RE: Phallocentricity

RE: Phallocentricity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Phallocentricity (11/30/2009 9:07:53 AM)
oh ron...DAMN IT!!!!

flowerchicknz -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/11/2009 9:01:05 PM)
Nah, the world's got more phallocentric. It used to be only men had penises. Now thanks to the invention of silicone, girls have more penises than guys. Dishwasher safe and in prettier colors [:D]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/11/2009 9:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flowerchicknz Nah, the world's got more phallocentric. It used to be only men had penises. Now thanks to the invention of silicone, girls have more penises than guys. Dishwasher safe and in prettier colors [:D] That's only because god, when creating man equipped us with a crude pussy simulator (hand). The other uses for the hand are purely incidental. Otherwise, I'm sure there would be a 1000 times as many fake pussies, and the technology would be amazing. It's almost a shame, because the mind of a horny man, with no means of relieving himself other than technological means, would surely lead to a scientific renaissance. Well, that or sheep would be a normal socially acceptable gift for 13 year old boys. LOL.

flowerchicknz -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/12/2009 3:47:44 PM)
Us NZ girls get given ponies, as socially acceptable, leather harnessed, ridden hard and whipped, boyfriend substitutes. And we have 10 penises substitutes on our hands. So on average, there's 2.5 pussies per person and 10.5 penises?? That's more Phallocentric than before you opened your mouth [:D]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/12/2009 4:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flowerchicknz Us NZ girls get given ponies, as socially acceptable, leather harnessed, ridden hard and whipped, boyfriend substitutes. And we have 10 penises substitutes on our hands. So on average, there's 2.5 pussies per person and 10.5 penises?? That's more Phallocentric than before you opened your mouth [:D] You NZ girls must either have very long fat fingers, or your boys must have very short thin penises, for a finger to qualify as a penis. If you use multiple fingers to simulate a penis at least a divisor should be applied, and out of fairness the thumb should be excluded. Additionally, the pinky, on a woman is only like 2 inches at best. Though, I'm still of the opinion that a 3 inch x 1/2 inch wide finger disqualifies the notion, entirely.

switch2please -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/12/2009 8:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flowerchicknz Nah, the world's got more phallocentric. It used to be only men had penises. Now thanks to the invention of silicone, girls have more penises than guys. Dishwasher safe and in prettier colors [:D] Wooo hoooo!! So true. They're just jealous that they don't have interchangeable size and color options...poor boring flesh-toned pricks... [sm=banana.gif] (<----- I really couldn't decide which Freudian dick - I mean slip - to write, so I just went with the dancing banana)

flowerchicknz -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/13/2009 11:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: switch2please Wooo hoooo!! So true. They're just jealous that they don't have interchangeable size and color options...poor boring flesh-toned pricks... Honey, penises are like garden gnomes, you can paint them any color you like, any pattern. Garden slaves need more than a green thumb [:D]

Marc2b -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/14/2009 7:15:30 AM)
quote: "It's hard to be a woman in a phallocentric world" What do you think? Actually, I think it would only be hard on lesbians. Seriously, most societies throughout history have been male dominated and that dominace has been based on two simple facts: men are physicaly stronger and men don't get pregnant (have you ever watched a pregnant woman, wearing only a loin cloth and armed only with a spear, try to hunt a gazzelle? I haven't either but I bet it's a hoot). Modern technology has erased a lot of the gender differrence or, at least, diminished them. Mister muscles served a valuable purpose in pre-historic times. While the women were busy having the babies it was his job to bring home the all important protein and to stand guard at the cave enterence and keep the wolves at bay. Today, the protein can be found nicely packaged at the grocery store and there is a reason why guns have been called the great equalizer. Mister muscles may still hold some sexual appeal to women - but he is not necessary for their day to day survival. Western Society is still male dominated but not nearly so as other societies. I have read articles that Western Society may indeed be in a (slow) transistion phase from male dominated to female dominated. If so then so be it. My BDSM thinking may be male dominant/female submissive but I don't that let interfere with facts. Societies evolve in ways that best suit their survival (or else they fall). Male dominance has clearly served the human race (if not specific individuals) well in it's survival needs - we are still here after all - but if human society needs to evolve into a female dominated race to continue its' survival then that is what it will do. On another note: I too like your sig line about the turd. It reminds me of something my Grandfather used to say to me (or anyone) whenever I tried to bullshit him more than once on a subject: "Boy, if you take a turd - and I mean an actual steaming brown turd - and you pour perfume on it and wrap it in a pretty pink bow, it's still a turd. Ain't it boy?"

GYPSYMAMBO -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/14/2009 7:41:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Seriously, most societies throughout history have been male dominated NO they have not...the dominator model we have now has been in place about 5000 years..the previous 20,000 were matri-focal..(mother FOCUSED groups with a partnership MODEL OF BEING. THE MALE PHALLOCENTRICITY..DOMINATOR..RAPE..STEAL..PILLAGE.."model" CAME ABOUT IT WITH THE FIRST KURGANS ON HORSES SWEEPING DOWN THE STEPPES OF RUSSIA IN A 300 YEAR..PROCESS. DOMINATION HAS little TO DO WITH GATHERING FOOD./HUNTING. FOCUS..had to do with SURVIVAL which was who gave birth...?? therefore who was THe focus...?? These women chose good partners ..yes...but that did not make the men dominant... but a rather a service provided to ensure survival..if the women were not fed.. then babies could nto nurse...so hunting was a valuable service but not as valued as birthing. For 20,000 years on earth there is no record or evidence of rape..fortification..planned violence to others and the IMAGE FOR THE DIVINE for 20,000 years was A FEMININE ! oh and "men are physically stronger and dont get pregnant" so they dominate..?? lets put that another way.. *men developed and evolved in strength to better SERVE the profound sacredness* *of regeneration and GODDESS embodied by women.* GM ..I have an extensive book list from my 16 yr sresearch .. some of which are listed in another thread..Female Supremacy ..post #17

Marc2b -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/14/2009 12:12:18 PM)
quote: NO they have not...etc. Oh no, you’re not an ideologue, are you? I know better than to get into arguments with brick walls so I'm only going to say this once: There is no credible evidence to support the Utopian-matriarchal-prehistoric-societies-destroyed-by-evil-patriarchal-horsemen-from-the-east theory. It is a belief system created by modern neo-feminists looking for a theological justification for their own blatant sexism. An honest and open minded search of the internet will reveal many, credible, scholarly works that debunk it. Your matriarchal Goddess is as fictional as the patriarchal God of the Bible. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle is what led to men developing greater physical strength than women which in turn allowed men to assert dominance. The fact that for 20,000 years (if indeed if what you say is true) there is no evidence for rape, fornication (?) and planed violence doesn’t mean such things didn’t happen. What evidence would you expect for a rape that occurred 20,000 years ago? As for the image of the divine: if you are referring to the Venus Figurines – there are a number of theories as to their purpose (you can look that up on the internet too). It is a leap of illogic and ideology to presume that they were solely objects of worship. The words "submissive" and "serve" are not interchangeable nor are the words "dominant" and "serve" mutually exclusive. The dominant in a relationship is as much a servant to the submissive as vice-versa as both roles serve the purpose of survival for both parties. The best leaders in history (be they ministers of State, platoon leaders, or the head of a household) were those who understood that the leader is the ultimate servant - one who serves everyone they lead. Until modern times: Physical strength equaled the ability to impose your will on those of weaker strength (still can in modern times but the gun has equalized things somewhat). Pregnancy, which puts a great burden on women's bodies, has imposed limitations on women. Until modern times it was men who outlived women, with pregnancy and childbirth being the main culprits in women’s shorter average lifespan. Pregnancy still limits women. A pregnancy can interrupt a career and the need for child care can destroy it if the male partner is not around to lend a hand. Wealthy women can hire the help needed but there is a reason why single, poor, mothers stay stuck in the lower class. The fact remains that the majority of societies throughout known history have been patriarchal. That is not proof that men are naturally superior to women (the word “dominant” and “superior” are not interchangeable, nor are the words “submissive” and “inferior”). It is simply what has been.

