Thread: The SCUM manifesto, Valerie Solanas, and that fateful day in June

Quote from Lady Catherine

...but I really really doubt there's really a group that seriously advocates the extinction of men.

Mary Daly taught Womyn's Studies to several hundred students over her career. She too promoted that men should be wiped from the planet's surface... There really are groups that seriously advocates the extinction of men. It's most unfortunate that feminists do not distance themselves from these misandrists - instead, the so-called moderate arms of feminism put up webpages in support of them.


And then they expect normal people to believe that feminism isn't anti-male? Ha..

Quote from Lady Catherine

I really really doubt there's really a group that seriously advocates the extinction of men.

"Evil" is not just a word in a dictionary.

[QUOTE=Lady Catherine;262229

"I don't really take it seriously, I seriously doubt most people(and this includes feminists) have genocidal desires. However I know of people that DO take it seriously and actually agrees with it."

[B]"I don't really take it seriously, I seriously doubt most people(and this includes feminists) have genocidal desires"


[/B]how about the 50 000 000 abortions by liberated US wimyn since Roe vs Wade
"
..I can accept that it's bad taste in humor.. "

what humour ! just the demented rants of a misanrist wimyn; Hitler didn't write
Mein Kampf as a joke and subsequently millions of fok perished under the directions of this psychopath
QUOTE]

Quote from Marx

There really are groups that seriously advocates the extinction of men.

Ok, bad choice of words, normal and sane people don't have genocidal desires.

Quote from RobYork

"Evil" is not just a word in a dictionary.

Of course not, but morality is subjective(at least in my view). This doesn't mean these people don't need criticized, but again, morality in general is subjective. Most people will find the peole who advocate genocide repugnant, but there are others who'll be more "meh" about it and there are going to be others agree with it.

As far as I'm concerned, the SCUM manifesto is the feminist 'Mein Kampf'. The fact that some feminist icons promoted such 'ideals' or that this book is reffered in certain circles, does not makes it any better either. I don't accept a book that advocates the extinction of men - and thus also MY death -, not even as twisted, bad humor.

This kind of junk deserves to be completely admonished. The only reason it's existance should be allowed for, is to use it as a piece of evidence to show what twisted movement feminism is (if not for promoting that book, then for not speaking out against it actively; not doing so is passively condoning it).

how about the 50 000 000 abortions by liberated US wimyn since Roe vs Wade

Abortion is a sticky subject for hundreds of reasons, the issue is not even comparable.

Hitler didn't write
Mein Kampf as a joke and subsequently millions of fok perished under the directions of this psychopath

But the tone of the writing is different. Hitler obviously meant it quite literally, Solanas' work is different. Even if you don't find it humorous, the issue still remains if it was meant to be taken seriously or not(the tone of it was obviously a sarcastic one and not a serious one but that doesn't mean anything). I have read several things about it, and it doesn't seem to be clear answer on the purpose of the manifesto.

Abortion is a sticky subject for hundreds of reasons, the issue is not even comparable.

hmm yes ! like sticky babies blood in the abortionist bucket between his legs

of course the issue is genocide, sweetness and light ! such as practised by the psychopathic feminit wimyn having millions their babies chopped up or vacuumed out out of their wombs or Jews and other lesser identities gassed and burned to ash in oven such too as the truncated babies at the abortion clinics

Hitler's excuse was Nazism your clearly is femintitism - a crock of mendacious gobbledygook and ridiculous allegations as wymin being suppressed for 10 000 years by men and of course the gibbering Scum manifesto which promotes the extermination of men

the issue is casuistry of semantics of genocide deemed as humour by the likes of new age gals

hmm yes ! like sticky babies blood in the abortionist bucket between his legs

of course the issue is genocide, sweetness and light ! such as practised by the psychopathic feminit wimyn having millions their babies chopped up or vacuumed out out of their wombs or Jews and other lesser identities gassed and burned to ash in oven such too as the truncated babies at the abortion clinics

I'm morally against abortion, this is a matter of record on this forum. It is still bad reasoning to compare abortion to murder when the issue is not settled. No matter your personal opinion on the matter, the debate mostly revolves around whether a fetus is alive or not. To many people a fetus is not alive and doesn't have any rights, but to many others a fetus is alive and has all of human rights that should be given to other people. Not to mention there are other arguments, like a person's right to self-ownership or the non-aggression principle in general. The issue is very complicated and there is a lot of argument on why abortion should be legal or illegal even in anarchist/libertarian(natural) law.

your clearly is femintitism

Ah yes, because someone has a sick and twisted sense of humor and someone who doesn't honestly think the SCUM manifesto is what feminists literally think is clearly a feminist. Fine, fuck it. I am a feminist. I believe everyone deserves equal rights between all people, the abolition of all oppressive systems, and real social justice for marginalized groups. Hey, you know what? I'm a feminist according to every feasible amount of meaning you can get from the word in the dictionary. So fuck... I'm all up in arms about the patriarchy and smashing patriarchal privilege.

