5/26/2020 Scum Manifesto Full Pdf To Word
Free pdf of SCUM Manifesto by Valarie Solanas. Women's Rights. Free pdf of SCUM Manifesto by Valarie Solanas. See full image. Save hide report. Posted by 5 days ago. Save hide report. Posted by 6 days ago. By creating the SCUM Manifesto, which aims to cleanse society of men as its primary contaminant, and by then defending its authorial integrity, Solanas paradoxically constructs a 'pure' hypothetical position even as she progressively becomes more of a deteriorated and contaminated bodily figure.
![]()
supernewdead.bitballoon.com› Scum Manifesto Full Pdf Converter 〓
The discourse of gender war characteristic of radical feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s springs from a complex web of underlying social, political and cultural issues of the “counterculture” period. The political turmoil of the Civil Rights movement, the rise of the New Left and the staunch opposition to American involvement in Vietnam created an environment favorable to political awareness and militant activism among the young and minorities, including women. Within the Women’s Liberation movement, radical feminism found its roots in the discontent—even disillusion—of certain women who had become involved in groups such as the Student Nonviolent (later National) Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society and the New Left. Emblematic of the denunciation of male-dominated management of these revolutionary movements are articles such as “Towards a Radical Movement” by Heather Booth, Eve Goldfield and Sue Munaker (1968) or “The Grand Coolie Damn” by novelist and poetess Marge Piercy (1969).
Scum manifesto PDF And Epub By Dorsey Raeann. Did you searching for scum manifesto PDF And Epub? This is the best area to open scum manifesto PDF And Epub before assistance or fix your product, and we hope it can be complete perfectly. Scum manifesto. PDF And Epub document is now affable for forgive and you.
At the same time, the period during which feminism expanded was one of unequaled political and social violence, rife with race riots in major U.S. Cities, political assassinations, military atrocities (of which My Lai remains the most notorious instance) as well as police brutality against student demonstrators and Civil Rights activists, generating what Robert Crunden terms “a genuine radicalism” (299). We, men and women, who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.
The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.
NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life. It is interesting to note, for example, the expression “new movement toward true equality” (lines 2-3), a passing reference to the feminist movement(s) of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not yet baptized, at this early date, “first wave” feminism.
![]()
The language of the Statement of Purpose (notably the insistence on equality between men and women and the notion of partnership) and the strategies presented for achieving equality (through “full participation in the mainstream of American society” lines 6-7; “as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life” lines 19-20) echo certain nineteenth-century feminists’ political strategies within the system rather than in opposition to it. We may recall here that first wave feminists became involved in political activism through participation in the abolitionist movement, hoping, among other things, that the destruction of the slave system and (what they saw as) de facto recognition of all humans as equal would provide in its wake equal rights for women as demanded in the Seneca Falls Convention Declaration of Sentiments (1848). This is made all the more apparent in NOW’s 1998 Declaration of Sentiments.
Our foremothers—the first wave of feminists—ran underground railroads, lobbied, marched, and picketed. They were jailed and force fed, lynched and raped. But they prevailed. They started with a handful of activists, and today, the feminist movement involves millions of people every day.
Standing on their shoulders, we launched the National Organization for Women in 1966, the largest and strongest organization of feminists in the world today. A devoutly grassroots, action-oriented organization, we have sued, boycotted, picketed, lobbied, demonstrated, marched, and engaged in non-violent civil disobedience. We have won in the courts and in the legislatures; and we have negotiated with the largest corporations in the world, winning unparalleled rights for women. The proposal failed both at the national and local levels, causing Atkinson to resign and found The Feminists in 1968 (Davis 97). Politically speaking, separatist feminist groups set on “consciousness raising” as the best tool for fundamental change created high-profile events to bring public attention to their agendas, such as staging the Burial of Traditional Womanhood (organized by New York Radical Women) or the protest against the Miss America Contest in Atlantic City, New Jersey (of which media coverage produced the image of the “bra-burning feminist”) to cite only two famous examples (, “The Feminist Chronicles”).
Radical equality feminists thus moved away from mainstream “liberal” feminism to pursue experiments in rejecting power structure, perceived as fundamentally male. Atkinson is well-known for her extremist positions on heterosexual love (“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice”; “Love is the victim’s response to the rapist”) which still appear today on feminist-bashing websites such as wiki.mensactivism.org or fathers.bc.ca, proof if need be that the feminist war on patriarchy is far from being a quaint chapter of radical feminist history. The late sixties also provided other significant documents illustrative of radical feminist discourse, collected and edited by Robin Morgan in Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement (published in 1970). Entries include “The Redstockings Manifesto” (originally called “The Bitch Manifesto”), the “No More Miss America” tract and the “Principles of the New York Radical Women” (of which Robin Morgan was one of the founders). In stark contrast to NOW’s Statement of Purpose, such documents used crude language to make their point.
