Scan barcode
albertetitley's review against another edition
So disappointing
It was really poorly written. Solanas would contradict her point a lot, or they would be too convoluted to make any sense.
I knew before hand that it was extremely critical of men. Which I didn’t really have a problem with, but I think her analysis walk to close to just straight up eugenics. Call men a birth defect.
She is also extremely transphobic, which is so disappointing when trans women, are even more likely to be victims of violence from men.
Though she is also extremely cruel and narrow view on women who enjoy sex with men.
It was really poorly written. Solanas would contradict her point a lot, or they would be too convoluted to make any sense.
I knew before hand that it was extremely critical of men. Which I didn’t really have a problem with, but I think her analysis walk to close to just straight up eugenics. Call men a birth defect.
She is also extremely transphobic, which is so disappointing when trans women, are even more likely to be victims of violence from men.
Though she is also extremely cruel and narrow view on women who enjoy sex with men.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Homophobia, Misogyny, and Transphobia
wildflower09's review against another edition
challenging
dark
tense
fast-paced
2.5
What in the hell did I just read? Trigger warning for basically everything.
I don't even know where to begin, the book seems to be disorganized and is at times hard to read. However not all of her ideas and observations are total whack. Men are often times violent, and much more often so than women.
On the other hand, claiming that women are inherently men and men inherently women because men have pussy envy... it reads very Freudian.
Also, it sounds like Valerie spent time with too many trans women and got a very warped view of them. But then again, this book was written in the 60s.
It's overall.... an interesting book, gives some insight into feminism, transphobia and the struggles of the LGBTQ community in the 60s.
Read at your own risk.
I don't even know where to begin, the book seems to be disorganized and is at times hard to read. However not all of her ideas and observations are total whack. Men are often times violent, and much more often so than women.
On the other hand, claiming
Also, it sounds like Valerie spent time with too many trans women and got a very warped view of them. But then again, this book was written in the 60s.
It's overall.... an interesting book, gives some insight into feminism, transphobia and the struggles of the LGBTQ community in the 60s.
Read at your own risk.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Alcoholism, Classism, Death, Drug abuse, Emotional abuse, Homophobia, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Sexism, Sexual harassment, and Transphobia
Moderate: Abortion, Addiction, Forced institutionalization, Lesbophobia, Slavery, Suicide, and Ableism
itszosia's review against another edition
slow-paced
3.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia
Moderate: Murder, Violence, Genocide, Misogyny, and Sexual content
Minor: Suicide
miss_hva's review against another edition
dark
funny
fast-paced
2.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Physical abuse, Murder, Misogyny, Sexism, Violence, Sexual violence, and Bullying
Moderate: Transphobia and Homophobia
gagne's review
challenging
tense
fast-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, Genocide, and War
Moderate: Domestic abuse, Misogyny, and Murder
Minor: Transphobia and Ableism
suggestion of elimination of males (likely male sex), call to violence and murderavocadotoastbee's review against another edition
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solonas is not only funny, but also the perfect portrait of female rage.
I enjoyed reading this manifesto and it had me smiling the whole time.
Solonas has put into writing what goes through my mind.
However, one should also keep in mind that Solonas wrote this book in the 60's and therefore her ideas are very much based on a binary gender system.
Much of what she says in the manifesto is deeply transphobic from today's perspective.
That being said, Valerie Solonas shouldn't be known for shooting Andy Warhol, but rather for being a queer icon.
I enjoyed reading this manifesto and it had me smiling the whole time.
Solonas has put into writing what goes through my mind.
However, one should also keep in mind that Solonas wrote this book in the 60's and therefore her ideas are very much based on a binary gender system.
Much of what she says in the manifesto is deeply transphobic from today's perspective.
That being said, Valerie Solonas shouldn't be known for shooting Andy Warhol, but rather for being a queer icon.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia
hannanegash's review
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
fast-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia
astridrv's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
This one is controversial. If you're looking for a calm, composed, respectful analysis of sexism, walk away. This manifest is incendiary, trash, smart, angry, provocative, satirical, relatable, rude, sassy, daring, violent (and also, ableist as fuck). If you used most of these words to describe a book written by a man, I would be unlikely to read it. But Solanas, of course, turns everything on its head in her infamous self published, self distributed manifest of misandry.
I laughed almost every page - because it was irreverent, it spared no punches, because it is not allowed to say things like that or to laugh at sentences like hers. And that alone felt like a catalyst. It made me a bit emotional about how easy it is to find this book now (internet!) and how underground it must have been at the time.
This is not a nuanced and thoughtful critique of a misogynistic world. It is carefully constructed, in its own way, and I resent anyone seeing it as a delirious rant by a traumatized woman. Yes she was traumatized, and yes she is not polite - does that mean her voice and her tone have no value?
It's definitely not a book for everyone, but if it's for you, you'll know by page 1. (CW on murder, ableism and eugenics. Although I know plenty of trans women loved this book, it can be very triggering, including for transmasc people) I wanted to add some quotes here, but I highlighted almost all of the book. Lemme try nonetheless, to give you an idea of the tone of the book:
"In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks."
"Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and almost of everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real regard for privacy. Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused - he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around. Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a 'society' based upon the family - a male-female couple and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupulously violating the female's rights, privacy and sanity."
"The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven. (...) Most men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that male lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only. So they label the male condition the Human Condition, posit their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their "Identity Problem" and proceed to prattle on pompously about the "Crisis of the Individual", the "Essence of Being" etc. A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love."
I laughed almost every page - because it was irreverent, it spared no punches, because it is not allowed to say things like that or to laugh at sentences like hers. And that alone felt like a catalyst. It made me a bit emotional about how easy it is to find this book now (internet!) and how underground it must have been at the time.
This is not a nuanced and thoughtful critique of a misogynistic world. It is carefully constructed, in its own way, and I resent anyone seeing it as a delirious rant by a traumatized woman. Yes she was traumatized, and yes she is not polite - does that mean her voice and her tone have no value?
It's definitely not a book for everyone, but if it's for you, you'll know by page 1. (CW on murder, ableism and eugenics. Although I know plenty of trans women loved this book, it can be very triggering, including for transmasc people) I wanted to add some quotes here, but I highlighted almost all of the book. Lemme try nonetheless, to give you an idea of the tone of the book:
"In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks."
"Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and almost of everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real regard for privacy. Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused - he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around. Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a 'society' based upon the family - a male-female couple and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupulously violating the female's rights, privacy and sanity."
"The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven. (...) Most men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that male lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only. So they label the male condition the Human Condition, posit their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their "Identity Problem" and proceed to prattle on pompously about the "Crisis of the Individual", the "Essence of Being" etc. A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love."
Content Warnings
Moderate: Ableism, Transphobia, Murder, and Violence