I have been a huge fan of Valerie Solarna's for a few years now, she is as instrumental to my radical feminism and queer theory as Beauvoir or Lorde. I am curious, for most of the people on this website tend to be more of the liberal feminist types, what do you all make of this manifesto? You don't have to read "the whole thing", but it's not very long so I hope I persuade you to do so by simply saying it is WORTH reading. I'd love to hear your thoughts of shock, disgust, dismay, love, laughter, joy, and how this manifesto compares to our awful contemporary postion, as womyn...in this world.
Love, Emma Goldman
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Society for Cutting Up Men.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17230
Some of it reminds me of the way Rousseau writes in "Emile" in its zeal to present an essentialist description of one sex or another as if it is truth.
In the European and European-American tradition, male writers have been writing about women this way for a long time... telling their readers what women are and are not good for. It is always so full of hate. It is silencing.
Am I correct that this writing is a satirical turning of the tables-- a "see how it looks if we write about men the way women have often been written about" piece? Is that true? I don't like reading it, even with that awareness in mind. I find it hateful and offensive.
I do think it would be a really useful classroom piece alongside a historical work that does the same to women.
This didn't really come across as a variation on 'A Modest Proposal'. Bit of a fail if it was intended as such.
While I don't want to defend the proud tradition of 'git in da kitchen and make me mah dinnah' literature, there is a difference between writing about what men are good for, and coming up with a list of all the men that will be killed and how not to be on the list.
According to wikipedia Solanas said that,
"In a July 25, 1977 interview with The Village Voice she claimed it was "Just a literary device... women who think a certain way are in SCUM. Men who think a certain way are in the men's auxiliary of SCUM.""
I think there was another interview in which she said it was just satire.
you know what, i liked it. not because i agree with any of it, and i hope the author herself doesn't agree with any of it. i like it because the absurdity of the manifesto is the same absurdity that patriarchal bullshit presents.
when i read it, i can see the self-fulfilling and absolutely wrong prophecy that patriarchy is.
i hope that was valerie solarna's intention!
I sure hope so too. I was sick to my stomach after only a few lines of this gross manifesto. It doesn't read like satire to me but I sure hope it is.
If she in anyone believes any of that remotely that I must say she has zero understanding of males whatsoever and is a sick individual.
And her idea that we don't need money at all and everyone should only work 2-3 hours per week at the most (because everything can be automated) just makes me cringe at the absurdity.
I'm sorry, but how can anyone get behind this woman? She wrote that utterly misandric piece of garbage and then attempted to murder three people.
I realize she claimed in her declining years that the S.C.U.M Manifesto was not to be taken literally, but her actions and words in life said two different things. As satire, this is a complete fail.
It's like one epic troll attempt.
Later on in her life, Valerie claimed it was a "satirical literary device" (much like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal") but there are SOME truths to it, for example the part about how true love can only exist between two "groovy females" which I agree with.
I mean really we cannot go down that route of nominalism, "men and women are the same" because we all know we are not. Of course I don't agree 100% with her piece, but the bits about government and authority---for sure. I mean women are only involved in politics today because men allow them to, men let them be involved because politics were created by men, for men. I can go on and on =)
"there are SOME truths to it, for example the part about how true love can only exist between two "groovy females" which I agree with"
And there we go. You don't agree with it, but you kinda do. In which case it's not really all satire at all.
That's like saying you don't want to cook up Irish babies, but that you agree that babies are tasty.
Once you start getting into this essentialist focus on how females are and how males are you get into the realm that alienates and distances the vast majority of folks who understand that we're all human first, everything else second.
And by strictly delineating female and male in your true love argument you alienate a ton of folks to boot.
But hey, what's a little prejudice amongst feminists?
And speak for yourself when you say "we all know".
=)
Yeah, it sounds really clunky and hateful. I suppose it's a mirror to misogyny. However, it's true that the money economy is based on power and illusion more than so-called "effort" and "merit". And women pay the price a lot more than men, since I believe worldwide, women only own about 1 per cent of all wealth. Now there's a topic that could be explored more fully - how the market does not, in fact, "set prices" based on supply and demand, but does so based more on perceptions of worth which have little to do with actual need and reality.
What are examples of historical works which promote such vicious hate propaganda about women?
On the plus side it does offer plenty of legitimate, albeit wildly exaggerated, talking points about patriarchy and gender-based stereotyping.
Writings by Aristotle.
Medical and anthropological writings on the differences between men and women.
They're couched in seemingly neutral-sounding text, but the hate is the same.
This is the first time I've read SCUM. I read it as satire and thought it was interesting in parts. I think she believed what she wrote, but knew that the rest of society would take it as satire.
I read that years ago, and it really just broke my heart, she broke my heart, her life and her problems broke my heart, that Warhol treated her with such disrespect broke my heart... and maybe if there was some better sort of support for women with mental disorders she wouldn't have attempted the assasination... But I mean how could she only have ONE copy of her manuscript "up your ass"? Maybe we don't realize how lucky we are to have copiers and printers and we can have multiple copies of what we write... And how fucked up that Warhol took it and didn't return it. I might have shot him for that myself.
The movie "I shot Andy Warhol" is based on her life.
I think that the real story of her life, the pain, the writing, the loss, the mental illness, the way she died and how her long lost manuscript appeared not long after her death.... it's a hell of a story and very sad, very sad.
Word,that's a good movie.
I honestly don't see what's so ludicrous about SCUM. I mean, not that I agree with Solonas' ideas (which are obviously pretty over-the-top), but to me, the SCUM manifesto is really just a cry for attention from a very mistreated and ignored woman.
Oppression breeds hate, which is why victims of oppressive power structures often retaliate with unnecessary or misplaced zeal. I don't agree with the tactics of Muslim terrorists, but I understand that their anger is the result of chronic mistreatment by western society. I know that's a pretty loose analogy, but I think the principle is basically the same.
If you love her so much, then you should spell her name correctly. It's Solanas.
Also: no. She shot and tried to kill somebody, so I have a hard time reading the violence in the SCUM manifesto as satirical.
I love it for the same reasons that kahri mentioned. I think it's a great turning of the tables on the typical discussion of sex and gender in the classical literature. The difference between Plato on sex and Solanas on sex? One of them is required reading at my great books based liberal arts college and the other is considered obscene.
To be honest, the fact that people like that manifesto scares the sh*t out of me. It's absolutely ridiculous, illogical, the ramblings of a crazy woman.
I didn't read the full thing, but I read enough to get the gist (I'm at work and don't have the time to read it all). But it kind of reminds me of A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift. However, it lacks the suggestions at the end of feasible solutions to the problem. I think if it had that element at the end, it would be slightly more digestible - like kahri, I find it hateful and offensive. I would rather believe that she wrote it with A Modest Proposal in mind and not because she truly believes the male sex should be eliminated. That, in my opinion, is no better than the sexism perpetuated against women by our patriarchal society.
That being said, if it had been written to the Modest Proposal format I think it would have been a lot more effective in persuading people towards equality of the sexes, and probably wouldn't have resulted in as much anti-feminist backlash.
This needs to be posted on an MRA or right wing fundie website -- I would enjoy seeing the fireworks that result! ;)
I'm not a big fan of the whole (which I find a bit too essentialist and science-fiction), but I really like the first paragraph:
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."
Though, with the ecological crisis and so on, I'm a bit dubious about the "institute complete automation" part of the program.
I suppose my reaction would depend somewhat on the intent of the author. I can't quite tell if this is intended as satire -- or whether the author is simply a seething misandrist.
Even as satire, it is somewhat clumsy -- and not particularly productive. The patriarchy is not quite so blatant as this -- it is more of a behind-the-scenes thing. If this is intended as satire of misogyny, it doesn't quite work. There is outright misogyny out there -- but I doubt even the most vocal misogynist would write such a stridently hateful piece (and I'm not sure the most strident misogynist would even AGREE with the sentiments therein if it were written about women). So, it begs the question ... what is she satarizing? Misogyny? Patriarchy? I'm not sure I get it.
In the event that she is completely serious -- its a vile and hateful misandrist rant counched in pseudo-intellectualism.
Interesting read, though.
kbz
It makes me uncomfortable in all sorts of ways. Immediately because I am a man and thus right in the cross-hairs, secondarily because if taken literally it advances a kind of willing hatred and violence, and thirdly because it has always struck me as the manifesto of a woman who was abused by men and resorted to the same attitude, later seriously wounding Andy Warhol.
Your discomfort is why I like it. I've felt in the cross-hairs of a lot of the literature considered part of the Western canon (and other canons, for that matter), but I'm expected not to comment on that because it's great, universal literature that speaks to humanity. Because only men are really part of humanity. Real misandry is so rare that most men probably will never have the experience of being hated -- truly hated -- solely because of their gender.
But they can have that experience reading this, because Solanas, from all indications, really hated men. Not in that standard "feminists hate men" bullshit way, but deep hate that is easily found in a lot of literature if you look for it directed at women.
It's very much a welcome to our world sort of piece. I don't agree with anything written in it, but I love it for that aspect.
First off, abatha.... sorry for misspelling her name once as I was trying to find time to post this between work and school. I'm sorry for dissatisfying you.
