Customer Reviews

SCUM manifesto;

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

Enjoyment of Valerie Solanas' infamous SCUM MANIFESTO is completely dependent upon how you approach it. When I first read it, I had no idea of Solanas' other, more lethal activities, and took it to be a modern day social critique in the mode of Swift's brilliant A MODEST PROPOSAL. Taken this way - with a few shovels full of salt - Solanas' work shines as a hilarious work of satire. Unfortunately, when one becomes acquainted with the TRUE Solanas, it becomes sadly obvious that she means every single hateful, spiteful word she fills this tiny little pamphlet with. That knowledge doesn't make the humor any less entertaining, but it does add a harder edge to the proceedings than otherwise.

Reading through the SCUM MANIFESTO, it's fairly evident that Solanas was determined to hate Man, at a cost of all common sense. Her ideas are stupefyingly ridiculous - the sort you'd expect from a mind literally curdling in rage - and though I won't ruin any surprises for those who've yet to read, believe me when I say you simply can't help but laugh at her many of her anti-man assertions. Even so, throughout it all, her keen-edged fury is almost palpable and literally wafts off the pages in a pungent rush of angry words and ideas, distinct evidence of her talent as a writer. And yet, the innate foolishness of it all is inescapable. Try as you might to see this as work of high satire, Solanas meant this as God's Own Truth, a call to arms for her fellow feminists. That one fact makes completion of the SCUM MANIFESTO a bittersweet thing indeed, leaving the reader with a distinctly bad taste in his or her mouth, and pity for the poor, furious woman who wrote this angry little pamphlet.

How sad.

The Scum Manifesto divides its readers in a truly amazing way: according to who you read, it's either a classic wind-up lesbian farce (like Hothead Paisan) or it's incomprehensible hate speech. You can get it on the web for free, last time I checked, so you need not shell out cash to AK Press to find out what the commotion is about. What you will find is that it is a conservative's dream: feminism revealed as a man-hating conspiracy of idiotic slogan-shouting lesbians, scenarios lurid and laughable but extremely dangerous... and nothing more.
The people running AK Press (the publisher) and Chris Kraus (who glowingly reviews this book on this site) are anarchists whose opinions I generally respect, and it completely baffles me that they see this work as thoughtful or radical in any way. Solanas is just another fundamentalist ready to inflict "collateral damage" for her cause. Don't pay money for it.

Indeed, Solanas's work is a diatribe. It's a manifesto. Consequently, you will not find citations and more often than not, you probably won't find much to hang your hat on for solid ideas. You will, however, find broad generalizations and "ranting." What's important about Solanas' work is that she wrote it in concert with what she felt and saw around her during the late 1960s, the time of the nascent radical feminist movement. Her manifesto is an extreme expression of some of the frustration and, in some cases, rage that women involved in the movement felt about institutionalized and personalized sexism. The SCUM Manifesto, therefore, is best considered as part of the primary documentation that emerged from that historical period. Even things readers might consider odious or vile are valuable because they provide insights to the more extreme aspects of issues which are always tied to mainstream movements.

Solanas herself was a deeply troubled woman who struggled throughout her short life with the remnants of abuse that she suffered during her childhood (I suspect sexual abuse, given her deep-seated rage against men). She was quite prolific, writing short plays during the 60s that she would perform at impromptu venues. She eventually attracted the attention of Andy Warhol, who probably found her intense, bright, and with an acidic sense of humor. He agreed with some of her views about sex, but ended up losing one of her play manuscripts (her only copy) and this may have set her off to commit a more violent act. In 1968, Solanas shot Warhol with a .32 caliber pistol, prompted by her own demons and what she may have perceived as ridicule from Warhol and his associates. Warhol survived; Solanas was sentenced to 3 years in prison; the SCUM Manifesto was eventually published in 1971 as a result of media attention surrounding the shooting. Following her prison term, she seems to have dropped out of the public eye and continued with her life, heading west. She died in 1988 of pneumonia in a welfare hotel in San Francisco.

The Manifesto is a reflection, therefore, of Solanas' own past but also offers some insight into what she perceived around her as the power of men over women, institutionalized and expressed sometimes in violence against women. For its reflection of one woman's experience (as deranged as she herself may have been) with the transformations going on in 1960s American culture, it should not be dismissed. But it should absolutely be taken with a pound of salt.

I have to speak carefully here because my reviews so far on this book have been censored away somewhere (I'm not sure why). There's no question that this short, intense pamphlet is very interesting (harmless review so far, right?) Valerie Solanos is famous for having shot Andy Warhol, and on the whole I don't believe in reading books by criminals. Why encourage them? On the other hand, VS has long since passed away. The facts of her life (shooting people, being a prostitute, living on the streets, studying psychology at college) are important to consider because otherwise it might be easy to toss this thing off as a joke (it's actually very very funny in my opinion) when of course, it's serious and potentially (I suppose) harmful.

An interesting thing to consider is: how would it be if the genders were reversed and we had instead (and this is, I think, where I have to choose my words carefully) and man who proposed to eliminate women from the earth, and then gave reasons why. I console myself by thinking that this manifesto would still be funny and absurd and disturbing and thought provoking.

I have never got much into the whole anarchy thing before, but I think that it's interesting and intelligent to consider it, and especially to clarify why you might be against such a path of action.

This pamphlet describes what Valerie Solanos believes in. I do not question her sincerity, given her history. I must say, when I consider the world that she must have perceived from her position and her experiences; then it is possible to see why an intelligent and brave woman could reach such conclusions (although I heartily disagree with them of course). I strongly recommend this book, because it's very much outside the normal way of writing and thinking. It pushes the boundaries (of thinking, I mean, not of acting), and that's good, right?

Also, it's very short.

Before you see the 4 stars and discard my review as another naive "Go Girl!" piece, understand that (although I liked the book) I strongly disagree with the author's theories.
When I think of feminism (and I know many will disagree) I think of strong women fighting for equality. EQUALITY, as in equal rights and no better gender. Solanas called herself a "superfeminist" (and is hailed by many as some sort of heroine) but her sexist attitudes and intolerant nature make her an insult to the cause.

This book is witty, bitter and an enjoyable read, but I view it in the same way as I'd view a racist, homophobic or xenophobic text - I realise that it's the product of a disturbed mind. Her life of prostitution and being abused by men explains her bitterness towards them, but it's no excuse for her violent hatred towards the entire male gender. As many reviewers have pointed out, if the roles had been reversed (a man writing about killing all women) it would never have been published, and would be considered extremely sexist: why should it be any different for a female author?

For the said supporters who seem to understand nothing of her politics: Sure, it's full of good quotes to use when your boyfriend's being an [jerk], but you can't seriously support her idea of a perfect world (devoid of all men) Not only are her theories blatantly discriminative, violent, intolerant and (what I consider to be) antifeministic; he idea of a perfect world just isn't practical.

I read this book on the prompting of a friend. All I did was laugh my way through this piece of idiocy. I am currently pursuing my PhD in molecular biology and I was appalled by the lack of clinical fact in this book. I realize that Ms. Solanas was not a scientist, nor was her education into academia complete (she only completed some of her graduate work), but this does not excuse the fact that this work is very poorly presented. She often makes sweeping claims, points to statistics and draws conclusions without listing any references for these "facts". Many of here scientific "conclusions" are pure bunk. The Y chromosome is not a mutated or incomplete X chromosome and it is not possible to breed a society without the male half of the gamete (at least not yet).

Aside from here scientific and academic errors the author has also interpreted historical and sociological facts from a very slanted viewpoint. One example that I can think of is her description of the significance of "Giving her hand in marriage". The author uses this term incorrectly to prove a point about the father-daughter relationship. A small amount of research would have led her to the real historical background of this tradition. This bit of effort was obviously too much for a woman lost in her own rage and hatred.

In general I thought that this book was very poorly written with facts that were not only biased, but also incorrect. The author has not properly referenced her ideas, has taken issues out of context and in general has failed to make a convincing argument on any level. In closing this book was a mere pamphlet denouncing men and capitalist society in general. If you wish to be a part of the militant "kill all men" faction of feminism, than this book is for you. If you want a well-researched paper on women's social development...look elsewhere.

This book can only possibly be enjoyed today by those who, seventy-five years ago in Germany, would have raved over the original inspiration for this drivel. Another time, another place, another scapegoat for one's physical, intellectual and spiritual deficiencies with deep inferiority complexes, whether it be Jew in one age, or white heterosexual male in another. This Feminazi drivel must be rejected by all woman's rights activists and feminists like Germans rejected Mein Kampf, because until then, no-one can take anything they say seriously. One can only imagine what genocide would have taken place if fate had ever placed this misguided victimologist in charge of a dictatorship like Adolf was, and all men can be grateful that love, truth and understanding always prevail in the long run, while hate-filled misfits like Solanas are only respected by like individuals of the same character, which is clearly evident from a quick scan of the reviews of this bile.

I give this book 2 stars only to get around Amazon's 1 star filtering policy. Far from deserving a single star, it's not even fit to be used as toilet paper.

How any of this ranting gets passed off and believed as truth is beyond me. Sure Valerie mentions some obvious 'half-truths' in this book but only ruins them with her violent anti-male slang. And personally, I think that attitude goes against anything feminism is or should be about.

SCUM MANIFESTO (1967)
by Valerie Solanas

When I was in college, I personally knew many feminists who idolized Valerie Solanas. To them, Solanas was the original "riot grrrl", a female force to be reckoned with in an insensitive male-dominated culture. To be sure, Solanas had a rough life: she was sexually abused as a child and worked as a prostitute many years throughout her life. In her writing, she lashed out against a world that she felt had it's priorities all wrong. The crux of the theory in her infamous SCUM Manifesto goes something like this: Men are one-dimensional degenerates who secretly strive to become women. Women are the creative power of the world, demonstrated by the fact that only women can have children. Therefore, to maintain power men have had to convince women that they are replaceable and subservient. In order to prove to himself that he doesn't actually want to be female, the heterosexual man is constantly trying to have sex with women. The solution to the problems of the world is that men should obey females before ultimately being outmoded by machines.

"Men who are rational, however,
won't kick or struggle or raise a
distressing fuss, but just sit back,
relax, enjoy the show, and ride
the waves to their demise". (pg.47)

One thing I'd like to add after re-reading the manifesto is that Solanas had a vicious sense of humor, which is more than I can say for my former classmates. Some of the funniest parts of the SCUM Manifesto are where she sets her targets on hippies, philosophers, political "rebels", and professional artists. There is also an inadvertent criticism of "sexual liberation" throughout the booklet - I wonder whether her modern apologists have even read these sections. Solanas also deliberately used hateful language, saying that she would "bust up" any "mixed couples" with violence (pg. 39). Mixed couples was a euphemism for interracial couples at the time of SCUM's publication; Solanas in this case means heterosexual couples. Solanas throughout the booklet says that men are animalistic and subhuman. She uses the segregationist jargon to debase men to the level that some racists had reserved for blacks, even going as far as to discuss the gene pool. A bold and politically incorrect approach for sure. She even uses terrorist threats:

"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." (pg. 43)

Who was the phallus that Solanas chose to castrate in the cruel male world? She shot and nearly killed Andy Warhol, the man associated with androgyny and sexual indifference more than any other in U.S. cultural history. Solanas claimed that Warhol was trying to control her life and according to most people she was having serious mental problems. But while she was awaiting trial, luminaries of the feminist movement started to praise Solanas as a outspoken acolyte of women's rights! How interesting that her "peers" waited until she was a deluded criminal to speak up for her, and later left her to follow a back alley trajectory for the rest of her life. Making Solanas into some kind of feminist icon is like saying that O.J. Simpson is a role model for black Americans. Sure the SCUM Manifesto reveals Solanas to be a witty individual, but many of her fans also act as apologists for her violent behavior. Solanas did her writing as a threat to the world, but she lived her life out of desperation, not political rebellion.

The AK Press edition also contains a 10-page biographical sketch of Solanas by Freddie Baer which is based on the "Solanas Supplement" to Donny Smith's DWAN zine. It is written from a perspective sympathetic to Solanas.

In graduate school, I searched, without luck, for a copy of this book--I needed it for a paper. I finally found a copy (2 years after graduation) and read it on a flight home from San Francisco. It is an interesting work. Solanas's veiws are, of course, radical, but they certainly are not boring. I think we will see this work get a lot more credit in the years to come. It may even find itself being antholigized.