HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » History of Feminism (Group) » Valerie Solanas and the S...

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 01:28 PM

Valerie Solanas and the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.

Apparently, yesterday was the anniversary of Valerie Solanas' shooting of Andy Warhol. It was also my first attempt to read the infamous S.C.U.M. Manifesto in its entirety, which I did yesterday afternoon.

My take on the Manifesto is that it was an indictment of misogyny and classism, especially as tools of the patriarchy. I don't read it as some kind of instruction manual for how to fix society's problems, and I doubt Valerie Solanas intended it that way. (I actually thought she was going for some kind of satire of '60s extremism, and apparently even Solanas said the tone and proposals made by the fictional S.C.U.M. were used as a "literary device." I certainly can't condone violence or anti-male sexism, and don't approve of what Solanas did to Warhol.

Since the purpose of this group is to discuss the history of the women's movement, I was wondering if anyone else here wanted to share her take. Have you ever read the Manifesto? What were your thoughts? There is a full text copy of it at the link below.

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

81 replies, 14198 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Valerie Solanas and the S.C.U.M. Manifesto. (Original post)
BlueIris Jun 2012 OP
redqueen Jun 2012 #1
Warpy Jun 2012 #2
redqueen Jun 2012 #3
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #29
redqueen Jun 2012 #31
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #34
seabeyond Jun 2012 #32
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #35
redqueen Jun 2012 #36
seabeyond Jun 2012 #37
Scout Jun 2012 #30
redqueen Jun 2012 #44
Hatchling Jun 2012 #54
Warpy Jun 2012 #57
Scout Jun 2012 #58
Zorra Jun 2012 #4
redqueen Jun 2012 #5
Scout Jun 2012 #6
Zorra Jun 2012 #11
Scout Jun 2012 #12
Zorra Jun 2012 #18
Violet_Crumble Jun 2012 #23
hlthe2b Jun 2012 #24
Little Star Jun 2012 #14
hlthe2b Jun 2012 #15
Zorra Jun 2012 #19
boston bean Jun 2012 #25
seabeyond Jun 2012 #7
RiffRandell Jul 2012 #72
Texasgal Jun 2012 #8
redqueen Jun 2012 #9
MadrasT Jun 2012 #10
Scout Jun 2012 #13
Tumbulu Jun 2012 #16
MadrasT Jun 2012 #17
Tumbulu Jun 2012 #21
Lisa D Jun 2012 #20
Tumbulu Jun 2012 #22
redqueen Jun 2012 #26
MadrasT Jun 2012 #27
seabeyond Jun 2012 #28
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #33
redqueen Jun 2012 #38
seabeyond Jun 2012 #39
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #41
seabeyond Jun 2012 #43
seabeyond Jun 2012 #47
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #49
seabeyond Jun 2012 #51
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #55
seabeyond Jun 2012 #40
redqueen Jun 2012 #42
seabeyond Jun 2012 #45
sufrommich Jun 2012 #48
redqueen Jun 2012 #50
seabeyond Jun 2012 #53
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #60
sufrommich Jun 2012 #67
hlthe2b Jun 2012 #46
Hatchling Jun 2012 #52
redqueen Jun 2012 #56
Hatchling Jun 2012 #59
seabeyond Jun 2012 #62
redqueen Jun 2012 #63
seabeyond Jun 2012 #64
Scout Jun 2012 #65
sufrommich Jun 2012 #68
MadrasT Jun 2012 #66
redqueen Jun 2012 #69
MerryBlooms Jun 2012 #61
Texasgal Jun 2012 #70
Violet_Crumble Jun 2012 #71
eridani Jul 2012 #73
seabeyond Jul 2012 #74
eridani Jul 2012 #75
redqueen Jul 2012 #76
eridani Jul 2012 #77
seabeyond Jul 2012 #78
ismnotwasm Jul 2012 #79
seabeyond Jul 2012 #80
eridani Jul 2012 #81

Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 01:32 PM

1. Oh yes, I've read it. It's brilliant satire.

An excellent work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 03:20 PM

2. I read it when it first came out

and again online about 10 years ago. It was totally over the top and utterly necessary when it appeared, which was about the time nicely manicured ladies in the burbs were having consciousness raising meetings and realizing just why they didn't like being unpaid domestic servants with no hope of anything better, ever.

