and foremost, about the relatively new coinage of the phrase "man cave", which TV show it comes from, when it was first used, and so on. All of these natterings about the psychology of it is lame. I just saw the expression, knew instantly what it meant (inversin of "cave man" - place where a guy lives like an animal), but wanted to know where it came from, and this article tells us exactly nothing about that. Also, Married With Children never featured the phrase "man cave" in any episode I saw, so why is it mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.126.205 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender role perspective

Man caves are very, very obvious expressions of a male gender role. The article is in serious need of some critical analysis from sociologists and gender scholars. And that's irrespective of whether you believe them to be good or bad. The quote from Paula Aymer in the lead is nowhere near enough. Currently the article treats the topic as if it was your average hobby than anything else, and that's just too simplistic.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please leave politics out of the man-cave. And what is a "gender" scholar? Would you feel happy if Rachel Maddow did a piece on man-caves? Please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A gender scholar is a scholar of gender studies. There's no reason why the phenomenon of the 'man cave' shouldn't be the subject of academic analysis, and I agree that such analysis should be added to this article (it's more useful than essays from journalists, for a start). Here's an example of commentary on the subject from a couple of gender studies students[1], but that's not a good enough source to be worth including. Robofish (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If sociologists or other academics start treating the topic of man cave seriously, then we could include that information; but my sense is they will not study the topic of "man caves" since it's more of a pop-culture conception, subject to change. And the source in the blog the f word, above, is a blog, usually not the best stuff for Wikipedia sources as you know, although I found it is interesting. It might be possible that there will be some serious studies regarding how men and women, in a marriage or relationship, carve out "space" -- perhaps an anthropological endeavor, if that. Overall, my sense is man cave is a pop-culture concept, perhaps deserving of a lighter treatment, a trigger for gender wars as they play out in relationships, so we should expect there to be lots of disagreement about it, charges of sexism, etc. Stuff of life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

About the motorcycle man-cave picture

I think it is by one of the contributors -- of his own space -- so we might want to use discretion about whether he wants it here or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Design section: book devoted to man caves

In the interest of discussion, I contributed to the Design section of a really good book I read a couple of years ago that discussed man cave design and function, Where Men Hide. Another editor deleted this reference as spam within a couple of hours,, and I have undone that deletion. Why did you determine this a spam? There are other reference sources used throughout this article, none as thorough as the one I have placed. Frontieria (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)--Frontieria (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a learning curve; it takes time to get the hang of it. Check out reliable sources and no advertising rules. While I agree the book is relevant as a source here to this article, the reference was a link to Columbia Press -- a book publisher -- with an advertised price of $85 for the book. The account of the book was highly laudatory of the book, not neutral as Wikipedia prefers. Someone reading the text about it (which itself was mildly laudatory), then clicking on the link, will see that they are not in an impartial source like the NY Times but in a bookstore, and this undermines Wikipedia's reputation. Please understand there are numerous ways in which spam can work itself into Wikipedia, seemingly innocuously, even by people who do not see their additions as spam. Generally, bookstores are not references. They are selling stuff, namely, books. Keeping spam out helps all of us here. I found an alternate description in Publishers Weekly and rewrote the addition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit removed the reference to the photographs, there are 79 black and white photos of men's spaces in this book. I read the book, did you? The photos represent a good collection of images on this topic. If you don't add that back into the article, I will. Explain for me please what is laudatory about..."the book contains 79 black and white images..." Seriously now. First you completely delete my contribution and reference, then you overedit and remove key contributions. I concede your link is better for this occasion. Frontieria (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a kind of tough idea to get across but I will try to explain it as best I can. Perhaps the best idea is to read over this guideline. The idea is not for us contributors to make inferences directly from primary sources, such as the book mentioned. Rather, what is best is for sources once removed who are impartial, hopefully neutral, looking objectively at a primary source, to comment about a particular subject: and that is what we should cite in Wikipedia. You, saying this particular book says X, that you read the book, that you think the book makes this point or that point -- problem is, you are not a reporter, paid by a newspaper to make impartial statements, to think neutrally, who is overseen by an editor, who can pay a financial price (ie getting fired by the paper) if you get facts wrong. Neither am I. Sometimes the distinction between primary and secondary sources is a judgment call. In this case, there are objective sources (Publishers Weekly, the Canadian paper) commenting on this book. To mention in this Wikipedia article how many man cave photos there are, seems like advertising this book, regardless of whether this was your intent. Wikipedia is a process, there is a learning curve as I have said, it does not come overnight, but my "overwriting" was not meant to undo your effort but rather to point you in a direction about how to contribute here, and it was meant in good faith.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

About the spam content. Here is the line which you added which I felt was advertise-y:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In his 2006 book, Where Men Hide, author John Twitchell offers historical perspectives, commentary, and ancedotes about dozens of men's spaces plus 79 portrait pictures in black and white that capture the frozen-in-time atmosphere of many such spaces.

— --addition by Fronteria

Seems like an advertisement for a book to me. Adjectives such as historical, talking about the numerous 79 portrait pictures and the frozen-in-time quality -- could be copy from an ad agency.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This entire article needs rewriting from scratch

Sorry for the non-constructive criticism, but this article is garbage written by men in man caves with too much time on their hands and a semi-misogynistic agenda. It's also pretty offensive in its take on gender roles and doesn't even pretend to be written from a neutral perspective. Honestly, the entire thing needs throwing out and redoing from scratch.~~A man~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.176.25.196 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure seems easy to tell others to "rewrite from scratch"; how about undertaking this task yourself? Remember to follow Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

He's right, though. As a long-standing Wikipedian, I know that rewriting from scratch is difficult, but the sexist crap this is article is based is pretty thick. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This thing is hilarious

I love that there are two pictures of a "Man cave with retiree writing articles for Wikipedia" and then immediately following there is a shot of the exact same room that has now become "Lady doing cross-stich in a 'woman-cave.'"

Not only is there little in this room to grant it the designation of a cave at all, but how can a mancave, which is earlier defined as a "male sanctuary," what "Paula Aymer of Tufts University calls it the "last bastion of masculinity," be a woman-cave?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.38.110 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you, the women photo was also the exact same room as the other photo. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man cave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726233652/http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/style/story.html?id=1957a80a-1e62-4e33-8523-2b34ff96a125&k=52169 to http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/style/story.html?id=1957a80a-1e62-4e33-8523-2b34ff96a125&k=52169

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man cave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224024142/http://www.courant.com/entertainment/hc-playholiday.artdec09,0,2973678.story to http://www.courant.com/entertainment/hc-playholiday.artdec09,0,2973678.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Good source

This book seems to have a chapter about this, or at least few good paragraphs: [2]. From Google snippt's preview: "The man cave has even attracted academic interest, most noticeably among gender theorists who look at the impact of feminism on changing masculine practices and rituals (Faludi 1999; Rosin 2012)." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What on God’s Green Earth?

Is this satire? 67.184.116.181 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)