The most radical feminists’ [] eschatological aim is to topple the patriarchal system in which men by birthright control all of society’s levers of power—in government, industry, education, science, the arts. Such notions have been raised aloft by the feminist movement in the U.S. Since its beginnings more than a century ago.
Until this year, however, with the publication of a remarkable book called Sexual Politics, the movement had no coherent theory to buttress its intuitive passions, no ideologue to provide chapter and verse for its assault on patriarchy. Indeed, Millett’s work examines Western history from the unique perspective of women’s systematic oppression by an all powerful male culture created exclusively to maintain women in an inferior, subjugated role. She denounces the family as “patriarchy’s chief institution” (33), the concept of romantic love as “the means of manipulation in which man exploits the woman” (37), while Western myth and Biblical stories are the ideological tools through which subjugation is justified: “[The Pandora myth and the myth of the Fall] are two important Western archetypes which condemn the female through her sexuality and explain her position as her well-deserved punishment for the primal sin under whose unfortunate consequences the race yet labors” (52).
Millet comes to the (logical) conclusion that the patriarchal system must be demolished, and new myths created to reflect “the female principle” (109). The postscript ends on a positive note—the hope that the sexual revolution will bring men and women “closer to humanity”—and yet Millett does not exclude the possibility of resorting to “violent tactics” or even “armed struggle” to obtain equality for women (363). 2nd Edition Global Governance International Organization Reader. Even if one is to believe Time magazine’s statement that Sexual Politics made Kate Millett “the Mao Tse-Tung of Women’s Liberation” and that it set an example for other radical documents, it is of interest to note that one of the most extreme declarations of war against the male race came well before her work in 1967, when Valerie Solanas self-published her SCUM Manifesto, the first of the eight published versions (Baer in Solanas, 58).
The opening paragraph sets the tone: “Life in society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex” (Solanas 1). According to Solanas, the male is a “biological accident” and is aware “deep down [that] he’s a worthless piece of shit.” All aspects of modern society have been developed to suppress individuality, nurture men’s insecurity and maintain women in a state of “animality”—her term for motherhood (12).
While the SCUM Manifesto is best known for its crude language and demented demands for a “better” society through “destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing” (44), it did not prevent Solanas from being hailed as “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights” or “one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement” by prominent radical feminists Ti-Grace Atkinson and Florynce Kennedy. In any case, the SCUM text, like other radical discourse of the period, clearly designates men as the ultimate enemy and the female body as the battleground. War of the Words. More visible perhaps than the actual battle for achieving some form of change for women in America—which could obviously not happen overnight—were the battles being waged at the verbal level. As stated earlier in the introduction, we will attempt to shed a different light on the impact of the “war of the sexes” by examining the content of a number of Time magazine articles published in the years 1970-1972, when radical feminism had made its way into the public spotlight; a selection of articles in this timeframe illustrates the magazine’s somewhat ambiguous and strangely conservative stance on the subject. Considered, at least in the 1970s, as a liberal (in the American sense) magazine, Time’s anti-Establishment positions on other issues such as the Nixon presidency or American involvement in Vietnam would lead the reader to expect a favorable treatment of feminism. It is to be noted that during the two-year period mentioned above, Time published six articles (one of which is the long feature article already quoted in this paper, “Who’s Come a Long Way, Baby?”), three editorials and an entire special issue entitled The American Woman on March 20, 1972.
One braless and strapping writer for the Village Voice interrupted serious oratory by abruptly stripping to her panties and plunging into the swimming pool. [my note: a snapshot of this event adorns the entire left-hand column of the article] Writer Gloria Steinem, a co-hostess at the party, offered a solemn interpretation of the movement: “The problem with Women’s Lib is that it is misunderstood by men. Men think that once women become liberated, it will mean no more sex for men. But what men don’t realize is that if women are liberated, there will be more sex and better” (my emphasis). The six-page feature article “Who’s Come a Long Way, Baby?” functions in much the same two-edged way: beginning with a brief synopsis of feminist demands at home and in the workplace, the article then concentrates on the rise of Millett as Women’s Lib “ideologue” and on radical feminism’s most extreme declarations such as Ti-Grace Atkinson’s claim that marriage is slavery, that to escape from the dependency of love women must commit suicide, or certain radical feminists’ promotion of lesbianism. The divisions within the movement are developed at length, as are feminist publications described as “angry and barely afloat financially.” The (anonymous) author then concludes this portion of the article by noting that “many[] women in the movement are bitterly resentful of the image of Women’s Liberation they feel has been created by the press and TV.