Solanas cut right through to the rage so many "nice" women felt but were were afraid to confront.

For this reason, it's a classic of feminist literature. Anyone who tries to use it as some sort of guideline is nuts, something Solanas would likely agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 03:32 PM

3. Yes, she herself said it was satire.

The only time I've seen it referred to as if it was serious is by MRA's intent on smearing feminists (something that seems to be more important than stuff like challenging the cult of masculinity, or the patriarchy that sets them up for failure, or, well, pretty much anything else, really).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:11 AM

29. She seems to have taken it pretty seriously. Shortly after publishing it, she shot Warhol, Amaya...

 

...and Fred Hughes.

Her actions are inconsistent with an honest defense of her words as satire. There's no more reason to believe that this is a satirical work than there is to believe that Ted Kazynski's manifesto was.

If it were me, I'd try to distance myself from crazy violent sexists, but that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:19 AM

31. Do you seriously think she shot Warhol as the beginning of an effort to eliminate men?

I know such 'thinking' is very common among MRAs. So, yeah, you might, actually.

The idiotic effort to portray her shooting of Warhol with the Manifesto is the height of disingenuousness. But that's kinda all anti-feminists have, isn't it?

As for distancing from violent hateful people, I'm not the one who links to MRA hate sites, am I, Jeff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:25 AM

34. No. I think we can agree that she did it because she was crazy.

 

Which brings us back to her manifesto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:22 AM

32. dont make more of it than what it is. most of us are too young to even know who this woman is.

 

so what. we read something that is 50 yrs old.

I'd try to distance myself from crazy violent sexists, but that's just me.


i am calling this out for the game that it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:26 AM

35. "a brilliant work of satire"

 

That isn't 50 years old. That was today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:28 AM

36. We get it. You disagree.

Duly noted. Move along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:28 AM

37. so.... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:16 AM

30. and your point has been proven. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

44. Before I'd even read it or had an inkling of who she was

I saw the laughable claims here that it was a serious work.

Such nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:29 AM

54. Could you be more explicit in why it was necessary?

I'm at a loss and want to understand this in a historical context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 12:23 PM

57. I thought I was quite clear about that.

Perhaps you just had to be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 12:42 PM

58. i thought so too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 03:34 PM

4. The satirical ravings of a very sad creature, driven insane by the all consuming hatred

that infected her spirit.

I was on a jury, and voted to hide this post; and, while I admit that the satirical "essay" posted in the OP is valid as historical background for understanding the phenomenon of the transphobic radfems of today, I believe that its very existence is seriously detrimental to women's struggle for equality, and it is not a good idea for women to perpetuate this very disturbing and horrifying slander of feminism.

After murder attempt

According to Robert Marmorstein in 1968, "[s]he has dedicated the remainder of her life to the avowed purpose of eliminating every single male from the face of the earth."[41] Feminist Robin Morgan (later editor of Ms. magazine) demonstrated for Solanas's release from prison. Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), described Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights"[18][42] and as "a 'heroine' of the feminist movement",[43][44] and "smuggled [her manifesto] ... out of the mental hospital where Solanas was confined."[43][44] Another NOW member, Florynce Kennedy, called her "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement."[23][42] Norman Mailer called her the "Robespierre of feminism."[18]

English professor Dana Heller argued that Solanas was "very much aware of feminist organizations and activism",[45] but that she "had no interest in participating in what she often described as 'a civil disobedience luncheon club.'"[45] Heller also stated that Solanas could "reject mainstream liberal feminism for its blind adherence to cultural codes of feminine politeness and decorum which the SCUM Manifesto identifies as the source of women's debased social status."[46]
snip---
After Solanas was released from the New York State Prison for Women in 1971,[50] she stalked Warhol and others over the telephone and was arrested again in November 1971.[51] She was subsequently institutionalized several times and then drifted into obscurity.[52]

The attack had a profound impact on Warhol and his art, and The Factory scene became much more tightly controlled afterward. For the rest of his life, Warhol lived in fear that Solanas would attack him again. "It was the Cardboard Andy, not the Andy I could love and play with," said close friend and collaborator Billy Name. "He was so sensitized you couldn't put your hand on him without him jumping. I couldn't even love him anymore, because it hurt him to touch him."[53] While his friends were actively hostile towards Solanas, Warhol himself preferred not to discuss her.[cita

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 03:51 PM

5. Sigh.

I guess satire really is dead.

This thread is about the SCUM Manifesto, not Valerie Solanas.



OMFG... Again with transphobic radfem shit.

Fuck it. I'm done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:05 PM

6. exactly

OMFG... Again with transphobic radfem shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:46 PM

11. Instead of running off, why don't you explain to me how this satire is not the

hateful sexist raving of a hateful, mentally disturbed person?

We all recognize patriarchy, and the manifestations of patriarchy, the evils of patriarchy, etc, ad nauseum. And most of us also recognize that not all men are like the men described in the essay. But she didn't say that. I get that it was satire. I also get that it was, regardless of the satirical meaning of the piece, a vicious expression of hatred for all men.

If this essay is not a satire designed to be a deliberate expression of hatred for men, expressed in order to make a valid point about the state of women, then tell me what it is? I get all the shit about how the world is and what the world was in her day, and I understand how some could revel in the outspoken revolutionary nature of the piece as it was in its day, but it is still hate speech..

And if this not some seriously twisted, bigoted, hateful expression of misunderstanding of the nature of transgender women, tell me what it is? Apparently, poor Valerie was completely unaware that there are transmen also.

Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy. When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females thing men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from `being a woman'.


And is it not reasonable to examine the source of an idea to better discern what the idea actually means? Certainly, from my POV, it is reasonable to speculate on the state of mind of someone that spews hate speech, and to examine their actions to find some indication of where they are coming from with the hate speech.

James Earl Ray shot Martin Luther King, Jr. Why? Because he was a fracking hate filled racist, that's why.

Valerie may have felt fully justified in trying to assassinate Andy Warhol in cold blood, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the reality that she tried to kill him because she was a hateful sexist.

Things need to change, but spewing hate will only hinder these changes from occurring.

We. Will. Not. Stand. For. It.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:51 PM

12. laughably self-important

We. Will. Not. Stand. For. It.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 09:42 PM

18. I guess you'd think so, if you enjoy hate speech and bigotry. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:25 AM

23. I thought you were asked not to attack other members of the group?

We. Will. Not. Stand. For. It. sounds like some control freak thing coined by someone in their mid-50's with a bad stutter trying to be cool while they're listening to We're Not Going To Take It by Quiet Riot. That's not entirely thinking it's over bloated self-importance, but does that mean I enjoy hate speech?

Anyway, play nice, please. I'm sure you have plenty to contribute to the group, and would like to see it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 07:06 AM

24. My warning was not heeded.You have accused members of "enjoying hate speech and bigotry" for merely

discussing and critiquing a historical writing-- after being directly warned about the ramifications of doing so in a safe haven group that has as its stated purpose to:
to discuss, and learn the history of feminism. Apply the lessons of historical and modern day feminist struggles to current issues and events that impact women.

While your other postings have shown an ability to contribute, these overt attempts to disrupt the group and to attack its members both within and outside the group, despite warnings, are totally unacceptable. So, there should be NO question as to why I am taking the step that I am--and with the consensus agreement of all HOF hosts-- immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 05:13 PM

14. "James Earl Ray shot Martin Luther King, Jr. Why? Because he was a fracking hate filled racist..

that's why"

I can think of many other "possible" reasons JER shot Dr. King. I'm pretty certain that he was a racist but I'm not sure we can say with certainty that's why he shot Dr. King.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 05:54 PM

15. Zorra.. This is unacceptable. Conflating a historical piece of satire being discussed with ...

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2012, 06:40 PM - Edit history (2)

group members here, as you accuse them of "spewing hate" is about as overtly disruptive as I can imagine.

While I understand a lot of people do not understand the concept of satire--even the great Jonathan Swift experienced this, both in his day and currently, reading historical satire hardly makes anyone complicit in condoning the later behavior of the writer.

This group is fully justified in reading this piece of historical satire and in discussing it. That HARDLY SUGGESTS CONDONING everything contained. What are you proposing--that DU have an acceptable reading/discussion list? Insofar as materials are being examined, critiqued, discussed, and yes, even discounted, as Tumbulu has done in post #16 (as one example), I hardly think most DUers--nor Skinner--would agree with your avocation of censorship. I would advise you to check your behavior towards the group. The next posting I see like this from you will be grounds for blocking. The participants of this group have every right to expect to be able to discuss issues of interest and importance to them, within the SOP of this group and those of DU without outside interference. That likewise includes others not misrepresenting such discussions for something they are NOT.

You may edit your post, clarify your intent, or merely leave it and let this stand as your one official warning. I would suggest the former, but that is up to you.

Group Co-Host

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 09:45 PM

19. OK. I totally understand. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #19)


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

7. i will read later toight. i dont know anything about it. but already seeing in this thread some

 

issues. discussion should be ok. whatever it is. as i said, i am clueless. will read later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #7)


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:29 PM

8. I've never heard of this person

or this writing before. Thank you for posting this.


I sifted through some of it, personally I think she is mentally unstable. this is just my initial impression. I do plan reading this more intently later on this evening however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:31 PM

9. Read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal as well.

That is another piece of biting satire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:41 PM

10. When I first read it,

I thought it was serious and I was basically horrified.

Then I understood that it was satire, re-read it several times, and thought it fairly brilliantly made a number of points.

Definitely a controversial piece.

It is always interesting to me to see how people react to it. It sure does piss a lot of people off.

Reactions to it were (and are) still all over the map, aren't they?

I am not sure I want to say more since we are under a microscope and it seems everything we say these days is blown out of proportion and taken out of context.

There is a bizarre Feminist Witch Hunt going on on DU and I don't care for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 04:53 PM

13. i'm sick of the shit

i want my money back that i paid for my star....

There is a bizarre Feminist Witch Hunt going on on DU and I don't care for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 05:57 PM

16. I am only reminded of the out of touchness of the person whose entire

life is spent in a US city or suburb AND who somehow thinks this is a superior way to live (so very 60's ). Her only idea of farming is that of communes ....it is considered stupid work- and the attitude about work being for people too dumb to get out of it....reminds me of growing up in the suburban 70's in the SF area. I knew many young women my age who adopted these attitudes, never wanted to do anything, always trying to get out of work, my goodness, these people drove me nuts- especially when I returned from Africa. After that I stopped having anything to do with the culture of the "spoiled brats of the west" who had been given everything and gave nothing and were doing nothing to help women in the rest of the world get out of the patriarchical hell they lived in.

Contrast this woman's hateful speech (ok satirical, but seems pretty hateful to me) with what another woman of almost the same age was DOING over in Indonesia raising her biracial son and getting micro-financing for rural women going.....What we can do and have done if we stay focused and try to help other women vs what gets sensationalized and presented as a form of feminism. Who has made a bigger difference in women's lives?

This writing painfully reminds me of the time when there was (in the popular culture) this total disrespect for craft or labor as a means for spiritual growth and development.....I cannot find the satire (but I will reread and try), only the sorrow of growing up disconnected from nature and life forces.

Sad read for me. Reading her bio is even sadder. I am sorry that she had such a painful life.

I find it really curious that she was seen as a great feminist and indeed this is part of the history of feminism in the US. A bit of a pendulum swing it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 06:56 PM

17. This is a very thoughtful analysis

And a perspective that resonates with me, too.

I must say that I don't view her as a "great feminist", but as more of a prominent feminist historical figure. Not the same thing at all, y'know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 12:19 AM

21. thanks- yes historical figure

and one I did not know about, but clearly she had an impact on some of my female friends growing up in the 70's who adopted some of the attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:08 PM

20. Excellent post.

Ann Dunham certainly did "walk the walk" instead of just "talk the talk."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lisa D (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 12:21 AM

22. thanks

I think of her a lot.

I knew women doing similar heroic work for women in West Africa. I remain grateful for their dedication and struggles and accomplishments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 07:31 AM

26. From a review of the book, posted on the Valerie Solanas tumblr:

SCUM Manifesto was considered one of the most outrageous, violent and certifiably crazy tracts when it first appeared in 1968. Valerie Solanas, the woman who shot Andy Warhol, self-published this work just before her rampage against the king of Pop Art which resulted in her confinement to a mental institution. But the Manifesto, for all its vitriol, is impossible to dismiss as just the rantings of a lesbian lunatic. In fact, the work has indisputable prescience, not only as a radical feminist analysis light-years ahead of its time predicting artificial insemination, but also as a stunning testament to the rage of an abused and destitute woman.



