You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
funny
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
Okay so, so this was NOT what I was expecting. It's so extreme! I did no research on the book, just picked it up because it's often talked about as a radical feminist text.
Here are some excerpts so extreme that they are honestly funny:
- "The male likes death, it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die" (pg 67)
-"As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist." (pg 69).
This is a radical text, this is feminism that is anti-man feminism. Most of the passages in this book stem from the idea that men are inherently less than women, have less innate love in them and individualism and other good traits and instead are massively insecure. I mean she outright calls it womb envy.
So here's the thing. I was so torn on rating this book, and I might remove the star rating in the end.
But like some of the critiques of maleness (and as a consequence our male society (ie patriarchy and capitalism) is loveless) are like... I mean they are not crazy. Even if she's wrong about the root issue (as in blaming something innately wrong with men - note: gender is not thought to be performative, this is a pre-Butler text and it shows. ))
For example, she'll point out that dads seek respect and give only approval of kids - not love in the way a mother does. Surely not for all families, but I would easily imagine this being true of most in the 70s. I feel like her analysis almost reminded me of Bell Hooks, in another world maybe Solanas was writing instead a love doctrine.
But then she turns around and advocates for criminal violence against men. And like extreme violence like murder. I didn't know this before reading, but Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol three times which almost killed him. I was shocked to find out. So I probably shouldn't rate this. Yeah, I don't think I will. I just can't condone work that condones violence like that. Also work that discriminates against some innate nature of a particular social group.
But, I do think there are nuggets of worthwhile analysis in here. And I was shocked by the things I had thought myself before being in here. Sometimes we need a little misandry as a treat ig.
Here are some excerpts so extreme that they are honestly funny:
- "The male likes death, it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die" (pg 67)
-"As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist." (pg 69).
This is a radical text, this is feminism that is anti-man feminism. Most of the passages in this book stem from the idea that men are inherently less than women, have less innate love in them and individualism and other good traits and instead are massively insecure. I mean she outright calls it womb envy.
So here's the thing. I was so torn on rating this book, and I might remove the star rating in the end.
But like some of the critiques of maleness (and as a consequence our male society (ie patriarchy and capitalism) is loveless) are like... I mean they are not crazy. Even if she's wrong about the root issue (as in blaming something innately wrong with men - note: gender is not thought to be performative, this is a pre-Butler text and it shows. ))
For example, she'll point out that dads seek respect and give only approval of kids - not love in the way a mother does. Surely not for all families, but I would easily imagine this being true of most in the 70s. I feel like her analysis almost reminded me of Bell Hooks, in another world maybe Solanas was writing instead a love doctrine.
But then she turns around and advocates for criminal violence against men. And like extreme violence like murder. I didn't know this before reading, but Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol three times which almost killed him. I was shocked to find out. So I probably shouldn't rate this. Yeah, I don't think I will. I just can't condone work that condones violence like that. Also work that discriminates against some innate nature of a particular social group.
But, I do think there are nuggets of worthwhile analysis in here. And I was shocked by the things I had thought myself before being in here. Sometimes we need a little misandry as a treat ig.
I'm crazy, but I'm free.
Solanas writes for men what men have written for women through the ages.
A fever dream that only years of oppression could have created <3
Solanas writes for men what men have written for women through the ages.
A fever dream that only years of oppression could have created <3
Il faut bien ça pour nous remonter le moral en temps de "réarmement démographique".....................................................
This was a WILD ride. Solanas was off the rails, but sometimes she does make some good points. I don't really agree with most of it, especially the violent killing of men, or the absolute categorisation of the gender binary that she makes (+ the idea of men just wanting to be women because women are superior). It's an interesting read, though. The intro was also a good way to be prepared for the manifesto. It's also interesting to read as a very ironic antithesis of many male manifestos (which I assume was the point she was making?)
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Extremely engaging satirical critique of patriarchy and capitalism, if you choose to read it with that perspective. If not, this book could pose a threat in the wrong hands.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Death, Drug abuse, Drug use, Gun violence, Homophobia, Mental illness, Sexual content, Suicide, Abortion, Lesbophobia
You really have to read this as satire to fully appreciate it.
Solanas’ manifesto is perhaps the seminal (lol) text of lesbian separatism and the antipornography movement—absolute failures of the bourgeois lesbian feminism of their time. The ‘90s revival of the butch/femme dynamic was kinky raunchy glory, breaking from of the previous generation’s hatred of the masculine, the sadomasochistic. The Mission Dykes will always hold their place in our history. Then there are the trans exclusionary radical feminists, the butches and dykes alike clinging to an era of lesbianism prior to broadening access to gender affirming healthcare. Their fetishization of butch/femme (and not in the fun way) comes at the expense of all the dykes who come after them, the queers who know womanhood is slippery currency.
Has “the feminine” not always been a lightening-slick force, impossible to control?
Dragons are rivers. Rivers are dragons.
Supremacist logic will never get us where we need to be.
And still, I feel Solanas’ energy coursing through this text. Through me. She taps into the freaky, the feral. It’s a wonder what’s become of it.
Has “the feminine” not always been a lightening-slick force, impossible to control?
Dragons are rivers. Rivers are dragons.
Supremacist logic will never get us where we need to be.
And still, I feel Solanas’ energy coursing through this text. Through me. She taps into the freaky, the feral. It’s a wonder what’s become of it.
Sin estar para nada de acuerdo con sus ideas, me ha resultado muy interesante leer este manifiesto. Considero importante conocer todas las corrientes dentro del feminismo, aunque sean muy radicales. Informarse sobre ideas con las que no estás de acuerdo te ayudan a afianzar las tuyas propias, a tener argumentos en desacuerdo y te retan a pensar. Muy recomendable
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, Transphobia