Some refuse to talk to major publications [].” Last but not least, this article ends with a special cameo piece on social anthropologist Lionel Tiger (entitled “An Unchauvinist Male Replies”) in which he states. Curiously enough, the same issue of Time contains Gloria Steinem’s famous article “What Would Happen if Women Win” which opens with the statement that “women don’t want to exchange places with men.” Using the approach of utopian speculation for America’s future, Steinem attempts to describe equality without the gender war: “Women’s Lib is not trying to destroy the American family []. Liberated women are just trying to point out the disaster [of divorce statistics] and build compassionate and practical alternatives from the ruins.” The article discusses in detail the advantages of sexual equality in the fields of marriage, child care, education and the workplace; Steinem actually goes to great lengths in insisting on how a sexual revolution will not necessarily mean the destruction of society as the 1970s reader knows it. The war on words continued—and one could say even amplified—after 1972. Still using Time magazine as an example of how feminist discourse was represented to the general public, two interesting articles appeared in March and October of 1972, one entitled “Ah, Sweet Ms-ery” by Jack Davis and an editorial by Stefan Kanfer “Sispeak: A Msguided Attempt to change Herstory.” As the titles indicate, what is presented by the authors as the feminist battle to “demasculate” words of the English language in the war for equality came under close scrutiny. Davis’s article, written in a tone of light-hearted irony, points out that.
He taunts the proposed use of expressions (now in current use) such as “chairperson,” and wonders what effect it would have to speak of the Founding Mothers (this now exists, at least academically) or read “In Goddess We Trust” on American currency. He also mentions feminists’ desire to turn hurricanes into “hissicanes”; and although this never happened, it can be noted that the National Weather Service began giving male names to hurricanes starting in 1979. Yet one of “the fiercest battles in the war of the word” according to Davis is over the use of Ms., to which “resistance is crumbling” in business organizations and even in some government agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but not the White House, the author points out.
This last point would appear to be in contradiction with presidential treatment of women’s issues, in particular the President’s Commission on the Status of Women created under Kennedy or the Presidential Task Force on Women’s Rights created by Nixon. Is Davis criticizing the Nixon White House for not practicing what it preaches, or on the contrary is he praising it for its resistance to what he sees as illegitimate political pressure?
Stefan Kanfer takes a more literary approach in his editorial, drawing parallels between feminist attempts at language change and works such as Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (comparison to “Newspeak”), Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass (comparison to Humpty Dumpty) and Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange (comparison to “nadsat”). According to Kanfer, revision of the language can only take place if reinforced with values: “Chairman is a role, not a pejorative. Congressman is an office, not a chauvinist plot. Mankind is a term for all humanity, not 49% of it. The feminist attack on social crimes may be as legitimate as it was inevitable. But the attack on words is only another social crime—one against the means and the hope of communication.”.
It is hard to understand the alarmist nature of these declarations in an age where “chairperson,” “Congresswoman” and “humankind” have become normal usages, without hindering communication or replacing cultural values; and as with other Time articles of the period, Kanfer’s stance remains ambiguous, claiming comprehension of feminist action (use of the word “legitimate”) while condemning it in the same breath (the attack on words is a “social crime”). But as feminist activism began to wane, and as some of these seemingly outlandish linguistic practices began to actually get a foothold in the culture (beginning with the publication in 1972 of Ms. Magazine which made that invention a household commonplace), journalistic attacks retreated. The next real assault on feminists, and the reopening of hostilities in the war against women, re-emerged in the 1980s after Reagan was elected to the White House at least in part thanks to the rise of the religious right.
Most notably, women became the target of conservatives who complained of “reverse discrimination” and who thus set out to turn back the clock on civil rights: the New Right attacked affirmative action, Title ix (equal rights for women in education through the court system), waged a war against the Women’s Educational Equity Act (eventually managing to fire and replace the female pro-feminist director with a member of conservative Phyllis Schalfly’s Eagle Forum) and sought to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on legal abortion (Davis 435-442). The question of backlash against militant feminism remains closely linked to the ideological battle on the abortion issue, which pitted anti-abortion organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee (founded in 1973) or later Operation Rescue against NOW and other “pro-choice” groups such as Planned Parenthood. Right-to-lifers used state court systems to restrict abortion laws, and attempted to introduce an amendment to the Constitution called the Human Life Amendment (Davis 452); in the streets, the battle turned to all-out warfare with the bombing and torching of abortion clinics around the country in 1984, and the killing of two OB-GYNs who practiced abortions (“Explosions over Abortion”, Time, January 14, 1985; this article reports fifteen attacks between September and December 1984 and the FBI’s refusal to consider them as a form of political terrorism).
Feminist history books of the 1990s relating the divisions over abortion and other political confrontations between the religious right and feminists all describe this period in terms of war: Susan Faludi’s Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, chapter 14 “Reproductive Rights Under Backlash: The Invasion of Women’s Bodies”(1991), Marilyn French’s The War Against Women (1992), Flora Davis’s Moving the Mountain (1991), in particular the chapter “The New Right and the War on Feminism” are but a few representative works of this trend. Feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem and Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women, are dismissed as out of touch. [] Sometimes even women who participated in the feminist revolution, who shaped their lives according to its ideals, shake their heads, and wonder. Yes, these women in their 30s and 40s are feminists, but things have not worked out as expected.
