Talk:Womb envy

message: I can't find any trace of womb envy in the 1993 reprint of Horney's book. Is this entry misattributed to her?
Reillyd 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Horney did in fact coin the term you'll see that in the links.  You might find it more easily in The collected works of Karen Horney (volume II)--Cailil  talk 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term womb envy isn't in the index of Horney's book 

message: I've removed the middle paragraph speculating on evolutionary psychology   This may be a psychological factor in altruistic motivations in men in manifesting evolutionary psychological inborn genetic tendencies towards Altruism.   If it can be sourced and expalined please readd it.  I've also rewritten chunks of the article because it was poorly phrased, passive and at times unclear - I hope this rewrite helps--Cailil  talk 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 07 Rewrites 

message: related in various ways, but focusing on different aspects. Both articles deserve great expansion, and I think they would turn out to be=quite different. DGG (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge suggestion with vagina envy

message: Doesn't this whole concept seem to be prone to delegitimising transgender individuals? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This entry would be improved by a section discussing the concept's relation to transsexualism. Horney is quoted using transsexuals to uphold her concept, but is that confirmed by more modern research into the reasons transsexuals transition? At the time Horney developed her theory, there was little research on transexualism. It was considered extremely aberrant and not well understood. We have a better, if not complete, understanding of the psychology of transexuals. The article would be improved by adding a section with updated information on the reasons that people selectively change their sex - as it relates to the concept of womb envy. AraizaEos (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. If anything, that's support for Freud's theory. Horney believed that sociality was a driving factor in personality. Transsexualism simply supports that transgenders are driven by a desire to be sexually pleased, which does the opposite to uphold Horney's concept. It's also worth noting that becoming transgender is an artificial process developed through surgery, so when you say that there is little research at the time into transsexualism, there really is none because it was not possible at the time. It wasn't until 1926 that sex reassignment surgery was successfully performed. 2002:AC58:2731:0:210A:3F0F:D51:760B (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to Transgender Issues? 

message: I would like to see sections in this entry. I have found one reference in pop culture (Joss Whedon) to the term and concept. Is that enough to create a section? Also, it would seem odd to have just one section - the one for pop culture - and not other sections. How might we organize this entry into coherent sections?AraizaEos (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Do women really urinate faster than men?   Ive found this claim on a few sites, but the logic doesnt make sense.    We even have a sentence on urination that suggests it may be the opposite:
:This is due to increased urethra length of large animals, which amplifies gravitational force (hence flow rate), and increased urethra width, which increases flow rate. 
Though since it is talking about differences across species rather than gender differences I wouldnt jump to that conclusion either.
It seems odd that something that's supposedly well-known enough to be a common source of male jealousy would be so difficult to confirm.  even if Ruitenbeek  happens to be right about the biology, i dont think  its a common male emotion and doesnt need to be mentioned here.  if we do mention it, i would at least want to add the word claimed to the sentence.  Thoughts? —Soap— 00:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added in   this diff, so the claim wasnt  part of the original text.  the editor probably meant well, but unless they happened to have read Ruitenbeek's book   I think we are misattributing the claim.    if the text were changed to simply read urinate, it would flow better with the rest of the sentence. although i still wonder what the big deal is, and wonder if this specific jealousy  is not so common after all.  —Soap— 01:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, maybe womb envy is itself not very common.  The different authors all define it in their own way, and some people would probably say that it doesnt exist.  Im going to remove the part about faster flow rate now, and I think maybe the mention of urine should be removed altogether, but I'll think about that for now. —Soap— 10:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  urine 

message: just noting that i think the word notawoman, which we have as not-a-woman, might actually be unhyphenated in the original text. ive had a surprisingly difficult time confirming this, though, and its possible that  Robert S. McElvaine coined the term independently of a different author (possibly  Karen Horney), or respelled it. —Soap— 01:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: notawoman