GYPSYMAMBO -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/14/2009 11:56:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Oh no, you’re not an ideologue, are you? wheaher I am or not will not unduly affect your life.. I know better than to get into arguments with brick walls so I'm only going to say this once: I am not a brick wall...I am open. There is no credible evidence to support the Utopian-matriarchal-prehistoric-societies-destroyed-by-evil-patriarchal-horsemen-from-the-east theory. .. YES! THERE IS EVIDENCE in the form of 40,000 artifacts alone unearthed since the 40's..as well as ANCIENT sites..some of which I have visited..ancient cuniforms..and art...skeletons..burials..buildings..and their stories..evidence of how these ppl lived..their groups and what their beliefs were. . An honest and open minded search of the internet will reveal many, credible, scholarly works that debunk it. MY RESEARCH of 16 years in archeomythology reveal many credible scholarly works supporting the opposite including my own papers presented in TURKEY...MALTA, CANADA and ENGLAND. Your matriarchal Goddess is as fictional as the patriarchal God of the Bible. THe Goddess as a symbol or metaphor for feminine aspects is not fictional. These aspects have been documented for eons in art...word and action. ..ISIS..ISHTAR...ASTARTA..OYA...etc GODDESS beings who represented aspects of being are found in most cultures/ There were not matriarchal as in RULIING...but provided a focus... usually for nurturance and care..and partnership with MALES Previous to the GODDESS aspects of late GREECE and ROME..( when men re-wrote history )yes GREEKS declared "Histroy is now re -written" and did it_ the ARTIFACTS and art from the neolithic and bronze age ppl reveal 40,000 female artifacts and aproc 25 "male" indicating the reverance for the FEMININE...and for the cycles of earth and fecundity of the human. THe fact that 40,000 such artifacts have been unearthed rather than for example a penis shape...wheat sheafs..a bird etc...attests to the IMPORTANCE OF THE FEMININE and DIVINE aspects seen within. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle is what led to men developing greater physical strength than women which in turn allowed men to assert dominance. THat is in the movies only.....early neolitihic woman ran with a baby clinging to her back and hunted with or like men. The fact that for 20,000 years (if indeed if what you say is true) there is no evidence for rape, fornication and planed violence doesn’t mean such things didn’t happen. I said FORTIFICATION...there are no drawings..art..or reminants of needing to keep anyone out.,such as stone walls..moats etc...or caches of arrows... armours...or depictions of it. As for the image of the divine: if you are referring to the Venus Figurines – VENUS?male archeologist called them this...due to men's assumtion that a female form must be a "playboy" type image for their viewing...or arousal. VENUS of Willedorf is NOW MOTHER OF Willedorf MALE arcehologists also named TREES with branchs.."arrow going the wrong way" A woman drumming as "WOMAN WITH cake,," and a ritual of Priestesses "chattering women" repeatedly brining their patriarchal BIAS to findings...and misrepresenting voices from the past. there are a number of theories as to their purpose (you can look that up on the internet too). I have spent 16 years in other countries and in libraries and on a site... reseaching their purpose and know them to be.. as symbol....of the FEMININE DIVINE....aspects of human life cycles.. offerings for harvest...honoring of family...and more..much more It is a leap of illogic and ideology to presume that they were solely objects of worship. WHO said that? I never said that at all and niether does the research... These artifacts were formed in reverenace... What was HONORED was LIFE...an unseen force and in that woman gave life..she was honored as well...along with the men who were in partnership with her. Many of the artifacts were personal "pocket"images/pendents...life representations..symbols of life..death..hope for pregnancy..a form of woman as earth and earth as woman..symbols of keepers of the animals..season and cycles..images of death and its mystery...recording women's blood mysteries and birth...animal-human morph figures symbolizing inner aspecst as animal(flight..submerging..freedom..diespelling negativity) The fact remains that the majority of societies throughout known history have been patriarchal. NO..it is not a fact..it is your opinion and that is not the same. KNOWN history and herstory spans 20,000 years...and in that time the aprox 4000 years of late are the patriachal systems... and since that time as women have been dishonered so has earth. GM I am more than happy to send readings form an extensive (400+) book and paper list for anyone interested in anything in particular.. for example Mother of Willendorf or THE Kurgans or female figures in a particular country[8\|]

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/15/2009 3:25:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GYPSYMAMBO "It's hard to be a woman in a phallocentric world" What do you think? GM Haven't got a clue what that means in the remotest sense. Pussy has ruled the world since God (or aemeobas) created women....so....wtf?

Marc2b -> RE: Phallocentricity (12/16/2009 12:43:49 PM)
quote: wheaher I am or not will not unduly affect your life.. True, but it will affect if I will bother responding to you. There is no point in arguing with a true believer – whatever their cause. quote: I am not a brick wall...I am open. Okay, I’ll take your word for it. For now. quote: YES! THERE IS EVIDENCE in the form of 40,000 artifacts alone unearthed since the 40's..as well as ANCIENT sites..some of which I have visited..ancient cuniforms..and art...skeletons..burials..buildings..and their stories..evidence of how these ppl lived..their groups and what their beliefs were. All of which is open to interpretation and reinterpretation depending on the biases of the one doing the interpreting. quote: MY RESEARCH of 16 years in archeomythology reveal many credible scholarly works supporting the opposite including my own papers presented in TURKEY...MALTA, CANADA and ENGLAND. You don’t have to keep giving me your credentials. quote: THe Goddess as a symbol or metaphor for feminine aspects is not fictional. These aspects have been documented for eons in art...word and action. ..ISIS..ISHTAR...ASTARTA..OYA...etc GODDESS beings who represented aspects of being are found in most cultures/ There were not matriarchal as in RULIING...but provided a focus... usually for nurturance and care..and partnership with MALES Previous to the GODDESS aspects of late GREECE and ROME..( when men re-wrote history )yes GREEKS declared "Histroy is now re -written" and did it_ the ARTIFACTS and art from the neolithic and bronze age ppl reveal 40,000 female artifacts and aproc 25 "male" indicating the reverance for the FEMININE...and for the cycles of earth and fecundity of the human. THe fact that 40,000 such artifacts have been unearthed rather than for example a penis shape...wheat sheafs..a bird etc...attests to the IMPORTANCE OF THE FEMININE and DIVINE aspects seen within. [Emphasis Mine] Like I said, they were not matriarchies. Even if a society is patriarchal that doesn’t automatically mean they can’t have a reverence for the feminine. Thousands of years from now archeologists might dig up numerous statues of the Virgin Mary – and they might well conclude that the society that produced them had a reverence for the feminine or was even matriarchal. They may dig up photos of strippers dancing in front of large audiences of men, and conclude the same thing. quote: THat is in the movies only.....early neolitihic woman ran with a baby clinging to her back and hunted with or like men. How do we know this? quote: I said FORTIFICATION...there are no drawings..art..or reminants of needing to keep anyone out.,such as stone walls..moats etc...or caches of arrows... armours...or depictions of it. The lack of evidence still doesn’t mean such things didn’t happen. There may have been no fortifications because the technology/know how didn’t exist yet. There may have been less to fight over (most wars are simply armed robbery writ large) leaving less evidence to be found. Even if we accept your premise as true it still doesn’t mean they were matriarchal societies – unless you automatically equate patriarchal societies with war. That would be sexism and that is ideology, not science. quote: VENUS?male archeologist called them this...due to men's assumtion that a female form must be a "playboy" type image for their viewing...or arousal. VENUS of Willedorf is NOW MOTHER OF Willedorf MALE arcehologists also named TREES with branchs.."arrow going the wrong way" A woman drumming as "WOMAN WITH cake,," and a ritual of Priestesses "chattering women" repeatedly brining their patriarchal BIAS to findings...and misrepresenting voices from the past. Oh… it’s the males’ fault. Well, you can’t have an ideology without a devil. quote: I have spent 16 years in other countries and in libraries and on a site... reseaching their purpose and know them to be.. as symbol....of the FEMININE DIVINE....aspects of human life cycles.. offerings for harvest...honoring of family...and more..much more Again… even if true, it is still not evidence that these societies were matriarchies. quote: WHO said that? I never said that at all and niether does the research... These artifacts were formed in reverenace... What was HONORED was LIFE...an unseen force and in that woman gave life..she was honored as well...along with the men who were in partnership with her. Many of the artifacts were personal "pocket"images/pendents...life representations..symbols of life..death..hope for pregnancy..a form of woman as earth and earth as woman..symbols of keepers of the animals..season and cycles..images of death and its mystery...recording women's blood mysteries and birth...animal-human morph figures symbolizing inner aspecst as animal(flight..submerging..freedom..diespelling negativity) NO..it is not a fact..it is your opinion and that is not the same. KNOWN history and herstory spans 20,000 years...and in that time the aprox 4000 years of late are the patriachal systems... and since that time as women have been dishonered so has earth. Herstory? There’s a red flag. Are you sure you’re not an ideologue? I’m not advocating or arguing against any particular interpretation of history. Perhaps I should have said recorded history rather than known history because my point was (and remains) that most societies from the times of the ancient Greeks on have been outright patriarchies or patriarchal leaning. I’m not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing – it is simply what is. As for what came before recorded history – it is all open to interpretation. Nor am I arguing that the previous and current interpretations of pre-history aren’t colored by bias but I question your interpretation as well. Are you sure your own biases aren’t coloring your interpretation?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.328125