I found this in my news collector thingy for my blog and now I've decided to start a potentially explosive topic. I have read the SCUM manifesto when I was in college. When I read it, I didn't read it as a misandric tome, I read it as a humorous parody(and yes, I have a very sick sense of humor that doesn't always come out on this forum and goes towards women too) of the early feminist movement. Since then I have done a bit of research into it and find very conflicting accounts of what it's supposed to be.

I don't really take it seriously, I seriously doubt most people(and this includes feminists) have genocidal desires. However I know of people that DO take it seriously and actually agrees with it.

What do you think about the SCUM manifesto? I can accept that it's bad taste in humor but I really really doubt there's really a group that seriously advocates the extinction of men.

This is not a potentially explosive topic. There is no controversy. The relationship between the radical (the destructive, and genocidal) elements of feminism, and the earnest, or apologist elements of feminism is a documented reality within the MRM - you know, that funny movement you claim to be interested in, but don't actually seem to know anything about? I invite you to educate yourself: http://www.avoiceformen.com/category/adam-kostakis/ you might have done this before starting this topic. That you did not makes me wonder, and I begin to believe your attempts to engender controversy are rooted either in an attempt to distract, and damage our movement (I hope not) or, it seems more likely, an obesssive desire to attract attention. Attention which you can then attempt to redirect toward those things you actually care about (opposed to the MRM, etc) i.e libertarianism, anarchy, etc.

I hope I'm wrong.

Ok, bad choice of words, normal and sane people don't have genocidal desires.

Yet 'normal, and sane,' people have, in their millions, either passively or directly enabled, or abetted genocide. It is an indisputable historical fact.

Abortion is a sticky subject for hundreds of reasons, the issue is not even comparable.

It is a moral issue, and you just admitted morality is subjective. Why does that not stop you from attempting to universally reframe how it is perceived by dictate?

But the tone of the writing is different.

A red herring. Different authors possess different writing styles, and not all works on comparable subjects must have the same tone in order to be taken as something other than parody.

Hitler obviously meant it quite literally, Solanas' work is different.

An assertion, backed by no facts. Mein Kampf was not taken seriously by many at the time it was published; you only know Hitler meant it literally because you possess the benefits of hindsight, and can look back at his attempts to realize the philosophy he elucidated. Feminism has (as the Nazi's did) gained political influence, polarized society, designated an 'enemy group,' on whom to lay all blame, and proceeded, through the use of legislation and media, to dehumanise said group, to silence their suffering, make inadmissible any attempt on their part to gain political advocacy, stripped their wealth and redistribute it among the 'favored,' classes, reduced their right to bodily integrity, and makes possible ever more vicious slander, more intolerable violence, while minimizing all hostility against them, and I could go on.

That is the reality. The parallels are there.

Even if you don't find it humorous, the issue still remains if it was meant to be taken seriously or not(the tone of it was obviously a sarcastic one and not a serious one but that doesn't mean anything). I have read several things about it, and it doesn't seem to be clear answer on the purpose of the manifesto.

Then you haven't read much, and you certainly have not tackled the issue from an MRA perspective. Which is while disappointing, sadly, no surprise. The SCUM Manifesto may, indeed, be an attempt at satire yet 'often truth is said in jest,' and the truth is it has, even if unconsciously, illuminated much of the mindset of the extreme misandrist, or radical feminist. It has quite effectively elaborated the nature of the extreme feminist zeitgeist. History has borne this out. So long as people are prepared to minimize these realities however and will adopt an apologist stance any genuine attempt to truly realize, and illuminate the hidden face of gender feminism to the general public is hamstringed.

By minimizing such works, in other words, you oppose our efforts directly. Now it occurs to me, and I am inclined to believe that you don’t much care for men’s rights, or at least as an advocate you seem very tepid. Your concerns seem largely rooted in other areas; I don’t like this (in that you’re here, distracting us via reference to those other areas) but when you get in the way, directly, and actually begin to work against, and damage efforts made to realize male rights, and oppose feminism I begin, honestly, to wonder.

I'm morally against abortion, this is a matter of record on this forum. It is still bad reasoning to compare abortion to murder when the issue is not settled.