And another interesting comment there:


listen up, menz
i know SCUM scares you. i know you get those little twinges of fear in your cockles while reading it. i know this is what drives you to write these angry diatribes about “extreme feminazis.” just stop. stop for a second.

every tiny prick of fear you feel upon reading some essay that some dead “crazy” woman wrote 50 years ago is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING compared to the terror that non-men are forced to feel in a society in which war is waged against us every fucking day.

are you feeling insulted because Solanas called you an “incomplete abortion”? try looking at statistics for female infanticide and forced abortions.

are you upset because Solanas shames male sexuality? take a look at statistics of rape and sexual violence against women, take a look at this fucking society which shames women for expressing sexuality or sexual freedom.

the fear, the anxiety, the anger you feel at reading her text is so petty, so minor, and so ridiculous in a world where you know damn well that SCUM will never actually be a “real thing.” by whining about how ONE woman said something mean and hateful about your sex, you are wallowing in your unchecked privilege that allows you to live a life far less threatened and dangerous than that afforded to women and other non-men.

get over yourself.




And no, NOBODY here advocates hate speech (as if, we leave that to the MRA's and their enablers).

However, I must quote this again, for the consideration of anyone who would dare to think something so bone-headedly STUPID. Not that they will, but... well, just in case they might possibly care. You know, about women. (I know out-loud, in your face misogyny doesn't warrant pile ons as other bigotries, or hell, even a vigorous rebuttal most times, but it's worth a shot right?)

Generally, "misandry" refers to the hatred and oppression of men on a genotypic basis.

As sociologist Allan Johnson notes, "misandry" has no place in a male-identified, male-centered world. Moreover, Johnson states: “And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel "bashed," like it's "open season on men." In fact, just saying "male privilege" or "patriarchy" can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of "Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197) "Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and some men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even "hates" men.” (Allan Johnson, "The gender knot," p. 107

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 09:16 AM

27. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.



This says it *all* for me:

listen up, menz
i know SCUM scares you. i know you get those little twinges of fear in your cockles while reading it. i know this is what drives you to write these angry diatribes about “extreme feminazis.” just stop. stop for a second.

every tiny prick of fear you feel upon reading some essay that some dead “crazy” woman wrote 50 years ago is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING compared to the terror that non-men are forced to feel in a society in which war is waged against us every fucking day.

are you feeling insulted because Solanas called you an “incomplete abortion”? try looking at statistics for female infanticide and forced abortions.

are you upset because Solanas shames male sexuality? take a look at statistics of rape and sexual violence against women, take a look at this fucking society which shames women for expressing sexuality or sexual freedom.

the fear, the anxiety, the anger you feel at reading her text is so petty, so minor, and so ridiculous in a world where you know damn well that SCUM will never actually be a “real thing.” by whining about how ONE woman said something mean and hateful about your sex, you are wallowing in your unchecked privilege that allows you to live a life far less threatened and dangerous than that afforded to women and other non-men.

get over yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 09:53 AM

28. i read beyond halfway. really perused. then got bored. it isnt like we would be able to really

 

discuss on du.

i also read history of this woman. i did not read the part of her life where she shot warhol. i am vaguely remembering something i think, when young. but too young.

she was sexually abused by father. step father and her didnt get along. she was handed to grandfather. and he physically abused her. she was filled with anger, it is obvious. she was physically aggressive thru school. this was also in the 60's. a different time, a different man. i picked up on that strongly.

there is so much in this manifest that is interesting. the right and wrong, the perceptive, the satire and the truth of it. to really look at this one would have to spend time, break it down and discuss. as i said, not on du.

the review you highlight is one angle of the manifest. one part of the story. there are others... interesting.

every tiny prick of fear you feel upon reading some essay that some dead “crazy” woman wrote 50 years ago is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING compared to the terror that non-men are forced to feel in a society in which war is waged against us every fucking day.

are you upset because Solanas shames male sexuality?


really struck me thru the reading of it. the switching of the roles thru the first half.

also, she talks bottom line crude in a crude subject in her mind. which is what i do. people dont get it. not crude for the sake of crude, but because subject demands it.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:23 AM

33. What's your take on Ted Kazynski?

 

And his influence on the industrial-technological system?

Surely here's another underappreciated influential person in the important issues of his day.



If it were me, I would avoid using Solanas as exemplary of the history of the women's movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:31 AM

38. If I were you, I'd lay off the anti-feminist MRA hate sites.

They're very right wing you know, with their distortions and outright lies. Not to mention the seething hate.

You know, the kind of hate that entire groups share, which, when contrasted with a few individuals, well...

Yeah, I'd avoid using MRA hate sites as a resource in your advocacy for men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:31 AM

39. i would probably find it interesting

 

if i choose to read. kinda like this one, i got bored.

i found the man interesting at the time. doing research on him. listening to what he had to say.

so what? what the fuck does that prove.

mcveigh. interesting. listened to him, also. his gripe. discussed him, too.

same with the waco dude, and ruby ridge.

again, so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:36 AM

41. McVeigh. Good example.

 

Would it enhance the credibility of anti-tax crusaders to treat his writings as influential? "I don't condone blowing up buildings, but my take on his contemporary writing is that the violent stuff he said, he was just being funny, but he is influential and relevant to understanding our cause."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

43. no lumber, it would be more like reading his shit, saying ya, there are these issues,

 

interesting and move on because REASONABLE people can be assumed to be APPALLED by violently blowing up a building and killing so many people WITHOUT having to clarify to you that we are disgusted by said violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:44 AM

47. now, when you hear me rally the battle cry that we must all take up fertilizer

 

to emulate the dude, you can be concerned.

just as i read your mra. i hear some of the issues. but i assume you are not a part where you actually cause harm to women. i have THAT much FAITH in YOU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:15 AM

49. I'm not a MRA.

 

The term is irretreviably commingled with conservatism.

The belief that all men's views are anathema to liberalism makes the influence of hate groups under the MRA banner stronger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:20 AM

51. one can say the same with what is happening with this group by a handful of others.

 

so, we are aware, i would figure you would work at NOT doing that to another group

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:29 AM

55. I'm not following you.

 

In the interest of avoiding threadjacking, if you'd prefer to explain by PM, I'm all ears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:33 AM

40. again, calling this out as a stupid manipulation on your part. stop.

 

I would avoid using Solanas as exemplary of the history of the women's movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:37 AM

42. It's a strawman.

The manifesto is what is held up as being worthy of discussion.

By making it about her, and pretending anyone said she was an icon of any kind, they can derail away.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:41 AM

45. exactly. obvious and in the face. no shit. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:11 AM

48. Yep, it reminds me of freepers who point to "The

New Black Panthers" as representing african american political thought. It's the fringe and it's an attempt to put a negative spin on feminists. Personally I couldn't care less about Valerie Solanas or her manifesto, this was a blip in the history of feminism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:16 AM

50. "A blip in the history of feminism"... exactly.

But damned if the anti-feminist haters don't seize it with both angry, intellectualy dishonest fists, and cling for all they're worth to pretend its anything more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:25 AM

53. excellent parallel. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:07 PM

60. Criticism of the New Black Panthers can be fairly directed at their individual defenders.

 

...at the individuals who would gloss over their advocacy of violence and claim to understand their true underlying message.

I doubt that feminists generally consider Solana a relevant, necessary, important or brilliant writer. Denunciation of "the fringe" that do would go a long way toward discrediting any potential blanket condemnation directed at feminists generally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:20 PM

67. Now feminists are supposed to "denunciate" the

fringe? Why? For fear of "potential blanket condemnation "? Do you understand that those who condemn feminists think Gloria Steinem is as fringe as Solana? What purpose would that serve other than casting a McCarthyesque shadow over feminism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 10:42 AM

46. This is a discussion of a historical publication, which you attack the very premise of discussing.

I see no one here, whether they believe that there is any value to the satirical nature of the writings or NOT, that are pointing to Solanas as "exemplary of the history of the women's movement"... Here is your one and only warning. Attack the members again, you will be blocked. If you wish to discuss the article in a civil, collegial, and constructive manner, you may delete your post and remain. Otherwise, you've been warned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:24 AM

52. I just read most of it.

Couldn't finish it because I found it very ugly. I don't understand how it is satire. I've always thought satire had some dark underlying humor to it. I don't see any in this piece.


sat·ire
a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/satire

Satirical pieces I have read usually give some clue (albeit very subtle) that they are mocking the subject. Our own Third Way Manny is hysterical and is often thought to be serious, but in his text you know he is ridiculing his subject.

Historically how does this fit in with feminism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 11:42 AM

56. Since this group is being so strictly policed, I am hesitant to use my own words.

Wikipedia offers several views on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto#As_parody_and_satire

As parody and satire

Laura Winkiel, an associate professor of English at the University of Coloradoat Boulder, argues that the "SCUM manifesto parodies the performance of patriarchal social order it refuses." Winkiel further suggests that the manifesto is "an illicit performance, a mockery of the 'serious' speech acts of patriarchy." The SCUM womenmock the way in which certain men run the world and legitimize their power, Winkiel contends. [74] Similarly, sociologist Ginette Castro states:

If we examine the text more closely, we see that its analysis of patriarchal reality is a parody [...] The content itself is unquestionably a parody of the Freudian theory of femininity, where the word woman is replaced by man [...] All the cliches of Freudian psychoanalytical theory are here: the biological accident, the incomplete sex, "penis envy" which has become "pussy envy," and so forth [...] Here we have a case of absurdity being used as a literary device to expose an absurdity, that is, the absurd theory which has been used to give "scientific" legitimacy to patriarchy [...] What about her proposal that men should quite simply be eliminated, as a way of clearing the dead weight of misogyny and masculinity? This is the inevitable conclusion of the feminist pamphlet, in the same way that Jonathan Swift's proposal that Irish children (as useless mouths) should be fed to the swine was the logical conclusion of his bitter satirical pamphlet protesting famine in Ireland. Neither of the two proposals is meant to be taken seriously, and each belongs to the realm of political fiction, or even science fiction, written in a desperate effort to arouse public consciousness. [75]


More at link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 12:58 PM

59. Okay, that helps me understand it a bit more

I took this paragragh:
Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female. He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through an fuse with the female, and by claiming as his own all female characteristics -- emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc -- and projecting onto women all male traits -- vanity, frivolity, triviality, weakness, etc.


Then I reversed the sex roles:

Being an incomplete male, the female spends her life attempting to complete herself, to become male. she attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through and fuse with this male, and by claiming as her own all male characteristics -- emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc -- and projecting onto men all female traits -- vanity, frivolity, triviality, weakness, etc.


That helps me see that, as the wiki article noted, that some of it was a complete send up of Freud and his penis envy theories, etc.

The article still repulses me as something very ugly, but I guess it exposes how just as ugly the reverse is as well.

It also helps me see what Warpy was talking about up thread. The shock value must have been a wake up call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:09 PM

62. exactly. so as offended as the men may be on this board that we are reading, that is how women feel

 

being projected with this bullshit. it feels crappy all the way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:16 PM

63. What is most striking to me about her essay is not the wildly over-the-top content,

as it is quite obvious how over the top it is. No, what I find really interesting is how willing people are to lie about it, just flat out lie, in order to suit their own anti-feminist agenda.

Not that she's any icon. She's just low hanging fruit for them, due to her issues and her actions. But the same tactics are used against Dworkin, who was much more noteworthy, and MacKinnon, who was and is vitally important.

Keep it in mind when feminist ideas are discussed. Note how often demonization, disingenuousness, and outright dishonesty are engaged in, and consider what other groups use those tactics, and why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:18 PM

64. well said. and the DEMAND, flat out, no quibbling DEMAND, that all demonize in an outloud statement

 

to clear ourselves of any wrong doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:19 PM

65. well said

can we add this to our SOP?

Keep it in mind when feminist ideas are discussed. Note how often demonization, disingenuousness, and outright dishonesty are engaged in, and consider what other groups use those tactics, and why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:27 PM

68. Well said,Redqueen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:19 PM

66. That was exactly what happened to me when I read it.

It took some research and re-reading and wordplay exercises like that, and then a light bulb went off.

