| Revision as of 21:11, 23 March 2006 editWikipediatrix (talk | contribs)9,623 edits →Reeks of Bias← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:44, 9 January 2025 edit undoMiddle Mac CJM (talk | contribs)450 edits →New Article Proposal: new sectionTag: New topic |
| (411 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
== Link offsite to full text == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
This no longer seems to work. --] 06:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Online source|title=Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own|author=Jansen, Sharon L.|year=2011|org=Palgrave Macmillan}}<!-- The full citation and the quotation about the Misplaced Pages article: Jansen, Sharon L., ''Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own'' (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1st ed. Apr., 2011 (ISBN 978-0-230-11066-3)), p. 137 ("Indeed, even today, the wildly popular 'free-content,' collaboratively written, and infinitely recopied and repeated Misplaced Pages calls the ''SCUM Manifesto'' a 'feminist tract.' Ouch.") (author a teacher, per ''id.'', p. 6). --> |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| {{cite journal |last1=Védie |first1=Léa |title=Hating men will free you? Valerie Solanas in Paris or the discursive politics of misandry |journal=European Journal of Women's Studies |date=2021 |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=305–319 |doi=10.1177/13505068211028896 |url=https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03328472 |format=PDF |issn=1350-5068 |id=halshs-03328472}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== quoting sentence/s within sentence and initial case; and periods ending quotes == |
|
== 5 points ... disagree == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a sentence contains a quotation of a sentence's beginning, the practice and I think a convention that I've seen in various publications, generally scholarly in various fields, if the first letter is capitalized only because it begins the sentence (and not also, say, a proper noun), the first capital is replaced with a bracketed lower-case letter. I'll leave the as it is, in case it's easier for readers in this instance, but I think it can lead to confusion if the first word is, say, "You", as that would carry a religious connotation that effectively would change the meaning of a sentence from the original and making that into an exception might create an inconsistency in an article. The different case of a sentence containing a quotation of both a full sentence followed by the beginning of another sentence also follows the same convention but only for the first sentence, but that can look odd, so I sometimes solve that by preceding the quotation with a colon. Overall, I favor continuing the bracketing with lower-casing but on this style point I think each editor can be left to their own style. Feel free to edit or discuss at ] or the essay ]. ] (]) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
This text at the end of the arguement doesn't make a lot of sense to me even though I have read both of the texts in question. Could someone who knows what this is meant to mean make an attempt to tie it into the preceding sectionm, or flesh it out and make a conclusive statment about SCUM? |
|
|
|
:The decapitalizing without brackets and also moving periods (full stops) is also something I'll leave as is but its edit summary relies on MoS and MoS does not exactly support either action. MoS is more complicated on both points. Regarding full stops, it appears to be a preference by some editors to place it always outside of the closing quotation mark, but neither MoS nor many sources require it. If we're quoting a full sentence and the source ended it with a period, we can end it with a period, too, and putting the period outside of the closing quotation mark leads to a misimpression that the source had more in the sentence at the end and that we omitted it. However, in some cases, the period should be outside of the quotation mark. ] (]) 05:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== <s>TV item from spunkybean.com and reliability</s> == |
|
:''Sisterhood Is Powerful edited by Robin Morgan included excerpts of the Scum Manifesto. It left out five points with which modern feminists would disagree--but it did say that the good was female and the bad was male:'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<s>A content about a television episode. I checked the and, at a glance, it seems to support the content. If the source is reliable, the content and the section heading should be restored. If it is not reliable, nothing should be done. The source is within and I tried to determine its reliability or lack thereof. It describes itself as but seems to have several writers and maybe it's edited and maybe it does some fact-checking, so I don't know if it's sufficient as an RS. It's not in the RS noticeboard. The site's is essentially blank and archive.org doesn't have anything significantly different from 2015 or 2016; I didn't look for About Us page versions older than that. If someone else can decide, please do. Thanks. ] (]) 23:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)</s> |
|
:''male/bad: emotional'' |
|
|
|
:Whoo, was I a moron with that one. A little more scrolling would have saved me. ] (]) 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) (Syntax corrected: 00:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)) |
|
:''male/bad: animal-like'' |
|
|
:''female/good: objectivity '' |
|
|
:''female/good: technology, especially automation and biotechnology intended to make men |
|
|
:unnecessary for production and reproduction. '' |
|
|
:''male/bad: censorship '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Contradiction? == |
|
] 02:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:''The phrase "Society for Cutting Up Men" is on the cover of the 1967 '''self-published''' edition, after the title, in "'Presentation of ... SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) ....'" This edition precedes all commercial editions. Additionally, in the August 10, 1967 issue of The Village Voice, a '''letter to the editor''' appears that was signed by a Valerie Solanas (of SCUM, West 23rd Street) that responds to a previous letter signed by a Ruth Herschberger (published in the August 3, 1967 issue) that asks why women do not rebel against men. Solanas's response reads: "I would like to inform her and other proud, independent, females like her of the existence of SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), a recently conceived organization which will be getting into high gear (and I mean high) within a few weeks.'' |
|
== Link to SCUM Manifesto == |
|
|
|
:''However, though "SCUM" originally stood for "Society For Cutting Up Men", as evidenced inside one edition, this phrase actually occurs nowhere in the text. Heller argued that "there is '''no reliable evidence''' that Solanas intended SCUM to stand as an acronym for 'Society for Cutting Up Men'."'' <sup>(footnotes removed, bold emphasis mine)</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the facts listed in the first paragraph do not constitute reliable evidence that SCUM was indeed intended by Solanas to stand as an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men". Can anybody explain that to me? --] (]) 20:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
I would like to request that unless the link goes down irevokably, that editors (especially IP guests) please just leave the link to the SCUM Manifesto AS IT IS. Why? |
|
|
#There is NO original online source for the SCUM Manifesto. The original source is a paper BOOK and all online sources are republications of that book. |
|
|
#The source has been around for years, and is quite stable. |
|
|
#It is also the only one I have seen with a graphic, which is nice to offer people |
|
|
#It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics - readers can read the piece and surf out. Whereas other sites (Church of Euthanasia, reactor-core etc) attempt to use the SCUM Manifesto to give credence to an alterior political position (which may or may not be tennable, but is certainly not in line with Solanas' writings). |
|
|
#This is a high-controvery topic, and we owe it to our readers (and the topic itself) to treat it with dignity and fairness. This means balanced writing, factual writing, and rising above petty point-scoring attempts to get hits on a controversial website. |
|
|
If you're not interested in Solanas, then please just surf away to another[REDACTED] page (they are many and varied), but please don't resort to vandalism! |
|
|
] 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:When reliable sources disagree, Misplaced Pages reports the disagreement. Readers judge for themselves, as you did. ] (]) 21:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
:It does appear to be the best of the three ( ), as far as formatting and the picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== deleted recent addition of YouTube reading == |
|
''"It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I deleted a link to a reading on YouTube of the ''Manifesto''. The image on YouTube visible when the reading begins appears to include a screenshot of an online text that has an editorial note by someone saying it's a manifesto so surely Solanas would not have minded it being given away for free, and so the said someone typed it up years ago and posted it on the Web. The said someone did not claim to have been a friend of Solanas who might have been given permission by her. (I'm not putting the URL for the page or the editorial note here because they're on the same page, as of when accessed last May 8th, and supplying that URL would be an unlawful facilitation of copyright infringement, in my opinion. I'll probably keep the URL briefly in case of an inquiry.) That does not sound like copyright permission to me, especially since she herself sold copies of it to the general public. A video reading is probably a derivative work, so the copyright on the original probably applies to that, too. I emailed the reader on YouTube a few days ago, asking if that person has copyright permission, but I've since read that editorial note and I decided not to further await a reply before deleting. I'm not used to using YouTube but I gather the video is over two hours long and I'm not sitting through that to find a copyright statement (I watched only a moment at the beginning). On the YouTube page, the poster says it's under the standard YouTube license, but that's in the YouTube terms of service and that does not substitute for getting copyright permission to do the reading (which is a performance), only what can be done with the resulting performance. A commentary is legally presumably okay (I don't know what's in the commentary) but, regardless of the commentary or its length, reading a substantial portion of the ''Manifesto'', even if incomplete, would be a performance that would need the permission of the ''Manifesto'' copyright holder. ] (]) 02:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
:Yes it does: ''"Many of the other sites that have this text exploit it for anti-feminist ends. Don't be taken in by this crap."''. The bio linked to from that page contains ''"P.S. Valerie you will always be my personal hero!!!!!! - Nancy Hulse, Womynkind Productions"''. |
|
|
:The bible site has the formatting but no picture. A little POV, though it also has "If you find ought to disagree with, that is as it ought be. Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth", which is a great description of the whole principle behind NPOV. |
|
|
:The Euthanasia site doesn't have any POV text on that page, but is, of course, a very biased site, like womynkind. |
|
|
:I guess you can't help a little POV on an external link, but we can probably find a better source than these three. |
|
|
:Hell, can we copy this to ]?. - ] 14:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Transphobia? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly shocked at the lack of analysis regarding trans rights and this "manifesto". The people defending it to the death as "satire" ignore the fact it relies heavily on "sex essentialism" in many ways (i.e calling the "Y" chromosome an abomination!). Regardless of the books intent its reliance on bio essentialism as a ploy would be considered deeply offensive today. Where the hell are the sources talking about this? Is it just assumed this book is semi-satire at this point and not worth dealing with on a higher level? SO confused...--] (]) 19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
::No, It was copied to wikisource, but removed for copyvio. Its unfortunate. I do maintain that of the 4 sites (womynkind, gos.sbc, reactorcore, and CoE), womynkind is probably the most appropriate. Womynkind and gos.sbc are both feminist sites (so are mostly reliable to reproduce the text as something of value). Of the other 2, reactorcore has disclaimers and bible quotes all over it (not very appropriate), and the other tries to used the SCUM manifesto as part of a sermon of destruction and terror for its own sake - also not very apt to the original piece. Why I think womynkind is superior is ultimately because it is '''very''' stable, is well formatted, has a picture, and a biography of VS. |
|
|
|
:{{ping|Trans-Neptunian object}} The part about the Y-chromosome is specifically a parody of Freud's theory of the female as an "incomplete" male. In this case, she inverts the theory by calling men "incomplete" females. Of course Solanas knew that a Y chromosome is not actually an "incomplete" X chromosome. She's just making fun of Freud's ridiculous pseudo-scientific misogyny. My guess is that you haven't actually read the book as it's clearly not meant to be taken literally. For what it's worth, the book urges both men and women to reject their assigned gender roles, and it says that men who have "de-man"ed themselves are "relatively inoffensive" and will not be killed by SCUM. I don't see any real transphobia in the book, personally. I think she's just sloppy about using the word "men" when she really means "patriarchy". You also have to remember that it was written in 1967, which was before the gender/sex distinction was common, before Stonewall, before '']'', and before trans visibility. Before 1990, sex essentialism was the default assumption that most writing about gender operated under (with some notable exceptions like ], ], etc.). ] (]) 00:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:In the manifesto Solanas suggests hormone replacement therapy as a cure for maleness. Hardly transphobic. ] (]) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Elliot Rodger== |
|
::The way ] is going about putting the reactorcore and CoE sites onto the page is just anti-social. Maybe we need to investigate some other hostings? ] 22:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Why is there no mention of Elliot Rodger, who wrote a similar piece called "My Twisted World" , but with the genders reversed? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I am a critic of political lesbianism - ERs manifesto was idiosyncratic and by default of zero relevance to this. Political lesbianism failed to catch on, just like his views. --] (]) 22:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why do people claim the book topic was anarcha-feminism? == |
|
After reading this discussion, I was about to go ahead and insert a link to the Womynkind text but then I saw the following comment from Somercet, so I figred I would quote that comment here --] 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why the topic of the book is considered as anarcha-feminism if the book calls to eradicate all men which would be a call to genocide. |
|
"Sadly, the SCUM manifesto is under copyright and it is not clear that the holder has granted reprint rights to ANYONE. Thus, the external link to the full text of the manifesto has been removed. Please do not restore unless a site is found that DOES have rights to webpublish the manifesto" |
|
|
|
That's not how anarcha-feminism works. |
|
|
I can understand that some people would argue it's satire but then it would be better to use satire instead of anarcha-feminism, especially because it would a broader more factual term like radical feminism ] (]) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Satire == |
|
== New Article Proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the article there is a couple mentions of Solonas shooting Andy Warhol. Is there enough information by secondary sources to warrant an article for that incident. I apologize if it's covered at length in a different article I am unaware of. ] (]) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Although it's very funny, I don't think there's any evidence that Solanas meant it as a satire. Quite the opposite. When she was arrested for shooting Warhol, and was asked why she did it, she said "read my manifesto to find out who I am". (See .) While it's true that others have suggested it ''must be'' satire, Solanas often reiterated that she was a manhater. ] 23:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, but the opening para says it can be ''seen'' as satire. This implies that ''others'' see it as satirical, not that Solanas intended it to be satire. There's no need to explicitly state that it might not be intended as satire. I personally think that its both intended satire and intended as a deadly serious critique at the same time. ] 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You're welcome to your opinion, but it ] in an article. I don't think the introduction should suggest that the piece can be seen as satire if that was not the author's intention. If it in fact was, you'd have no difficulty finding her saying so. It's pure speculation that it "can be seen" as satire and speculation has no place in Misplaced Pages (and I entirely disagree that it only implies that others "see" it as satirical; rather, it strongly suggests that it was meant to be seen that way because we make a point of suggesting it in the introduction). However, if you want to source other people saying it's satire, and place that in the ''body'' of the article, then that would be fine. ] 03:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you do include a discussion of whether it is satirical, please bear in mind that we ought not to say "it can be seen as satirical" but rather "X saw it as satirical", where X is some critic who has been published. We should not be including ''our'' judgments of what things may or may not be, but we could summarise what others have had to say about it. ] 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From ]: '''Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject'''. I'd say "Men will be clinging to Big Momma with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Big Momma will be clining to Big Daddy who will be in the corner, shitting his forceful, dynamic pants", is sufficiently representative of the work's style, and sufficiently ridiculous to justify the appellation of satire. ] 04:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I prefer a more accurate definition of satire, which would have it that it puts vices and follies up to ridicule, rather than simply insults its subjects (and you might note that it is not a requirement of satire that ''it'' is ridiculous but rather that ''its target'' is held up to ridicule). By that definition, this writing would not qualify. But my opinion is of course worthless. You could better have accepted that yours is too and included published critiques but it's simply not worth fighting over. ] 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The work does hold the subject (patriarchy) to be ridiculous. If you want to include citations, then find them and include them. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The obligation is on the person who wants to make a claim to include citations.] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really see the point of stating "oh this wasn't her intention" at every turn because very little is known about her actual intentions. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Then why do you insist on suggesting it was meant as a satire?] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:: An is not suggesting it was ''meant'' as a satire. Read the wording of the versions proposed by her, it clearly says that it can be ''seen'' as satire. ] 07:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: You think it's possible that Solanas might have ''inadvertently'' satirised patriarchy? In any case, if you want to say it can be seen as a satire, you still need to source someone seeing it that way, rather than give your opinion. ] 05:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: To deal with your second point first, I would agree with An that the satire is somewhat self-evident, but I don't really feel up to getting into a great protracted debate on this. To deal with your first point, it's quite possible to write something that can have multiple interpretations; for example, many artworks have this property. ] 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Yes, artworks can be interpreted differently by different people. They generally view them through the prism of their own agenda. I daresay that if we were discussing the Society for Cutting Up Women Manifesto, you'd have a rather different view on whether it could be seen as a satire. But your view, and mine, of whether it is satirical is besides the point anyway. We are not here to interpret artworks but to report others' interpretations of them. I think there would be no harm at all in a "Views" section, which did exactly that. What do you think? ] 06:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Solanas is dead (while she was alive, her literary opinions weren't sought), and so her work speaks for her. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, but you are not quoting the work but giving your interpretation of it.] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Her work is reviled, praised, read and interpreted the same as other works by other writers. We can say how her work is received without it becoming original research. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes. We do that by quoting how it was received not by giving our personal opinions of how it was received.] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not to talk about a particular thing or attitude is as much an expression of POV as to talk about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:No idea what you mean by that. Not talking about your personal attitude is not POV. ] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have altered the first para to be more literal. |
|
|
|
|
|
: It still suffers from the flaws I noted. ] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not about to let you tell me my opinion is worthless, it isn't. ] 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In this encyclopaedia it is. The opinions of all editors are. We have a policy that very wisely bars us from including them. ] 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The mess of text above is difficult to follow. |
|
|
:::Philip, my opinion as an editor, reader and writer is not worthless. I'm quote happy with the first para at this point, except for 2 items: 1. Philip, can you provide a citation for the claims that "Many of the accusations that Solanas makes of men were from a radical feminist point of view". I have doubts that Solanas "accuses" men of anything. She appears more to characature them. And I doubt she was actually a radical feminist. She wasn't part of any organised political movement (except her own!) and doesn't really echo any of the sentiments or styles of radical feminism - except for laying the blame for womens oppression at the feet of ]. In any case, unless you can cite it, its out. 2. The piece can be read as satire - I'm not claiming that I hold that opinion, or that it was intended as such. I'm not claiming it unreasonably. Its a matter for observation. The ] page (for example) doesn't cite Swift claiming the book to be satire or not. Its a matter for observation. Its transparent. ] 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Your opinion has no place in the article. That doesn't mean your opinion as an editor is worthless. It means you may not include it in the article. There's a clear distinction between those two ideas. I urge you to read the policy on ] so that you're absolutely clear what articles should contain. |
|
|
::::As to your two points: one, I'm not responsible for that claim, and I wouldn't make it. Radical feminists may have claimed Solanas, but I'm not sure she would claim them. She hated men, for whatever reason, rather than followed a political creed. By all means, take that bit out. Two, I just don't think you're paying any attention to what I'm actually saying. It doesn't matter that ''you'' think it can be read as satire. As it happens, I don't agree. I think it can be read as the rantings of a petulant child. But you'll notice that the article doesn't say that. Why? Because my opinion is also worthless. ] is widely described as a satire. You could cite hundreds, thousands of critics saying so. As for SCUM Manifesto, there is a difference of opinion from what I can see. Some think it was intended as satire; others don't see it. Solanas herself, as I cited, said she wrote it because she hated men. She didn't say she wanted them to look ridiculous. You ignored what I said about satire, which is that it holds folly or vice up to ridicule, and does not simply ridicule its target. I know it seems a rather fine distinction but it is important. What you have now is much more like it |
|
|
::::What I suggest is that we have a section on "Views on SCUM Manifesto" and cite what people have said about it rather than include our own observations. ] 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::There's a difference between ] and ]. |
|
|
:::::re: satire. VS critiques the "folly" and "vice" of patriarchy. ] 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Yes, I've removed the part about radical feminism. I didn't write it and I don't think it's justified. |
|
|
::::::I'm just not going to argue with you about satire any more. First you insisted that SM ridicules patriarchy, now you say it "critiques" its "folly" and "vice". Neither of these things would make it a satire and it remains true that even if it did, you need to find someone else saying so, and not seek to include your personal opinion. Did you not like my suggestion that we could have a "Views" section?] 05:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::In order for ''A Modest Proposal'' to be taken as anything but a satire would require us to believe Swift capable of infanticide and cannibalism. Apparently, a lot of his other works don't promote those two crimes and the people who knew him apparently didn't think him capable of them, either. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Sadly, Valerie defies such analysis. First of all, she was advocating violent revolution in a time when a lot of people advocated such. Second, it isn't that hard to see various SCUM points in a lot of other people's serious works: "Aging is a disease." "Men are emotionally crippled would-be girls." Machine-run Socialism. Single-sex political supremecy (not male genocide). Lots of people have held these ideas. Third, she went nuts. (She SHOT somebody, remember.) Whether it was congenital or situational, it makes it hard to decide how serious Valerie was. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Apparently, in the '77-8 Village Voice interview, Valerie denounced SCUM's man-hate. Was she on better meds? Therapy going well? Was SCUM a product of a twisted state of mind she later realized was crap, forgetting that she had once believed it? Or was she even crazier and less in touch with her past than she had been? We'll never know. Someone should look that article up. Any objective article should note BOTH positions, present the evidence, AND note that we can't see inside her mind to decide which is correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Far more seriously, we can't link to copy-vio work. I've removed the links to any online SCUM until we get permission to put it on Wikisource or find an online version that has the proper permissions. I've also emailed womynkind.org and gos.sbc.edu and a couple others to find out what permissions the printed book comes with. Cross your fingers. ] 13:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== prostitution == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone removed the word "prostitute" from the article, citing "NPOV".... care to explain?? Her life of prostitution is well established. ] 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's NPOV because its irrelevent to her work as an intellectual in producing SCUM. If Solanis' manifesto had been Sex Work: Unionise and shoot the Johns then it would be very relevent. Its like pointing out in an article on ]'s recent political biography that Latham punches taxi drivers. True, but not relevent, and given social attitudes towards punching taxi drivers and prostitution, an attempt to disparage. ] 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To further my previous point. Her attempted assassination of Warhol is fairly relevent given the content on the destruction of male power (and men as a genus) in SCUM Manifesto.] 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
** When you have a person who writes a book advocating the extermination of men, I think it's EXTREMELY relevant to mention, even if only in passing, that she ''made her living having sex with them''. It's so obvious I can't even believe it has to be debated. And it's not like I devoted a long NNPOV paragraph to the subject - I mentioned, in passing and in ONE WORD, that she was a prostitute. Just as we would mention, in passing, that Jesus was a carpenter and Hitler was an artist. ] 01:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well, Jesus was a fictional character and there are a variety of potrayals, one as a carpenter. Hitler was a failed gutter artist. This is irrelevent in regards to an article on Mein Kampf, as Mein Kampf was written while Hitler was not a failed gutter artist, but a political activist and prisoner. We may as well say "SCUM Manifesto, written by Solanis, at one time a child, daughter, lover, student, graduate student, prostitute, unemployed worker, drug addict, street person, currently dead." This article is on the text, not Solanis. Solanis' employment is vitally relevent to the article Solanis, but not to the article SCUM. ] 02:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Obviously, I disagree... Prostitution and man-hating are connected in a way that the messiah biz and carpentry are not, and in a way that genocide and art are not. The inclusion of this one word - "prostitute" - makes a universe of difference to a newcomer's view of the integrity of the SCUM manifesto. And that's not just from one POV, it could go either way: Solanas' (note correct spelling) supporters may point to this as indicative of her being qualified to criticize men, while her detractors may point to it as evidence of hypocrisy. Still others may just take it for what it is. Either way, a man-hating book written by someone who has sex with men for money needs to be presented as such, just as a vegetarian cookbook written by someone who eats veal needs this seeming contradiction pointed out as well. ] 03:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't see what relevance working has to man-hating, unless you're implying that class politics deeply influenced the SCUM manifesto. Then it'd be more reasonable to point out that Solanis was *working*. If you genuinely believe that there's an occupationally specific link between man-hating and sex-work, why did you use a loaded term like "prostitution"? And, can you indicate that Solanis was a sex-worker while she was writing SCUM? If occupation comes into it we may as well point out Solanis was a failed intellectual, its much more relevent to writing a political manifesto.] 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Okay now, clearly you have an axe to grind here, and a specific POV you're trying to push: a worldview where we don't say "prostitute", we say "sex-worker", and where "sex-work" is considered no different than any other kind of work. That's not going to fly. If one's work is having sex with MEN, that obviously has a relevance to their man-hating philosophy book. "Prostitute" is ''not'' necessarily a loaded word (like it or not, it is the official term for a crime for which Solanas was charged), and even if it was, Solanas referred to herself by that very word in her ''Up Your Ass'' play. I'm reverting it to include the word "prostitute" again. Because practically all resources written about her say she was. Because her police record says she was. And because ''she'' said she was. ] 00:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Okay now, clearly y9ou have an axe to grind here, and a specific POV you're trying to push: a worldview where we don't say "sex-worker", we say "prostitute", and where "prostitution" is considered as an especial and speficially individuating kind of work, different from every other form of wage labour. That's not going too fly. Sexual and economic alienation are not necessarily or even generally interrelated. We may as well say "man-fucker" when describing Solanis, because its more immediately relevent. Prostitute is a loaded word, its a bourgeois legal term for a common occupational practice and criminalises a very common activity. Moreover, the criminalisation is very