Talk:Penis envy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penis envy article.
Article policies
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] Male penis Envy

"...Misconception that a larger penis is universally more satisfying and appealing to a woman..." - This is unfounded. Weather a larger penis is more satisfying than a smaller one is somewhat debatable, certainly the extremes of small and large are not going to satisfy a partner, however it is not correct to say that the mere sight of a large penis is not appealing to most women (or possibly gay men, though that is not mentioned in the article).


I myself do not see how the subject is related the the Freudian theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.182.227 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaaaah

So thats why women hate me! I just thought they were lesbians. I got a penis.

I suffer from penis envy and i'm 29. I still want to shaft my mother and occasionally bens dad.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.54 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete misreading of Freud

I genuinely think that this article is an enormous misreading and bastardisation of the concept of penis envy, complete with quite a lot of theorising about what really causes gender roles and what men are like. The concept may be out-dated, but I don't think you'd know from this article, which doesn't even begin to describe the concept adequately.

So help us add to itUrthogie 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ive got an envy for something long.... something like a thick edit from you to fix the article that is a "bastardisation of the concept". You seem to have some knowledge on it, which is probly rare for such an 'outdated' concept.Jesus On Wheels 11:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I will endeavour to try and fix the article with references from Freud as soon as I am able, but unfortunately I know it's going to take a while, which is why I was bringing it to people's attention. In the meantime, I really would recommend someone checks stuff in this piece, because it's mostly just plain wrong, and is kind of embarrassing.

I will endeavour to try and fix the article with references from Freud as soon as I am able, but unfortunately I know it's going to take a while, which is why I was bringing it to people's attention. In the meantime, I really would recommend someone checks stuff in this piece, because it's mostly just plain wrong, and is kind of embarrassing.

Hi - I wrote some of the stuff above. The article is now much improved. Tom Coates 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling in this article

Dear Feminists,

If you are going to leave such a clear signature in this article, can you please make a decent effort in spelling and punctuation, or even run your spellcheckers over the text before submitting it? Otherwise, you're not helping your cause! A text looking like it has been written in anger is likely to detract from its intellectual merits. Samsara 13:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Envy here

Happy being female and Freuds theories were only taught from a historical view when I took my psych classes in college. I am unsure if psychoanalysis is even practiced that much anymore. Its heyday ended in the 1950's I believe.-Dakota 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb sentence

Some feminists have suggested men's desire for female breasts constitute breast envy. Of course, this can't be universally because many men have big breasts and all men are capable of getting breast cancer.

And men with breasts are not envied, but its cause of embarrassment. --Vizcarra 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If I had breasts I would never leave the house.....

[edit] Dispute

Unlike the falsified predictions of Freudian penis envy, and evolutionary psychology penis envy, feminist theories predict that penis envy declines as society becomes more egalitarian, and more women are placed in the highest levels of power.

"placed in highest levels of power"?? Either this is patronising to women or a stab at neoliberal democracy... either way, it could do with rewording... - FrancisTyers 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

THE GOD OF WAR LAUGHS AT YOUR SMALL PENIS--God_of War 06:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If women have a penis envy, so it gives 3 reasons for it:

  1. only the penis is able to penetrate in any body
  2. the penis is much more noticeable than the vulva in generally
     and especially to the clitoris
  3. urination by standing (penis)
        --Fackel 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminists

This shouldn't even be mentioned in the article. Everyone knows feminists are ignorant people. BTW, how about some pussy envy?

It's called womb envy. —Keenan Pepper 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
don't forget vagina envy Ziiv 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ev Psyche and Penis Envy

I found the following line in the article interesting:

  • Some proponents of evolutionary psychology suggest there is an evolutionary aspect to this, (i.e. penis envy), but this is purely speculative.

Now I have read a lot on the subject of evolutionary psychology, and I have never read of anybody in that field speculate on the idea of penis envy, (though I have read of evolutionary psychologists criticizing the Oedipal complex from the perspective of parent-offspring conflict.) I'd be curious to know what evolutionary psychologist(s) has made speculations on penis envy. I strongly suspect that most, if not all, evolutionary psychologists would find the concept absurd.

If I may speculate further: I realize that feminists quite often aren't exactly crazy about evolutionary psychology. However, I believe that criticisms from feminists on EP are often times based on misconceptions about EP...misconceptions that are understandable, considering the history of how biology has been applied to human behavior with things like Social Darwinism and eugenics. My suspicion in regards to this article, (and of course I may be wrong), is that some people may be reading penis envy into evolutionary psychology, when it's not actually there. But as I said, I could be wrong!

As a final note, some people may find it intersting that there are attempts to find common ground between these two fields. Check out

EPM 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments?

