Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
tense
fast-paced
My qualms with this text come after the fact that it is an important one.
It is important in that it is representative of several sociological factors, psychologies, beliefs, and the history that existed at its time of publication. One: the feminist resurgence in the 1960's and how it acted as a response to the continuing equality felt by women; two: how this inequality transferred into some aggression of females (Solanas, for instance) as well as how society may have been --as depicted by Solanas-- which yes, is largely biased, but alas does have some element of truth to it.
I am not well versed in the feminist tradition of the 1960's nor in the hippie movement at the time, or what Solana's specific issues were with it, so I don't have much to say on the rest of that topic. I feel guilty criticizing the rest of her text as a result.
But, I would like to say that, in my opinion, her anger and hatred towards men may have been because of an interaction with one or several specific individuals earlier on in her life. Maybe it is because I am reading this now, in the mid-2000s, as an adult, that I feel bad what she is saying about my male counterparts because I feel we have come a long way and I know many men who are the contrary of her accusations. There are also moments where she rejects many female social advancements (such as open sexuality, for instance) that could be argued as hindering and offensive by today's "modern woman" (whomever she may be).
There are also fleeting instances within her argument that I could pick out some individuals that I have known, or maybe will know in the future, that fit her descriptions, but I feel that these peoples/social circles that she accuses and blames are almost sub-culture-ist today... or maybe I don't exist in these circles (meaning that really I am on the periphery) and cannot say whether or not the patriarchy is operating in the same way (I still do not deny its existence as I think it is still very much alive... yet, I can see the history; the old patriarchy that influenced her thoughts, because I have learned about it).
Interestingly, there are very slight contradictions in the text. One of them being her rejection of men as a part of the hippie movement, yet her continuous preaching of "groovy women" and "conceited, kooky, funky females grooving on each other and everything in the universe" (26) and that "the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love" (19)... ideologies that can be linked intrinsically with the 1960's. Her rejection of female sexuality and sexual exploration may be questionable to some, as most of her arguments against men are incompatible with the influencing ideologies that she rambles towards, and is supported by, within the rest of her text. I find her talk on sexuality especially interesting, because she labels powerful sexuality as intrinsically "male" . Is she wrong? Are today's modern females more powerful and more respected because they are becoming equal with, instead of changing and surpassing and creating a power that is distinct from that which is associated with masculinity? Is this what Solanas was getting at? Did we fail in her eyes? because in order to be "cool", a female must be asexual, angry, violent, selfish, crass, disgusting, nasty, SCUM.. etc etc (I see what you did there, Solanas...) unhampered by anything; ONLY respecting females... the extreme feminist, not unlike that which we see and are blamed of being today.
I could go on ranting about this text forever...
Meriting factors include an almost barely imperceptible sensitivity towards the universe and her society; her want of affection, acceptance and love (since she talks about this a lot). The poetic allusions and constant talk of human connection suggest that maybe this is what she is looking for.
This text was initially self published. Punk girl thoughts for a movement that was up-and-coming. I think the most intriguing and crucial part of understanding this text is the history of it's author. Sometimes, in order to understand the intent of a reading, one must look to who has written it
It is important in that it is representative of several sociological factors, psychologies, beliefs, and the history that existed at its time of publication. One: the feminist resurgence in the 1960's and how it acted as a response to the continuing equality felt by women; two: how this inequality transferred into some aggression of females (Solanas, for instance) as well as how society may have been --as depicted by Solanas-- which yes, is largely biased, but alas does have some element of truth to it.
I am not well versed in the feminist tradition of the 1960's nor in the hippie movement at the time, or what Solana's specific issues were with it, so I don't have much to say on the rest of that topic. I feel guilty criticizing the rest of her text as a result.
But, I would like to say that, in my opinion, her anger and hatred towards men may have been because of an interaction with one or several specific individuals earlier on in her life. Maybe it is because I am reading this now, in the mid-2000s, as an adult, that I feel bad what she is saying about my male counterparts because I feel we have come a long way and I know many men who are the contrary of her accusations. There are also moments where she rejects many female social advancements (such as open sexuality, for instance) that could be argued as hindering and offensive by today's "modern woman" (whomever she may be).
There are also fleeting instances within her argument that I could pick out some individuals that I have known, or maybe will know in the future, that fit her descriptions, but I feel that these peoples/social circles that she accuses and blames are almost sub-culture-ist today... or maybe I don't exist in these circles (meaning that really I am on the periphery) and cannot say whether or not the patriarchy is operating in the same way (I still do not deny its existence as I think it is still very much alive... yet, I can see the history; the old patriarchy that influenced her thoughts, because I have learned about it).
Interestingly, there are very slight contradictions in the text. One of them being her rejection of men as a part of the hippie movement, yet her continuous preaching of "groovy women" and "conceited, kooky, funky females grooving on each other and everything in the universe" (26) and that "the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love" (19)... ideologies that can be linked intrinsically with the 1960's. Her rejection of female sexuality and sexual exploration may be questionable to some, as most of her arguments against men are incompatible with the influencing ideologies that she rambles towards, and is supported by, within the rest of her text. I find her talk on sexuality especially interesting, because she labels powerful sexuality as intrinsically "male" . Is she wrong? Are today's modern females more powerful and more respected because they are becoming equal with, instead of changing and surpassing and creating a power that is distinct from that which is associated with masculinity? Is this what Solanas was getting at? Did we fail in her eyes? because in order to be "cool", a female must be asexual, angry, violent, selfish, crass, disgusting, nasty, SCUM.. etc etc (I see what you did there, Solanas...) unhampered by anything; ONLY respecting females... the extreme feminist, not unlike that which we see and are blamed of being today.
I could go on ranting about this text forever...
Meriting factors include an almost barely imperceptible sensitivity towards the universe and her society; her want of affection, acceptance and love (since she talks about this a lot). The poetic allusions and constant talk of human connection suggest that maybe this is what she is looking for.
This text was initially self published. Punk girl thoughts for a movement that was up-and-coming. I think the most intriguing and crucial part of understanding this text is the history of it's author. Sometimes, in order to understand the intent of a reading, one must look to who has written it
challenging
funny
reflective
fast-paced
2018 review:
Frustration and hope in a very provoking essay. There really are no words to describe this work of passion.
Frustration and hope in a very provoking essay. There really are no words to describe this work of passion.
Every time I try to rate this book I end up giving it another star. I don't think it matters whether or not Solanas was serious. This book turns misogyny on it's head and spits it back at the world in the form of the opposite. It is half spot on and half completely fucked up, but in the end, in holds up a mirror to misogynistic culture and says, "what if things were the other way around?"
Also, it's really good catharsis for people who are really feelin' the effects of the patriarchy that day and need someone who's more pissed off than they are to read.
Also, it's really good catharsis for people who are really feelin' the effects of the patriarchy that day and need someone who's more pissed off than they are to read.
dark
funny
fast-paced
[SCUM] will not picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to attempt to achieve its ends … If SCUM ever marches, it will be over the president’s stupid, sickening face; if SCUM ever strikes, it will be in the dark with a six-inch blade.
Written in the 1960s. All ima say is I understand completely. Love to see some good female rage.
slow-paced
dark
funny
listen,, did she lie. an icon and a problematic fave.
Content Warnings
eugenics
adventurous
challenging
dark
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
tense
slow-paced