Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnnaAniston (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 29 July 2005 (→Satire). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Link offsite to full text

This no longer seems to work. --Kay Dekker 06:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5 points ... disagree

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?

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:

male/bad: emotional

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

An An 02:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to SCUM Manifesto

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?

1. 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.
2. The Womynkind source has been around for years, and is quite stable.
3. It is also the only one I have seen with a graphic, which is nice to offer people
4. 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).
5. 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! An An 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Satire

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 this link.) While it's true that others have suggested it must be satire, Solanas often reiterated that she was a manhater. Philip Arthur 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. An An 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but it has no place 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. Philip Arthur 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. Philip Arthur 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

From satire: 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. An An 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. Philip Arthur 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. 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. Solanas is dead (while she was alive, her literary opinions weren't sought), and so her work speaks for her. 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. Not to talk about a particular thing or attitude is as much an expression of POV as to talk about it.

I have altered the first para to be more literal.

I'm not about to let you tell me my opinion is worthless, it isn't. An An 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics