Hot Best Seller

SCUM Manifesto

Availability: Ready to download

Author: Valerie Solanas

Published: May 17th 2004 by Verso (first published 1967)

Format: Hardcover , 96 pages

Isbn: 9781859845530

Language: English


Compare

SCUM Manifesto was considered one of the most outrageous, violent and certifiably crazy tracts when it first appeared in 1968. Valerie Solanas, the woman who shot Andy Warhol, self-published this work just before her rampage against the king of Pop Art made her a household name and resulted in her confinement to a mental institution. But the Manifesto, for all its vitriol, SCUM Manifesto was considered one of the most outrageous, violent and certifiably crazy tracts when it first appeared in 1968. Valerie Solanas, the woman who shot Andy Warhol, self-published this work just before her rampage against the king of Pop Art made her a household name and resulted in her confinement to a mental institution. But the Manifesto, for all its vitriol, is impossible to dismiss as just the rantings of a lesbian lunatic. In fact, the work has indisputable prescience, not only as a radical feminist analysis light-years ahead of its timepredicting artificial insemination, ATMs, a feminist uprising against under-representation in the artsbut also as a stunning testament to the rage of an abused and destitute woman. The focus of this edition is not on the nostalgic appeal of the work, but on Avital Ronell’s incisive introduction, “Deviant Payback: The Aims of Valerie Solanas.” Here is a reconsideration of Solanas’s infamous text in light of her social milieu, Derrida’s “The Ends of Man” (written in the same year), Judith Butler’s Excitable Speech, Nietzsche’s Ubermensch and notorious feminist icons from Medusa, Medea and Antigone, to Lizzie Borden, Lorenna Bobbit and Aileen Wournos, illuminating the evocative exuberance of Solanas’s dark tract.

30 review for SCUM Manifesto

  1. 5 out of 5

    Adam

    I am both a walking dildo and a walking abortion. I, like every man, know deep down that I'm a worthless piece of shit. Well, shit. Look, here's the thing. People either compare this to something like A Modest Proposal or they dismiss it as the work of a raving lunatic. Very few feminists would agree with Solanas. Especially since Solanas has lots of (really offensive) shit to say about women, especially women who like fucking dudes ("raving sex maniacs" is a very mild example). The manifesto is I am both a walking dildo and a walking abortion. I, like every man, know deep down that I'm a worthless piece of shit. Well, shit. Look, here's the thing. People either compare this to something like A Modest Proposal or they dismiss it as the work of a raving lunatic. Very few feminists would agree with Solanas. Especially since Solanas has lots of (really offensive) shit to say about women, especially women who like fucking dudes ("raving sex maniacs" is a very mild example). The manifesto is intellectually inconsistent, stupid, frustrating and thoroughly enlightening all at once. She makes exactly zero points that aren't obvious (and few that wouldn't have been obvious at the time). But the worth of the thing is in its presentation. Regardless of whether or not Solanas believed everything she wrote, the manifesto is an interesting reversal of exactly the kind of shit men have been saying about women for fucking ever. Check out Youtube comments, subreddits, comments on porn sites. Note how often and how easily women are openly talked about as being good only for fucking. Note that this is about as mild as the comments get. Read this manifesto (it's short) then consider how just about everything Solanas says has exact parallels in misogynistic discourse. Which is everywhere. If you're a dude and have been around other dudes, you've probably come across this language. I've made it, like, a mission not to hang out with frat boys and shit. But I've still come across this kind of thing. I've been around dudes and they've been talking to a buddy who's been through a breakup and shit like "it's just a cunt. You'll find another one" has indeed been said. I know because that lovely couplet (note the "it") was said directly to me. The speaker was a liberal arts grad who has Judith Butler books on his shelf. And also Weininger. Plus it's not like murderous male rage isn't everywhere either. From the barely concealed snuff films featuring sexy chicks being hacked to pieces that populate multiplexes and Netflix and stuff to thoroughly mainstream porn that constantly reinforces misogynistic ideology by in essence 'killing' off any part of a woman that separates her from an ego-boosting, pleasure-giving machine. Now reconsider my opening paragraph, composed of stuff Solanas says about men in this manifesto. Consider, if you're a dude, how women have to hear the equivalent all the fucking time. Of course we should strive for an equal society and respect each other and work to live together free of gender-based hatred and yeah yeah yeah. But, for the short time you spend reading this book fuck that shit and forget about it and read the book as the valuable Swift-like satire it indeed amounts to. Whether or not Solanas intended it as such. Because goddamnit, despite my knowing better, I kinda think the world needs this book. It is fine rhetoric. Completely implausible and idiotic if you take it seriously, just as misogyny is. But unlike 'satire' of misogyny that plays into reinforcing misogyny, it's got something going for it. I, walking dildo and worthless piece of shit, temporarily salute you, Solanas.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Lindy

    I deeply resent that the top reviews for this book are written by men. May the ghost of Valerie Solanas haunt all of you. The SCUM Manifesto is important to me because it represents every "irrational" thought I've had when I've been angry and, due to both rage and social constraints placed around the proper expression of women's emotion, unable to express them. In The SCUM Manifesto , these thoughts are presented as justified and even logical. When I read The SCUM Manifesto, I feel legitimized. I deeply resent that the top reviews for this book are written by men. May the ghost of Valerie Solanas haunt all of you. The SCUM Manifesto is important to me because it represents every "irrational" thought I've had when I've been angry and, due to both rage and social constraints placed around the proper expression of women's emotion, unable to express them. In The SCUM Manifesto , these thoughts are presented as justified and even logical. When I read The SCUM Manifesto, I feel legitimized. This is why I don't understand the manifesto as hyperbole or satire, nor do I feel entirely comfortable saying that the text represents the author's "true beliefs." The thoughts and sentiments expressed within take refuge in their audacity. The manifesto contains everything that isn't supposed to be said in society, polite or otherwise, therefore it can't possibly be true, even if it is. Even so, the "rawness" and "uncensored-ness" of The SCUM Manifesto has been carefully constructed; Solanas wrote and rewrote her manifesto over a period of years. That it seems effortless and natural testifies to its artistry. To dismiss The SCUM Manifesto as "unhinged" only underlines the thesis that women's rationality will always be made to look like insanity. Long live SCUM!

  3. 5 out of 5

    Jennifer

    Since an early age, women are told to look past the misogyny in much so called "great art". Screw that! Here is a hilarious answer to 2,000 (or more) years of patriarchal oppression. Solanas is brilliantly witty, and for those scardey cat, humorless males that say "but she tried to kill someone!" the answer to that is- so did Norman Mailer. And William Burroughs actually KILLED his wife, but we would NEVER hold that against these "GREAT WRITERS", now, would we? Althusser...I'm sure the list goes Since an early age, women are told to look past the misogyny in much so called "great art". Screw that! Here is a hilarious answer to 2,000 (or more) years of patriarchal oppression. Solanas is brilliantly witty, and for those scardey cat, humorless males that say "but she tried to kill someone!" the answer to that is- so did Norman Mailer. And William Burroughs actually KILLED his wife, but we would NEVER hold that against these "GREAT WRITERS", now, would we? Althusser...I'm sure the list goes on of "great artists" and writers who have treated the women in their lives like specks of fecal matter...Of course this book will not appeal to the male identifiers and wussy little daddy's girls who mistakenly think that the patriarchy benefits them in some way, but they'll find out the hard way...Like when they turn 50 or thereabouts... Tap into your justified rage now and let Solanas bring you a few good laughs...

  4. 5 out of 5

    Jeremy

    I had no idea how to prepare for college, nor any idea what to do once I got there. I just knew that my friends were going, and I didn't want to get a job. I started by perming my hair. This seemed, somehow, the most logical step, though apparently nobody told any of my friends this, and if asked where I'd gotten the idea, I likely would have replied "I am going to college!" and fled, crying and punching myself. I then went to T.J. Maxx and bought a bunch of weird-looking clothes. Lots of vibran I had no idea how to prepare for college, nor any idea what to do once I got there. I just knew that my friends were going, and I didn't want to get a job. I started by perming my hair. This seemed, somehow, the most logical step, though apparently nobody told any of my friends this, and if asked where I'd gotten the idea, I likely would have replied "I am going to college!" and fled, crying and punching myself. I then went to T.J. Maxx and bought a bunch of weird-looking clothes. Lots of vibrant plaids. Unintentionally, I ended up with an entirely non-matching wardrobe, which if impractical was sort of impressive, though it owed less to an "alternative" perspective than to the fact that I did not comprehend the concept of matching clothes. When I got to campus, my roommate was athletic and wealthy and attractive, all of which was terrifying, so I immediately left my belongings piled on my bunk and made a hasty departure, returning to the dorm only intermittently throughout the semester whenever my smelliness began to seriously encroach on my own respiration. I walked around campus, got lost, and sat on a bench, to look through a campus newspaper I'd found, and contemplate suicide. In the paper was an ad that proclaimed "free records", being given away at the college radio station. Despite my not owning a record player, I decided to find the radio station and take as many free records as possible. This would be an economical and alternative thing to do. I filled two cardboard boxes with crazy records, very few of which featured artists I had ever heard of. I would learn about weird music and it would help me with college. I also found a copy of Poison's "Flesh and Blood", the only record in the bunch I was truly excited about owning, and slipped it in one of the boxes between albums by Doug and the Radioactive Toothpaste Hogs and The Undulating Filing Cabinet Eats God. I then began carrying the two unbelievably heavy and cumbersome cardboard boxes full of records across campus in what I prayed was the general direction of my dorm, stopping only to abandon one of the boxes in the middle of the commuter parking lot (unfortunately it was the box with "Flesh and Blood" in it). One seemingly well-meaning passerby actually offered to help me carry the box, but he had a beard and was scary so I curtly declined his assistance. I finally found my dorm, flopped the box of records onto the floor, and left again, because my roommate was watching football, which was confusing and upsetting to me. After failing to relocate the commuter lot, where my second box of records was no doubt being preyed upon by skinheads, I found myself in the bookstore, where I immediately felt at ease. Books! I boldly approached the poetry section, because I was in college. I noted the name Henry Rollins on a nearby collection, and recognized it as extremely alternative. I put the book back on the shelf within seconds of flipping through it, terrified and thinking fondly of my childhood bedroom. After an hour or so of looking at various things that made no sense, I picked up the "SCUM Manifesto" by Valerie Solanas and purchased it, because it was cheap and I liked the girl's hat on the cover. She somewhat resembled Natty Gann, which I found comforting. I proceeded to a nearby eatery and got myself a Meat Lover's personal pan pizza, a bag of Munchos, a Jolt, and a Hostess fruit pie (a meal I was to revisit daily for the next year), and spent a horrific but not unenlightening hour reading about how I should be killed. Like the rest of the day's events, it was scary, but at least it explained itself well, and for that I was grateful. I got a bag of gummi worms for the road and set off to try to find my dorm, where I could lay stiffly on my bunk and mull over the idea of killing my roommate in the interest of improving society.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Anthony D'Juan Shelton

    Gotta love this book. It's so right on and so way off. It's beautiful in theory and tragic in reality.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Robert

    Hey, I wrote a book. How can I get this published? Nobody will touch it? What if I tried to kill a famous person? Hello fame!

  7. 4 out of 5

    Evan

    I'm reading this, as a man of course, and cheering on Solanas' bad-ass, hilarious, blunt-force-trauma, withering, genocidal rant against men. If I might make a crude equation, my irrational response might correlate to a Jew cheering on Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies. (Yes, it is a crude equation -- I'm not in danger -- but you get my drift). But seriously, this manifesto -- a fuck-load more fun than Marx's "Communist Manifesto" -- half makes me want to march into the mountain to my demise like t I'm reading this, as a man of course, and cheering on Solanas' bad-ass, hilarious, blunt-force-trauma, withering, genocidal rant against men. If I might make a crude equation, my irrational response might correlate to a Jew cheering on Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies. (Yes, it is a crude equation -- I'm not in danger -- but you get my drift). But seriously, this manifesto -- a fuck-load more fun than Marx's "Communist Manifesto" -- half makes me want to march into the mountain to my demise like the rat I am (being male), led by the Pied Piper's siren-song of pussy. This magnificently breathless, radical feminist tirade -- filled with contradictions, sweeping generalizations, anti-elitism, paranoia and more -- pretty much rocks! I found myself agreeing with Solanas' assessment of men probably more than I ought to. But seriously, she does pin down a lot of the insecurities and drives for control that have fucked up the world under the domination of men. It's simplistic, but at the same time has more than a grain of truth. There are far too many gems here to be pulled for out-of-context quotations. Suffice it to say, according to her, among the men who need to be eliminated are "owners of restaurants that play Muzak." Talk about a wicked sense of humor.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Bari

    "The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." -genius!

  9. 4 out of 5

    Anthony Vacca

    On one hand, Valerie Solanas’ self-published 1968 incendiary quasi-treatise, the SCUM Manifesto, is a full-on attack of the male-dominated status quo of 20th century American society, and—if viewed as a vicious satire à la Swift’s A Modest Proposal—is written in as spirited and vile a voice as any one of the many vitriolic grotesqueries to be found in the best of Alexander Theroux’s writing. The manifesto’s humble opinion is that women are the only half of our species that deserve to live and th On one hand, Valerie Solanas’ self-published 1968 incendiary quasi-treatise, the SCUM Manifesto, is a full-on attack of the male-dominated status quo of 20th century American society, and—if viewed as a vicious satire à la Swift’s A Modest Proposal—is written in as spirited and vile a voice as any one of the many vitriolic grotesqueries to be found in the best of Alexander Theroux’s writing. The manifesto’s humble opinion is that women are the only half of our species that deserve to live and that we would all be better off if the other half—those mindless, talentless meat machines we call men—were made extinct as quickly as possible. This set-up allows Solanas to stab many small knives into notions such as patriarchy, democracy, capitalism, marriage, labor, sexual identity, and (my personal favorite) Western Culture’s awful and shameful habit of dismissing art made by women as not as important as the more “serious” work of men, as seen in the following passage: The male “artistic” aim being, not to communicate (having nothing inside him, he has nothing to say), but to disguise his animalism, he resorts to symbolism and obscurity (“deep stuff”). The vast majority of people, particularly the “educated” ones, lacking faith in their own judgement, humble, respectful of authority (“Daddy knows best” is translated into adult language as “Critic knows best,” “Writer knows best,” “Ph.D. knows best”), are easily conned into believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, ambiguity, and boredom are marks of depth and brilliance “Great Art” proves that men are superior to women, that men are women [note: it is Solanas’ contention that all men strive to be women, since their maleness is a genetic deformity, so all acts of subjugation are the results of men trying to hide that they are not women], being labeled “Great Art,” almost all of which, as the anti-feminists are fond of reminding us, was created by men. We know that “Great Art” is great because male authorities have told us so, and we can’t claim otherwise, as only those with exquisite sensitivities far superior to ours can perceive and appreciate greatness, the proof of their superior sensitivity being that they appreciate the slop they appreciate. But on the other hand—and this is a dirty fallacy of a hand—it is hard for me to take this tract as a truly well-executed work of subversive feminist satire, considering Solanas’ sad and disturbing personal history of sexual abuse and mental illness, plus her proclivity for shooting pop-art icons named Andy Warhol for no particular reason. Also, Solanas contradicts several of her arguments numerous times throughout the tract, and besides all the manic glee to be found in her frothing against the system, she offers only the vaguest notions of pursuits for women to engage in, such as curing all diseases (death included) and grooving with one another. Solanas praises women’s ability to “groove” with one another dozens of times throughout the manifesto without really explaining what “grooving” actually entails (she seems to suggest that “grooving” does not mean girl-on-girl action, you pervs) or how it makes for a more meaningful pursuit than staples such as art or literature. So while the SCUM Manifesto can be praised for its in-your-face nature and sense of rebellion (both of which I admire), I’m not sure (nor qualified) to pronounce it as a serious work of social philosophy. If anything, Solanas’ work seems to me more a cultural artifact, one that uncovers the potential for cruelty in an indifferent and heteronormative society, and the terrible costs it takes from those it subjugates.

  10. 5 out of 5

    mark monday

    cute book, and a handy guide for getting rid of some of these annoying guys crowding up the planet. valerie solanas is adorable!