This is why I found it valuable:

but I guess it exposes how just as ugly the reverse is as well


We are so *used* to the reverse because it is "normal". It takes something this drastic to "see" how messed up our "normal" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:28 PM

69. This.

"We are so *used* to the reverse because it is "normal". It takes something this drastic to "see" how messed up our "normal" is."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:08 PM

61. This is the first I've heard or read this woman. Bizarre and disturbing.

The piece really left me feeling uneasy and tense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MerryBlooms (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 07:54 PM

70. I have to agree.

Maybe am not seeing beyond what is written, but the whole thing made no sense to me, she made me feel tense as well. Her anger was hard to swallow for long. I don't think I'll be studying that anytime in the future. I am glad that I was educated on who she was though, it's always good to learn something new here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MerryBlooms (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 11, 2012, 01:26 AM

71. I didn't get very far into it. It was very disturbing..

I dunno. I couldn't work out if they were taking the piss out of Hitler and the Final Solution, or it really was someone who hated all men with a vengeance and wanted them to die or something. And I'm not interested enough in the person who wrote it to find out more..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 02:23 AM

73. Note Reply #6 comment on "Solanas' reversal of Freudian bullshit"

I think this is key--many people on DU are far too young to even know how "Freudian bullshit" saturated the culture in the 40s and 50s. If you don't you aren't going to recognize a deliberate reversal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #73)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 08:52 AM

74. "Freudian bullshit" saturated the culture in the 40s and 50s

 

i didnt know. this sounds interesting. i know when i took psychology my freshman year in high school, he was one i was buying his stuff. it has bee so long, i am curious now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #74)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 05:56 PM

75. Mainstream culture pays not the slightest attention to Freud these days

Youngsters really don't have a clue about what it is like to be told that women are always having the wrong kind of orgasms, mostly fail at being "real" women, and don't really want kids if they have a miscarriage. In order to really understand, you'd almost have to be into historical re-enactment, like people who play at famous Civil War battles, or the Society for Creative Anachronism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #75)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:12 PM

76. I disagree about that.

There's still a lot of crap about penis envy and women's orgasms that many people still buy into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #76)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:49 PM

77. Sure, remnants are still around. But when was the last time you heard

--the term "penis envy" being thrown around by serious academics? It used to be commonplace.

Remenber "G-spot" orgasms? Some women said this described their experiences, and other women said it didn't. The social consensus seems to me to have come around to the notion that each woman is an expert on her own experience, and that was the context in which that discussion took place. Those discussions never had the overweening seriousness that discussions about "immature" clitoral orgasms once had.

What I'm talking about is the capacity of people who never experienced an earlier era to imagine themselves into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #77)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:32 AM

78. what it seems ot me, from what you are saying is the few things we do still hear today

 

is not the whole of what happened then i was curious, cause i am very curious about the social structure and behaviors and society. i googled it some and could get no handle of what you are saying. you are right, i am way too young to know the 40's and 50's and barely remember anything in the 60's.

gonna check it out some more, later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:24 PM

79. I have a great copy

With an introduction by Anital Ronell, which does an excellent job of putting it into perspective. I love the manifesto for what is was as the time, and how it hasn't lost it's edge. Uncomfortable at times? Sure. I would say that Anyone who has taken the time to look at the history of women, much less the history of feminism, would "get" this work. Our greatest founding philosophers all had something to say about the inferior--or just plain evil--state called Woman. From the "failed male" concept to the curious but quite accepted idea that women who pursued education put their uterus's at risk because the loss of blood flow; to more the more recent, and recently debunked idea that women are innately 'bad' at mathematics, or at least far worse than men. Just three out of thousands of bizarre thoughts as well as lengthy philosophical diatribes, skewed male dominated scientific studies on the State of Woman.


Solanis's work is delicious irony.

"So. Sometimes you have to scream to be heard."
Avital Ronell, in her introduction to "Scum Manifesto"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #79)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 06:50 PM

80. and again, i really respect your perspective on this.

 

this caused us a lot of problems, just having a simple discussion, and continues to be thrown in this forums face repeatedly. but, i like to hear what you say about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #79)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:10 PM

81. When there are separatist and/or ethnic armed rebellions in other countries,

--they somehow never get tagged with cutesie nicknames like "Whatever Lib." They prove they are serious and not at all cute by killing people. The total Solanas-inspired body count by comparison is not the slightest bit impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread