Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 23 March 2006

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 wikipedia page (they are many and varied), but please don't resort to vandalism! An An 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be the best of the three ( ), as far as formatting and the picture.

"It doesn't attempt to clothe the writing in its own politics"

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 Wikisource?. - Omegatron 14:33, July 30, 2005 (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.

The way User:142.179.111.243 is going about putting the reactorcore and CoE sites onto the page is just anti-social. Maybe we need to investigate some other hostings? An An 22:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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 --Brian Z 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"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"

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.

The obligation is on the person who wants to make a claim to include citations.Philip Arthur 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?Philip Arthur 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. Dysprosia 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. Philip Arthur 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. Dysprosia 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? Philip Arthur 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.Philip Arthur 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.Philip Arthur 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. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have altered the first para to be more literal.

It still suffers from the flaws I noted. Philip Arthur 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not about to let you tell me my opinion is worthless, it isn't. An An 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. Philip Arthur 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 patriarchy. 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 Gulliver's Travels page (for example) doesn't cite Swift claiming the book to be satire or not. Its a matter for observation. Its transparent. An An 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 original research 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. Gulliver's Travels 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. Philip Arthur 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between radical feminism and misandry.

re: satire. VS critiques the "folly" and "vice" of patriarchy. An An 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?Philip Arthur 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. Somercet 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. wikipediatrix 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 Mark Latham'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. Fifelfoo 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.Fifelfoo 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. wikipediatrix 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. Fifelfoo 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. wikipediatrix 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.Fifelfoo 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. wikipediatrix 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. Fifelfoo 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? wikipediatrix 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 Valerie Solanas." I've started a thread below because I feel this article is biased.--Punkpet 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. --Punkpet 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?)

--Punkpet 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 ;)--Punkpet 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. wikipediatrix 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Punkpet, I noticed you reverted the "prostitute" word again without discussion. Please use the discussion page before entering into a revert war. wikipediatrix 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I thought it was a part i had left out while editing for bias, As i stated in my eaten up post. Solanas also worked at the University of Maryland Research lab, and wrote the play Up Your Ass before writing the scum manifesto. I have no problem with the fact that she was a prostitute, however it adds nothing of significance to this article besides bias, if we wanted to make the article fair we'd have to list all of her previos jobs before she wrote the SCUM Manifesto. And then it turns into an article about Solanas, and not her book.--Punkpet 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(furthermore, I see no other citing of people's professions in other wikipedia entries about Literature I've looked up for comparason)--Punkpet 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems obvious to me that if someone wrote, for instance, an anti-donut manifesto, it would be worth mentioning in passing if they also happened to be a pastry chef. The point shouldn't be belabored, and the significance of it shouldn't be speculated upon, but it should be mentioned. Solanas' detractors might point to it as evidence of hypocrisy, but Solanas' supporters can also point to it as evidence that if anyone knows what men are really like and has seen all types of men exhibiting their true selves as most people (including their wives) never have, it would be a street hooker, which Solanas was by choice (not out of poverty), because of her steadfast philosophical objection to entering into a 9-to-5 employer-employee job situation. Which is admirable. wikipediatrix 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One can assume from the book, that she has a bias against men. If we care to find out why, we can read her biography and form our own oppinion. I'd be okay with something added to the article along the lines of "for more about Solanas's life, see her article" As it is, the article seems to be a bit too biographical, I'd like to perhaps steer it away from an article about Solanas and more about an article about the book itself.--Punkpet 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that maleness is a fact of life, wheras donuts are not. Her bias towards men takes into account her entire life experience, writing that she is a prostitute only creates bias and detracts from the valitity of the book. Add your "Prostitute" to the article, but prepared for my extensive biography, and subsquent merge flag to follow.--Punkpet 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Donuts aren't a fact of life?? But seriously, I don't think the inclusion of one word makes the article "too biographical". Your concern about protecting the reputation of the book's validity seems to indicate a definite POV in itself. Far from detracting from it, I think the prostitute mention adds credibility to it. wikipediatrix 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One last thing (sorry, i have trouble organizing my thoughts). It seems to be a common patriarchial practice to say "oh, she's only a feminist because of (being a prostitute, bad childhood, etc)." The adding of "she was a prostitute" to this article seems to be an attempt at antifeminist bias.--Punkpet 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I could introduce you to some friends of mine who are "sex workers" and EXTREME feminists, more so than you or I. And since I'm the one urging for the word "prostitute" to remain, you seem to be accusing me of antifeminist bias, which is just plain wacky. There are MANY types of "feminism" in the world, and some versions of them are diametrically opposed to each other. I maintain that the type of "feminist" who openly embraces their right to prostitute themselves in order to achieve their own higher goals is precisely the type of feminist Solanas was. (And that's a good thing.) wikipediatrix 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Interloper

Just curious, WTF is up with Jacek Kendysz taking it upon himself to delete two of my comments from this discussion page?? wikipediatrix 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics