Scan barcode
A review by gloomyboygirl
SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas
No star rating because I genuinely don't know how to balance the amazing introduction, well-done parody, and interesting brief biography that all made me think with the just RAGING bioessentialism and transphobia.
It's hard because obviously the entirety of the main text is a hyperbolic inversion of the way cispatriarchy frames cis women and AFAB people as a whole as subhuman, envious, lacking basic human traits, etc. However, the vitriol around crossdressers, transfems, drag queens, etc as men in denial still felt a little more based in her genuine beliefs than solely the gender inversion parody. It reflected a lot of the ways liberal feminism insults men by weaponizing homophobia and transphobia, which is more based in real ideology that second-wave radfeminism was dipped in. But, again, the way that the violence and prejudice reads so ridiculous and laughable when the inverse is part of how society was built really makes you think.
One specific conclusion I came to throughout this was that while Solanas obviously came at the topic of gender woes in men/AMAB (synonyms throughout this book) through a not sympathetic lens, personally it made me see how the violence in upholding masculinity and heteronormativity is likely done to avoid the gender binary from collapsing. If cis men everywhere begin to accept modes of gendered existence other than their own, even if only in sexual identity, the way gendered oppression functions will fall apart. Some forms of gender nonconformity are built into girlhood- cis women get a tomboy phase and an experimental college phase because at the end of the day heterosexuality and gender can still be reproduced even if the oppressed class gets some freedom of expression, they can be oppressed regardless with or without full allegiance and enjoyment of cishetwomanhood. This isn't the same for cis men, who are expected to align into one of the few male archetypes, because to waver from that is to join the enemy class and be labeled a feminine gender class. And so, violence is used to uphold manhood to avoid the possibility of escaping manhood.
I don't know if I can credit this with getting me to this conclusion, I think I might have gotten there eventually but it sped up the process by having me contend with this radical form of bioessentialism.
Also, really makes me appreciate Manhunt even more for basing the TERF army off of SCUM. I love referential things in media, so that was fun. Although I do wonder why so many took this so literally when it felt very comedic- still obviously based in some form of reality for the author, and thus really questionable in that right, but not entirely real. Even before her death, Solanas said it was a literary device that no one belonged to and was not a direct statement of her beliefs, but I constantly see it treated as such because of her criminal behavior after. But, I don't know, I don't think it was. I think it was a parody and expression of gendered rage that exposed a lot of gender essentialist thinking that was commonplace in radical feminism. And I appreciate the merit in that, and found learning about the ways it's impacted women and her own biography really intriguing.
No TERFs belong in my feminism, but there's something to learn from every piece of text even if I don't want to open the door to them.
EDIT: obviously, I am not projecting that she was trans exclusionary. I assume because of the tendency towards trans exclusion in radical feminism at the time, but I don't think it was that cut and dry. Regardless, the work contains bioessentialism and transphobia both that is to be expected for the time and isn't, and it reads to me, personally, as not just a part of her gender inversion rhetoric. But, she's dead and spent a lot of life in criminal psychiatric wards which aren't exactly the place to develop your gender politics, so I'll never know.
It's hard because obviously the entirety of the main text is a hyperbolic inversion of the way cispatriarchy frames cis women and AFAB people as a whole as subhuman, envious, lacking basic human traits, etc. However, the vitriol around crossdressers, transfems, drag queens, etc as men in denial still felt a little more based in her genuine beliefs than solely the gender inversion parody. It reflected a lot of the ways liberal feminism insults men by weaponizing homophobia and transphobia, which is more based in real ideology that second-wave radfeminism was dipped in. But, again, the way that the violence and prejudice reads so ridiculous and laughable when the inverse is part of how society was built really makes you think.
One specific conclusion I came to throughout this was that while Solanas obviously came at the topic of gender woes in men/AMAB (synonyms throughout this book) through a not sympathetic lens, personally it made me see how the violence in upholding masculinity and heteronormativity is likely done to avoid the gender binary from collapsing. If cis men everywhere begin to accept modes of gendered existence other than their own, even if only in sexual identity, the way gendered oppression functions will fall apart. Some forms of gender nonconformity are built into girlhood- cis women get a tomboy phase and an experimental college phase because at the end of the day heterosexuality and gender can still be reproduced even if the oppressed class gets some freedom of expression, they can be oppressed regardless with or without full allegiance and enjoyment of cishetwomanhood. This isn't the same for cis men, who are expected to align into one of the few male archetypes, because to waver from that is to join the enemy class and be labeled a feminine gender class. And so, violence is used to uphold manhood to avoid the possibility of escaping manhood.
I don't know if I can credit this with getting me to this conclusion, I think I might have gotten there eventually but it sped up the process by having me contend with this radical form of bioessentialism.
Also, really makes me appreciate Manhunt even more for basing the TERF army off of SCUM. I love referential things in media, so that was fun. Although I do wonder why so many took this so literally when it felt very comedic- still obviously based in some form of reality for the author, and thus really questionable in that right, but not entirely real. Even before her death, Solanas said it was a literary device that no one belonged to and was not a direct statement of her beliefs, but I constantly see it treated as such because of her criminal behavior after. But, I don't know, I don't think it was. I think it was a parody and expression of gendered rage that exposed a lot of gender essentialist thinking that was commonplace in radical feminism. And I appreciate the merit in that, and found learning about the ways it's impacted women and her own biography really intriguing.
No TERFs belong in my feminism, but there's something to learn from every piece of text even if I don't want to open the door to them.
EDIT: obviously, I am not projecting that she was trans exclusionary. I assume because of the tendency towards trans exclusion in radical feminism at the time, but I don't think it was that cut and dry. Regardless, the work contains bioessentialism and transphobia both that is to be expected for the time and isn't, and it reads to me, personally, as not just a part of her gender inversion rhetoric. But, she's dead and spent a lot of life in criminal psychiatric wards which aren't exactly the place to develop your gender politics, so I'll never know.