With unconventional claims, Solanas impels her readers to reject conventional beliefs of gender, and as a result, she can instigate them into action against sexism. She references the current social movements civil rights, anti-war and suggests that they are, though well intentioned, not a convincing model for SCUM. Readers may feel uncomfortable with crime, but just by contemplating it instead of peaceful protest, they essentially become members of SCUM.
Although they may not use such extreme tactics, they are nonetheless dissatisfied and open to forceful methods. Even without vulgarity, Solanas encourages women, especially those who feel wronged by men, to fight injustice and repression. While her manifesto is undeniably radical and obscene, she systematically exploits those qualities, appealing to emotions, credibility, and logic to reveal the disempowerment and injustice of women.
Thus, as Solanas advocates for male gendercide and an all-female society, she effectively pushes both genders to reexamine their attitudes toward the unjust treatment of women and restrictive gender roles.
Though deemed insane at the time, the SCUM Manifesto not only added to the genre of shock literature, but also contributed to the second-wave feminism of the s, during which women achieved milestones like Roe v. Wade , which gave them the right to an abortion, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of , which ended sex discrimination in high schools and colleges.
Today, readers generally qualify the manifesto as a satire, but young women, especially those who understand Solanas' frustration, will still admire her enormous nerve and rebelliousness. Much speculation has surrounded the meaning of the SCUM. Liang, E. Liang, Emily. The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog. Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.
Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal 's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more Blog Submit. Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Technical specs Edit.
Runtime 26 minutes. Black and White. Related news. Nov 15 Indiewire. Nov 8 Den of Geek. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. Edit page. See the entire gallery. Remembering the Stars We Lost in Watch the video. Recently viewed Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Appoline H-Romanens. A short summary of this paper. Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. She then introduces her intentions to exterminate men and render them docile, serving the woman, to better, according to her, the current dynamics of sexual politics in the s and onward.
This is the first part of her thesis. This text is a secondary source. Although it does talk and describe events that compose the daily lives of Americans, it is far from being a scholarly essay, what a primary source text shall provide a rigorous and serious analysis of society and its moeurs.
Thus is Valerie Solanas' magnum opus - SCUM Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto - a feminist classic from the revolutionary change of the '60s, in which she penned her edgy, radical, brilliant thoughts and ideas, namely the purging from the earth The assertion by its author of the inherent superiority of women over men, and whose book opens with ". Thus is Valerie Solanas' magnum opus - SCUM Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto - a feminist classic from the revolutionary change of the '60s, in which she penned her edgy, radical, brilliant thoughts and ideas, namely the purging from the earth the scourge of all of the world's and society's ills - M E N!
SCUM Manifesto is a one woman battle cry that roars LOUDLY in its beliefs and sheer audaciousness in what should be done to reinstute women to their rightful place in the hierarchy of society. Her passage on men who set out on a mission to get a "piece" is painfully and truthfully hilarious! I came across this work of literary genius some would argue madness after watching Mary Harron's "I Shot Andy Warhol", which centered on the factual incident in which Solanas shot, and nearly killed, '60s pop artist Andy Warhol.
Why are manifestos so often written by crazies? This page anti-male screed by the woman most famous for shooting Andy Warhol is, well, kind of hard to read. I can ignore the man hatred - that's a matter of opinion - but many of her suggestions for improving the world are simply batty. First, that her notion of communism would work. It's inconceivable that all the people of the world would work together towards Solanas's idea of the common good.
Second, "automation" does not mean zero work. Ma Why are manifestos so often written by crazies? Machines must be created and maintained. Of course, I suppose Solanas would expect men to take care of this. Third, old age is not a disease, and scientists do not hold the secret to immortality. That's patently absurd. If they did, don't you think these supposedly selfish and insecure men would have made themselves immortal by now?
So in short, while this was a reasonably entertaining read in parts purely for the novelty factor, it's not something I would recommend.
They're not dangerous ideas, merely nonsensical ones. Jul 28, clem rated it did not like it. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone.
I'm at loss of words I mean, I knew what I was getting into when I bought this but still, there's a difference between knowing something and seeing it through my own glasses. I didn't know it was possible for me to be unable to critic something beca "The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. I didn't know it was possible for me to be unable to critic something because god knows I love to bitch, but Solanas did it.
I'm speechless. I think the quote is self-explanatory, this book is full of male-hate and general sexism toward the masculine gender, doing the exact same thing women have been suffering from since the beginning of times. That's probably the worst thing for me. It's that a woman, who knows what it feels like to be discriminated against because of one's gender decides to do the same. It shows a complete lack of conscience and humanity.
On a technical standpoint, this essay has no basis whatsoever with real tangible facts, only using biased social misconceptions and stereotypes about the male gender to prove the point that the male gender must be exterminated, which means that even in its form of argumentation, this book doesn't stand a chance against Schopenhauer. Jun 12, Vartika rated it really liked it. Right after I finished reading this slim volume, I took an incredibly long and comfortable nap. The two may or may not be correlated.
Solanas was consistently wronged and marginalised throughout her life, Right after I finished reading this slim volume, I took an incredibly long and comfortable nap. Solanas was consistently wronged and marginalised throughout her life, and was some may argue inconsistently radicalised because of it — after all, radical ideas never come from the comfortable. Her work was purposeful, born of rage, belief, and an understanding of systemic subjugation of women.
