General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums44 years ago today: Andy Warhol is shot by Valerie Solanas
On June 3, 1968, Valerie Solanas shot Warhol and art critic and curator Mario Amaya at Warhol's studio. Before the shooting, Solanas had been a marginal figure in the Factory scene. She authored the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, a separatist feminist attack on males. Solanas appears in the 1968 Warhol film I, a Man. Earlier on the day of the attack, Solanas had been turned away from the Factory after asking for the return of a script she had given to Warhol. The script had apparently been misplaced.
Amaya received only minor injuries and was released from the hospital later the same day. Warhol, however, was seriously wounded by the attack and barely survived: surgeons opened his chest and massaged his heart to help stimulate its movement again. He suffered physical effects for the rest of his life. The shooting had a profound effect on Warhol's life and art.
Solanas was arrested the day after the assault. By way of explanation, she said that Warhol "had too much control over my life." She was eventually sentenced to three years under the control of the Department of Corrections. After the shooting, the Factory scene became much more tightly controlled, and for many the "Factory 60s" ended. The shooting was mostly overshadowed in the media due to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy two days later.
Warhol had this to say about the attack: "Before I was shot, I always thought that I was more half-there than all-there I always suspected that I was watching TV instead of living life. People sometimes say that the way things happen in movies is unreal, but actually it's the way things happen in life that's unreal. The movies make emotions look so strong and real, whereas when things really do happen to you, it's like watching television you don't feel anything. Right when I was being shot and ever since, I knew that I was watching television. The channels switch, but it's all television
Fascinating - I never really knew much about this until now...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If 'men' and 'women' were reversed in this manifesto it would be called hate speech.
40 years have passed and absolutely nothing has changed.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)It's not like many Feminists embrace Solanas, if any.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It would be if it was a man writing about women.
Valerie Solanas is right up there with the worst of bigots. All she lacks, fortunately as you indicated, is an adoring army.
Thank God.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)it is strange you are implying that this nobody requires our attention now.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Many critics and scholars have also considered it satire, and Solanas herself called it a literary device ala Swift.
I agree with the other poster: you are attempting a broad brush here this is inaccurate and unfair.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Solanas first claimed she was dead serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.C.U.M._Manifesto#cite_note-
Someone else, particularly Alexandra DeMonte, claimed that Solanas later flip-flopped on that.
There is also the fact that she backed up her Manifesto with action: by shooting Warhol. I'm not sure how you can get more serious than that.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Let us not forget the woman was mentally ill, and also a HEAVY drug user. Consider that she died an early grave after going back to prostitution. Not very feminist, especially when, if she was clever, she could have turned this crime into a gig (especially as a lot of people HATED Warhol, and could have given her money for the sheer joy of spite.)
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)She claimed it was a literally device. I think it was either satire or the work of a mentally ill mind, because Solanas was quite obviously mentally ill.
Going by your logic, then I guess SCUM was a real organization since she said it was, right? Even though it never existed?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)But she was quite mentally ill.
SCUM wasn't a real organization unless an organization of one. It is no stretch of logic at all to assume she wanted it to be an organization of many.
Remember, she did say she was DEAD serious about this.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)You'd have to search waayyyy back (it may have even been the 35th anniversary), but iirc there was a prominent DUer who knew both Solanas and Warhol, and that poster didn't mince words of what she thought of Solanas...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I was actually referring to the critics mentioned in the Wiki article about Solanas. Not a single person in that article referred to her as a bigot, terrorist or hatemonger. The worst you heard from them was she was a radical. The pundits were extremely reserved.
Given the wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide diversity of opinions on the DU it would be impossible to say what DUers' opinions were. I wasn't even going there.
undeterred
(34,658 posts)would start out with a male artist, much less with Warhol. I never even knew this happened to him.
Edit: I guess her reasons were as much personal as political.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)humilation, and subjugation of women than this silly 'manifesto' ever could to men. Find one person who takes Solana's nonsense as seriously as biblical nonsense and I'll give you a nickle.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)now continue your whine about how unfair this society is to men.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Now feel free to continue your ignorance about reality.
cali
(114,904 posts)yes, I'm sure you can dig up crap- anyone can dig up crap that supports their bullshit on the web. alas.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"I don't know that anyone would claim differently". I showed you plenty of people, pundits no less, who claimed differently.
Why can't you just admit that, instead of coming up with crap like "cheap and ugly"?
Am I taking rights away from you or something?
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Let's see if you find the presentation of the following facts to be cheap and ugly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto
Prof. Dana Heller said the author had an "anarchic social vision"[37] and the Manifesto had "near-utopian theories"[38]
According to Village Voice reviewer B. Ruby Rich, "SCUM was an uncompromising global vision",[9]
Rich says the Manifesto brought out women's "despair and anger" and advanced feminism
Laura Winkiel, an associate professor of English at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argues that the "SCUM manifesto parodies the performance of patriarchal social order it refuses."