specific in time and place to certain societies. New York anti-prostitution laws in the 1960s differ radically in *who* is legally defined as a prostitute to, for example, laws in Gilded Age New York, or contemporary society. I'm reverting it because it belongs on the bio page, not the page regarding the manifesto. ] 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Solanas' police record doesn't say "sex-work", it says "prostitution". Give up this politically-correct linguistic game. Why am I even bothering to try to have a serious discussion about Valerie Solanas with someone who refuses to even spell her name properly? ] 16:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Would anyone object to replacing ''"Interestingly, Solanas worked as a prostitute in her life."'' With a line like "For information about the circumstances sorrounding the creation of the SCUM Manifesto, see ]." I've started a thread below because I feel this article is biased.--] 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: It's true that Solanas was a prostitute, however she was also a playwright, an author, and a factory worker. Adding "prostitute" serves no purpose. --] 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reeks of Bias == |
|
|
|
|
|
''"Interestingly, Solanas worked as a prostitute in her life"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is this important? It appears to be an attempt to discredit Valerie Solanas. If people wanted a biography of her life they can see her own wiki entry. |
|
|
|
|
|
''"vitriolic and obscenity-laden assault on men"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Loaded terms. I smell testosterone. (why not call the communist manifesto a vitriolic assault on freedom?) |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I cleaned up the article for bias and clairty, I used my copy of the SCUM Manifesto as a source (and cited it in the refrences section). I am new at wiki so be nice to me ;)--] 21:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I definitely agree that the "Interestingly..." sentence is junk and needs to stay out of the article. It's enough to quickly note in passing that she was a prostitute, but whether it's "interesting" or not is a matter of opinion and loaded Original Research. People keep objecting to the word "prostitute" but I don't see what the problem is. It's the literal, perfectly neutral, official legal term for it and to express it in a nice, more politically correct way, would be a POV violation. Solanas had no problem with the term herself. As for the rest, I don't really smell the testosterone. That the writing is obscenity-laden is obvious. "Vitriolic" could be replaced with "spirited", perhaps, but it still doesn't raise a red flag for me. ] 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
When a sentence contains a quotation of a sentence's beginning, the practice and I think a convention that I've seen in various publications, generally scholarly in various fields, if the first letter is capitalized only because it begins the sentence (and not also, say, a proper noun), the first capital is replaced with a bracketed lower-case letter. I'll leave the recent capitalizing edit as it is, in case it's easier for readers in this instance, but I think it can lead to confusion if the first word is, say, "You", as that would carry a religious connotation that effectively would change the meaning of a sentence from the original and making that into an exception might create an inconsistency in an article. The different case of a sentence containing a quotation of both a full sentence followed by the beginning of another sentence also follows the same convention but only for the first sentence, but that can look odd, so I sometimes solve that by preceding the quotation with a colon. Overall, I favor continuing the bracketing with lower-casing but on this style point I think each editor can be left to their own style. Feel free to edit or discuss at MOS:QUOTE or the essay WP:QUOTE. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the facts listed in the first paragraph do not constitute reliable evidence that SCUM was indeed intended by Solanas to stand as an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men". Can anybody explain that to me? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly shocked at the lack of analysis regarding trans rights and this "manifesto". The people defending it to the death as "satire" ignore the fact it relies heavily on "sex essentialism" in many ways (i.e calling the "Y" chromosome an abomination!). Regardless of the books intent its reliance on bio essentialism as a ploy would be considered deeply offensive today. Where the hell are the sources talking about this? Is it just assumed this book is semi-satire at this point and not worth dealing with on a higher level? SO confused...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why the topic of the book is considered as anarcha-feminism if the book calls to eradicate all men which would be a call to genocide.
That's not how anarcha-feminism works.
I can understand that some people would argue it's satire but then it would be better to use satire instead of anarcha-feminism, especially because it would a broader more factual term like radical feminism Simon0304 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
In the article there is a couple mentions of Solonas shooting Andy Warhol. Is there enough information by secondary sources to warrant an article for that incident. I apologize if it's covered at length in a different article I am unaware of. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Disclogo1.svg){kind=link}