Second off, I love that this scares people. It needs to scare people. Women everyday get raped, killed, die of preventable diseases.... so a little bit of scaring of the male sex is ALRIGHT with me.
I took the view from womynkind.org that
"In the interview she discussed the Society for Cutting Up Men: "It's hypothetical. No, hypothetical is the wrong word. It's just a literary device. There's no organization called SCUM. . . . Smith: "It's just you." Solanas: "It's not even me . . . I mean, I thought of it as a state of mind. In other words, women who think a certain way are in SCUM. Men who think a certain way are in the men's auxiliary of SCUM"
from Bitch magazine:
" Valerie Solanas, the author of the satiric 1967 S.C.U.M. Manifesto that advocated destroying “the male sex” (along with capitalism) is frequently labeled a radical feminist, despite the fact that she was never a part of any organized feminist group, and her public feminist efforts were limited to the manifesto."
So I never thought she was really any feminist heavyweight. I do have her book however and I dont really see it as that substantial. I mean its only about 60 pages. Beauvoirs was about 600. Maybe a little off even. I do think her attitude towards men was warranted though. She witnessed alot of abuse at their hands and it was the 60's. Alot of the time anti-feminists misuse her book to try and oaint feminists with that brush regardless that Solanas wasnt a feminist and she said she wrote that book as a satire.
Kind of scary but interesting seeing men so cruelly misrepresented for a change. I was particularly put off by the comment about men as fathers. My ex-husband is a wonderful father, very patient with our sons. He is a better parent than I am and according to her women are supposed to be natural mothers.
I think her comment on revamping the economic system is actually worth thinking about. Our economic system seems to be failing us right now. I have several friends who have lost their jobs and are scraping to keep up with their rents/mortgages.
How can anyone compare this to A Modest Proposal except in the vaguest of terms? A Modest Proposal was easily identified as satirical because of how plainly it stated its facts and how despite the plainness, the straight-forwardness, it was clearly absurd. It didn't depend on disgusting imagery or language and THAT is why it was so effective - because it wasn't a "reaction", it was a "presentation of truths".
A Modest Proposal said, "We have to eat poor babies. Rich babies might be something." It played on how people already thought, even if they weren't aware of it. It wasn't presented as violent, but almost medical, and economical. SCUM is violent, reactionary, and sounds impulsive. A Modest Proposal is methodical and thought-out. They are not similar and SCUM is not effective.
I find this interesting not really in itself, but in the reactions that it garners from people. I think it does a better job of highlighting problems within the feminist community than the more obvious point about misogyny's role in our society. Any truly intelligent individual knows that misogyny is rampant in our society - but hey, who knew that a bunch of otherwise progressive, liberal feminists would revert back to Hammurabi's "eye for an eye" in order to jump to the defense of an individual who attempted to murder three people? I certainly wouldn't have predicted it.
I think SCUM is a pretty interesting piece. Like it or not, you've gotta admit it's orginal. There's never been anything before like it, and I doubt there ever will be another one in the future.
The simple reason is that feminists don't hate men, after all. So, this one kooky thing is the only actual example of the "feminist" men haters. Sure there's lots of anti-men things written by women out there, but they are normally from a "traditional" perspective. Traditional values are, after all, the ones that promote the genders competing and being in perpetual conflict (with men having a built-in advantage).
So, I find SCUM interesting because of the whole weird alternative reality vibe of it. Not only is there the "feminist" man-hating, but there is this bizarre, completely dated fixation on "automation." (Did other people of the era actually believe something like this? Or had Solanas just been taking crappy sci-fi movies of the time too seriously?)
Anyway, SCUM is illogical and crazed, but also original and evocative. As such, it will most likely always have a cult following, even a 100 years from now, just as the Unabomber's Manifesto or Charles Manson's output will be perennially be picked up by new groupees.
I think SCUM is a pretty interesting piece. Like it or not, you've gotta admit it's orginal. There's never been anything before like it, and I doubt there ever will be another one in the future.
The simple reason is that feminists don't hate men, after all. So, this one kooky thing is the only actual example of the "feminist" men haters. Sure there's lots of anti-men things written by women out there, but they are normally from a "traditional" perspective. Traditional values are, after all, the ones that promote the genders competing and being in perpetual conflict (with men having a built-in advantage).
So, I find SCUM interesting because of the whole weird alternative reality vibe of it. Not only is there the "feminist" man-hating, but there is this bizarre, completely dated fixation on "automation." (Did other people of the era actually believe something like this? Or had Solanas just been taking crappy sci-fi movies of the time too seriously?)
Anyway, SCUM is illogical and crazed, but also original and evocative. As such, it will most likely always have a cult following, even a 100 years from now, just as the Unabomber's Manifesto or Charles Manson's output will be perennially be picked up by new groupees.