Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
adventurous
dark
reflective
tense
fast-paced
A lot of fun. In part a brutal psychoanalysis of men, which was not only funny but surprisingly insightful. In that way, it reminded me of Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, which provides some interesting ideas about "surrogate activities" and the way people tend to respond psychologically to modern life. In each case, there may be some truth, for some people - maybe even a lot of people - but it is, of course, overgeneralised and overstated. Solanas's comically extreme misandry is also interesting from a sociological perspective, as it throws the ideology behind misogyny into clear relief by inverting it and taking it to its extreme - men, not women, are fundamentally lacking, passive, dependent, incapable of truly dispassionate, intellectual thought, etc.
There are so many funny and strange ideas here, many of which relate to the author's surprising techno-optimism. Apparently, the post-male utopia will include male-free reproduction, the full automation of work, and suicide centres for the remaining men, who wander about aimlessly in a world that does not need or want them. In my opinion, this is well worth the hour or so it will take to read. You can find it here on YouTube, if you'd prefer to listen.
There are so many funny and strange ideas here, many of which relate to the author's surprising techno-optimism. Apparently, the post-male utopia will include male-free reproduction, the full automation of work, and suicide centres for the remaining men, who wander about aimlessly in a world that does not need or want them. In my opinion, this is well worth the hour or so it will take to read. You can find it here on YouTube, if you'd prefer to listen.
challenging
dark
tense
fast-paced
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
tense
fast-paced
adventurous
funny
reflective
medium-paced
This is a complicated text. I might require multiple reading to fully comprehend it. All I know for now is that it is filled with burning rage. Some say it's transphobic and too binary. But I want to go back before arriving at a final judgment. I wonder whether Solanas was an asexual person. Anyway, more I think, I can't disagree with Solanas that true liberation of human creativity and potential can only come from the elimination of money system and work. Both will continue as long as a large number of people feel forced to take part in it.
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
dark
funny
tense
fast-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, Murder
Moderate: Homophobia, Transphobia
dark
tense
fast-paced
no rating.
"men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror - themselves."
cathartic read. female rage comme je les aime.
"men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror - themselves."
cathartic read. female rage comme je les aime.
i had heard about this book for decades, that it was crazy and insane and written by a real feminazi psycho who, get this, SHOT ANDY WARHOL. and honestly? the 'misandrist' stuff didnt nor does it bother me. in fact its refreshing. we need more stuff like this. however, i avoided it for a long time because it just didnt interest me...and lately ive avoided it because i heard it was transmisogynist. and as someone who is not a trans woman i am not really here to make that call but. let me just tell you what the central thesis of this book is and maybe you can make your mind up for yourself.
so i read the verso edition and the intro really makes it. i highly recommend this edition because it sets the scene. valerie solanas. poor, rejected butch writer on one side, and andy warhol, rich, arrogant artist on the other. he rejects her, calls her ugly, a cunt...i mean i wont say that he had it coming because he almost died, but ive got no sympathy for him.
onto the book itself. solanas basically believes that all men are in actuality incomplete women, passive and inferior to women. men, she argues, have a defective Y chromosome. they are incomplete without another X chromosome, and refers to them as failed abortions. the only people who come unscathed actually appear to be drag queens and gay men because solanas truly goes all the way in on fucking everyone, from ALL MEN to even other women, who apparently are complicit in their own oppression.
she argues that men have flipped the script, that men are weaker ('women') and that women are stronger ('men'), and have convinced women of this lie through sex, the family unit, and capitalism itself. this sounds reasonable, but she insists that this is because the man 'wants to be a woman' so he surrounds himself with women within the family unit....
i hesitate to ascribe any inherent meaning to anything solanas wrote because she herself would probably deny it and say it was something else, but im going to do it anyway: to solanas, the problem of patriarchy is, itself, that all cis men are trans women, and that makes cis men hate women. this is actually an extremely pervasive view of trans women which ascribes an undue level of aggression and violence to them even though literally all studies and statistics say that trans women are no more prone to committing violent crime than the general population.
and if one argues that i am reaching here, solanas claims that drag queens (in her time i suppose this would be our trans women of today) are female who try to 'define their troubles away' yet lack 'individuality', that they are 'insecure' in their identities and end up a 'bundle of stilted mannerisms'.
i give this two stars because i liked the intro a lot, and solanas is sympathetic. her writing is great but i fucking hate her conclusions. if youre going to read this, and really youre not missing out, get the verso edition. but i dont recommend it. in the end, valerie solanas doesnt get into the true causes of patriarchy. she talks about capitalism, the family unit, sex, heterosexuality, and then she blames it all on how men want to be women, and also on women who are stronger than men but also Allow Themselves To Be Oppressed (best characterized by Daddy's Girl in the text). i have no idea why this is such a popular text when its not necessarily incoherent, but its conclusions are totally off base. i suspect the reason a certain group of people love this text is because they despise trans women more than they hate men in general but who can say.
and it is a true shame because this text is fucking ferocious and there is legitimately a lot of good in here. i recognize that solanas, were she alive, might refute everything ive said because she is, in her own words and deeds, a writer, but above all she is a brilliant polemecist. yet i cannot in good conscious recommend anything that dehumanizes already marginalized women with the aims of 'getting at men'. to me, all that says is that you consider those women men, and im not alright with that, and also it means you need to revise your central thesis.
so i read the verso edition and the intro really makes it. i highly recommend this edition because it sets the scene. valerie solanas. poor, rejected butch writer on one side, and andy warhol, rich, arrogant artist on the other. he rejects her, calls her ugly, a cunt...i mean i wont say that he had it coming because he almost died, but ive got no sympathy for him.
onto the book itself. solanas basically believes that all men are in actuality incomplete women, passive and inferior to women. men, she argues, have a defective Y chromosome. they are incomplete without another X chromosome, and refers to them as failed abortions. the only people who come unscathed actually appear to be drag queens and gay men because solanas truly goes all the way in on fucking everyone, from ALL MEN to even other women, who apparently are complicit in their own oppression.
she argues that men have flipped the script, that men are weaker ('women') and that women are stronger ('men'), and have convinced women of this lie through sex, the family unit, and capitalism itself. this sounds reasonable, but she insists that this is because the man 'wants to be a woman' so he surrounds himself with women within the family unit....
i hesitate to ascribe any inherent meaning to anything solanas wrote because she herself would probably deny it and say it was something else, but im going to do it anyway: to solanas, the problem of patriarchy is, itself, that all cis men are trans women, and that makes cis men hate women. this is actually an extremely pervasive view of trans women which ascribes an undue level of aggression and violence to them even though literally all studies and statistics say that trans women are no more prone to committing violent crime than the general population.
and if one argues that i am reaching here, solanas claims that drag queens (in her time i suppose this would be our trans women of today) are female who try to 'define their troubles away' yet lack 'individuality', that they are 'insecure' in their identities and end up a 'bundle of stilted mannerisms'.
i give this two stars because i liked the intro a lot, and solanas is sympathetic. her writing is great but i fucking hate her conclusions. if youre going to read this, and really youre not missing out, get the verso edition. but i dont recommend it. in the end, valerie solanas doesnt get into the true causes of patriarchy. she talks about capitalism, the family unit, sex, heterosexuality, and then she blames it all on how men want to be women, and also on women who are stronger than men but also Allow Themselves To Be Oppressed (best characterized by Daddy's Girl in the text). i have no idea why this is such a popular text when its not necessarily incoherent, but its conclusions are totally off base. i suspect the reason a certain group of people love this text is because they despise trans women more than they hate men in general but who can say.
and it is a true shame because this text is fucking ferocious and there is legitimately a lot of good in here. i recognize that solanas, were she alive, might refute everything ive said because she is, in her own words and deeds, a writer, but above all she is a brilliant polemecist. yet i cannot in good conscious recommend anything that dehumanizes already marginalized women with the aims of 'getting at men'. to me, all that says is that you consider those women men, and im not alright with that, and also it means you need to revise your central thesis.
I'm not rating it because I wouldn't know how. I have mixed feelings. I really liked the postface by the French journalist in my edition. I really liked the uncompromising anger of it, and the link of liberation through anarchy and stuff like that. Wasn't a fan of any moments mentioning trans women, they were Very Bad (at least in a modern setting, I don't know how it would've been seen at the time tbh).
It's also a very weird read as a non-binary person overall. Like. Extremely binary, which is understandable in context, but just weird to read now.
There's also next to no mention of racism and white supremacy and the influence of that on the dynamics of oppression.
Anyway. Not entirely sure what to feel about it, but placed in context (historical and personal/considering the author's background) it's an interesting read. The anger of it is what stays the most, I think.
It's also a very weird read as a non-binary person overall. Like. Extremely binary, which is understandable in context, but just weird to read now.
There's also next to no mention of racism and white supremacy and the influence of that on the dynamics of oppression.
Anyway. Not entirely sure what to feel about it, but placed in context (historical and personal/considering the author's background) it's an interesting read. The anger of it is what stays the most, I think.