[edit] So How's This??

I would be interested to know what people thought of this article now. I've changed it significantly, while trying to leave all the accurate, relevant stuff that was in it before.

Specifically, I've included a section on what Freud's theory actually was (which, to my surprise, was essentially completely absent).

There certainly was a lot of writing on 'Feminist Critisisms' in the old version. It seemed to be pretty ad hoc, with many individuals adding their own "two cents" without bothering to make sure the article was consistent throughout. And to be honest, I felt that much of what was written wasn't really academic at all. It was really just a collection of half-baked ideas that people tried to express using impressive-sounding polysyllabic words! I don't think a wikipedia article is an appropriate venting place for either pro-feminist or anti-feminist sentiment.

The article was rightfully questioned; it wasn't actually an article.

The revised version is still long, in fact I think it is longer than the old one. Some might find that surprising, considering that penis envy was such a small part of Freud's psychosexual development theory. I would agree. I think this article is actually longer than the one on Freud's psychosexual development as a whole (which is pretty silly). It seems this had to be the case, because penis envy has attracted far more attention/criticism than it deserves on the basis of merit or significance. In this way, it is one of Freud's most sociologically and morally significant concepts, and (as with all things moral) demands much comment.

Dan.

  • Well Dan, I think it looks much better now. I took out the evolutionary psychology category at the bottom, though. Penis envy has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. EPM 05:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an significant - enormous, even - improvement. I was the person who left the first comment on the discussion page, and am absolutely delighted that the Freudian theory has now been clarified. As you say, although it has been widely discredited - or not taken seriously - it's a much more nuanced and intelligent theory than the previous article led people to believe. I'm also really happy that you've taken on some of the more idle commenters and stripped them out from the piece. The many critiques of the theory deserve as much and as good treatment as the theory itself does, but until you'd done this work, neither was getting sufficient attention.

[edit] Can this article be any more anti-male?

seriously, just because there is atleast one feminist in the world does not mean that their opinion matters...

  • I don't think its that anti-male! It rightly expresses how unpopular the term is. And the theory actually does assume that the 'default' pattern of behaviour in development is 'male' rather than 'female'. This is something that we now know is not true from a genetic perspective, as well as for the other reasons mentioned in the article. --Patch 08:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian English

This article is written in Australian English for a reason; the person who wrote it is Australian! Changing single words to their American equivalent makes the article linguistically inconsistent.

And I think changing the entire article to American English is disrespecting. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia rules are with respect to this sort of thing, but unless someone can show me that relinguishing my language is required to contribute to this project I intend to maintain the Australian_English present within this article.

So deal with the fact that not everybody uses 'z' in every second word! I'm talking to the guy that switched 'realises' to 'realizes'!!!

Thanks for hearing my rant. -Patch 08:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victorian?

the criticism section states that these ideas were first discussed in the victorian era. Earlier in the article it says that Freud published in 1908 and 1914, several years after Victoria died. I don't want to make 1/2 informed edits, but maybe someone could correct this. Epeeist smudge 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagina envy?

Is there such thing as vagina envy? It may sound strange, but I know as a gay male myself the idea of making love face to face would be really cool, but there is this damn penis at the front instead of a convenient hole. I mean of course guys can have sex face to face, but it's not as simple. Anyway, just throwing it out there, take it or leave it! JayKeaton 07:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I wanna ask a question?

I want to ask a question what is penis envy???


[edit] Complete structural flaws of the article

This article is far from the scientific concept Freud developed. While his theories may not be in vogue any longer--this particular article is more about the criticisms to the concept because of understandable hostility to the idea.

As a result, the actual theory behind it isn't accurately conveyed as should be in an encyclopedia, and the article ends up being hijacked by the "criticism." More appropriate would be completely listing the theory, rather than objections at each point, and followed with criticisms at the end, OR.. Simply making another page, "criticisms of 'penis envy.'"

As it stands now, the article is largely uninformative except to the fact that some people find the idea offensive, others find it funny. 68.100.15.212 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you could massively improve the article. I'd love to see Freud's concept covered in more depth. And clearly you're a skilled writer! I invite you to be bold—maybe delete the entire main section and rewrite it from scratch. I'd like to see what you add. --Ben Kovitz 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with this article is that everybody wants to add their two cents about it. Every time I take a look at it its significantly different... I'd agree that there's too much "criticism" in it, but it is definitely appropriate to include the reasons why its no longer taken seriously 219.90.204.109 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (sorry I'm not signed in) Patch

[edit] Is Wikipedia ran by feminists?

All this these rants aren't needed and hurt the flow of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)