Which is not to say it isn't satirical at the same time. SCUM is, in fact, a manifesto, but it also ingeniously turns misogynist rhetoric over its head in order to make its radically feminist point, making use of hyperbole as well as revolutionary stance.
Solanas majored in psychology, and here she inverts the kind of things men, especially men like Freud, have been saying and writing about women since the beginning of recorded time. Here, men are the ones who 'lack,' who are driven — by what she aptly calls 'pussy envy' — to appropriating womanhood.
What's surprising amidst Solanas own inconsistencies and generalisations elsewhere in the book is that her 'misandrist' rhetoric about male society, unlike misogynist satire, is actually far more convincing with a lot more than just a grain of truth at its base. As it happens, while she attacks the institutions of patriarchy, philosophy, capitalism, democracy, marriage, art and respectability, her revolutionary analysis also happens to crucially refine that of revered predecessors and people such as Marx: No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top.
I can not see one situation where that isn't applicable, be it the threat of nuclear annihilation or climate change. Solanas, while advocating for anarchic militant disobedience, also makes some more claims that are vitriolic misandry at worst and hyperbole at best — such as eliminating all men, moving beyond generational reproduction, or achieving complete automation of non-creative labour.
These are part of the grey area of SCUM, likely satirical of similar ideas proposed every day by misogynists, but they do not, by any means, invalidate her other theories and observations.
This is a work of such powerfully impatient and well-worked writing that it makes hard to draw hard lines and interpretations, something which Solanas was also against. SCUM Manifesto is, then, a fine work that brings Solanas to revolutionary fore even as it sets her apart from even the most radical of present day feminists.
Oh, and if you're still horrified about the Andy Warhol incident, here's more facts: Norman Mailer — who called Solanas the "Robespierre of Feminism" — also attempted to violently kill someone his wife , although he did not succeed. Althusser and Burroughs, on the other hand, did kill their wives. If we can continue to rever and canonise them, we can surely give Solanas — who had a better reason to kill than any of them — a chance. Mar 02, sologdin rated it it was ok Shelves: leftwing-polemical.
Not sure if this is serious or not. If an elaborate satire, then very effective. Object of the satire could be misogynist discourse i. The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure. Very science fiction! Recommended for those who have stripped the world of conversation, friendship and love; readers for whom screwing is a defense against a desire to be female; and well-behaved heterosexual dullards. View all 21 comments. Jun 20, Sleepless Dreamer rated it it was ok. This short book is essentially a manifesto explaining why the world would be better without men.
About half of this book is an introduction by Avital Ronell. While figuring out if she's Israeli or not as Avital is an Israeli name , I learned that she sexually harassed a graduate student reading some of the emails she sent him is pretty upsetting. Even worse, she didn't even lose her job teaching at NYU. Moreover, people like Judith Butler actually supported her and suggested her academic merit should protect her from these accusations, that she's just eccentric.
This is very enraging, considering these are highly regarded academics. Ronell can deconstruct Solanas' work as much as she'd like but in all honesty, there's only one body of work that I think Solanas' work can be compared to and that is Elliot Rodger's manifesto. Both manifestos talk about the other gender and blame it for all of their problems. Both are convinced the other gender has wronged them and society in general. Both of them have been described as mentally ill and both of them have ended up committing a violent act.
The similarities are really endless. Which leads me to my point here. Elliot Rodger murdered six people and obviously, his manifesto is not seen as an academic achievement. Valerie Solanas had attempted to kill Andy Warhol but because somehow, her manifesto has people like Germaine Greer and other prominent feminists defending or even acknowledging it. There's room to wonder if Solanas would have gotten this attention if she had succeeded in murdering Andy Warhol and I'd like to think that the answer is no.
It's easy to say that the difference is the oppression that women face. Solanas does have a case while Rodger was a guy who refused to see that women are people. Men really have been in power and therefore, there is room to blame them for the struggles that we collectively face. For example, there are some voices discussing the way women-led countries Taiwan, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, etc are doing better at fighting the coronavirus in comparison to man-led countries notably America, Brazil, Iran, Sweden and the UK.
There are theories suggesting women might be more open to listening to experts which is helpful in order to protect citizens against a pandemic. I'm sure this would make Solanas happy and let's all collectively ignore Belgium and South Korea who are the exact opposite of this theory. And somehow, that makes me wonder if being oppressed gives you "permission" to be more hateful. When Elliot Rodger says that he thinks all women should be starved to death, that's messed up but when Solanas suggests all men be killed for the greater good, that's something that academic feminists feel that they can ponder about, like if you use enough fancy philosophical words, everything can become meaningful is it that obvious that I'm angry with the Department of Philosophy and broadly speaking, the entire field?
Solanas' manifesto is very unqueer in the sense that it doesn't really ever critically ask what makes people men or women. Where do trans people fit into this scheme exactly? Could men unlearn their violent behavior? What makes women better? This body of work is interesting in its future predictions.
Like, with vision, the idea of automating every single job strikes me as unlikely.
0コメント