It is hard for them not to feel resentful. [] The bitterest complaints come from the growing ranks of women who have reached 40 and find themselves childless, having put their careers first.
Here feminism comes under frontal attack: its rejection of true womanhood, its foiled political ambitions, the desertion of most of its followers and its incapacity to attract new members are proof if need be of the overall failure of Women’s Liberation. Although popular wisdom would have it that the battle of the sexes is a thing of the past and that younger women seem to take equality for granted, a close examination of certain pro-male websites currently online still points to a deep ideological division that is being milked for its electoral advantages. Modern communication technology—i.e. The development and expansion of the Internet as a political tool for reaching large audiences—has given even very small interest groups visibility they could not afford previous to the advent of the Web, even if a few groups such as The Promise Keepers or Louis Farrakan’s Nation of Islam Million Man March have managed to attract national media attention. The website of Fathers for Life is in defense of men and fathers. It promotes fathers within, not without families.
Deadbeat fathers are a very small, minuscule minority and not representative of all men, just as deadbeat mothers are not representative of all mothers or women. However, we hear incessantly about deadbeat or violent fathers and men, while the issue of deadbeat mothers and far greater numbers of violent women is being swept under the carpet by feminist activists and the feminist-dominated media. Our website illustrates how the all-pervasive vilification of men, of fathers and of the traditional nuclear family grew out of the systematic implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family. Thus it would appear that radicalisation of the gender wars, originally attributed to feminist activism of the 1970s, has been reappropriated to serve the scare tactics of certain religious right groups and other conservatives still in control of American politics. In the popular culture, the immense success of psychotherapist John Gray’s Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus self-help book and methods (see marsvenus.com for example) are an indication of the pendulum swing from political activism to “magic bullet” solutions to bridging the gap between the sexes—which this author may add fundamentally contradict feminist demands for equal treatment for women in the domestic sphere for example.
Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean propose the following definition in Materialist Feminisms (Londres: Blackwell Publishers, 1993): “Radical feminism argues that the key to women’s oppression is men’s power over women, a power so embedded in all existing social structures that it cannot be overcome without a general transformation of society. Consequently, radical feminists contend that the concept of legal equality, i.e. Equal rights, is insufficient and that all existing social and political institutions need to be uprooted and replaced.”. The title is an intertextual reference to a Phillip-Morris cigarette campaign for Virginia Slims, a “women’s” cigarette with the slogan “You’ve come a long way, baby.” The TV commercial had a jingle in which a female chorus sang “You’ve come a long way, baby/To get where you’ve got to, today/You’ve got your own cigarette now, baby/You’ve come a long, long way”. (This information is from personal memories of the moment!). Some examples of the billboard and magazine campaign can be seen at http://www.wclynx.com/burntofferings/adsvirginiaslims_ads.html.
To link to this poem, put the URL below into your page: Song of Myself by Walt Whitman Walt Whitman: Song of Myself The DayPoems Poetry Collection, editor Click to submit poems to DayPoems, comment on DayPoems or a poem within, comment on other poetry sites, update links, or simply get in touch.. Poetry Whirl Indexes Poetry Places Nodes powered by Open Directory Project at dmoz.org DayPoems Favorites, a huge collection of books as text, produced as a volunteer enterprise starting in 1990. This is the source of the first poetry placed on DayPoems., exactly what the title says, and well worth reading.: 'If a guy somewhere in Asia makes a blog and no one reads it, does it really exist?' , miniature, minimalist-inspired sculptures created from industrial cereamics, an art project at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon., More projects from Portland, Furby, Eliza, Mr_Friss and Miss_Friss., a Portland, Oregon, exhibit, Aug. 5, 2004, at Disjecta. D a y P o e m s * D a y P o e m s * D a y P o e m s * D a y P o e m s * D a y P o e m s * D a y P o e m s * D a y P o e m s Won't you help support DayPoems? Song of Myself By 1819-1892 1 I celebrate myself, and sing myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.
I loafe and invite my soul, I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass. My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air, Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same, I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin, Hoping to cease not till death. Creeds and schools in abeyance, Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten, I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard, Nature without check with original energy. 2 Houses and rooms are full of perfumes, the shelves are crowded with perfumes, I breathe the fragrance myself and know it and like it, The distillation would intoxicate me also, but I shall not let it. The atmosphere is not a perfume, it has no taste of the distillation, it is odorless, It is for my mouth forever, I am in love with it, I will go to the bank by the wood and become undisguised and naked, I am mad for it to be in contact with me.
![]() Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |