You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
sssummer 's review for:
SCUM Manifesto
by Valerie Solanas
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.