Talk:Phallocentrism

Delete

Phallocentrism is not synonymous to phallogocentrism, and this article doesn't have any content so it should be deleted 136.160.160.166 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This article needs some serious cleaning up. There are multiple problems with grammar and citation but what's more distressing is that nowhere in this rambling pseudo-philosophical gobbledygook is there any meaningful definition (or even description) of Phallocentrism. I am reluctant to edit the article as I am not an expert in this nonsense. Someone please fix this so that it is not a complete waste of space. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to the redirect, Phallogocentrism. -- œ ^™ 04:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be fantastic if the Phallogocentrism page were not also a long series of rambling, empty statements and tautologies. Like I said, I am not an expert in the subject, but I am an academic and I can't for the life of me figure out what on Earth either of these terms actually mean. The majority of the phallogocentrism article appears to be a rather unsophisticated blend of sophistry and handwaving. The only "real" definition I can find is maddeningly vague and lacking any sort example to clarify just what the hell the article is going on about. Ostensibly there are a large number of very intelligent people working on this sort of stuff, so I try not to write it off completely. I'd really like to know what any of this stuff actually means. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC

Relaunch

Have relaunched the article from scratch, sticking close to sources, but have added a link from the old article as well. Hopefully can progress further from here.....Jacobisq (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinvigorate 2018

I think this article deserves improvement. Phallocentrism is still a socially important concept, so the article should be expanded well beyond the theorists mentioned here. I fixed some of the grammar, punctuation, and spelling. It's a start at least. Hopefully we can get some other editors to assist with the work. AnaSoc (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We might consider dividing the article into sections, e.g. Psychoanalysis (Freud, Lacan); Philosophy (Irigaray comes to mind); Literature; Medical (Leonore Tiefer); Feminist theory; Pornograph (another word, e.g. popular culture? (Simon Hardy has a chapter in The New Sexuality Studies 3rd edition)... other ideas? AnaSoc (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An ideology?

For something that is supposedly an ideology, the subject doesn't appear to be described as one. In fact, the article seems to be about speculations concerning the existence of "phallocentrism" as well as speculations describing various views as "phallocentric" including the view that phallocentrism may not exist. To me, based on the article alone, "phallocentrism" appears to be more of an unfalsifyable social theory than anything real and tangible. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]