The issue is quite settled for many, many people. Myself included. You saying otherwise does not make it so.

No matter your personal opinion on the matter, the debate mostly revolves around whether a fetus is alive or not. To many people a fetus is not alive and doesn't have any rights, but to many others a fetus is alive and has all of human rights that should be given to other people. Not to mention there are other arguments, like a person's right to self-ownership or the non-aggression principle in general. The issue is very complicated and there is a lot of argument on why abortion should be legal or illegal even in anarchist/libertarian(natural) law.

Because, of course, here at 'Libertarian-Anarchist.com: Curing non-Anarchist/Libertarian indoctrination,' the fact that there is argument even among libertarians, and anarchist... why, surely, this trumps all other factors!

There are people who still believe Blacks are a separate, inferior race. Does this make it so? Does this mean mass-murder of blacks can be wiped away as a consideration, and must not be considered a form of democide/genocide because 'oh, well, there is still argument.' whether one, or one billion people happen to be arguing? The reverse would be a logical fallacy, would it not? An appeal to popularity. The controversy surrounding an idea has zero bearing on its veracity. Its popularity is similarly irrelevant. Unless you want to present an irrefutable argument proving an unborn child is not alive, or deserves no right to life then in the minds of those who believe it is, and does the matter is not 'up in the air,' and mass abortion can be characterized, by them, as a form of genocide and whether or not you sanction this belief or not does not make one jot of relevant difference.

Ah yes, because someone has a sick and twisted sense of humor and someone who doesn't honestly think the SCUM manifesto is what feminists literally think is clearly a feminist. Fine, fuck it. I am a feminist. I believe everyone deserves equal rights between all people, the abolition of all oppressive systems, and real social justice for marginalized groups. Hey, you know what? I'm a feminist according to every feasible amount of meaning you can get from the word in the dictionary. So fuck... I'm all up in arms about the patriarchy and smashing patriarchal privilege.

You're being accused of feminist leanings because you've chosen to adopt an apologist position over one of the single most hateful, and vindictively nasty, virulent attempts to spread misandry which has ever been penned. You do so from a position which espouses astounding ignorance regarding the well-known, and long established writings of MRA's regarding said book, and its relevance to the politics which spawned it. You could have done some research, and discovered what many MRAs think about this subject, and you would have found that, by and large, most have already rejected the post-facto attempt by feminist to invoke a kind of a-priori rhetorical discipline by dismissing it as a parody. You did not. You instead dismiss it as a parody: a feminist position. In other words you're looking very much like the a-typical feminist troll who blunders into the MRM with delusions of grandeur thinking to 'set us straight,' by laying down a series of long-dissected, and long-refuted arguments. Arguments whose validity, or status within the MRM (whether they had been debated or discussed, and what the general consensus was regarding the outcome) you did not even make the effort to discover.

There is no doubt that, perhaps prior to the passing of the Nuremberg laws, certainly prior to the commencement of WWII there were those who stood up, and said 'don't take these national socialists seriously. Mein Kampf is parody: I can tell by the tone!' and I'm sure that while some were just confused there were, perhaps, some who for ideological reasons were feathering their own nests by attempting to confuse the public regarding the parties actual aims. The question that remains is why are you doing so? It really does make you seem like a feminist plant. Note that I am not saying you are a feminist. I do not believe that you are, but you have created grounds for suspicion.

I find nothing in Solanas' background or her killing attitude ("I consider [shooting people] a moral act. And I consider it immoral that I missed"); or her other writings to indicate that she did not intend the SCUM manifesto to be taken seriously.

In explaining that there was no actual Society for Cutting Up Men, Solanas said "I mean, I thought of it as a state of mind. In other words, women who think a certain way are in SCUM."

Whether she meant her words literally, this self-confessed lesbian man hater has been hailed by many feminist groups as one of the primary leaders of feminism. They chose her as an icon - not anyone else. To not take her writings, including the SCUM Manifesto, seriously is to not take the danger of feminism seriously enough.

Hitler had his book, the femanazi have the scum manifesto and look how evil those to shit bat insane writers are, so does that maked the scum manifesto evil?
Yes it does, I would not be surpised if that cunt that worte this this fucking horse shit had a copy of Uncle Hitler's happy fun times for everyone book and used it for her own evil ends.
You know it's to bad ole Uncle Hiter is dead because I have no doubt she would sue the ass off of this scum sicking bitch for plagerism, now that would be one hell of a court case to see.

Exterminate Men: no, turn them into objects to fulfill feminists wants: yes.

The devil said "Awww fuck, why me?" when Solanas arrived.