Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
how to start... reading this was a bit insulting to say the least. it appears that solanas doesn't deem women capable of differentiating between drivel and 'engaging' conversation. solanas acts like women worship men and can't think for themselves and need guidance through man-hating propaganda to allow women to 'see the light'. therefore undermining our intelligence while insulting men.
men are described as walking patrick bateman's of the world.
there's this section where she says that women who are used to the system of restraints and maleness "don't know what freedom is" but earlier solanas places a hierarchy in SCUM. wouldn't this mean there have to be certain levels and protocols in a top-down system through her 'power' distribution. how would women have 'freedom' in her utopia if it's directed on someone else's terms?
men are described as walking patrick bateman's of the world.
there's this section where she says that women who are used to the system of restraints and maleness "don't know what freedom is" but earlier solanas places a hierarchy in SCUM. wouldn't this mean there have to be certain levels and protocols in a top-down system through her 'power' distribution. how would women have 'freedom' in her utopia if it's directed on someone else's terms?
challenging
dark
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
fast-paced
I get why people connect with this book. There are some good points in here but the reasoning is completely cuckoo banana pants. It’s transphobic, homophobic, ableist and in support of eugenics, and (no I don’t really think misandry is a thing because there is no systemic oppression of men for being men, but that doesn’t mean they cannot be systemically oppressed for their other identities or simply because the patriarchy hates everyone) the misandry in here in wild.
Do I think everyone needs to read this book in order to “discuss what is happening in American society today” as the back of the book says? Absolutely not. It does offer an interesting insight into radical feminist thinking but I don’t think it’s necessary “all female revolutionaries” are acquainted with the text.
If this was satire, which it honestly does read as a lot of the time so I understand peoples confusion, then I would rate it higher. As a satirical commentary it would serve a much better purpose as an outlet of what booktok loves to label as female/feminine rage, but as a serious manifesto - especially having read up on Solanas’ life - yikes. Just yikes.
Do I think everyone needs to read this book in order to “discuss what is happening in American society today” as the back of the book says? Absolutely not. It does offer an interesting insight into radical feminist thinking but I don’t think it’s necessary “all female revolutionaries” are acquainted with the text.
If this was satire, which it honestly does read as a lot of the time so I understand peoples confusion, then I would rate it higher. As a satirical commentary it would serve a much better purpose as an outlet of what booktok loves to label as female/feminine rage, but as a serious manifesto - especially having read up on Solanas’ life - yikes. Just yikes.
dark
tense
fast-paced
Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit.
This particular line reminded me of a personal experience; telling my own father that my girl-friends and I were catcalled by a grown man whilst walking through the city and laughing at our own little jokes, and being told that, if I'm to take offense by even the 'nice' men, I should just not go out at all. However, afterwards, he proceeded to warn me that I should never, under no circumstances, reply to these men because I could potentially put my life and my girl-friends' lives in danger. The catcaller was a nice man, I guess, but I shouldn't speak to him because he might take it the wrong way and assault or even murder my girl-friends and I right then and there, in complete plain sight if he wanted to. Because men do things because they want to, and because they can.
To my father, a middle-aged man born in the 70s, it was more important to first defend the pride of his sex, and then warn his 17-year-old daughter of the dangers a man can commit to a woman — a girl — if she were to defend herself.
Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a “Man.” The boy, scared shitless of and “respecting” his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of “Man”-hood, the all-American ideal – the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.
What the majority of men of today's society do not — or refuse to — realize is that the patriarchy does not have negative consequences to just the female gender, but also the male. It is not women who judge and discriminate the so-called 'feminine' men, the 'sensitive' men who cry when their feelings are hurt by a loved one or when they're going through a tough time, the 'gentle' men who respect the female sex; it is men. Men consider these traits — sensitivity, gentleness, kindness, compassion, empathy — to be purely feminine, to belong only to women. According to men, these traits are, after all, why women are inferior to men. They're too sensitive, too emotional, too mentally unstable to be as smart, strong, and capable as men. Hence why they judge males who display such 'feminine' behavior. And the women who do judge such men, they're only imitating men; they're only repeating their fathers' and brothers' words.
... and besides, the male knows that an enlightened, aware female population will mean the end of him.
It is no secret, then, that whenever a woman is in a role of power (e.g political leader, headmaster, mayor etc), the first thought that comes to a man's mind is that she must have done something in order to achieve that. And that something does not relate to her capabilities or her intellect, because from a man's point of view, a woman does not possess either of these. It is her body, her attractiveness, her beauty that granted her that role of power. Maybe she seduced a superior, that's why she got the job, that's why she got a raise. Not because she's capable or worthy of that job or raise.
Ultimately, what the male “rebel” is rebelling against is being male.
When men 'argue' with women about feminism, one of the many baseless arguments they come up with is the fact that men get sexually assaulted as well. What they once again don't — or, once again, refuse to — realize is that the roots of the aforementioned issue are men and patriarchy. On very rare circumstances will you hear a woman say "Well, you must've enjoyed it" to a male sexual assault victim. It is men who immediately assume that, because the victim is a male and was assaulted by a female, there is no way that he didn't enjoy it. In their eyes, the victim was not even assaulted — he got laid. It is feminists that support and defend the male victim, not the males, yet it is males who constantly bring up the fact that men get assaulted as well. It is their easy way out of a losing argument, and men are not losers — especially not to women.
The male has a negative Midas touch – everything he touches turns to shit.
Many will say that Solanas's SCUM Manifesto is pure misandry, not feminism. Those who do claim that are either brainwashed Daddy's girls — as Solanas herself likes to call them — or prideful men with gigantic egos. Misandry is not a good quality to relate to, however it is not nearly as bad and negative as misogyny. Misandry is a disdain towards said prideful men with gigantic egos and dangerous men whose ultimate desire is to hurt women. Misogyny, on the other hand, is the hatred men have towards women — a hatred that is so strong that men will feel and carry out the urge to assault and murder women. A hatred that is so strong, that men will go out of their way to defend rapists, to silence victims.
This particular line reminded me of a personal experience; telling my own father that my girl-friends and I were catcalled by a grown man whilst walking through the city and laughing at our own little jokes, and being told that, if I'm to take offense by even the 'nice' men, I should just not go out at all. However, afterwards, he proceeded to warn me that I should never, under no circumstances, reply to these men because I could potentially put my life and my girl-friends' lives in danger. The catcaller was a nice man, I guess, but I shouldn't speak to him because he might take it the wrong way and assault or even murder my girl-friends and I right then and there, in complete plain sight if he wanted to. Because men do things because they want to, and because they can.
To my father, a middle-aged man born in the 70s, it was more important to first defend the pride of his sex, and then warn his 17-year-old daughter of the dangers a man can commit to a woman — a girl — if she were to defend herself.
Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a “Man.” The boy, scared shitless of and “respecting” his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of “Man”-hood, the all-American ideal – the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.
What the majority of men of today's society do not — or refuse to — realize is that the patriarchy does not have negative consequences to just the female gender, but also the male. It is not women who judge and discriminate the so-called 'feminine' men, the 'sensitive' men who cry when their feelings are hurt by a loved one or when they're going through a tough time, the 'gentle' men who respect the female sex; it is men. Men consider these traits — sensitivity, gentleness, kindness, compassion, empathy — to be purely feminine, to belong only to women. According to men, these traits are, after all, why women are inferior to men. They're too sensitive, too emotional, too mentally unstable to be as smart, strong, and capable as men. Hence why they judge males who display such 'feminine' behavior. And the women who do judge such men, they're only imitating men; they're only repeating their fathers' and brothers' words.
... and besides, the male knows that an enlightened, aware female population will mean the end of him.
It is no secret, then, that whenever a woman is in a role of power (e.g political leader, headmaster, mayor etc), the first thought that comes to a man's mind is that she must have done something in order to achieve that. And that something does not relate to her capabilities or her intellect, because from a man's point of view, a woman does not possess either of these. It is her body, her attractiveness, her beauty that granted her that role of power. Maybe she seduced a superior, that's why she got the job, that's why she got a raise. Not because she's capable or worthy of that job or raise.
Ultimately, what the male “rebel” is rebelling against is being male.
When men 'argue' with women about feminism, one of the many baseless arguments they come up with is the fact that men get sexually assaulted as well. What they once again don't — or, once again, refuse to — realize is that the roots of the aforementioned issue are men and patriarchy. On very rare circumstances will you hear a woman say "Well, you must've enjoyed it" to a male sexual assault victim. It is men who immediately assume that, because the victim is a male and was assaulted by a female, there is no way that he didn't enjoy it. In their eyes, the victim was not even assaulted — he got laid. It is feminists that support and defend the male victim, not the males, yet it is males who constantly bring up the fact that men get assaulted as well. It is their easy way out of a losing argument, and men are not losers — especially not to women.
The male has a negative Midas touch – everything he touches turns to shit.
Many will say that Solanas's SCUM Manifesto is pure misandry, not feminism. Those who do claim that are either brainwashed Daddy's girls — as Solanas herself likes to call them — or prideful men with gigantic egos. Misandry is not a good quality to relate to, however it is not nearly as bad and negative as misogyny. Misandry is a disdain towards said prideful men with gigantic egos and dangerous men whose ultimate desire is to hurt women. Misogyny, on the other hand, is the hatred men have towards women — a hatred that is so strong that men will feel and carry out the urge to assault and murder women. A hatred that is so strong, that men will go out of their way to defend rapists, to silence victims.
You almost want to go along with her and then... she gets crazy.
for feminist philosophy, terfy but can show representations of sexist/misogynistic behavior
funny
fast-paced