These people didn't see the SCUM manifesto as hate speech. This clearly refutes cali's statement.
What's cheap and ugly here, apparently, is dispelling Cali's erroneous arguments. However, what neither you nor Cali can do is say that EVERYONE looked upon Solanas's words as hate speech. That is untrue.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)It is hate speech
Women still make something like 75 cents on the dollar for equal work, even the same work
Men still dominate society, whether it's the pope and a bunch of pedophile rapist priests plus politicians sticking their noses into our uteri, the media dominating the airwaves with football, or corporations denying us equal opportunity, or schools tracking girls away from math and science, it just keeps on.
Because as others have written, her manifesto largely ignored and irrelevent, her acts seem to have been more personal than political. A sole nutcase.
So your point is?
cali
(114,904 posts)Men can just get away with regulating our bodies instead.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)However, don't let the guy bait you. No feminist I know of has praised Valerie, but the game played is of course "The mean lady insulted me, there she makes my point."
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The wiki article itself hardly portrayed Solanas as what she was: a heinous, hateful monster who took her bigoted beliefs into real life by putting a bullet into a man. Okay, so it's a wiki article and it's not supposed to delve into such emotional words. Okay. But it didn't even refer to her as a bigot or a terrorist, both of which she clearly was.
44 years later we have people like Maureen Dowd calling men unnecessary and Sharon Osborne laughing and making jokes about a man being castrated (with a follow-up that was about as apologetic as Rush Limbaugh re: Sandra Fluke).
Note to any potential jury: nowhere in this have been I attacking or baiting DUers.
cali
(114,904 posts)and your misogynistic crap is really getting old. For every comment by a Maureen Dowd or Sharon Osbourne, you have hundreds of comments that not only insult women but try to control them.
Your whiny crap about how you poor men are so oppressed by mean women, is sickening.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Just because others try to insult or control women doesn't mean what Maureen Dowd or Sharon Osbourne say are any less wrong. You have no counter argument to this.
Your intolerance of men voicing their displeasure about misandry is more hilarious than sickening. It shows just how far you're willing to go to make up charges of misogyny. For you to accuse me of misogyny you must show where I have ever supported attacks on women's rights. Outside of that you have no credibility here.
cali
(114,904 posts)remind me of wingnuts who insist that the real problem with racism is black on white racism.
and I'm hardly the only person in this thread calling you out on your bullshit, honey.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Once again you miss the mark. I never once said the real problem is male bashing.
You can call as many persons on this thread that you want, you still cannot back up your claims that I am spewing misogyny or your newest frantic allegation that I'm somehow saying that the oppression of women isn't a real problem.
So whatcha got next?
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm right on the mark, sweetie. Your insistence that women get away with being hateful bigots and that men don't is proof of the pudding.
but keep it up.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I said "If 'men' and 'women' were reversed in this manifesto it would be called hate speech" which does basically mean Valerie Solanas didn't get a lick of criticism compared to what she deserved, and I cited the Wiki article which never ONCE portrayed her as any sort of bigot or terrorist. I also cited others, like Dowd and Osborne, who got away with that crap.
You tried to turn that into me hating women, and when that failed you morphed it into accusing me of saying that oppressing women wasn't a real problem in society.
You've failed on both counts. You've got nothing.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's clear as a bell what you are, darlin'.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You're getting outrageously angry and indignant for no good reason.
Nobody here is being misogynistic. No one is claiming what women go through isn't a REAL problem. Nobody is doing anything that you're talking about.
You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)unreadierLizard
(475 posts)the people in this thread turn this disturbing event and it's propaganda(SCUM manifesto) into an attempt to rag on men.
I guess Andy Warhol deserved to be shot because he was an oppressive Patriarchy Member?
Get over yourselves. No one deserves to be shot or harmed, men or women.
cali
(114,904 posts)claiming that women get away with hate speech.
cali
(114,904 posts)I despise the stupid trick of pretending people have said something they have not. It's contemptible, honey.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Complete and total fabrication on your part. I don't even care about this long-past event or even very much about the discussion, but I am blown away at how you came up with that impression from this discussion..
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I think that is the main point to take away from this: except to say that nuttiness was, unfortunately, hard at times to distinguish from the general tenor of the times, and thus gets mixed up with other, legitimate, issues of the era. I shouldn't say "nuts" but rather mentally ill.
It was a tragedy; and she deserved far more than the 3 years in prison (mental hospital).
I don't think you can make her into a legitimate figure of the feminist movement any more than Ted Kaczynski's manifestos and actions were representative of the left. Though, sadly, some feminists at the time did defend her. It was a time of excess, sometimes brilliant and sometimes very sad. Those of us who lived through it have bad tastes in our mouths from some of it (and fond memories of other, more innocent, craziness.)