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