  11. 4 out of 5

    Nika

    the reviews for this alone are priceless. wow, a dude crying over someone not representing him accurately in media, wonder how that must feel... also, derailing with stuff like "what if this was about women instead" is irrelevant because you can't seriously think that that has never been done before (and was mostly met with a surprising lack of outrage), right? anyhow, this was a pretty energizing read (didn’t say i liked it though)

  12. 5 out of 5

    Alexander Santiago

    The assertion by its author of the inherent superiority of women over men, and whose book opens with ". . men are a biological accident . . " and puts forth that argument in a rollercoaster debate, you know you are definitely in for a hell of a ride. Thus is Valerie Solanas' magnum opus - SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto - a feminist classic from the revolutionary change of the '60s, in which she penned her edgy, radical, brilliant thoughts and ideas, namely the purging from the earth The assertion by its author of the inherent superiority of women over men, and whose book opens with ". . men are a biological accident . . " and puts forth that argument in a rollercoaster debate, you know you are definitely in for a hell of a ride. Thus is Valerie Solanas' magnum opus - SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto - a feminist classic from the revolutionary change of the '60s, in which she penned her edgy, radical, brilliant thoughts and ideas, namely the purging from the earth the scourge of all of the world's and society's ills - M E N! SCUM Manifesto is a one woman battle cry that roars LOUDLY in its beliefs and sheer audaciousness in what should be done to reinstute women to their rightful place in the hierarchy of society. Her passage on men who set out on a mission to get a "piece" is (painfully and truthfully) hilarious! I came across this work of literary genius (some would argue madness) after watching Mary Harron's "I Shot Andy Warhol", which centered on the factual incident in which Solanas shot, and nearly killed, '60s pop artist Andy Warhol. Overall, I found "SCUM" to be a raucously thrilling read.

  13. 4 out of 5

    melydia

    Why are manifestos so often written by crazies? This 50-page anti-male screed by the woman most famous for shooting Andy Warhol is, well, kind of hard to read. I can ignore the man hatred - that's a matter of opinion - but many of her suggestions for improving the world are simply batty. First, that her notion of communism would work. It's inconceivable that all the people of the world would work together towards Solanas's idea of the common good. Second, "automation" does not mean zero work. Ma Why are manifestos so often written by crazies? This 50-page anti-male screed by the woman most famous for shooting Andy Warhol is, well, kind of hard to read. I can ignore the man hatred - that's a matter of opinion - but many of her suggestions for improving the world are simply batty. First, that her notion of communism would work. It's inconceivable that all the people of the world would work together towards Solanas's idea of the common good. Second, "automation" does not mean zero work. Machines must be created and maintained. (Of course, I suppose Solanas would expect men to take care of this.) Third, old age is not a disease, and scientists do not hold the secret to immortality. That's patently absurd. If they did, don't you think these supposedly selfish and insecure men would have made themselves immortal by now? So in short, while this was a reasonably entertaining read in parts purely for the novelty factor, it's not something I would recommend. They're not dangerous ideas, merely nonsensical ones.

  14. 5 out of 5

    sologdin

    Not sure if this is serious or not. If serious, it’s one of the worst books ever written. If an elaborate satire, then very effective. Object of the satire could be misogynist discourse (i.e., applying the same barbarities to men that are routinely applied to women), or feminist discourse (i.e., taking certain feminist principles and exaggerating them to irrational ends), or the discourse of masculinity (i.e., suggesting that masculinist doctrine sets up an ideal that needs to be cut up (analyze Not sure if this is serious or not. If serious, it’s one of the worst books ever written. If an elaborate satire, then very effective. Object of the satire could be misogynist discourse (i.e., applying the same barbarities to men that are routinely applied to women), or feminist discourse (i.e., taking certain feminist principles and exaggerating them to irrational ends), or the discourse of masculinity (i.e., suggesting that masculinist doctrine sets up an ideal that needs to be cut up (analyzed? destroyed? dissected? vivisected?)). some comedy throughout, such as: “Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy.” “Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women.” (femaleness as derridean supplement to maleness? maleness as always already absent presence?) “The most important activity of the commune, the one upon which it is based, is gang-banging. The `hippy' is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect for free pussy -- the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking.” “Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself. The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure.” “The male has a negative Midas Touch -- everything he touches turns to shit.” Ultimate object is apparently a state wherein “automation is completely instituted” in the production process. Very science fiction! Recommended for those who have stripped the world of conversation, friendship and love; readers for whom screwing is a defense against a desire to be female; and well-behaved heterosexual dullards.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Sleepless Dreamer

    SCUM Manifesto was written by Valerie Solanas, the woman who attempted to murder Andy Warhol. This short book is essentially a manifesto explaining why the world would be better without men.  About half of this book is an introduction by Avital Ronell. While figuring out if she's Israeli or not (as Avital is an Israeli name), I learned that she sexually harassed a graduate student (reading some of the emails she sent him is pretty upsetting). Even worse, she didn't even lose her job teaching at N SCUM Manifesto was written by Valerie Solanas, the woman who attempted to murder Andy Warhol. This short book is essentially a manifesto explaining why the world would be better without men.  About half of this book is an introduction by Avital Ronell. While figuring out if she's Israeli or not (as Avital is an Israeli name), I learned that she sexually harassed a graduate student (reading some of the emails she sent him is pretty upsetting). Even worse, she didn't even lose her job teaching at NYU. Moreover, people like Judith Butler actually supported her and suggested her academic merit should protect her from these accusations, that she's just eccentric. This is very enraging, considering these are highly regarded academics.  Anyway, Avital Ronell compares Solanas' work to thinkers like Derrida and Nietzsche. Ronell can deconstruct Solanas' work as much as she'd like but in all honesty, there's only one body of work that I think Solanas' work can be compared to and that is Elliot Rodger's manifesto.  Both manifestos talk about the other gender and blame it for all of their problems. Both are convinced the other gender has wronged them and society in general. Both of them have been described as mentally ill and both of them have ended up committing a violent act. The similarities are really endless.  Which leads me to my point here. Elliot Rodger murdered six people and obviously, his manifesto is not seen as an academic achievement. Valerie Solanas had attempted to kill Andy Warhol but because somehow, her manifesto has people like Germaine Greer and other prominent feminists defending or even acknowledging it. Heck, SCUM Manifesto has a Wikipedia page while My Twisted World does not.  Of course, we could argue that this comes down to Andy Warhol is/was a symbol of everything that went wrong in America while random university students are hardly a symbolic target. There's room to wonder if Solanas would have gotten this attention if she had succeeded in murdering Andy Warhol (and I'd like to think that the answer is no).  It's easy to say that the difference is the oppression that women face. Solanas does have a case while Rodger was a guy who refused to see that women are people. Men really have been in power and therefore, there is room to blame them for the struggles that we collectively face. For example, there are some voices discussing the way women-led countries (Taiwan, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, etc) are doing better at fighting the coronavirus in comparison to man-led countries (notably America, Brazil, Iran, Sweden and the UK). There are theories suggesting women might be more open to listening to experts which is helpful in order to protect citizens against a pandemic. I'm sure this would make Solanas happy (and let's all collectively ignore Belgium and South Korea who are the exact opposite of this theory).  And somehow, that makes me wonder if being oppressed gives you "permission" to be more hateful. When Elliot Rodger says that he thinks all women should be starved to death, that's messed up but when Solanas suggests all men be killed for the greater good, that's something that academic feminists feel that they can ponder about, like if you use enough fancy philosophical words, everything can become meaningful (is it that obvious that I'm angry with the Department of Philosophy and broadly speaking, the entire field?).    Solanas' manifesto is very unqueer in the sense that it doesn't really ever critically ask what makes people men or women. Where do trans people fit into this scheme exactly? Could men unlearn their violent behavior? What makes women better? Her comments about gay men are fairly gross and she never really engages with any type of question about gender/ sexuality.   This body of work is interesting in its future predictions. Like, with 2020 vision, the idea of automating every single job strikes me as unlikely. We're seeing that AI does have limits, that when one job closes, another opens and that technology ultimately reflects the biases of those creating it.  Now, I could have accepted the idea that the future is in soft skills which is perhaps something women might be better at than men. I mean, we're living in an age where listening skills are more useful than lumbering skills, for the most part. However, from that to saying all jobs will be gone is such an overstatement. What will we all do without jobs? Surely that's also a problem if everything that should be done is being done already? Honestly, attempting to engage with this piece of writing seriously is somewhat of a waste of time. It's not unlikely that this is just a way for me to procrastinate. In conclusion, I'm way too nonbinary for all of this. Like, I can't get how someone can truly believe the sex or gender of a person reflect so much about who they are.  What I'm Taking With Me - To be fair, I, too, would be furious if someone lost my plays but murdering them wouldn't solve the problem.  - Solanas claims that immortality is a few weeks of research away and that we don't have it yet because men are dead inside so death appeals to them. I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. - Do we embrace violence more when a woman does it? Or do we just take it less seriously? 

  16. 4 out of 5

    Matthew

    I should probably explain my four stars. Obviously, I don’t agree with many of her points, but that’s not the point of this. Here is an autobiographical documentation of a girl who is lost and confused, who tries to make sense of her trauma through theory. Her outlandish claims about biology that bear a rigid gender essentialism may be off-putting for some, and rightfully so, but some of us see through it. I relate to her fury. Her sweeping generalizations of the male population do bear some tru I should probably explain my four stars. Obviously, I don’t agree with many of her points, but that’s not the point of this. Here is an autobiographical documentation of a girl who is lost and confused, who tries to make sense of her trauma through theory. Her outlandish claims about biology that bear a rigid gender essentialism may be off-putting for some, and rightfully so, but some of us see through it. I relate to her fury. Her sweeping generalizations of the male population do bear some truth. She makes the following claims about men: “Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is psychically passive.” Many of us have met men like this, and one thing that worries me is I can only count with my two hands the amount of men in the world who stray from those previously listed vices. Her manifesto, with the exception of her claims that “the male is an incomplete female”, sound like the rough drafts of my journal entries when I rant about the evils of the calloused, sex-deprived entity that embodies masculinity. Valerie is somewhat right; men have blood on their hands, and we as a society are still at the forefront of this gendered violence that abuses and murders those who stray from traditional masculinity. This shouldn’t be read as a genuine political manifesto to put into praxis, but as the impersonal, psychological experience of the women and non-binary folk who all face a hyper-masculine world that wants to crush them. It is painful political poetry from the oppressed person at its cruelest.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Anya (~on a semi-hiatus~)

    "The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." I've been on the Internet for so long that I am hardly fazed by anything anymore. I mean, only yesterday I saw a picture of a still-born fetus of "The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." I've been on the Internet for so long that I am hardly fazed by anything anymore. I mean, only yesterday I saw a picture of a still-born fetus of a pig with calcite growth and caught myself thinking about how beautiful it was. But this one made me cringe. Not because it was disgusting, but because it was so trippy and weird that the person who wrote it had to be a different brand of insane and oh, my goodness, Solanas she shot Warhol because she genuinely believed that men are BAAAAD. A tiny thing that weirded me out was how normal it'd have sounded if the essay was gender swapped; it could easily be an anti-women propaganda. And I'm sure not many people would have bat an eye. (I'm pointing at you, Red Pillers.)

  18. 5 out of 5

    Clem (the villain's quest)

    "The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone." Rating: 0/5 Stars. ... ... I'm at loss of words... I mean, I knew what I was getting into when I bought this but still, there's a difference between knowing something and seeing it through my own glasses. I didn't know it was possible for me to be unable to critic something beca "The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone." Rating: 0/5 Stars. ... ... I'm at loss of words... I mean, I knew what I was getting into when I bought this but still, there's a difference between knowing something and seeing it through my own glasses. I didn't know it was possible for me to be unable to critic something because god knows I love to bitch, but Solanas did it. I'm speechless. I think the quote is self-explanatory, this book is full of male-hate and general sexism toward the masculine gender, doing the exact same thing women have been suffering from since the beginning of times. That's probably the worst thing for me. It's that a woman, who knows what it feels like to be discriminated against because of one's gender decides to do the same. It shows a complete lack of conscience and humanity. On a technical standpoint, this essay has no basis whatsoever with real tangible facts, only using biased social misconceptions and stereotypes about the male gender to prove the point that the male gender must be exterminated, which means that even in its form of argumentation, this book doesn't stand a chance against Schopenhauer.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Mohammed

    Alongside the discussion about the male is defective animal, she says some profound things about the gender roles in a way calm,droll acadamic essays about men,women cant say. It is very special reading someone who is fearless about some really big human issues. The agressive language,tone made it a powerful read.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Marvin

    There is a fine line between crazy and inspired. There is also a fine line between crazy and genius but Valerie Solanas was no genius. For that matter, she probably wasn't crazy. At least, not at first. She was a very troubled woman damaged by child molestation and abuse. She appeared to have had volatile relationships with others, letting them in then turning against them when they turned out to be flawed humans. This defense mechanism had tragic consequences for both her and Andy Warhol, who s There is a fine line between crazy and inspired. There is also a fine line between crazy and genius but Valerie Solanas was no genius. For that matter, she probably wasn't crazy. At least, not at first. She was a very troubled woman damaged by child molestation and abuse. She appeared to have had volatile relationships with others, letting them in then turning against them when they turned out to be flawed humans. This defense mechanism had tragic consequences for both her and Andy Warhol, who she shot. While not killed, Warhol was left in a condition of severe physical and emotional damage with physical effects that finally killed him. Solanas' SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto, which was written before she shot Warhol, is the only other thing for which she shall be remembered. Most of her other writings were either unfinished or lost (which brings up the possibility that when she accused Warhol of stealing her play Up Your Ass, she may have not been technically paranoid as this play was found with Warhol's other possessions after his death). As strange and repulsive this manifesto may be, it does attest to the fact that Solanas was a powerful writer. It is at the same time a vicious sexist rant and a crafty socio-political satire. If you are at all open when you read it you will shake your head at the ridiculousness of it but almost thinking, "I can see where this is coming from." Personally, as a man, I'm glad no one took this seriously, But I also understand this was written at a time when feminism was striving while the predominantly white male power structure continued to be in control and I can understand Solanas' frustration. It pretty obvious that Solanas herself didn't take her manifest literally as she would admit to it in her more lucid moments... "It's hypothetical. No, Hypothetical is the wrong word. It's just a literary device. There's no organization called SCUM...It's not even me...I mean, I thought of it as a state of mind.In other words. women who think a certain way are SCUM. Men who think a certain way are in the men's auxiliary of SCUM. If the SCUM Manifesto has a lasting philosophy: it is that sometimes things are so unbearable that we can not just "drop out" or ignore. It need to be confronted. Solanas states in the manifesto, "Dropping out is not the answer. Fucking up is.". The SCUM Manifesto was Solanas' way of fucking up. I suspect the work was a cathartic move for Solanas. But it was not a healing one. Solanas spent most of her time afterward in mental hospitals, dying destitute in a welfare hotel. It's unfortunate we have little else to go on to assess her talent. Her brief improvisatory bit in Warhol's film, I, a Man shows that she had a sharp if rough-edged wit. Those who have read or seen her play, Up Your Ass describe it as obscene but impressive. But the SCUM Manifesto remains her most lasting work and an important document of Radical Feminism and over-the-top social observation. Note: I was given a review copy of The SCUM Manifesto that is published by AK Press who, being an anarchist publishing company, may or may not agree with my assessment. The edition also contains an insightful introduction by Michelle Tea and a concise biography of Valerie Solanas in the afterword.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Vartika

    Right after I finished reading this slim volume, I took an incredibly long and comfortable nap. The two may or may not be correlated. I do not think Valerie Solanas was crazy — not for writing SCUM Manifesto, and certainly not for depositing those three infamous bullets into Andy Warhol (facts: the gunshots, though not fatal, essentially sliced up Warhol's abdomen, and 'SCUM' is an apronym for 'Society for Cutting Up Men'). Solanas was consistently wronged and marginalised throughout her life, Right after I finished reading this slim volume, I took an incredibly long and comfortable nap. The two may or may not be correlated. I do not think Valerie Solanas was crazy — not for writing SCUM Manifesto, and certainly not for depositing those three infamous bullets into Andy Warhol (facts: the gunshots, though not fatal, essentially sliced up Warhol's abdomen, and 'SCUM' is an apronym for 'Society for Cutting Up Men'). Solanas was consistently wronged and marginalised throughout her life, and was (some may argue inconsistently) radicalised because of it — after all, radical ideas never come from the comfortable. Her work was purposeful, born of rage, belief, and an understanding of systemic subjugation of women. Which is not to say it isn't satirical at the same time. SCUM is, in fact, a manifesto, but it also ingeniously turns misogynist rhetoric over its head in order to make its radically feminist point, making use of hyperbole as well as revolutionary stance. Solanas majored in psychology, and here she inverts the kind of things men, especially men like Freud, have been saying and writing about women since the beginning of recorded time. Here, men are the ones who 'lack,' who are driven — by what she aptly calls 'pussy envy' — to appropriating womanhood. It is this, Solanas says, that makes them act out and sequester a womanly virility, and also what makes them generalise their internal turmoil as the 'human condition': "Most men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that male lacks exist in men, but still can’t face the fact that they exist in men only." According to her, the only real area of superiority men have over women is public relations, in that they have convinced men, and crucially women, of false roles. What's surprising amidst Solanas own inconsistencies and generalisations elsewhere in the book is that her 'misandrist' rhetoric about male society, unlike misogynist satire, is actually far more convincing with a lot more than just a grain of truth at its base. As it happens, while she attacks the institutions of patriarchy, philosophy, capitalism, democracy, marriage, art and respectability, her revolutionary analysis also happens to crucially refine that of revered predecessors and people such as Marx: No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top. The male “rebel” is a farce; this is the male’s “society,” made by him to satisfy his needs. He’s never satisfied, because he’s not capable of being satisfied. Ultimately, what the male “rebel” is rebelling against is being male. The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when “society” reaches the stage where he must change or die. We’re at that stage now; if women don’t get their asses in gear fast, we may very well all die. I can not see one situation where that isn't applicable, be it the threat of nuclear annihilation or climate change. Solanas, while advocating for anarchic militant disobedience, also makes some more claims that are vitriolic misandry at worst and hyperbole at best — such as eliminating all men, moving beyond generational reproduction, or achieving complete automation of non-creative labour. These are part of the grey area of SCUM, likely satirical of similar ideas proposed every day by misogynists, but they do not, by any means, invalidate her other theories and observations. This is a work of such powerfully impatient and well-worked writing that it makes hard to draw hard lines and interpretations, something which Solanas was also against. SCUM Manifesto is, then, a fine work that brings Solanas to revolutionary fore even as it sets her apart from even the most radical of present day feminists. Oh, and if you're still horrified about the Andy Warhol incident, here's more facts: Norman Mailer — who called Solanas the "Robespierre of Feminism" — also attempted to violently kill someone (his wife), although he did not succeed. Althusser and Burroughs, on the other hand, did kill their wives. If we can continue to rever and canonise them, we can surely give Solanas — who had a better reason to kill than any of them — a chance.

  22. 5 out of 5

    SmarterLilac

    Yikes. As part of my attempt to get back to 'real' reading, I finally decided to tackle this infamous work. Ugh. I cannot make myself believe the author was serious about these ideas in a literal way. I think the Manifesto succeeds as a condemnation of patriarchy and classism. My guess is, she was going for some kind of satire--an indictment of '60s radicals and their extremist ways? The writing, however, is awful, and on its face, horribly offensive. It's sad to me that this is viewed by so many Yikes. As part of my attempt to get back to 'real' reading, I finally decided to tackle this infamous work. Ugh. I cannot make myself believe the author was serious about these ideas in a literal way. I think the Manifesto succeeds as a condemnation of patriarchy and classism. My guess is, she was going for some kind of satire--an indictment of '60s radicals and their extremist ways? The writing, however, is awful, and on its face, horribly offensive. It's sad to me that this is viewed by so many as a valid example of second wave feminism or of feminist separatists.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Tina

    It's a good dose of crazy, faulty reasoning. Very entertaining. Underlying some of her radical and ridiculous statements are actually some interesting concepts (which we still hear about--lab babies, for example). However, you have to dig through her man-hating murderous rage to see it. I just hope no one comes across this and thinks it's what feminism really is.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Pat Schakelvoort

    Five stars for being a woman, that didn`t just complain/screech when she was offended by something. Instead she wrote an manifesto for the extermination of males and shot Andy Warhol. This woman is clearly superior than all those broads who claim to be modern and tolerant, but screech out when somebody dares to touch their o so beloved celebrities. Five stars for being a woman, that didn`t just complain/screech when she was offended by something. Instead she wrote an manifesto for the extermination of males and shot Andy Warhol. This woman is clearly superior than all those broads who claim to be modern and tolerant, but screech out when somebody dares to touch their o so beloved celebrities.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Ylenia

    This was such a great piece of entertainment. Just, so many gems... "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

  26. 4 out of 5

    Christine

    I am glad that someone told me to read this as satire, but that still didn't quite help. Jonathan Swift, she isn't. Still, important to read to simply capture a sense of feminism than. I also am left with the feeling that the pop opera I saw about Andy Warhol did Solanas a huge injustice.

  27. 5 out of 5

    T

    "Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man’s end is all the pussy for himself." I sincerely hope this is sarcastic or some sort of political satire, otherwise it reads like the ravings of a bitter lunatic.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Markus

    No rating, but you get a review. The essay by Ronell that precedes Solanas' text and tries to explain it is despicable. Namedropping every philosopher the author has ever read or pretended to read, it completely skips over the materialism that pervades SCUM in favor of self-satisfactory navelgazing. The actual manifesto truly is something. All claims made in it relate to the thesis that the male (using female and male in this review as that is how Solanas puts it) is inferior, hollow, full of self No rating, but you get a review. The essay by Ronell that precedes Solanas' text and tries to explain it is despicable. Namedropping every philosopher the author has ever read or pretended to read, it completely skips over the materialism that pervades SCUM in favor of self-satisfactory navelgazing. The actual manifesto truly is something. All claims made in it relate to the thesis that the male (using female and male in this review as that is how Solanas puts it) is inferior, hollow, full of self-contempt and constantly trying to project these traits onto females. From this, Solanas explains everything wrong with the world in her time. Finally, she proposes a takeover of self-determined, free women (SCUM), a end of male society as we knew it and a post-male utopia. Of course this isn't a completely agreeable text, it is fiercely biologist and full of contempt for any form of sexual intercourse, but one can extract some actually quite potent analyses from it, my favorite example being her assesment of the suburban male and the "hippy" male and their ideologies being rooted in sexual access to females.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Nick Younker

    If you read it as an op-ed, then you can get past the cringe novelty that was the final chapter in this manifesto. Solanas, although quite unkind to all men in general with her opening remarks regarding the X and Y gene, made clear that women were superior by genetics in a disheveled dialogue rant that was short and hit the sweet spot, although cringeworthy as well. So reading as an op-ed, that gave me the illusion of fiction, which it was. Although Andy Warhol might object, the piece is surpris If you read it as an op-ed, then you can get past the cringe novelty that was the final chapter in this manifesto. Solanas, although quite unkind to all men in general with her opening remarks regarding the X and Y gene, made clear that women were superior by genetics in a disheveled dialogue rant that was short and hit the sweet spot, although cringeworthy as well. So reading as an op-ed, that gave me the illusion of fiction, which it was. Although Andy Warhol might object, the piece is surprisingly coherent and well-presented with loosely verifiable facts about male behavior in general, among other political, social and scientific data available to her in 1967. Coming from a specimen of the “Walking Dildo” species, I’d say I found this more entertaining than anything else. Who knew Alex Jones would ever be so inspired?

  30. 5 out of 5

    Rei Avocado

    i had heard about this book for decades, that it was crazy and insane and written by a real feminazi psycho who, get this, SHOT ANDY WARHOL. and honestly? the 'misandrist' stuff didnt nor does it bother me. in fact its refreshing. we need more stuff like this. however, i avoided it for a long time because it just didnt interest me...and lately ive avoided it because i heard it was transmisogynist. and as someone who is not a trans woman i am not really here to make that call but. let me just tel i had heard about this book for decades, that it was crazy and insane and written by a real feminazi psycho who, get this, SHOT ANDY WARHOL. and honestly? the 'misandrist' stuff didnt nor does it bother me. in fact its refreshing. we need more stuff like this. however, i avoided it for a long time because it just didnt interest me...and lately ive avoided it because i heard it was transmisogynist. and as someone who is not a trans woman i am not really here to make that call but. let me just tell you what the central thesis of this book is and maybe you can make your mind up for yourself. so i read the verso edition and the intro really makes it. i highly recommend this edition because it sets the scene. valerie solanas. poor, rejected butch writer on one side, and andy warhol, rich, arrogant artist on the other. he rejects her, calls her ugly, a cunt...i mean i wont say that he had it coming because he almost died, but ive got no sympathy for him. onto the book itself. solanas basically believes that all men are in actuality incomplete women, passive and inferior to women. men, she argues, have a defective Y chromosome. they are incomplete without another X chromosome, and refers to them as failed abortions. the only people who come unscathed actually appear to be drag queens and gay men because solanas truly goes all the way in on fucking everyone, from ALL MEN to even other women, who apparently are complicit in their own oppression. she argues that men have flipped the script, that men are weaker ('women') and that women are stronger ('men'), and have convinced women of this lie through sex, the family unit, and capitalism itself. this sounds reasonable, but she insists that this is because the man 'wants to be a woman' so he surrounds himself with women within the family unit.... i hesitate to ascribe any inherent meaning to anything solanas wrote because she herself would probably deny it and say it was something else, but im going to do it anyway: to solanas, the problem of patriarchy is, itself, that all cis men are trans women, and that makes cis men hate women. this is actually an extremely pervasive view of trans women which ascribes an undue level of aggression and violence to them even though literally all studies and statistics say that trans women are no more prone to committing violent crime than the general population. and if one argues that i am reaching here, solanas claims that drag queens (in her time i suppose this would be our trans women of today) are female who try to 'define their troubles away' yet lack 'individuality', that they are 'insecure' in their identities and end up a 'bundle of stilted mannerisms'. i give this two stars because i liked the intro a lot, and solanas is sympathetic. her writing is great but i fucking hate her conclusions. if youre going to read this, and really youre not missing out, get the verso edition. but i dont recommend it. in the end, valerie solanas doesnt get into the true causes of patriarchy. she talks about capitalism, the family unit, sex, heterosexuality, and then she blames it all on how men want to be women, and also on women who are stronger than men but also Allow Themselves To Be Oppressed (best characterized by Daddy's Girl in the text). i have no idea why this is such a popular text when its not necessarily incoherent, but its conclusions are totally off base. i suspect the reason a certain group of people love this text is because they despise trans women more than they hate men in general but who can say. and it is a true shame because this text is fucking ferocious and there is legitimately a lot of good in here. i recognize that solanas, were she alive, might refute everything ive said because she is, in her own words and deeds, a writer, but above all she is a brilliant polemecist. yet i cannot in good conscious recommend anything that dehumanizes already marginalized women with the aims of 'getting at men'. to me, all that says is that you consider those women men, and im not alright with that, and also it means you need to revise your central thesis.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.